Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V10_2/V10_251.ZIP/V10_251

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

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/oZMZE8y00VcJMhnE5V>;
          Thu, 16 Nov 89 01:30:33 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <AZMZD=[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 89 01:29:33 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #251

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 251

Today's Topics:
               Another spinoff?
            Re: Moon Colonies / Ant Tanks
           Re: Population pressure to move to space
               Inflatable Space Station
          Re: Private Space Industries -- What's up?
                 SPACE DIGEST
           Re: SPACE ACTIVIST ALERT (time critical)
         SPACE ACTIVIST ALERT (time critical)
     Yet Another Crazy Idea For Spacetravel (ROCKETPROPS)
             Request for articles/papers.
           Re: SPACE ACTIVIST ALERT (time critical)
            Re: More about a spacial lift
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 15 Nov 89 16:08:40 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Another spinoff?

>*The Lunar Orbiters (5 of them I think) were used to map the Moon
> for Apollo landing sites.  These probes were unique in that they used
> photographic film, which was developed and then scanned and the images
> transmitted to Earth.   When they ran out of film they were deorbited
> and crashed into the Moon.

Hmmm... This means they had to have self-contained film processing
development machines inside them.  Are the "one-hour photo labs" that use
an automated film processing unit and which are now all over the country
spinoffs from this particular space program?

Regards, Will
[e-mail] OR [e-mail]

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

Date: 15 Nov 89 15:11:00 GMT
From: hp-sdd!apollo![e-mail]  (Steve Rehrauer)
Subject: Re: Moon Colonies / Ant Tanks

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Tilque) writes:
>A few months ago, there was a article in National Geographic about a
>couple who are raising their family on a boat travelling in the sea
>around Antarctica.  They go for months without seeing anyone except
>researchers at isolated stations.  Often weather keeps the kids cooped
>up in the boat for days or even weeks.  By almost any standard, this is
>a rather deprived environment.  Yet they've been doing it for several
>years now and have no plans to quit.

Curious.  I've always had a somewhat romantic view of "life in space" (comes
from reading a great deal of SF while growing up, I suppose), though I can't
rationally explain WHY I would jump at the chance to live "out there" for
a prolonged period.  And yet, when I read the above my first reaction was,
"But WHY in God's name would anyone WANT to do THAT <live in a boat off
Antarctica>??"

While I'd guess a settlement on the moon or Mars would be a BIT less
claustrophobic than the said boat (at least you could occasionally go out
and walk about in the former case), it did cause me to remove a layer of
rose-tint from my views of life on the space frontier.

(And I still want to know why in God's name they're doing it... ;-)
--
>>"Aaiiyeeee!  Death from above!"<< | Steve Rehrauer, [e-mail]
   "Flee, lest we be trod upon!"    | The Apollo Computer Division of H.P.

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

Date: Wed, 15 Nov 89 07:36:41 PST
From: mordor!lll-tis!ames!ucsd!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: crash![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Population pressure to move to space

Richard Johnson writes:
>Besides, have you looked at what sort of space transporation capability
>would be required to put a given amount of "surplus population" into
>space?

The rational approach, as was pointed out by William Hartman in his
book "Out of the Cradle" is to allow industrial growth in space while
putting a cap on it on Earth.  The only transportation required from
Earth to space would then be the seed population and capital equipment.

My ethics are more radical than Hartman's:

We should, in time, remove (through attrition if need be) not only
industrial civilization, but agricultural civilization from Earth's
biosphere.  This would put the steady-state carrying capacity of
Earth for humans at a level equivalent to what it was prior to
agriculture -- millions.  The moral logic here is basically the
same as it is for an aging adolescent who is eating his family out of
house and home and must, therefore, get out of the house and get a job.

The Deep Ecologists have laid the ethical foundation for this argument.
I'm simply taking their logic to its conclusion, and am comfortable
with it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      PHONE: [phone]     BE A SPACE ACTIVIST
PO Box 1981            GET OFF THE NET AND SET UP AN APPOINTMENT WITH YOUR
La Jolla, CA 92038                         CONGRESSMAN!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 15 Nov 89 15:52 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Inflatable Space Station

Has anyone read the 14 November New York Times (Science Times) article
about a proposal made by Lawrence Livermore Laboratories to build an
inflatable space station? If you haven't, the article said:

     1) Livermore Labs could build a 7 module space station, (ea. module
        49ft by 16ft), launch it ALL in ONE rocket by 1992.
     2) By 1994, they could have similar inflatable modules on the Moon
        for our lunar base.
     3) By 1996, they could create a 64ton Mars vehicle that could
        get astronauts to Mars in 305 days.
     4) All for the LOW LOW price of $40 billion - yes, that's 40, not
        400!

NASA said the Livermore team "has good ideas, a lot of in-depth ideas"
that "we didn't dismiss out of hand." NASA is considering funding of the
team for further study, and would have a decision within a month.

Supposedly, Livermore has a lot of connections with the National Space
Council, which is deciding how we should go back to the Moon and off
to Mars.

BTW, the modules would be built of Kevlar. Something that wasn't around
when NASA dismissed the idea of inflatable space stations as being too
dangerous in the 1950's through the 70's.

Does anyone know more about it? It sounds awfully good to me. Anyone else
out there interested stepping up the pace of our space program? ;-)

  "IIIIIIIIIIII like it"                  Craig Cole V071PZP4@UBVM
    - Chevy Chase in  _Modern Problems_    University at Buffalo

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

Date: 15 Nov 89 06:16:31 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Private Space Industries -- What's up?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David M VomLehn) writes:
>I've been wondering what's going on with Amroc since their recent launch failure
>and haven't seen news on or off the net.  Are they going to try again?

It was a setback, and they've laid off people, but they are planning to
try again.  The payloads, contrary to some early reports, were almost
undamaged.

>And what about others, such as SSI of Houston?  I seem to remember that they
>were working on something called the Conestoga.

SSI still has no customers for orbital launches, last I heard, but they are
flying sounding-rocket missions for NASA researchers.
--
A bit of tolerance is worth a  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
megabyte of flaming.           | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 15 Nov 89 10:58:37
From: Robert Snijders ECD <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPACE DIGEST

Could you put me on the distribution list of SPACE DIGEST?

Robert-Jan Snijders
EARN: ESC1949 at ESOC

Thanks

End of Message

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

Date: 15 Nov 89 20:16:50 GMT
From: ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu![e-mail]  (David Pugh)
Subject: Re: SPACE ACTIVIST ALERT (time critical)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Bowery) writes:
>SPACE ACTIVIST ALERT 11/15/89 (time critical)
>Call for Rep. Robert Roe's support of NASA's redesign
>of the American Space Station "Freedom" and resist
>international pressures against the redesign.
>....

Say what? Last I heard, the Europeans and Japanese had every reason to
scream over the latest redesign of the space station. Personally, I'm
getting sick and tired of NASA screwing Europe and Japan over on the
space station. If you want an _American_ space station, fine. I want
the best possible space station and I don't care who builds it.

NASA had better learn, soon, that its Not Invented Here and Me First
attitude is driving the European and Japanese away. Which is a pity,
because they have excellent people and ideas which would be a big
help.

As examples of NASA stupidity (I don't know how many of these are still
current):
    Use of English measurements on the station.
    Non-standard power supply.
    Delaying the launch of European/Japanese modules.
    Delaying (canceling?) the European free-flyer (Columbus?).

If congress is pushing NASA to listen to "international pressures," then
more power to congress.
--
... He was determined to discover the        David Pugh
underlying logic behind the universe.        ...!seismo!cmucspt!ius3!dep
    Which was going to be hard, because
there wasn't one.    _Mort_,  Terry Pratchett

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

Date: Wed, 15 Nov 89 11:10:56 PST
From: mordor!lll-tis!ames!ucsd!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: crash![e-mail]
Subject: SPACE ACTIVIST ALERT (time critical)

SPACE ACTIVIST ALERT 11/15/89 (time critical)


OBJECTIVE

Call for Rep. Robert Roe's support of NASA's redesign
of the American Space Station "Freedom" and resist
international pressures against the redesign.


PROCEDURE

Call Rep. Roe's Administrative Assistant, Angela Milazzo at
202/225-5751.  Insist on speaking directly to her.  Keep
trying until you get her.  Clearly communicate that Rep. Roe
must give the newly appointed NASA Administrator, Admiral Truly,
full support for his redesign of the AMERICAN Space Station
Freedom in the face of international political pressure to
keep the old design.  He must not only stop them from
pressuring NASA, but must enlist their support of the new
design, conceived as it was, by the people who put humans
on the Moon successfully during the Apollo program.


BACKGROUND

Due to some regretable difficulties early in the program,
Admiral Truly, upon appointment to the post of NASA
Administrator, was forced to reassess the design of the
American Space Station Freedom.  He appointed competent
individuals, the kind who put America on the Moon first
during the Apollo program, to come up with a more economical
design.  Upon learning that Admiral Truly had shown some
genuine leadership and ignored the petty politics on Capital
Hill, many members of Congress became infuriated, pointing
to the complaints of the international partners as evidence
that Admiral Truly should have "gone through proper channels"
before doing what he had to do.  We must let our Congressmen
know that when a NASA Administrator shows the leadership
shown by Admiral Truly, that they should line up in support
of him -- not try to fight him in favor of foreign interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      PHONE: [phone]     BE A SPACE ACTIVIST
PO Box 1981            GET OFF THE NET AND SET UP AN APPOINTMENT WITH YOUR
La Jolla, CA 92038                         CONGRESSMAN!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 14 Nov 89 23:32:27 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Yet Another Crazy Idea For Spacetravel (ROCKETPROPS)

With the recent work on the unducted fan (UDF) concept by GE, Boeing, McD,
etc, I'm wondering whether a similar idea can be applied to rockets.

Basically, the idea is this:  have a single piece, which would be a large
fan on the outside and a small fan on the inside.  The inner fan would
actually be inside the rocket's exhaust.  This would drive the outer fan,
which would be used to move a large volume of air.

The advantage would be greater efficiency while the proprocket is in the air,
just as bypass engines provided a great increase in jet engine efficiency
back in the 1960's and UDF engines hold the promise of a similar increase
in the 1990's.

I suppose this idea must have been thought of before.  Anyone know its
history?  How about putting the fan on the outside of a spin-stabilized
rocket, has that been tried?

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 15 Nov 89 09:19:50 EST
Resent-From: Harold Pritchett <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: Space discussion group <[e-mail]>
Date:     Tue, 14 Nov 89 18:10 CDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Request for articles/papers.

Hi,
 My father edits the "Creative Science and Technology" magazine;
Which is distributed nation wide. Among his past authors you can
find Herbert Simon, Linus Pauling, Edward Teller, Buchminster Fuller
and other internationally known scientists and engineers.
 Articles in the areas of physical science, life science and technology
are hearby solicited. We are sorry that we are not able to pay for
articles, since the magazine is free for minorities and women who
attend the schools on the distribution list. We hope that your
satisfaction will come from, turning young minds on to the fields
of science and technology.
 You may submit articles, along with a short biographical sketch, either
through Email or Snail-Mail. Thanks in advance.
                                                     Sincerely,
                                                     Raymond M. A. Erdey


Snail-Mail   : Dr. Michael R. A. Erdey
               P. O. Box 1852
               Auburn, Alabama 36831-1852

Phone Office : [phone]
      Home   : [phone]

BITNET       : Raymond@AuDucVAX

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

Date: 15 Nov 89 20:26:51 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: SPACE ACTIVIST ALERT (time critical)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Bowery) writes:
>Call Rep. Roe's Administrative Assistant, Angela Milazzo at
>202/225-5751.  Insist on speaking directly to her.  Keep
>trying until you get her.  ...

The above quoted instruction skates dangerously close to harassment.
Administrative assistants and other House and Senate staff are not
elected public servants; they work for their Congressman bosses, who are
entitled to run their offices as they see fit within the rules.  If Rep.
Roe wants someone else to handle space activist calls, that's it.  A
private citizen has no right to "insist on speaking to" a particular
employee, or interfere with the business of Congress by persisting.

There's nothing wrong with politely saying you'd strongly prefer to
speak with person X, but "keep trying until you get her" is BAD advice.
Space activism needs to be a welcome voice on the Hill, not cause for
calling Capitol security.

--
"DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT blow the hatch!"  /)\   Tom Neff
"Roger....hatch blown!"                   \(/   [e-mail]

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

Date: 15 Nov 89 06:02:44 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: More about a spacial lift

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>If the figures given in the "Science" article are correct, the mass
>of a quartz cable capable of withstanding a 200km/h wind would be
>200 tons. Is that heavy? It's just one fourth of the Effeil Tower...
>If NASA can't put that much in orbit, I'm sure Ariane will...

Hmph.  Forget NASA and Arianespace; Glavcosmos can do it in one launch.

>Now my point was not only an Earth lift, but also a Moon one. That
>one has several advantages...

And one large disadvantage:  very, very slow rotation.  Remember, it's
centrifugal force that holds the thing up.  What you want is low gravity
and fast rotation.  Mars is a much better place for a space elevator
than the Moon.
--
A bit of tolerance is worth a  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
megabyte of flaming.           | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #251
*******************