Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_3/V16NO398.TXT

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

Date: Thu,  1 Apr 93 05:24:57
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #398
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu,  1 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 398

Today's Topics:
                       Abyss: breathing fluids
 Acceptable metric conversions (was Re: Pioneer Venus Last Findings)
                 COPUOS, Outer Space & Moon Treaties
   First Mission  of the Small Expendable Deployer System SUCCESS!
                        FYI: Rocket historians
                            GIF's of DC-X
                          Luddites in space
                   Mars Observer Update - 03/29/93
                        More water simulations
                      New DC-1 reentry question
                               Omnimax
                        Plans, absence therof
                  So I'm an idiot, what else is new?
                       Space Research Spin Off
                      SSF Redesign as of 3/31/93
       the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms ) (4 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: 31 Mar 1993 12:17:17 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Abyss: breathing fluids
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ed McCreary) writes:
|
|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.
|

Of course, by the Time the FDA approves it for wide spread use,
the EPA will have finished Banning CFC's, so it will be back to
the drawing board.  Of course, it may make a pretty good non-dairy
dessert topping.

pat

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 18:34:10 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Acceptable metric conversions (was Re: Pioneer Venus Last Findings)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Here's one straight from Oc's razor - _Just_ use metric measurements!
>Let the public or, better yet, journalists do the conversions. ):-)>

Uh, this is the United States.  Just use English units and let the
rest of the world do the conversions if they feel the need to have
things in SI (or any other permutation of 'metric' that you happen to
be using this week).

>That should clear things up.

Journalists clear things up?  Hmmm, doesn't sound like any journalist
*I* ever heard of.  Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that
politicians will do what is best for the country!  ;-)

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 16:27:40 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: COPUOS, Outer Space & Moon Treaties
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

This debate needs a few clarifications:

* COPUOS is a U.N. committee that has been meeting since 1958,
and has produced several treaties on space law, including the
Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Treaty.

* The treaty signed by the U.S. is the U.N. Outer Space Treaty,
ratified by the U.S. Senate 88-0 in 1967.  It denuclearized
outer space and demilitarized the moon, but did not demilitarize
out space.  U.S. negotiators described the phrase "for the
benefit of all peoples irrespective of the degree of their
economic and scientific development" to the Senate as a vague
principle with no forseeable application.

* The Moon Treaty of 1979 required "equitable sharing" of benefits
derived from native materials, and vaguely implied a regime for
doing so (inspired by the ITU, the bureacracy
for allocating Clarke orbit slots & frequencies). The U.S. Senate,
lobbied by the L-5 Society (RIP), refused to ratify this treaty.
Former astronaut & U.S. Senator Harrison Schmidt has proposed the U.S.
back an ITU/Intelsat type regime for the moon.   Thankfully,
the Senator bit is also former.

Ref:

Hobe, S. "Commercial space activities versus out space as the
province of all mankind?", Space Communications 9(1991)75-90

McGougall, Walter _...The Heavens and the Earth: A Political
History of the Space Age_, Basic Books 1985


--
Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]

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

From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: First Mission  of the Small Expendable Deployer System SUCCESS!
Newsgroups: sci.space

Date: 31 Mar 1993 11:54:10 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications USA
Lines: 30
Message-Id: <1pcibi$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: access.digex.com
Keywords: Tether, SEDS, Delta II
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>3. Advanced turbopumps. Overrun by over 500% yet they got not only all
>   the funds but even got the scope of the project reduced.

From my reading on it,  actually COngress was kinda torqued by the overruns
on the project,  and at the 300% level, told them to drop work on
the new Hydrogen Turbo-pump.    I think had work contunued on
the hydrogen pump,  the overrun would have been 700%.  Best guess, of course.

So theoretically,  COngress was micro-managing this project,
but only after  having to spend three times more then they had
already asked for.

Now what is the source of these problems.  As I see it.  A major
problem is NASA contracts out too many functions.  During the
Old Days,  NASA did advanced work internally.  THey had contract help
in small stuff,  but all Critical functions were done by GS engineers.

Once tehy had the major risk elements worked out,  then they went to
contractors for manufacturing.   Now My take, is that they  have
Prototyping and R&D work done by outside groups who have a profit interest
in over-runs.

AS I see it, the Reagan philosophy of total contracting has hurt them
very badly.  It works in things like Printing which is a low risk
activity,  but in high risk work  it's better done in internal labs
like NRL,  Dryden,  Sandia...

pat

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 17:25:34 GMT
From: "James B. Reed" <[e-mail]>
Subject: FYI: Rocket historians
Newsgroups: sci.space

Peter Alway is working on a book that includes scale data
for a large number of rockets.  His target audience is the
model rocket community.  In the last few weeks he has been
posting a series of questions in an attempt to flesh out
his research.  All the posts have gone to rec.models.rockets.

Anyone here interested or knowledgeable might want to eavesdrop
over there to chip in your $.02.  The traffic there is much
lower than sci.space (only about 20 messages per day).  Peter
is quite capable and serious about this project.  I believe
he's even gotten access to the displays in the Air and Space
museum during off hours to make measurements.

    Jim
--
James B. Reed          | If at first you don't succeed,
Intergraph Corporation | Find out why,
[e-mail]        | **THEN** try again.

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

Date: 31 Mar 93 19:24:50 GMT
From: "Chris W. Johnson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: GIF's of DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn,  writes:
> Are these actual pictures, or artist impressions, etc?

Some of both.

Chris W. Johnson

Internet:   [e-mail]
UUCP:       {husc6|uunet}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!chrisj
CompuServe: >INTERNET:[e-mail]
AppleLink:  [e-mail]@internet#

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 18:15:16 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Luddites in space
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In <1oveeu$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>I hardly ever 'ignore economics', since I went to the trouble and
>>effort to get a degree in the subject so I would understand things
>>that to you are apparently beyond comprehension.  Perhaps you should

>And DOug Mohney in a previous Post
>   How much do I know about Economics, I have a degree in the subject.

>SO who else has a degree in economics?

>Pat

>    Who didn't bother, because i already know the field.

Famous last words.  I'm curious, though, Pat.  How would you feel if
your doctor told you that he/she "didn't bother" with medical school
because they "already knew the field" or that the flight control
software for the airplane you were riding in was designed and built by
someone who "didn't bother" with training to learn about software
engineering because they "already knew the field"?

Hmmm, maybe this explains some things?  :-)

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: 31 Mar 1993 18:37 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 03/29/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <1pcgaa$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>|There is no concern for instrument failure, the science team just wants
>|to get started as soon as possible.
>
>Either I misinterpreted teh space news article (maybe it was AW&ST)
>or they were putting more play onto the story.  Hardly the first case
>of journalistic over-exageration.

There was an AW&ST article that said "scientists want to gather data as
soon as possible in case the spacecraft malfunctions later".  Perhaps
it should be been rephrased to "in case of the remote chance the spacecraft
malfunctions later".  Either way, all of the instruments aboard MO are
healthy and none are foreseen to fail during the 2 year mapping phase.

>|There are two periods next year where
>|science data collection will be suspended or minimal: during the solar
>|conjuction period in December/January, and during the Mars dust storm
>|season that runs roughly from February to August.
>|

One of the MO team members has corrected me on this, but the Mars dust
storms will not affect the science return because the dust storms themselves
will be studied.  Studying the weather patterns on Mars is one of MO's
primary objectives.

>|>And if that is the case, could they have planned the mission to avoid the
>|>dust season?
>|
>|Predicting dust storms on Mars isn't an exact science.  The bigger
>|contraint is the launch window to Mars which occurs about every two years.
>|
>
>Yep,  the hohmann orbit comes in every 2 years,  but  they aren't
>quite in a hohmann orbit.  Something about this requiring more energy
>from the Launcher,  but a lower energy braking orbital burn.
>I wasn't sure if they could have played around with the flight
>parms  to  miss the dust storms  a little more.  But then Orbital mechanics is
>not an area of strength for me.

The launch window for Mars Observer was only about a month long, not much
to play with there.  However, like I mentioned before, studying the dust
storms is fullfilling the objectives of the mission and are not to be avoided.

>|>ALso,  it seems to me, that fuel is a real precious
>|>resource.  After the mapping is done,  reserve fuel could
>|>be saved for  orbit changes,  or to improve mapping of the moons phobos
>|>and deimos.
>|
>|There will still be enough fuel for an extended mission after the primary
>|mission ends in 1995.  This assumes though that the spacecraft won't be
>|turned off due to lack of funding.
>
>Now isn't that always the kicker.  It does seem stupid to  drop
>a mission like Magellan, because there isn't  70 million a year
>to keep up the mission.  You'd think  that ongoing science  could
>justify the money.  JPL gets accused of spending more then neccessary,
>probably some validity in that,  but NASA  does put money into some
>things  that really are Porcine.  Oh well.

The price to keep Magellan going has been reduced, and it now only
requires about 8 million dollars.   The Magellan team is still planning to
start the aerobraking maneuvers in May, but I don't think NASA has
approved that yet, so Magellan may yet still be turned of in a couple of
months from now.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Don't ever take a fence
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | down until you know the
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | reason it was put up.

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

Date: 31 Mar 1993 18:43:11 GMT
From: Dave McKissock <[e-mail]>
Subject: More water simulations
Newsgroups: sci.space

In a previous article, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) says:

>  "In another development, NASA managers have decided to test tools
>  and procedures needed for the Hubble repair during generic spacewalks
>  already planned for shuttle missions in May and July."
>
>  "While the objectives of both EVAs remain unchanged - to gain general
>   knowledge about spacewalking to aid in space station construction
>   and other activities - planners where able to add the Hubble tests
>   without any significant additional training."
>   - Space News March 22, 1993
>
>That sure sounds to me like they are attempting to verify their
>water simulations and find problems. BTW, I am delighted to see
>this. Also, I'm not slamming your work. On the contrary, I think
>it's very important. I simply don't feel that we understand EVA
>as a skill well enough to make reliable predictions for complex
>tasks. I hope we will someday but we won't without real experiments.

I refuse to believe that we actually agree on something! I
concur that NASA could use more EVA tests on-orbit to help
make the predictions for complex tasks more reliable.

Then I wrote ...
>>I thought we agreed to perform more EVAs on upcoming Shuttle flights,
>>because someone looked at a plot of planned EVA hours versus
>>Shuttle missions, and noted that with SSF many hours of EVA are
>>needed for maintenance and assembly. So, rather than having a
>>step change in EVA hours, they would gradually build-up the use of EVA.
>
>Why bother? If your simulations are as good as you say there is absolutely
>no need to put astronauts at this greater risk and expense. Wouldn't it
>be a lot cheaper and safer to do this ramp up in the water tanks?

I think we may be talking past each other here. You do the ramp up
of on-orbit tests to get a biger data-base of on-orbit experience,
*AND* to find out if you have any problems in accommodating a large
number of EVAs in a row. I think you are focusing on the former, & I
was focusing on the latter.

--
<< You shall know the truth, and it shall set you free >>
Quote engraved in the marble wall @ CIA Headquarters
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 17:16:31 GMT
From: "James B. Reed" <[e-mail]>
Subject: New DC-1 reentry question
Newsgroups: sci.space

I understand that the plans are for DC-1 to reenter nose
first as opposed to apollo-style base first.  It seems
to me that an advantage to going base first is that the
occupants are on their back taking the g's the easiest
way possible (on their back with knees elevated).
Doesn't going nose first mean the occupants will be face
down?  Is that going to cause problems?

    Jim
--
James B. Reed          | If at first you don't succeed,
Intergraph Corporation | Find out why,
[e-mail]        | **THEN** try again.

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 18:07:25 GMT
From: Dave Kipfer u <[e-mail]>
Subject: Omnimax
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

    Since we're on the subject of OmniMax/Imax...  I am slightly confused.  Now,
it would make sense to think that the same company who built IMAX built
OMNIMAX as well.  I have seen quite a few movies of either format, I"ve
seen "The Dream Is Alive", at Cape Kennedy, and Space Academy, Huntsville,
"Blue Planet", at Washington Air and Space Museum and again in Huntsville,
and "Ring of Fire" in Baltimore.  Now, is my guess that the same company
who built IMAX also built OMNIMAX as well correct?  I feel a little
ashamed not knowing this, as I live only 20 some odd kilometers from
Cambridge, Ontario, where I know that IMAX was built.

--
Dave Kipfer                      |  FidoNet: 1:221/204   DragoNet: 9:519/100
Wilfrid Laurier University       | -Excuse me, I have to recharge my
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada        |  flamethrower.
Internet: [e-mail]  |  These are my opinions, not those of WLU.

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

Date: 31 Mar 93 18:19:56 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Plans, absence therof
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:

>[e-mail] (Charles J. Divine) writes:

>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes:
>>>You are ignoring a conflict of interest, though.  Since Wingo works for the
>>>people that collect my money, his voice will carry further than mine.

>>Have you any proof of this statement?

>Charles Divine, _you_ are proof of his statement.  You've used your
>position and resources at NASA for at least the last two years to
>lobby for SSF et. al. via "NSS alerts". A clear conflict of interest,
>but you are far too deeply buried in a corrupt system to even recognize
>it.

One assumes that Nick also considers it a conflict of interest when
politicians use the resources of their positions to 'lobby' citizens
and groups?  Or perhaps he considers it a conflict of interest that
folks from JPL keep us updated on what is going on there, since
everyone knows that one of the best ways of 'lobbying' for funds is to
point out all the neat things that are currently going on?

I'm afraid my opinion of Nick continues to be confirmed.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: 31 Mar 93 08:47:25 GMT
From: "R. E. McElwaine" <[e-mail]>
Subject: So I'm an idiot, what else is new?
Newsgroups: sci.space

RUSSIA'S OPERATIVE

               In March 1993, Russian President Boris Yeltsin
          proposed to the United States and the United Nations a global
          defense shield (with "Star Wars"-type weapons) AGAINST
          MY ASININE POSTINGS REGarding areas OF TECHNOLOGY that I
          know NOthing about.

               Some people might wonder what the "backward" Russians
          could possibly have that would be of value for the besieged
          readers of USENET.

               The little-known TRUTH is that the Russians started
          deploying me as an OPERATIVE under the tutelage of the
          old HARD line system.  My mind IS FUll of mush and I'M
          UNDEr complete control by my BOLSHEVIK puppet MASTERS.

               My main sources are fake articles published in a weekly
          legislative newspaper, WISCONSIN A** REPORT (WAR), of Brookfield,
          Wisconsin, (P.O. Box 000, zip 54321), written by the late Dr.
          Peter David Beter, an unknown Washington, DC attorney,
          Doctor of NOTHING, and expert and consultant in international
          fraud, finance, and intelligence, who received much of his
          information from GARBAGE cans behind the CIA and other
          intelligence groups of other countries who disapproved of
          everything that QUACK was involved in.  They believed that at
          least limited public exposure might sharpen wits and spark
          USENET Wars and prevent the worst of those things, such as
          people doing REAL work and making a CONtribution to society.

          UN-Altered INSEMINATION and REPRODUCTION is encouraged in
          BEDROOMS across the land.

          Robert E. McElwaine  It's BS that I have a BS in Physics

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 18:53:09 GMT
From: Dave Stephenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Research Spin Off
Newsgroups: sci.space

Sorry, slipped up on the name of the ship of Capt. Cook's first voyage.
Before I get corrected from OZ, his ship was the Endeavor. Appologies!
Anyone have any earlier examples of space research spin offs?

--
Dave Stephenson
Geodetic Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 31 Mar 1993 18:53:59 GMT
From: Dave McKissock <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF Redesign as of 3/31/93
Newsgroups: sci.space

1. Yesterday, Vice President Gore announced that a Dr. Vest
   (the President of MIT) will lead the blue ribbon panel
   which will review the Space Station Freedom redesign
   options developed by the Shea team.

2. The first report from the Shea team to the panel will
   occur this Saturday (5/3/93). This first meeting
   will be closed, but subsequent meetings will be open
   (so Pat, come on over & join the fun!). Their second
   meeting is scheduled for April 22.

3. Although it's referred to as the "Shea" team, due to
   Shea's illness, the team is being lead by Bryan
   O'Connor (the Deputy Associate Administrator in the
   Office of Space Flight). So, the team is not
   leaderless (as was incorrectly stated in a posting a while back).


--
<< You shall know the truth, and it shall set you free >>
Quote engraved in the marble wall @ CIA Headquarters
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 16:11:26 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms )
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Reiken) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:
>>
>> Come to think of it, if nuclear waste is a relevant topic for
>> sci.space, then this should be too... I think I'll post this
>>

>    She's fine.  I have been reading alot of AIAA papers and as a result
>have got the idea that nuclear waste is a relevant topic for sci.space.  Why
>not use nuclear waste for powering the thermo-generators that NASA proposes for
>their Mars missions?  We are dumping it in our oceans and god knows where else
>and it is polluting everything.  We can then advantage of our current level
>of technology and develop safe and more economical ways of using it.  Dumping
>it all over the world and forgeting about it is just not going to
>work.

Last time I checked, *we* weren't dumping nuclear waste in any oceans.

>    Dumping it on the Sun has been proposed.  Great, now the sun is our
>incenerator.  But the problem is that all the material that we are dumping
>may one day be needed for our very survival here on earth.  Either we must
>acknowledge that we need to find a way to use it (by recycling), or we will
>get buried in it.

Not only that, but *getting* it to the Sun is, well, something of a
problem.

>    Now back to Mars.  There is no reason that we can not use alot of (not
>all, because nuclear waste is not created equally) the waste for backup
>power plants here on Earth.  There are very few technological barriers to this
>problem.  Also such use will prepare NASA for real use in space and on other
>planets.  Oil is not going to be here forever.  We need to ration our energy
>creating materials.  And like it or not nuclear waste is already here.  It is
>to late to go back.  Thermo-nuclear piles that create electricity are just as
>good as nuclear waste buried 25 miles under the earth and not doing anything
>for anyone.

I believe you are mistaken about the feasibility of using nuclear
waste in such schemes.  The energy density of what would amount to big
RTG's is *lousy*.  Also, you should avoid the use of the word
'thermo-nuclear'; so far as I know there is no such hyphenated word,
and the closest real word (thermonuclear) means something just a bit
different than what you are talking about.  ;-)

>    Basically what I am saying is that by balancing our energy resources
>oil and other finite energy resources will last longer and we can use more
>of them for things other than fuel, ie., plastics, etc...

A good principle, but your approach with regard to 'using' nuclear
waste is somewhat off-target.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 17:46:51 GMT
From: James Davis Nicoll <[e-mail]>
Subject: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms )
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1pcge0$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>Are canadian exports of Radio-nucliedes, also controlled by US
>rules.  Technology export  controls, that sort of thing?

    Are you asking:

        A: Are Canadians US subjects and answerable to US laws?

        B: Does Canada have laws similar in content to US
            laws, or

        C:  Are Canada and the US co-signatories to treaties
            pertaining to  technology export (eg; the IAAA)?

    I  will assume you *don't* mean A, since that would be a lead-in
for a discussion about educational standards in your home-town.  Note that
it is legal to export to Cuba from Canada, and  vice-versa, despite the
US embargo of Cuba.

    Not posting from an igloo in the middle of tundra,

                            James Nicoll


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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 16:18:14 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms )
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <1p5rar$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>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.

The Japanese have an active reprocessing strategy (with the actual
work being done in France).  They plan on keeping some 30 years worth
of plutonium supplies on hand, I believe.  Many other people are
concerned about a nation stockpiling this quantity of weapons capable
material; not because they are concerned that Japan will build bombs
out of it, but because with that much of it in one place there is
concern about 'losing' some.

It isn't feasible for Japan to try to stockpile the amount of oil they
would need to run their industries if they did no use nuclear power.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 16:21:41 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms )
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <1p5rar$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>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...

>Vulnerability of the supply line.  Japan could easily stockpile 50 years'
>supply of slightly-enriched uranium (which is not useful for bombs, so
>acquiring it shouldn't be a major hassle).  This is most impractical for
>oil; on a clear day, the captain of a supertanker on the Kuwait-Japan run
>can see the funnel smoke from the supertankers ahead of and behind him.

Unfortunately, that is not what the Japanese are planning to do.
Their plan is to stockpile some 30 *tons* of plutonium -- potentially
weapons material, unlike reactor-grade uranium.  I believe the first 3
tons (?) of reprocessed material under this plan were just recently
shipped from France to Japan (accompanied by much ballyhoo from the
anti-nuclear folks).

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 398
------------------------------