Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_4/V16NO474.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 34KB

Date: Fri, 23 Apr 93 05:00:20
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #474
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 23 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 474

Today's Topics:
               Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?
          Commercial mining activities on the moon (3 msgs)
      Conference on Manned Lunar Exploration. May 7 Crystal City
                           First Spacewalk
                         Golden & Space ages
          Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts. (2 msgs)
                               Level 5?
                            Moonbase race
              Moon Colony Prize Race! $6 billion total?
                   New planet/Kuiper object found?
                    Orion drive in vacuum -- how?
                           Proton/Centaur?
                       Solar Sail Data (2 msgs)
        What if the USSR had reached the Moon first? (2 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: Tue, 20 Apr 93 06:37:23 EDT
From: Robert Coe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

[e-mail] writes:

> >> Also, perihelions of Gehrels3 were:
> >>
> >> April  1973     83 jupiter radii
> >> August 1970     ~3 jupiter radii
> >
> > Where 1 Jupiter radius = 71,000 km = 44,000 mi = 0.0005 AU.  So the
> > 1970 figure seems unlikely to actually be anything but a perijove.
> > Is that the case for the 1973 figure as well?
> > --
> Sorry, _perijoves_...I'm not used to talking this language.

Hmmmm....  The prefix "peri-" is Greek, not Latin, so it's usually used
with the Greek form of the name of the body being orbited.  (That's why
it's "perihelion" rather than "perisol", "perigee" rather than "periterr",
and "pericynthion" rather than "perilune".)  So for Jupiter I'd expect it
to be something like "perizeon".)   :^)

   ___            _                                           -  Bob
   /__) _   /    / ) _   _
(_/__) (_)_(_)  (___(_)_(/_______________________________________ [e-mail]
Robert K. Coe ** 14 Churchill St, Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776 ** 508-443-3265

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

Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 20:48:38 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Commercial mining activities on the moon
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

 > be the site of major commercial activity. As far as we know it has no
 > materials we can't get cheaper right here on Earth or from asteroids
 > and comets, aside from the semi-mythic He3 that *might* be useful in low
 > grade fusion reactors.

I don't know what a "low grade" fusion reactor is, but the major
problem with 3He (aside from the difficulty in making any fusion
reactor work) is that its concentration in lunar regolith is just so
small -- on the order of 5 ppb or so, on average (more in some
fractions, but still very small).  Massive amounts of regolith would
have to be processed.

This thread reminds me of Wingo's claims some time ago about the moon
as a source of titanium for use on earth.  As I recall, Wingo wasn't
content with being assured that titanium (at .5% in the Earth's crust,
average) would not run out, and touted lunar mines, even though the
market price of ilmenite concentrate these days is around $.06/pound.
This prompted me to look up large potential terrestrial sources.

On the moon, titanium occurs in basalts; "high-Ti" basalts (Apollo 11
and 17) have 8-14% titanium dioxide (by weight).  This is nice, but...
terrestrial continental flood basalts are also typically enriched in
titanium.  They very often have 3% TiO2, frequently have 4%, and
sometimes even 5% TiO2 (again, by weight).  These flood basalts are
*enormous* -- millions of cubic kilometers, scattered all over the
world (Siberia, Brazil, the NW United States, Ethiopia, etc.).  If
even 1% of the basalts are 5% TiO2, this is trillions of tons of TiO2
at concentrations only a factor of 2-3 less than in lunar high-Ti
basalts.  It is difficult to see how the disadvantages of the moon
could be overcome by such a small increase the concentration of the
ore (never mind the richer, but less common, terrestrial ores being
mined today).

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 22:38:07 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Commercial mining activities on the moon
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

> Why Paul, it's obvious.
> Once chlorine chemistry has been banned on Earth,
> as is being advocated by some groups, Ti prices will
> sharply increase (we are of course not allowed to
> assume any developments in Ti processing).
> Lunar Ti will then be eminently competitive for
> the trendy jewelry market and certain applications
> of National Importance
>
> :-) :-) :-)

Well, there already is a sulfate process for TiO2 purification.  The
chlorine process is cleaner, however, and for that reason is achieving
dominance in the marketplace.

Most Ti is used in pigment, btw (as the oxide), where it replaced
white lead pigment some decades ago.  Very little is reduced to the
metal.

> Seriously, I'd say there is a flaw in Gary's analysis
> in that he assumes an export oriented economy, maybe
> the lunatics will just want some native Ti for local
> use...

Which merely evades the issue of why those lunatics are
there at all (and, why their children would want to stay.)

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 20 Apr 93 21:53:01 GMT
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Commercial mining activities on the moon
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:

   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

    > be the site of major commercial activity. As far as we know it has no
    > materials we can't get cheaper right here on Earth or from asteroids
    > and comets, aside from the semi-mythic He3 that *might* be useful in low
    > grade fusion reactors.

   problem with 3He (aside from the difficulty in making any fusion
   reactor work) is that its concentration in lunar regolith is just so
   small -- on the order of 5 ppb or so, on average (more in some

   This thread reminds me of Wingo's claims some time ago about the moon
   as a source of titanium for use on earth.  As I recall, Wingo wasn't
 ...
   even 1% of the basalts are 5% TiO2, this is trillions of tons of TiO2
   at concentrations only a factor of 2-3 less than in lunar high-Ti
   basalts.  It is difficult to see how the disadvantages of the moon
   could be overcome by such a small increase the concentration of the
   ore (never mind the richer, but less common, terrestrial ores being
   mined today).

Why Paul, it's obvious.
Once chlorine chemistry has been banned on Earth,
as is being advocated by some groups, Ti prices will
sharply increase (we are of course not allowed to
assume any developments in Ti processing).
Lunar Ti will then be eminently competitive for
the trendy jewelry market and certain applications
of National Importance

:-) :-) :-)


(oops, this is sci.space... wrong rules of debate ;-)


Seriously, I'd say there is a flaw in Gary's analysis
in that he assumes an export oriented economy, maybe
the lunatics will just want some native Ti for local
use... as to why Lunar natives are cost effective,
analysis has shown they will be critical in providing
a sheltered manufacturing base, technological innovation,
critical materials and manpower in the war between
the Allies and Central Powers in about two hundred years...

;-)

|  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: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 19:10:52 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Conference on Manned Lunar Exploration. May 7 Crystal City
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>(Josh Hopkins) writes:
>> I remeber reading the comment that General Dynamics was tied into this, in
>> connection with their proposal for an early manned landing.

>The General Chairman is Paul Bialla, who is some official of General
>Dynamics.

>The emphasis seems to be on a scaled-down, fast plan to put *people*
>on the Moon in an impoverished spaceflight-funding climate. You'd
>think it would be a golden opportunity to do lots of precusor work for
>modest money using an agressive series of robot spacecraft, but
>there's not a hint of this in the brochure.

It may be that they just didn't mention it, or that they actually haven't
thought about it.  I got the vague impression from their mission proposal
that they weren't taking a very holistic aproach to the whole thing.  They
seemed to want to land people on the Moon by the end of the decade without
explaining why, or what they would do once they got there.  The only application
I remember from the Av Week article was placing a telescope on the Moon.  That's
great, but they don't explain why it can't be done robotically.

>> Hrumph.  They didn't send _me_ anything :(

>You're not hanging out with the Right People, apparently.

But I'm a _member_.  Besides Bill, I hang out with you :)

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
            "Find a way or make one."
                 -attributed to Hannibal

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

Date: Tue, 20 Apr 93 23:31:46 EET
From: [e-mail] (F.Baube[tm])
Subject: First Spacewalk

At one time there was speculation that the first spacewalk
(Alexei Leonov ?) was a staged fake.

Has any evidence to support or contradict this claim emerged ?

Was this claim perhaps another fevered Cold War hallucination ?

--
* Fred Baube (tm)         *  In times of intellectual ferment,
* [e-mail]       * advantage to him with the intellect
* #include <disclaimer.h> * most fermented !
* How is Frank Zappa doing ?
* May '68, Paris: It's Retrospective Time !!

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

Date: Tue, 20 Apr 93 17:52:49 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Golden & Space ages

Pat sez;
>Oddly, enough,  The smithsonian calls the lindbergh years
>the golden age of flight.  I would call it the granite years,
>reflecting the primitive nature of it.  It was  romantic,
>swashbuckling daredevils,  "those daring young men in their flying
>machines".  But in reality, it sucked.  Death was a highly likely
>occurence,  and  the environment blew.

Yeah, but a windscreen cut down most of it.  Canopies ended it completely.

Of course, the environment in space continues to suck :-)

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
[e-mail] 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 20 Apr 93 20:43:35 GMT
From: James Thomas Green <[e-mail]>
Subject: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary,sci.space,sci.astro

Why do spacecraft have to be shut off after funding cuts.  For
example, Why couldn't Magellan just be told to go into a "safe"
mode and stay bobbing about Venus in a low-power-use mode and if
maybe in a few years if funding gets restored after the economy
gets better (hopefully), it could be turned on again.

For that matter, why exactly were the Apollo lunar experiments
"turned off" rather than just "safed".  Was it political (i.e.
as along as they could be used, someone would keep bugging
congress for funds)?  Turning them off keeps them pesky
scientists out of the bureaucrat's hair....

I've heard the argument that an active but "uncontrolled"
spacecraft causes "radio noise."  I find that hard to believe
that this could be a problem in a properly designed "safe" mode.
This safe mode could be a program routine which causes the
spacecraft to go to least fuel using orientation, and once a
(week, month, year, whatever) attempts a signal lock on Earth.
At that time, if funding has been restored, the mission can
continue.  If no signal is recieved, the spacecraft goes back to
the safe mode for another time period. As we would know when the
spacecraft is going to try to contact Earth, we could be
prepared if necessary.

As another a spacecraft could do at the attempted contact is
beam stored data towards Earth.  If someone can receive it,
great, if not, so it's lost and no big deal.
By making the time and signal location generally known, perhaps
someone in the world might be able and willing to intercept the
data even if they're not willing to contact the spacecraft.

I see this as being particularly useful for spacecraft which
could have an otherwise long life and are in or are going to
places which are otherwise unaccessible (Jupiter/Saturn Orbit,
exiting the solar system, etc).

Perhaps those designing future spacecraft (Cassini, Pluto Flyby,
etc) should consider designing in a "pause" mode in case their
spacecraft gets the ax sometime in the future after completion of
the primary mission. Perhaps Mars Observer and Galilleo could
have some kind of routine written in for the post mission
"drift" phase.

So any holes in all this?


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: [e-mail] :-)~~~\
| "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving    |
| the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the     |
| Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."            |
|                  <John F. Kennedy; May 25, 1961>         |

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

Date: 20 Apr 1993 21:04 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary,sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (James Thomas Green) writes...
>Why do spacecraft have to be shut off after funding cuts.  For
>example, Why couldn't Magellan just be told to go into a "safe"
>mode and stay bobbing about Venus in a low-power-use mode and if
>maybe in a few years if funding gets restored after the economy
>gets better (hopefully), it could be turned on again.

It can be, but the problem is a political one, not a technical one.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The aweto from New Zealand
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | is part caterpillar and
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | part vegetable.

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

Date: Tue, 20 Apr 93 17:33:38 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Level 5?

Nick Haines sez;
>(given that I've heard the Shuttle software rated as Level 5 in
>maturity, I strongly doubt that this [having lots of bugs] is the case).

Level 5?  Out of how many?  What are the different levels?  I've never
heard of this rating system.  Anyone care to clue me in?

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
[e-mail] 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 20 Apr 93 17:17:49 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moonbase race

From: Gene Wright <[e-mail]>

>With the continuin talk about the "End of the Space Age" and complaints
>by government over the large cost, why not try something I read about
>that might just work.

>Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation
>who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a year.
>Then you'd see some of the inexpensive but not popular technologies begin
>to be developed. THere'd be a different kind of space race then!

I'll say!  Imagine that there were a couple groups up there, maybe landing
a few weeks apart.  The year-mark starts coming on for the first group.
Isn't a billion pretty good incentive to take a shot at a potential
winner?  "Yeah, that's a shame that Team A's life support gave out
so close to the deadline.  Thanks for the billion."

On the other hand, if Apollo cost ~25billion, for a few days or weeks
in space, in 1970 dollars, then won't the reward have to be a lot more
than only 1 billion to get any takers?

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
[e-mail] 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 12:25:54 GMT
From: Marvin Batty <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Colony Prize Race! $6 billion total?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I think if there is to be a prize and such.. There should be "classes"
>such as the following:
>
>Large Corp.
>Small Corp/Company (based on reported earnings?)
>Large Government (GNP and such)
>Small Governemtn (or political clout or GNP?)
>Large Organization (Planetary Society? and such?)
>Small Organization (Alot of small orgs..)

Whatabout, Schools, Universities, Rich Individuals (around 250 people
in the UK have more than 10 million dollars each). I reecieved mail
from people who claimed they might get a person into space for $500
per pound. Send a skinny person into space and split the rest of the money
among the ground crew!
>
>The organization things would probably have to be non-profit or liek ??
>
>Of course this means the prize might go up. Larger get more or ??
>Basically make the prize (total purse) $6 billion, divided amngst the class
>winners..
>More fair?
>
>There would have to be a seperate organization set up to monitor the events,
>umpire and such and watch for safety violations (or maybe not, if peopel want
>to risk thier own lives let them do it?).
>
Agreed. I volunteer for any UK attempts. But one clause: No launch methods
which are clearly dangerous to the environment (ours or someone else's). No
usage of materials from areas of planetary importance.

>Any other ideas??

Yes: We should *do* this rather than talk about it. Lobby people!
The major problem with the space programmes is all talk/paperwork and
no action!

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


--
****************************************************************************
                  Marvin Batty - [e-mail]
"And they shall not find those things, with a sort of rafia like base,
that their fathers put there just the night before. At about 8 O'clock!"

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

Date: Tue, 20 Apr 93 20:47:57 BSC
From: [e-mail] (Francisco da Fonseca Rodrigues)
Subject: New planet/Kuiper object found?

    Tonigth a TV journal here in Brasil announced that an object,
beyond Pluto's orbit, was found by an observatory at Hawaii. They
named the object Karla.

    The program said the object wasn't a gaseous giant planet, and
should be composed by rocks and ices.

    Can someone confirm these information? Could this object be a
new planet or a Kuiper object?

    Thanks in advance.

    Francisco.

-----------------------=====================================----the stars,----
|    ._,               | Francisco da Fonseca Rodrigues    |       o   o     |
|  ,_| |._/\           |                                   |     o         o |
|  |       |o/^^~-._   | COTUCA-Colegio Tecnico da UNICAMP |   o             |
|/-'    BRASIL      | ~|                                   |  o      o o     |
|\__/|_            /'  | Depto de Processamento de Dados   |  o    o  o  o   |
|      \__  Cps   | .  |                                   |   o  o  o    o  |
|        |   * __/'    | InterNet : [e-mail] |     o o      o  |
|        >   /'        |            [e-mail]|             o   |
|      /'   /'         | Fone/Fax : [phone]        | o         o     |
|     ~~^\/'           | Campinas - SP - Brasil            |    o   o        |
-----------------------=====================================----like dust.----

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

Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 16:46:55 GMT
From: Steve Willner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Orion drive in vacuum -- how?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry
Spencer) writes:
> The National Air & Space Museum has both the prototype and the film.

>   However, quite possibly it's
> no longer on display; NASM, like most museums, has much more stuff than it
> can display at once, and does rotate the displays occasionally.

The NASM photo archives are open to the public.  All (or almost all)
still pictures in the collection are available for viewing, but I
don't know about films.  At least it might be worth a try.  I'm not
sure if appointments are necessary, but I think not.

Good luck, and let us know what you find.
--
Steve Willner            Phone [phone]         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: [e-mail]
  member, League for Programming Freedom; contact [e-mail]

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

Date: 20 Apr 93 21:16:38 GMT
From: James Thomas Green <[e-mail]>
Subject: Proton/Centaur?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

Has anyone looked into the possiblity of a Proton/Centaur combo?
What would be the benefits and problems with such a combo (other
than the obvious instability in the XSSR now)?


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: [e-mail] :-)~~~\
| "I know you believe you understand what it is that you        |
| think I said.  But I am not sure that you realize that        |
| what I said is not what I meant."                             |

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

Date: 20 Apr 93 14:26:48 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Solar Sail Data
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Frank J. Snyder) writes:
> I am looking for any information concerning projects involving Solar
>  Sails. [...]
> Are there any groups out there currently involved in such a project ?

Sure.  Contact the World Space Foundation.  They're listed in the sci.space
Frequently Asked Questions file, which I'll excerpt.

    WORLD SPACE FOUNDATION - has been designing and building a solar-sail
    spacecraft for longer than any similar group; many JPL employees lend
    their talents to this project. WSF also provides partial funding for the
    Palomar Sky Survey, an extremely successful search for near-Earth
    asteroids. Publishes *Foundation News* and *Foundation Astronautics
    Notebook*, each a quarterly 4-8 page newsletter. Contributing Associate,
    minimum of $15/year (but more money always welcome to support projects).

    World Space Foundation
    Post Office Box Y
    South Pasadena, California 91301

WSF put together a little paperback anthology of fiction and
nonfiction about solar sails: *Project Solar Sail*.  I think Robert
Staehle, David Brin,  or Arthur Clarke may be listed as editor.

Also there is a nontechnical book on solar sailing by Louis Friedman,
a technical one by a guy whose name escapes me (help me out, Josh),
and I would expect that Greg Matloff and Eugene Mallove have something
to say about the subject in *The Starflight Handbook*, as well as
quite a few references.


Check the following articles in *Journal of the British Interplanetary
Society*:

V36 p. 201-209 (1983)
V36 p. 483-489 (1983)
V37 p. 135-141 (1984)
V37 p. 491-494 (1984)
V38 p. 113-119 (1984)
V38 p. 133-136 (1984)

(Can you guess that Matloff visited Fermilab and gave me a bunch of
reprints? I just found the file.)

And K. Eric Drexler's paper "High Performance Solar Sails and Related
Reflecting Devices," AIAA paper 79-1418, probably in a book called
*Space Manufacturing*, maybe the proceedings of the Second (?)
Conference on Space Manufacturing.  The 1979 one, at any rate.

Submarines, flying boats, robots, talking         Bill Higgins
pictures, radio, television, bouncing radar       Fermilab
vibrations off the moon, rocket ships, and        [e-mail]
atom-splitting-- all in our time.  But nobody     [e-mail]
has yet been able to figure out a music           SPAN:  43011::HIGGINS
holder for a marching piccolo player.
                     --Meredith Willson, 1948

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

Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 19:20:30 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Solar Sail Data
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Andrew Broderick) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>
>>I am looking for any information concerning projects involving Solar
>> Sails

>I was at an interesting seminar at work (UK's R.A.L. Space Science
>Dept.) on this subject, specifically on a small-scale Solar Sail
>proposed as a student space project. The guy giving the talk was keen to
>generate interest in the project. I'll typein the handout he gave out at
>the meeting. Here goes :

[Stuff deleted]

>However it is more difficult to design a practical solar sail than most
>people realize. The pressure of sunlight is only about one kilogram per
>square kilometer.     ^^^^                                   ^^^^

I'm glad to see that someone is working on this.  However, it would be nice if
he got his units right.
--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
            "Find a way or make one."
                 -attributed to Hannibal

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

Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 15:28:19 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Graydon <[e-mail]> writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
>says:
>>It's conceivable that Luna will have a military purpose, it's possible
>>that Luna will have a commercial purpose, but it's most likely that
>>Luna will only have a scientific purpose for the next several hundred
>>years at least. Therefore, Lunar bases should be predicated on funding
>>levels little different from those found for Antarctic bases. Can you
>>put a 200 person base on the Moon for $30 million a year? Even if you
>>use grad students?
>
>You might be able to _run_ one for that; put it there, hardly.
>
>Why do you think at least a couple centuries before there will
>be significant commerical activity on the Moon?

Wishful thinking mostly. It's more likely that the Moon will never
be the site of major commercial activity. As far as we know it has no
materials we can't get cheaper right here on Earth or from asteroids
and comets, aside from the semi-mythic He3 that *might* be useful in low
grade fusion reactors. Exploring it would satisfy a curiosity itch,
and it's position in the gravity well of Earth coupled with it's heat
sink capacity could offer some military utility for "high ground" military
weapons systems, but it holds very minute commercial value. If space
travel becomes cheap enough, it might become a tourist attraction as
Mt. Everest and the Antarctic have become, but that's a very minor
activity in the global scope of things.

Luna has an inconvienent gravity field. It's likely too low to prevent
calcium loss, muscle atrophy, and long term genetic drift. Yet it's
too high to do micro-G manufacturing. Space based colonies and factories
that can be spun to any convienent value of G look much better. Luna
has a modest vacuum and raw solar exposure two weeks a month, but orbital
sites can have better vacuums and continous solar exposure. Luna offers
a source of light element rocks that can serve as raw materials, heatsink,
and shielding. The asteroids and comets offer sources of both light and
heavy elements, and volatile compounds, and many are in less steep gravity
wells so that less delta-v is required to reach them.

We don't use 2/3rds of the Earth now, the seafloors, and we virtually
ignore Antarctica, a whole continent. That's because we don't have to
deal with those conditions in order to make a buck. Luna is a much more
expensive place to visit, or to live and work. I think we'll use the
easier places first. That pushes Lunar development back at least a few
centuries, if not much longer.

Luna's main short term value would be as a place for a farside radio
astronomy observatory, shielded from the noisy Earth. Or as the site
of a laser, particle beam, or linear accelerator weapons system for
defending Earth, or bombarding it as the case may be. The first is
unlikely because of the high cost for such a basic science instrument.
The second is just as unlikely because conventional nukes are good
enough, and the military would really rather see the Earth safe for
conventional warfare again. There's little glory in watching from a
bunker as machines fight each other over continental ranges. Little
ultimate profit either.

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     |                     |

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

Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 15:38:19 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Haines) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>   If I read you right, you're saying in essence that, with a larger
>   economy, nations will have more discretionary funds to *waste* on a
>   lunar facility. That was certainly partially the case with Apollo,
>   but real Lunar colonies will probably require a continuing
>   military, scientific, or commercial reason for being rather than
>   just a "we have the money, why not?" approach.
>
>Ah, but the whole point is that money spent on a lunar base is not
>wasted on the moon. It's not like they'd be using $1000 (1000R?) bills
>to fuel their moon-dozers. The money to fund a lunar base would be
>spent in the country to which the base belonged. It's a way of funding
>high-tech research, just like DARPA was a good excuse to fund various
>fields of research, under the pretense that it was crucial to the
>defense of the country, or like ESPRIT is a good excuse for the EC to
>fund research, under the pretense that it's good for pan-European
>cooperation.
>
>Now maybe you think that government-funded research is a waste of
>money (in fact, I'm pretty sure you do), but it does count as
>investment spending, which does boost the economy (and just look at
>the size of that multiplier :->).

Actually I favor government funded research. It *is* a pump prime
for a lot of basic technologies. I also understand the short term
value of high tech welfare programs. But they can't substitute for
long range wealth generation via commercial enterprise. That's what's
needed to maintain a healthy economy *anywhere*, on Earth or Luna.
I don't see that long term potential on Luna due to a bunch of
factors I outline in another post.

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     |                     |

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


Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Apr 93 12:53:00 PST
From: "RWTMS2::MUNIZB" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Activities in Tucson, AZ ?
To: "space" <[e-mail]>

I would like to find out about space engineering employment and educational
opportunities in the Tucson, Arizona area.  E-mail responses appreciated.
My mail feed is intermittent, so please try one or all of these addresses.

Ben Muniz      w(818)586-3578      [e-mail]
or:  [e-mail]  [e-mail]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 474
------------------------------