Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_3/V16NO396.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 32KB

Date: Thu,  1 Apr 93 05:00:09
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #396
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu,  1 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 396

Today's Topics:
                       Abyss: breathing fluids
             Alaska Pipeline and space exploration/usage.
                       Commercial point of view
                   DC-X rollout stereoscopic .gifs
    First Mission of the Small Expendable Deployer System SUCCESS!
                            GIF's of DC-X
                            ISU address??
                     John Pike on SSRT prospects
                           Jules Verne Gun
                       Living in high pressure
                               Omnimax
                      Question on Cassini Radar
                        Space Station Redesign
              Status of U.S./Soviet Cooperation (2 msgs)
                STS-1 DISASTER/COVERUP (and mcelwaine)
                     Venus is covered with water?

    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: 31 Mar 93 14:22:35 GMT
From: Ed McCreary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Abyss: breathing fluids
Newsgroups: sci.space

Until recently, the FDA has not approved the flourocarbon emulsion used
in _The Abyss_ for use in humans, so little work has been done.  The
liquid used in the rat scene was an electonic parts cleaner developed
by 3M and yes, the rat really was breathing it and yes he lived a
normal life afterwards.

But, I've heard reports that's a similar emulsion has been approved for
use in neonates who are experiencing lung problems due to underdeveloped
lungs.  I've not seen the papers myself, but I have no reason to doubt it.

--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
[e-mail]                                   _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)

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

Date: 31 Mar 93 14:55:03 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alaska Pipeline and space exploration/usage.
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>I ment the Alyeska and the Pipeline as an example.// Might be used for other
>projects.. Such as mining on the moon, mars and more..

What exactly do you plan to mine?

>Basically let the commerical interests have a reason to explore space.. Namely
>take most of the stumbling blocks out of the way..

That's the rub. In the past (eg airlines) government insured the market
and encouraged companies to lower costs and open markets. That's what
we need now.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------77 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: 31 Mar 93 06:00:14 GMT
From: Greg Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Commercial point of view
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>[e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:
>
>>If according to a previous post Delta launches with
>>a ground crew (year-round) of 320, there may not be a large
>>improvement here.  The Russian advantage seems to be that
>>they mass-produce their rockets.  We could do that as well.
>
>If they can do 320, we need 32 (or less; haven't checked the
>exchange rate recently). If we want to pay our engineers & techs
>ten times as much, they have to produce ten times as much value.
>(This does in fact happen in most of the rest of our economy, but
>not in rocketry).
>
    Who's the we Nick?  WE do it with 320.  (Unless the CIS
started launching Delta's while I wasn't looking.)

>>>[industries made possible or vastly larger by native materials
>>>processing]
>>it is something to consider, but not
>>in the near immediate future.
>
>Far be it from me to offend the inspired legions supporting the
>most popular space project in years, but  don't be so sure about what
>comes before what.  Profitable native materials use requires launch
>cost reductions far more modest than those promised by many in the SSTO
>camp.  Furthermore, the promised launch cost reductions rely heavily
>on a vast projected volume of SSTO launches. This can only occur if
>SSTO opens new markets, and the largest markets ($10's of billions
>per year) are those made possible by processing of native materials,
>instead of hauling everything up from earth.
>
    Nick, I think I've finally hit upon why you piss people off
so easily.  it's your editing style.  You delibritely edit posts
so they say something different than intended, then you proceed to
argue that new point.  I was objecting to a SINGLE industry, not
all of them as your editing implies.

>SSTO and native materials are thus financially synergistic.
>Politically, since neither SSTO nor native materials garner even a
>tiny fraction of NASA funding, it's hardly a case of one vs. the other.
>
    No argument here.   But please, don't try to put words in
my mouth.  I never argued that it was a case of one vs. the other.
It seems like it is only you who has this US vs. THEM paranioa.

>>>[reentry access for smuggling, blockade running, etc.]
>>[Horrors!]
>
    Again, your editing leaves much to be desired.  Horrors
does not sum up what I said AT all.

>Well, the main reason for mentioning this is to point out that
>there are more things in heaven & earth than are dreamt of
>by NASA contractor wannabes studying "space resources".
>A businessman has to consider all the possibilities, not just the
>desirable or politically popular ones. Plans for smuggling  or stopping
>smuggling do not make NASA look good, and as a result you won't see
>smuggling on any "space resources" studies, or in NASA/NSS PR glossies.
>Nevertheless, the military has been smuggling information, from  spysat
>photos via film capsule to propaganda via comsat, for years.
>We ain't  seen nothin' yet; wait until materials in orbit cost a few
>cents a kilo.  This aspect of space has and will play a major role;
>any serious thinking about our future in space has to consider
>this issue, whether we like it or not.
>
    First of all, once again you drag NASA in only to kick them
down.  I don't believe *I* ever mentioned NASA.  NASA is NOT the only
game in town when it comes to government involvment in space.  But
I forget, they are the evil empire to you.

    As for whether I like it or not, that doesn't matter.  I
was illustrating some of the problems with the commercial use
of space for smuggling.  BUT, OH, let's not let differing opinions
get in your way.  Simply edit my post to your liking and ignore
my points.

>> could you
>>give an ide of what sort of time-frame you're talking here?
>
>Timeframes are just stifling religious ritual.  Think tech
>constraints, not timeframes.  How much R&D to get automated long-lag
>ice extraction plants?  (Think of them as tiny auto-maintained sewage
>treatment plants).  When will electric upper stages and/or solar thermal
>rockets be available, or alternately how much would it cost to R&D them
>privately?  Where are the high-quality ores and what equipment is needed
>to extract them? This is why making fixed plans is so silly; discoveries
>or tech advances can turn them on their head tommorrow.  The best
>planning is to try and cover many diverse possibilities, stir 'em
>around and let 'em stew, and see what sorts of profitable things pop out.
>Usually not what we'd expect, and hardly ever what some hubristic
>bureaucrats have planned for us.
>
    Hmm, I see.  Let's see, I want to invest $100,000 in Szabo
Enterprises because I think I might see some good come out of it.
Yet, when I ask when I can expect to see a return, I get, "Timeframs
are stiffling.  We're just going to let things sit here and simmer
and see what comes out."
    Sorry, I don't buy it.  If you want people to invest in
your ideas, you've got to give them better answers than that.
BTW, I never asked for a definite answer like: 1.5 years 2 days and
5 minutes.  Hell, if you said 10-50 years, I'd be happy.

    Once again you use my question as a place to get on your
high horse about centralized beaurcracy.  I never mentioned it, and
I don't support it.  Fixed plans CAN be silly.  But setting goals
is not.

    I recall the old Pogo cartoon, "We've met the enemy and he
is us."
    Nick, I generally like many of your ideas.  I even agree
with some of them, but when push comes to shove, you do one of
two things: 1) either get on your high horse and rail against
centralized beaucracy, or 2) you refuse to address valid points.

    At least when I've differed with Allen, he's been able to
present numbers, figures and facts to support his claim.  You
just change the subject.

>A rule of thumb I'm toying with: when the chemical engineers outnumber
>physicists, and serious military officers and businessmen outnumber
>NASA officials and space fans in the native materials world, it'll be
>time for serious private investment.  Right now there is a tremendous
>oversupply of abstract physics calculations and and bureaucrats dreaming
>of glorious pork, and a dearth of practical equipment design and financial
>analysis.
>
    So, do we take Shakespeare's advice and shoot all the laywers?
(Or as a pundit points out, the original version which did not survive
publication had Shakespeare shooting all the editors.)

>>[climate mods]
>>       Ack, Id want to see a HELL of a lot more research
>>on upper atmosphere chemistry before we started doing this.
>>I'm talking 50 years or so...
>
>The ozone might be gone by then.  The ethane fix was proposed
>in _Science_ by some of the most respected climatologists in
>the field (eg Turco from JPL).  Their plan uses airplanes and
>would cost in the $10's of billions; a somewhat smaller investment
>can make native materials very cheap for this and many other
>purposes.  Certainly this is also in the speculative high-risk
>category, right along with SPS (except the equipment needed is
>much less than for SPS, thus much less up-front investment).
>
    Ah, I see, respected climatologists say it's ok so
I should believe them.  Sorry, I'd still like to see more data.
If it currently exists, fine, I'll read it.  Then I'll judge.

>The general point is that there are a large number of big markets
>opened up by native materials.  Many of them, like this one
>and various instantiations of SPS, are quite financially riskly.
>Some of them are on firmer ground (eg the large number of
>micrograv processes, such as metal alloys that separate on earth, that
>are affordable at $.10-$100/kg raw materials costs but out
>of the question at $1,000's/kg).  The risks average out, so native
>materials in general (not specific proposals, yet, too little
>detail) are almost a sure thing.
>
    So, when does your venture capital company start up?
How much should I plan on investing and will I see a return in
my lifetime?

>
>--
>Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]

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

Date: 31 Mar 93 12:03:20 GMT
From: Diaspar Virtual Reality Network <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X rollout stereoscopic .gifs
Newsgroups: sci.space

I will be attending the rollout on 4/3/93 with stereoscopic 35mm
camera and camcorder. This has been approved and I will try to make
available .gif files of some of the better shots as soon as p
possible after that. Interested parties should email me requests
and I will also be posting them on the Diaspar Virtual Reality
Network (diaspar.com via telnet or 714-376-1234 9600 baud)

The same stereoscopic prism will be used on the camcorder so that
3D video tape will be available. The portrait-style image shape
due to this method somehow seems suited to the DC-X <grin>

I have had the opportunity to see it at 3 stages of assembly
and last week on a tour I was politely asked to step out from
under it as they were about to do engine gymbol testing and didn't
want me to be hit by one of the engines. (I had become so enthrawed
in studying it I had actually ended up underneath it).

My first tour was when the vehicle was first starting to be stacked
and the aeroshell had just arrived. The aeroshell was being held in
a special holder (horizontally) and was not yet painted - having a
gray/black color. Only the thrust assembly was stacked at that time.

On the second tour, the unit was about half completed and was over
20 feet high. Got a good look at the landing gear and some of the
components. A lot of clever scrounging and imaginative work went
into parts procurement based on comments I have heard and what I've
seen.

On the last tour, the main aeroshell was in place and the upper
aeroshell structure (not the top compartment with parachute) was
being hauled from one end of the building to the other.    s

Was impressive - not just the Clipper itself but the people.
Good folk and very resourceful.

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 14:03:38 GMT
From: "Andrew C. Welch" <[e-mail]>
Subject: First Mission of the Small Expendable Deployer System SUCCESS!
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:

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

>>5. According to the NASA cost model, the Wake Shield Facility should
>>   cost $93M to build (before overruns). A private company is building
>>   the exact same thing for $11M.
>>
>>6. The NASA cost model says that SpaceHab should cost $1.13 billion to
>>   build. A private company is building it for $153 million.
>>
>>These are all cases where Congress didn't interfere and gave NASA everything
>>it asked for (sometimes even more). That they could not be executed on time
>>or on cost indicate a serious cultural problem within the organization.
>>
First of all, private companies do not have to deal with procurement
regulations which make the whole system extremely complicated and expensive.
Secondly, one could argue that Congress interferes with everything since they
make the rules for how the Government does buisiness.

Perhaps a solution would be for Congress to let NASA (or any other agency)
conduct business the way they choose while at the same time holding them
responible for the results.  This system would allow NASA the freedom to
be competitive with private companies while at the same time preventing
NASA from pointing fingers at congress.

-Andy    [e-mail]
"I just work for NASA, I don't speak for them"

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

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 20:54:02 GMT
From: "Carlos G. Niederstrasser" <phoenix.Princeton.EDU![e-mail]>
Subject: GIF's of DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Chris W. Johnson
<[e-mail]> writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> , [e-mail] writes:
> > Didn't I see that someone had loaded some GIF's of DC-X somewhere?
>
> Yes. There's an archive for Delta Clipper information (including
> pictures) maintained in the pub/delta-clipper directory of
> bongo.cc.utexas.edu (128.83.186.13).
>
> Anyone who has questions, comments or contributions relating to the
> archive can send me email at one of the addresses listed below.
>

Are these actual pictures, or artist impressions, etc?

---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| 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    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 14:13:34 GMT
From: Ken Davidian <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISU address??
Newsgroups: sci.space

>
>Hi everyone
>
>
>I have read recently in NATURE (Nature 361, 575 / 18.2.93) that Strasbourg
>was selected as the base for ISU (International Space University), starting
>in 1995. Does anybody know their current address at Cambridge, MA??
>
>Thanks.
>
>
>Christos Ouzounis
>EMBL
>Heidelberg
>
>===========================
>[e-mail]
>===========================
>
 The address is:

    International Space University
    955 Massachussetts Avenue
    Cambridge, MA 02139
    [phone]


---
       Ken Davidian        |NASA Lewis Res Ctr|"Civilization will reach wisdom
[e-mail]| Mail Stop SPTD-4 |and maturity on the day it learns
      [phone]       |21000 Brookpark Rd|to value diversity of character
    FAX [phone]       |Cleveland OH 44135|and ideas." - Gene Roddenberry

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

Date: 31 Mar 93 15:01:06 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: John Pike on SSRT prospects
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian J. Glass) writes:

>I asked him his opinion of SSRT program funding anywhere if DCX tests
>are successful this summer.  He said flatly,"There will be no new launchers
>during the Clinton administration."...

I think that is his opinion and not a statement of policy. It now looks
like DoD will get about $55M next year for Spacelifer studies. That is more
than enough to do the DC-Y design up to PDR.

>Oh well...

I hope your not giving up! Clinton and Pike don't have the final say. We
can get it built if we are willing to push for it.

Remember, grassroots pressure has on at least two separate ocasions
ended attempts to kill the DC-X program.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------77 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 20:59:08 GMT
From: "Carlos G. Niederstrasser" <phoenix.Princeton.EDU![e-mail]>
Subject: Jules Verne Gun
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert
J. Hall) writes:
>   I have a curiosity question that I am posting here because of my ignorance
of
> Nuclear Blast physics. Suppose you have a cylindrical shaft dug to some
> appropriate depth. At the bottom of the shaft you have a 1 Megaton nuclear
> bomb. Mounted some appropriate distance above the bomb is a solid slug of
> metal, shaped in an aerodynamic fashion. (Presumably like a typical
artillery
> shell.) If the weapon is detonated, what is the maximum mass of the slug
that
> will reach escape velocity?
>
>   (I'm making some big assumptions here: the slug will not deform too much
and
> plug up the shaft; the tunnel can be sealed immediately after the slug has
> passed so minimal radioactive material is released; etc.)


I actually heard this idea mentioned about two years ago under the name "Hell
Wells" or something to that effect.  The main difference is they would fill
the well with water above the bomb so that the vapor would cause the
projectile to fly.  The water also would be used to shield the radioactivity.
And if they used an H-bomb, which apparently has shorter-lived radioactive
products, the problem almost went away.

The two biggest problems of the system (otehr than radioactivity) were massive
accelerations (1000 g) and the fact that when you get to orbit you still need
some kind of rocket to put you into a circular orbit.  The best bet would be
to have an orbiting catcher (like the one proposed for mass drivers) and only
use the gun to send up raw materials, or fuel.  Anything that doesn't care
about many g's
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| 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    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 31 Mar 1993 13:54:49 GMT
From: Jan Vorbrueggen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Living in high pressure
Newsgroups: sci.space

Ok, so how about a little physiology?

- The relvevant fact about O2 is that you need a certain _partial_
pressure of the stuff - about the amount in normal air, .21 bar.
(Much lower, and you asphyxiate; higher, and you damage the tissue
of your lungs.)
- The problem with CO2 is that it binds more strongly to haemoglobin
(your body's messenger person for O2) than O2 itself. In a normal
atmosphere, .05 bar is about the limit. CO is much worse in this respect.
- You can fill the rest of your pressure with some preferably inert gas,
such as N2. However, above some pressure (10 bar or so) N2 turns into
a narcotic, producing hallucinations etc - not very adequate for safety-
critical jobs! Thus, you turn to soemthing like Helium, which doesn't have
the effect at pressures tried so far: possibly over 100 bar (in deep sea
diving). Its problems are high cost and high heat conductivity - it's
difficult to keep temperatures right.

That's probably more than you ever wanted to know, so I'll stop...

    Jan

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 04:29:18 GMT
From: Bruce Dunn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Omnimax
Newsgroups: sci.space

> [e-mail] writes:
>
> Anyone know exact Internet address of Imax? Have tried [e-mail].


        My system's international E-mail directory lists:

Imax Corporation
2525 Speakman Driver
Sheridan Park
Mississauga, Ontario , Canada

[Mississauga may be regarded as a suburb of Toronto]

Internet address;  imax.com
Contact;           imax!postmaster

        You might try "postmaster" rather than "postmast" in case their
system doesn't do anything useful with the abbreviation.  Alternately, wait -
maybe the "postmaster" is on spring holidays :-)



--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   [e-mail]

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

Date: 31 Mar 93 04:15:17 GMT
From: Steve Derry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question on Cassini Radar
Newsgroups: sci.space

David Seal ([e-mail]) wrote:
: That's a neat question.  For now we are not planning to point it at anything
: except Titan.

Would the radar be of any benefit in trying to characterize Saturn's rings?
I.e. distributions of particle (or boulder?) size, etc?

--
Steve Derry
<[e-mail]>

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

Date: 30 Mar 93 13:04:15 GMT
From: Ken Hayashida <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Station Redesign
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hi friends, with all the talk about space station redesign and reanalysis of
work package II, I had a little thought.

Some of you know about the project that I'm doing with The Planetary
Society (forming a life sciences study group to pick apart technical issues
related to long duration spaceflight).  Well, I was thinking about the
possiblity that SSFred could be turned into an interplanetary spacecraft.

The basic idea is that the WP II effort would become an effort to enginneer
a structure which could support several features:
1  Attachment of thrusters (chemical or nuclear) which could propel the modules
and attached science payloads to escape velocity.
2  Attachment of science payloads for Earth observation.

It seems to me that the capability to design the space station to accept accel-
eration loads would permit long-duration flight into Geostationary orbit or
(better yet) flight to lunar orbit.  Essentially the space station project
(as it stands) would become an effort to design universal modules for use
on the moon, Mars, GEO, and LEO.  The modifications to WP-II would become
an engineering project to design the thruster stage of the first International
interplanetary spacecraft.

In the end, we'd gain experience operating the modules in LEO, then deploy/
assemble the tankage and thrusters for the station and send it on sorties
into progressively higher orbit or even to the moon.  If acceleration loads are
a problem, maybe a low thrust engine could be used over a long-period of time?
Instead of a large delta-v in a short period of time (i.e. like in Apollo),
since the modules are for long-duration use (i.e. missions in excess of 2 wks),
then the engines could impart a lower delta v over a longer period of time.

This would be a slow boat to the moon and back.
(It also seems to me that the same thruster platform could be used
for interplanetary missions (i.e. sample return from mars).

[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 06:39:17 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Status of U.S./Soviet Cooperation
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>There are a number of good reasons to work with the Soviets in space, but
>until the situation stabilizes over there, I seriously doubt any sane
>Western organization or government is going to put signifigant money into
>any joint projects.

The downside of this, of course, is that to some extent it becomes a
self-fulfilling prophecy...  The CIS nations desperately need some sort
of solid indication that if they grit their teeth and suffer through
some hard years of rebuilding their economies, they *will* see rewards,
e.g. major partnerships with the West in areas where it makes sense.
They're seeing the downside of reform already; they need incentives --
ones they can point to, not nebulous maybes and perhapses.

"Let's wait and see" is a mistake; we should start small, to make it
clear that we aren't yet happy, but we should start now.

Few Western corporations are likely to take such a long-term view, but
one reason we have governments is to tackle desirable jobs that don't
look commercially attractive yet.
--
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 31 Mar 93 03:43:10 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Status of U.S./Soviet Cooperation
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>>There are a number of good reasons to work with the Soviets in space, but
>>until the situation stabilizes over there, I seriously doubt any sane
>>Western organization or government is going to put signifigant money into
>>any joint projects.

>"Let's wait and see" is a mistake; we should start small, to make it
>clear that we aren't yet happy, but we should start now.

The problem with the idea of Western aid saving the Russians is that any amount
that is politically viable in the West is going to be far too small to have
any effect; remember, even with all the troubles going on over there, the
Russian economy is still two or three hundred billion dollars.  Two or three
billion dollars a year in aid (or commercial joint ventures) is going to be
a drop in the bucket.

The only kind of aid I see having any real effect on the situation over there
is aid targeted at specific sectors of the economy that are in critically
failing condition; food production and transportation, energy, housing, things
like that, where the money has a direct effect on the people.  Giving money
to Energia to build Szabo Space-Toasters likely won't have that effect.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 30 Mar 93 22:06:36 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: STS-1 DISASTER/COVERUP (and mcelwaine)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Eric H Seale) writes:

    (About the Beter tape)

> How do we get this bone-head turned off so that we don't waste so d**n
> much bandwidth on "Dr. Peter Beter" and his drivel?
>
> Eric
    The physics newsgroup suggest ignoring, him.  Otherwise use
your kill file.
    (Who's this Beter guy anyway that I'm supposed believe?)

Candi Cabaniss
Western Kentucky University  [e-mail]
(now that we haven't won NCAA basketball, they'll finally get rid of
the football team)

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

Date: 30 Mar 93 17:50:22 GMT
From: AJ Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Venus is covered with water?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (James Thomas Green) writes:
>
> Noted astrophysicist Jay Leno said on the Friday 3/26 Tonight
> Show that Venus is covered with 75 feet of water!  I guess he
> knows something I don't :-)
>

Rant, Rant, Rant.  You know, Jay would get killed if he got the NBC
comedy saturday line up this close to being right, but still wrong.
But for science, oh no, raw paraphrasing that pretty much has the facts
completely wrong is completely acceptable.  No wonder american school
children haven't a clue where havana is.  End Ranting.

Actual facts:

Recent papers describing the analysis of Pioneer Venus data reveals
extremely high levels/ratios of the hydrogen isotope Deuterium (and I
think Tritium as well).  Also, there are some features that Magellan
has uncovered that some planetary scientists interpret as the result of
running water, but that interpretation is controversial.  However the
isotope levels are not disputed.  This is one of those reverse
engineering things.  High levels of hydrogen isotopes, means that there
used to be the correct ratio of hydrogen and its isotopes on venus.  If
I remember this right, I read the latest Science article briefly and
only once last night, the oxygen is still there on venus (locked up in
the rocks I believe).  So, if the oxygen that's still there was
re-attached to the missing hydrogen, the estimates are that venus would
be covered with a layer of water 25 to 75 feet deep.  However, the
water has not been there for some time.  What happened to it?  Split
by the intense UV one finds at venus, the oxygen turned into venusian
oxides, and the hydrogen atoms drifted free of the venusian gravity and
into interplanetary space.
--
A.J. Madison                       PHONE: [phone] X383
FiberCom, Inc.                       FAX: [phone]
P.O. Box 11966                  INTERNET: [e-mail]
Roanoke, VA  24022-1966             UUCP: ...!uunet!fibercom!ajm

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 396
------------------------------