Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V10_2/V10_227.ZIP/V10_227

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/UZKI89W00VcJEQnE5y>;
          Thu,  9 Nov 89 04:23:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu,  9 Nov 89 04:22:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #227

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 227

Today's Topics:
               Re: space stamp
            Re: Moon Colonies / Ant Tanks?
         Re: galileo and me (space volunteers unite)
              Re: Advice?? (asking for)
              Re: Advice?? (asking for)
            Re: Moon Colonies / Ant Tanks?
           Re: Tracking Military Satellites
               Re: A "spacey" ambition?
              Re: COBE Press Kit (long)
            Re: Moon Colonies / Ant Tanks?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 89 17:39:55 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: space stamp

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan Duester) writes:
>I don't know if you're all aware of it, but there is currently a space
>stamp at the US Post Office. It's a $2.40 priority mail stamp of some
>kind, and it depicts two astronauts planting a US flag on the lunar
>surface.
>
The stamp was made to commemorate the 20th anniversary of man on the moon.


 Ron Baalke                       |    [phone] x260
 Jet Propulsion Lab  M/S 301-355  |    [e-mail]
 4800 Oak Grove Dr.               |
 Pasadena, CA 91109               |

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

Date: 8 Nov 89 14:55:41 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Moon Colonies / Ant Tanks?

It's also worth noting that, as far as we know, the early failed
attempts to colonize the New World were due to the colonists getting
*slaughtered by existing inhabitants* of the place.  (Never mind who
started it.)  Without dangers like this, it would be hard to fail on the
lush Virginia coast.  To me, Moon/America "hazards of colonization"
comparisons are little short of ludicrous.

Had the Mayflower gone off track and tried to colonize the Sahara, it
would have been cake compared to what awaits Moon people.

--
"Take off your engineering hat   | "The filter has      | Tom Neff
and put on your management hat." | discreting sources." | [e-mail]

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

Date: 7 Nov 89 22:00:19 GMT
From: milton!maven![e-mail]  (Games Wizard)
Subject: Re: galileo and me (space volunteers unite)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael F Lawson) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Phillipson 5-0134) writes:
>>
>>   ... I don't know about you but I want my children
>>   to be able to live and work in space exploring the unknown.
>>
>>It was a thrill to watch the launch and I would work for free to get into
>>space (or at least for room and board)...
>
> Isn't this sad.  There are so many of us who would give up most of our free
> time to work toward getting into space.  I would really not mind paying more
> taxes to fund it, either, if the job were done 'right'.  It seems to me that
> a volunteer, engineering-based organization could really make some miracles
> happen, since the major costs would be hardware, not salaries.  I suppose that
> the biggest problem with this approach would be to coordinate people all across
> the country or world.

This very net could produce a method of managing much of the task.

>
> Maybe one day this country/government/space agency will realize that
> bureaucracy only seems to produce more of the same.
>
> Mike Lawson
> [e-mail]


Along the major line of this article, I too would volunteer my services (time
money, etc) to an organization that was committed to doing a good job.

When I first started reading this group about 2 or three months ago, I
saw several efforts that appeared to be doing just that, however
most of these groups seem to be under funded ( to be sure ), and they seem to
suffer from a lack of volunteers.  Just to test the waters though and see how
they were really doing, I sent off some money (for thier newsletter,
subscribership, plans for what they were doing, etc... ), and here it is
at least a month or so later, and I have not heard from any of the
organizations in question.

At this point I could make a bunch of romantic statements about the lack
of ethic in the US, and how we will all die from it someday ( or at least be
overrun by some other country ), but I wont.  The reason I won't is that
I believe that these groups are too small to really accomplish anything.
I think that they are too small to attract the quality of volunteer engineering
that it would take to build something significant in space.  And I think that
they are too small to manage themselfs effectivley.  This also implies that they
are too small to attract the type of media attention that it would take to
grow to the point where they would be large enough to accomplish their goals.

I do not bemoan the loss of the money, I bemoan the fact that there does not
seem to be a volunteer program capable of taking advantage of the hoards
of volunteer hours that could be available ( not to mention the money ).

Either that or the rest of us are so wrapped up in making money at what we
are doing, that we are not willing to commit any time or money to such a
venture.  I do know that for myself that I would not want to commit a large
ammount of either time or money to a venture that looked to be doomed to
failure ( either through bad management, or lack of funds or interest)

This seems to be such a good concept, why is it not a reality?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trendy footer by:
            John Stevens-Schlick
            Internet?: [e-mail]
            7720 35'th Ave S.W. Seattle, Wa. 98126
            (206) 935 - 4384
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My boss dosen't know what I do.

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

Date: 9 Nov 89 04:50:44 GMT
From: pur-phy!maxwell.physics.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (Kevin R. Grazier)
Subject: Re: Advice?? (asking for)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> I wrote:
>>... For results, you want space science, which
>>tends to be classed as physics and astronomy...

>An addendum is in order here:  one particular subdivision of space science,
>to wit planetary science (which is *not* all of space science even though
>Chairman Carl tends to give that impression at times...), is sometimes
>found in geology departments.


Actually, having just applied all over the place in planetary science
(and deciding to stay here at PU), I think you'll find that planetary
science is *USUALLY* found in geology departments.

In my case, Purdue doesn't have a formal planetary science degree, but
upon speaking with a professor or five, they're allowing me to taylor
my coursework and research to allow me to get the equivalent educational
experience as a planetary science major would get (though my final degree
will probably officially read "geophysics").


Kevin R. Grazier                           Purdue: the home of astronauts
Purdue University Physics Department                     and quarterbacks.
INTERNET: [e-mail]
UUCP: (att | decvax | ucbvax | rutgers )!pur-ee!pur-phy!grazier

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

Date: 8 Nov 89 05:58:05 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (JOHNSON RICHARD J)
Subject: Re: Advice?? (asking for)

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> I wrote:
>>... For results, you want space science, which
>>tends to be classed as physics and astronomy...
>
>An addendum is in order here: ...planetary science ... is sometimes
>found in geology departments.

And a further addendum:  Let's not forget biological and medical science,
perhaps two of the best fields to get into if you want to be involved in
human spaceflight.


| Richard Johnson                           [e-mail] |
|    CSC doesn't necessarily share my opinions, but is welcome to.     |
|  Power Tower...Dual Keel...Phase One...Allison/bertha/Colleen...?... |
|   Space Station Freedom is Dead.  Long Live Space Station Freedom!   |

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

Date: 7 Nov 89 19:55:57 GMT
From: uceng![e-mail]  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: Moon Colonies / Ant Tanks?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (daniel mocsny) writes:
> >The
> >difference is inherent and should remain approximately the same
> >despite technological advance, e.g., any technological advance that
> >makes life on the Moon cheaper should make life on the Earth cheaper
> >by a comparable factor.
>
> Please justify this.  The big cost of living on the Moon is the transport
> costs to get there, which have no equivalent on Earth.

Surviving on the Moon requires an elaborately engineered and
maintained environment. Surviving on the Earth is relatively easy.
If the power goes off, most people don't start automatically dying
here.

Life in inherently harder on the Moon. This is a fundamental cost
difference that wouldn't go away even if transportation was cheap.
(Consider how cheaply we can push containers off the deck of a ship;
nonetheless, we still can't economically build cities on the ocean
floor.) Cheap transportation, however, would help, particularly if
the Moonies could find some high-value-added product to trade for
Earth-manufactured life support supplies and equipment.  That would
allow the Moon colony to get started without having to first assemble
the massive infrastructure necessary to self-sustain life there.
I can't imagine what such a product would be (tourism? information?
religion?), but something may be possible.

While transportation costs may eventually be within the means of the
average individual for sending high specific value items, I can't
imagine that transportation costs will become low enough in the next
few decades to put a reasonbly low floor on the price of water and air
on the Moon. Water and air are phenomenally important commodities.  We
are accustomed to paying little or nothing for them on Earth. Air and
water are not only necessary to sustain life, but one or both play
critical roles in virtually every industrial process. The net result
is that the per capita consumption of air and water in industrial
countries is surprisingly large, and most of this consumption is
indirect.

Now certainly because these commodities are so cheap here we have
plenty of room for improving our use efficiency, recycling, etc.
However, this costs money (i.e., energy, materials, labor), with the
result that Earth-based heavy industry can't realize a reasonable
return on investment at sites without adequate water supplies. Go
visit any large plant that produces commodity materials; as often as
not, the largest single flow through that plant is process water. We
simply do not know how to profitably operate an industrial society
without essentially free water.

Accordingly, the most important factors for determining the economic
feasibility of a Moon colony are, I believe, the costs of water and
air. Since we don't know whether the Moon has exploitable stores of
comet ices, we can't guess what the costs will be. We can be certain,
however, that air and water will cost more on the Moon than they do on
Earth. This unavoidably translates into the average worker having to
invest more labor into procuring fundamental life support. If the
costs relative to labor productivity are high enough, then the average
worker will have to invest more than 1 hour of labor to obtain the
life support for 1 hour. That will mean the Moon colony can't survive
without a heavy subsidy.

Dan Mocsny
[e-mail]

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

Date: 9 Nov 89 01:40:31 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Tracking Military Satellites


Richard Langley ([e-mail]) writes:

>From the October 1989 issue of Amateur Satellite Obervers:
>
>FLASHER
>This story was well reported in the Oct. 9th issue of AW&ST.  And
>there is a photograph that shows the flash.  Intelligence sources
>admit that there was some malfunction after its deployment from
>Columbia but now it's working.  The article draws no conclusion
>itself, but banners: Secret CIA Satellite Observed "Tumbling" by
>Astronomers in 7 countries.

However, in the report of the current shuttle status there was the
line: "installation of the extravehicular mobility units."

Is this the unit which is used by astronauts to rescue a satellite?

Would this be a possibility?  Would anyone be able to tell if the rogue
satellite was rescued?

-- Daniel Pommert

email.internet:    [e-mail]
email.bitnet:    daniel@uiucvmd

phone:    [phone]

post:    DCL Rm, 150
    1304 W. Springfield
    Urbana, IL  61801-2987

where:    40  6 47 N Latitude
    88 13 36 W Longitude

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

Date: 8 Nov 89 14:15:41 GMT
From: mfci![e-mail]  (Robert Colwell)
Subject: Re: A "spacey" ambition?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (mccain wb 17021) writes:
>In reference to the recent discussions of how to get into space, how would
>one actually go about applying?  Is there some toll free number at NASA I
>could call to get an application sent to me, or is the process itself a
>closely held secret?  I would appreciate hearing what anyone knows on the
>subject.

I quote:

  The application package may be obtained by writing to
     NASA, Johnson Space Center
    Astronaut Selection Office
    Attn: AHX
    Houston, TX 77058

Bob Colwell               ..!uunet!mfci!colwell
Multiflow Computer     or [e-mail]
31 Business Park Dr.
Branford, CT 06405     203-488-6090

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

Date: 9 Nov 89 03:16:41 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: COBE Press Kit (long)

Neither this press kit nor the AvWeek article satisfactorily explains
a basic question:  Why does COBE need that sun synchronous orbit?
Why isn't an ordinary equatorial orbit good enough?
--
Knowing *when* to optimize is just   >>>/     Tom Neff
  as important as knowing *how*.       /<<<   [e-mail]

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

Date: 8 Nov 89 04:09:48 GMT
From: norge![e-mail]  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: Moon Colonies / Ant Tanks?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (daniel mocsny) writes:
> The masses don't
>move until either (1) things get so bad where they are that any
>move seems like a probable improvement, or (2) the economic
>rewards of moving become clearly apparent and irresistible.
>So whether the economic motive is a carrot and/or a stick, it
>is still economic.
>
>I have a very, very hard time imagining that either of conditions (1)
>or (2) will motivate massive relocations off-planet anytime soon
>(i.e., within my lifetime). Traveling into space and setting up shop
>there is phenomenally expensive compared to living on earth. The
>difference is inherent and should remain approximately the same
>despite technological advance, e.g., any technological advance that
>makes life on the Moon cheaper should make life on the Earth cheaper
>by a comparable factor. Since living on the Moon will be economically
>disadvantageous compared to living on the Earth for the foreseeable
>future, forget about mass migrations being driven economics.

In my opinion, economics is exactly what will drive mass migration into
space. There are very many people on the planet (both today and in the
future) who suffer from severe resource deprivation. I mean resources
in the most general sense possible, ie. food, land, room, paths to wealth
and dreams, etc. As soon as it becomes economically feasible to move to,
to live, and to exploit the resources in space, millions, billions, etc.
of people will do so. All that's required is the technology to make this
feasible. Given continuing technological advance and an arbitrary length
of time, the technology will exist. That's why I say the mass colonization
of space is inevitable.

As to when this will happen, well technological advance is difficult to
predict. Given that drastic advances in all aspects of space technology
are essential, the time could be substantial, but in any case we can only
make wild guesses. I think this mass movement of Man into space is the
fundamental goal of all manned space efforts. NASA even mentions it
somewhere among all its other conflicting goals. Unfortunately, given this
fundamental goal, every manned space program on the planet is badly
misguided and wasteful. This extremely inefficient use of R&D resources
means it will take that much longer before the technology exists.

John L. McKernan.                                                  [e-mail]
Disclaimer: These are my opinions but, shockingly enough, not necessarily Sun's
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #227
*******************