Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V15_0/V15NO018.ZIP/V15NO018

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 29KB

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 05:05:16
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #018
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 21 Jul 92       Volume 15 : Issue 018

Today's Topics:
            Antimatter (was propulsion questions) (3 msgs)
   Astronomy Lab for MS Windows 3.X - BETA TESTERS NEEDED (2 msgs)
                         ESA Future (4 msgs)
         If the sun went out-how long life survive? (3 msgs)
                             Labour Costs
   No markets in space? (was Re: Chemical unit operations in space)
                    Propulsion questions (3 msgs)
                        Solar Power Satellites
   Space Transportation Infrastructure Costs (Was Re: Interstates)
     Star Trek and public perception of space/science/engineering
       Support Lunar Resource Mapper Too!  Re: Manned/Unmanned

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]".  Please do **NOT** send (un)subscription
    requests to that address!  Instead, send a message 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: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 18:28:48 GMT
From: Thomas Clarke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antimatter (was propulsion questions)
Newsgroups: sci.space

It should be possible to chemically
contain an antiproton in the form of an antiproton salt.
Nowadays you could imagine capturing an
antiproton in a positively charged bucky-ball cage, but there are
also molecules like ferrocene that capture an ion between
two five membered carbon rings.

Once you've got some of this stuff, disolve a little bit in water,
ammonia, whatever and burn in an "ordinary" rocket engine.  The
heat of the engine decomposes the chemical releasing the antiproton
which then annihilates releasing lots of energy and generating more
heat.  Should a solution prove impractical then the antiproton salt
could be injected seperately.

The obvious name for an antiproton salt it dilithium :-)
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
[phone], FAX: [phone], [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 18:17:24 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antimatter (was propulsion questions)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rob Douglas) writes:
>|> ... antimatter needs far less.  Milligrams
>|> may not sound like much, but they can turn an awful lot of hydrogen into
>|> incandescent gas.  This would put the solar system in our hands.
>|>
>OK, now to play earths advocate, what kind of danger does releasing all that
>incandescent gas, etc. cause.

None whatsoever.  It's hot hydrogen.  The Sun pumps out billions of tons
of hot hydrogen every second.

>Also, security has to be pretty damn tight to keep  people
>away from this stuff, I suppose, because releasing it makes it go BOOM,
>right??

Antimatter isn't a very efficient explosive.  If you dropped an anti-iron
cannonball, it would just sit there and sizzle.  (The radiation would make
the immediate neighborhood very unhealthy, mind you.)  The security needed
to prevent *accidentally* dropping stuff that is worth billions of dollars
a gram should mostly suffice as protection against simple forms of malice.
It is, in any case, not something you can put in your pocket, because it's
stable only inside a substantial piece of equipment.

Even if you assume a massively-worst case, with milligram quantities the
total explosive potential is similar to that of major chemical plants today.

>So how safe is the idea of starting an antimatter drive system??? ...

No less safe than, say, manufacturing kiloton quantities of ammonium
perchlorate for solid rockets.  In fact it's substantially more safe.
There is just no way to handle kiloton quantities of *anything* with
meticulous caution -- as witness what happened to one of the US's two
ammonium-perchlorate plants a few years ago -- because the masses are
just too large.  Milligrams are much easier to be fussy about.

If we start talking about gram or kilogram quantities of antimatter,
we wouldn't want to do antimatter processing on that scale here anyway.
Antimatter is *the* quintessential example of a product that is more
easily made and handled in space.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 20 Jul 92 21:30:31 GMT
From: SCOTT I CHASE <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antimatter (was propulsion questions)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes...
>
>Antimatter isn't a very efficient explosive.  If you dropped an anti-iron
>cannonball, it would just sit there and sizzle.  (The radiation would make
>the immediate neighborhood very unhealthy, mind you.)  The security needed
>to prevent *accidentally* dropping stuff that is worth billions of dollars
>a gram should mostly suffice as protection against simple forms of malice.
>It is, in any case, not something you can put in your pocket, because it's
>stable only inside a substantial piece of equipment.

This doesn't sound right.  What makes you think that the energy release would
be so slow?  The outer surface would be continuously annihilating with
air and whatever surface you drop it on.  It's not at all clear that
things would be so nice as you describe.

-Scott

--------------------
Scott I. Chase            "The question seems to be of such a character
[e-mail]        that if I should come to life after my death
                and some mathematician were to tell me that it
                had been definitely settled, I think I would
                immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver

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

Date: 20 Jul 92 17:53:30 GMT
From: Brad Johanson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Astronomy Lab for MS Windows 3.X - BETA TESTERS NEEDED
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.ibm.pc.misc,sci.astro,sci.space,sci.edu,comp.windows.ms.programmer,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d

Sorry, I know that I shouldn't post this, but the mail bounced when I
tried to e-mail to you.

Bounced Message----------------
To: [e-mail] (Eric Bergman-Terrell)
Subject: Re: Astronomy Lab for MS Windows 3.X - BETA TESTERS NEEDED


Name: Brad Johanson
US Mail Address: 12 Barn Rd, Mill Valley, Ca. 94941-1602
E-Mail Address: [e-mail]
Version of MS-Windows: v3.1 and v3.0 running under OS/2 2.0
Version of MS-DOS: v.5.0 (v.5.0 simulated w/ OS/2 2.0)
CPU: 486/33
Math Coprocessor (not required): internal
Memory: 24 MB
Graphics Card: Diamond Speed Star +
Printer: DeskJet 500C

I am interested in testing your program.  I am fairly experienced in
astronomy and have taken some courses in it.  In addition, I spend
some of my free time doing astronomy (mainly stargazing).

---->Brad<----

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

Date: 20 Jul 92 19:44:44 GMT
From: Tom Fisher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Astronomy Lab for MS Windows 3.X - BETA TESTERS NEEDED
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.ibm.pc.misc,sci.astro,sci.space,sci.edu,comp.windows.ms.programmer,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d

 Sorry, I know that I shouldn't post this, but the mail bounced when I
 tried to e-mail to you.

 Bounced Message----------------
 To: [e-mail] (Eric Bergman-Terrell)
 Subject: Re: Astronomy Lab for MS Windows 3.X - BETA TESTERS NEEDED


 Name: Tom Fisher
 US Mail Address: 7629 E. 300 N., Lafayette, IN 47905
 E-Mail Address: [e-mail]
 Version of MS-Windows: v3.1
 Version of MS-DOS: v.5.0
 CPU: 486/33
 Math Coprocessor (not required): internal
 Memory: 8 MB
 Graphics Card: Diamond - TSENG4000
 Printer: HPIIIP

 I am interested in testing your program.

Tom Fisher
[e-mail]

--
====================================================================
Tom Fisher                    |  "...if by chance we find each
[e-mail]      |  other, it is beautiful. If not,
Phone [phone]          |  it can't be helped."   -   F. Perls

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

Date: 20 Jul 92 17:09:56 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: ESA Future
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>ESA could buy space and transport to Mir. Somebody should make sure the Russian
>capabilities don't rot.

Well, yes, but then they don't have independent acess to space, which was one
of the reasons ESA was founded in the first place.  Sort of pointless.

--
Matthew DeLuca                      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Georgia Institute of Technology      P.O. box."
Office of Information Technology                - Zebediah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]              _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: 20 Jul 92 17:59:48 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: ESA Future
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>ESA could buy space and transport to Mir. Somebody should make sure the Russian
>>capabilities don't rot.
>
>Well, yes, but then they don't have independent acess to space, which was one
>of the reasons ESA was founded in the first place.  Sort of pointless.

De world has changed. Good money makes for good friends.

Besides, it's still "Europe" .. just very EAST Europe.


   Previous signature chastized by Canadian Grad Student who flayed the United
   States as a bully from his bastion of free speech in Pittsburgh, PA.
                    Yes, fact IS stranger that fiction.
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 18:19:19 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: ESA Future
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>>ESA could buy space and transport to Mir. Somebody should make sure the
>>Russian capabilities don't rot.
>Well, yes, but then they don't have independent acess to space, which was one
>of the reasons ESA was founded in the first place.  Sort of pointless.

Not at all.  Just make Russia an ESA member.  It *is* a European country!
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 20 Jul 92 19:28:57 GMT
From: "Philippos A. Peleties" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ESA Future
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>
>>>ESA could buy space and transport to Mir. Somebody should make sure the Russian
>>>capabilities don't rot.
>>
>>Well, yes, but then they don't have independent acess to space, which was one
>>of the reasons ESA was founded in the first place.  Sort of pointless.
>

Not quite. Russia most likely will become an ESA member some time in
the not-so-distant future, in which case "independent" access will be
restored (or event exists for the first time :-)) Investing in the
Russian Space cababilities could pay off in a big time. Risk but
calculated nevertheless.


>De world has changed. Good money makes for good friends.
>
>Besides, it's still "Europe" .. just very EAST Europe.
>
>
>   Previous signature chastized by Canadian Grad Student who flayed the United
>   States as a bully from his bastion of free speech in Pittsburgh, PA.
>                    Yes, fact IS stranger that fiction.
>  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --


--


I speak for myself, I think for myself, I work for myself ... but I don't want
to play by myself ... so bring your toys and let's share ...

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

Date: 20 Jul 92 17:49:41 GMT
From: Jon J Thaler <[e-mail]>
Subject: If the sun went out-how long life survive?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Richard Ottolini) says:

> Maybe the sun has gone out already, at least in the fusioning core :-)
> The measured number of neutrinos is only a half to a third of that
> predicted.

The most recent result, from the GALLEX experiment, is
83 +- 19 (stat) +- 8 (sys) SNUs.  Solar model calculations predict
about 125, so this result is 2/3 of the prediction, and only 2 sigma
away from it.  GALLEX (in France) and SAGE (in the FSU) are the only
experiments sensitive to primary p-p neutrinos.  Previous experiments
(Homestake and Kamiokande) only see higher energy neutrinos from side
reactions.  This makes the previous experiments much more sensitive
to unknown solar parameters such as the temperature in the core.

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 19:31:16 GMT
From: Sherwood Botsford <[e-mail]>
Subject: If the sun went out-how long life survive?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Mark Schlegel writes
>
> But hypothetically removing all sources of energy and miraculously
> removing all the thermal energy from the sun so it's a cold body,
> we have to remember that the earth is in a state of equilibrium of
> receiving solar energy and emitting or reflecting visible or infrared
> radiation.  The flux on the top of the atmosphere from the sun is
> about 1300 W per square meter so the average loss is ~ 650 W per m2 per day
> (but only a normal temp. at cold temps this is less).  So figure out
> the total heat capacity of the whole mass of the atmosphere, include
> the latent heat from the liquifaction of all the different gases,
> water first, then CO2, O2, N2, etc.  I'm not going to do it!
>

A first approximation could be to look at the cooling rate when the sun is
turned off each night.  If the air is clear, this is typically 10-15 C.  With
heavy overcast it's 5 C.  If 0 happens to be in the range, you can deduct about
4-6 degrees from that range due to latent heat effects.

Using those two as bounds, it would take 3-5 weeks before atmospheric gasses
started to liquify.  However, most of the civilized world would stop in a week.

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

Date: 20 Jul 92 20:52:15 GMT
From: Richard Spear <rspear@sookit>
Subject: If the sun went out-how long life survive?
Newsgroups: sci.space

##...most of the civilized world would stop in a week.

that shoots down the idea expressed in an earlier post that science
would solve the problem if it came up.

--
richard
[e-mail]
all disclaimers apply

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 17:58:21 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Labour Costs
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ralph Buttigieg) writes:
>Does anyone have an idea as to how much labour cost contribute to the cost
>of a launch of a commercial rocket like the Atlas or Ariane?

Labor costs are overwhelmingly the dominant factor in the costs of all
current launch systems.  Materials and processing costs are minor by
comparison.

>It seems to me that rockets from  third world countries like, Russia,China
>etc may have an advantage here.

Undoubtedly.  There is a lot of room for debate about how much, however,
and this complicates the question of whether they are offering launches
below cost.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 20 Jul 92 14:30:34 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: No markets in space? (was Re: Chemical unit operations in space)
Newsgroups: sci.space

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>
>>The economics of space activity depend on both cost/lb. of transportation
>>and value/lb. of the goods transported (eg comsats).  Value/lb. (eg
>>telephone circuits) has been increasing at a rate several orders of
>>magnitude higher than the decrease in cost/lb.  If that trend continues
>>or accelerates, we will be processing materials in space long before
>>launch cost/lb. comes down significantly.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>Materials
>processing, on the other hand, is likely to be a continuing series of launches
>and retrievals, meaning that launch costs are going to be an ongoing expense.

"Likely" only under the traditional assumption of launching such
materials from Earth.  There are plenty of materials in space, and
the trends indicate we will be processing these long before launch
costs come way down.   There is no lower theoretical limit on mass
needed to start the native materials bootstrapping process.  Tele-
communications will still be important to operations of these plants, so
the comparison is valid.  Our industrial flexibility (eg micromanufacturing,
3D printing, robotics) and knowledge of the solar system is also increasing
at at a rate much faster than the efficiency of launchers.


--
[e-mail]  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at [phone] (1200/2400, N81)

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 17:15:58 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Propulsion questions
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <rmartin.711643766@thor>, [e-mail] (Bob Martin) writes:
>What about Arthur C. Clarke's A-Drive.  Blow a small stream of
>reaction mass past a mini-black hole (A few tons??, the size of a
>proton??)

[snip-snip]

>Of course, the creation of mini-black holes is problematic...

David Brin speculated on the creation of mini-black holes in his novel _Earth_.
Some interesting concepts in the book, but it got very Greenpeaceish at the
end.

   Previous signature chastized by Canadian Grad Student who flayed the United
   States as a bully from his bastion of free speech in Pittsburgh, PA.
                    Yes, fact IS stranger that fiction.
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 18:03:02 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Propulsion questions
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Haines) writes:
>So the anti-proton idea seems to die. So how _do_ you contain
>anti-hydrogen?

Really, folks, read some of the literature on antimatter propulsion.
This is not a difficult problem; there are multiple solutions, although
nobody has yet done the detailed engineering to figure out which is
best.

The most obvious method is to put a *small* electrostatic charge on an
antihydrogen pellet and move it around with electric fields.  If it's
in the right size range, you can move it around with light pressure,
although losses may heat it too much.  (Light-pressure levitation of
small glass beads against 1G has been demonstrated.)  Antihydrogen,
like hydrogen, should be diamagnetic -- weakly repelled by magnetic
fields -- as a solid.  There are probably other methods.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 19:39:55 GMT
From: Sherwood Botsford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Propulsion questions
Newsgroups: sci.space

>
> (if you have only a microgram of protons in your one-metre bottle, the
> potential energy is as high as the mass energy).
>
> So the anti-proton idea seems to die. So how _do_ you contain
> anti-hydrogen?
>
> Nick Haines [e-mail]

Is this then a means of storing energy at higher densities than merely having
it as mass?  (Anti protons, heck, we'll just stuff a pound of electrons into a
soda straw.  Point it away from the direction you want to go, and snip off the
end...)

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 17:03:55 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Solar Power Satellites
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:

>    You're right, and most professional astronomers figure (rightly)
>that given a miniscule percentage of the launch mass required for even a
>lunar-materials using SPS, they can do better science from orbit
>than they'll lose due to light pollution on the ground.

It would be a sad thing to f@#$ over the amateur astronomers in the name of
progress.

>*Re: costs; Interesting new work suggests that it's possible to build
>a SPS in the 5 gigawat range (sort of standard sized) with about 85,000
>tons of mass, 99.4+-% of which can be lunar.  Thus the potential cost
>is as low as 540 tons to GEO, plus lunar & L2 factories, plus the space

>transportration infrastructure to move stuff from a L2 factory to GEO.
>Which is half to an eighth of what earlier estimates looked like.
>The estimated cost of building an SPS is coming down, presuming that
>lunar materials work...

Golden's number 2 guy would rather keep the stuff on the moon. Makes more
sense, and no shipping costs to LEO. Why add more complexity? Just cover the
moon with farms and beam it back...


   Previous signature chastized by Canadian Grad Student who flayed the United
   States as a bully from his bastion of free speech in Pittsburgh, PA.
                    Yes, fact IS stranger that fiction.
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 20 Jul 92 18:07:58 GMT
From: Bruce Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Transportation Infrastructure Costs (Was Re: Interstates)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

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

Date: 20 Jul 92 18:10:51 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Star Trek and public perception of space/science/engineering
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Josh Woolard) writes:
>
>  BHBJ> In article <[e-mail]>,
>  BHBJ> [e-mail] (Shari L Brooks) writes:
>>>STNG is very interesting from the viewpoint of
>>>science and engineering - they
>>>*must* have a few staff members or consultants
>>>checking things out and coming
>>>up with ideas. I wouldn't sat they get everything
>>>right, and they do take a
>>>little dramatic license, but at least they
>>>introduce the ideas to the public.
>
>  BHBJ> They do okay (for television SF) by astronomy, but have you noticed
>  BHBJ> how bad the chemistry is?  They are constantly mentioning substances
>  BHBJ> unknown to 20th-century chemistry which just happen to have the
>  BHBJ> properties required by the plot.  Rarely do you hear them talking
>  BHBJ> about "hydrogen" or "uranium."  It's always "dilithium" and
>  BHBJ> "unobtanium..."

The problem thatI have (and it goes for the first Star Trek as well) is the
medical science.  If you have a transporter, and consequently, an atom by atom
scanner, and some method of placing atoms, then it ought to be trivial to
fix certain things.  Like a broken bone.  You just scan the area, and beam out
the old one, and materialize a new one in its place.  Remember the show where
Warf had pain in his wrist from a recently broken bone.  Or remember the
new surgery to replace Worfs spine.  This would be kid stuff for a properly
medically programmed transporter.  Yes, I know they talk about "bio-filters"
but with the assumed technology, you would think that they could extrapolate
what those capabilities could do medically.

And then there are the tricorders.  These things have NO visible information
display.  Just how do you get a diagnosis down to the synapses when all the
user is looking at are flashing LEDs.

Some of the non medical things seem to fall prey to this as well.  Thee is a
complex function graph of something on the screen, and the user is able to
translate that into "the rear sensor array is picking up ..."  I think that
the dissemination of information from the equipment to the humans is a little
too convienient.  (either make the humans work harder to interpret the results,
or make the equipment 'look' smarter)

            John.

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 17:26:53 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Support Lunar Resource Mapper Too!  Re: Manned/Unmanned
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Where is the pleas from the likes of Allan protesting this injustice?

I have been pleading this for years. Although the funds have been zeroed
out I still see cause for hope. Griffin's requests for funds are actually
small enough that they can be met by Goldin by reprogramming funds. Truly
wouldn't do that but I think Goldin will.

>Sorry, but Lunar Resource Mapper is more important than Magellan, CRAF, and
>Cassini all put together because it will get us information that can be
>used to actually make space exploration a viable effort by all of the
>people instead of just a few scientists.

Equally important these lunar probes will demonstrate new procurement
practices which will cut costs in half. This is important because we
ARE spending enough on space to get the job done, we just need to
spend it wisely.

>It will not happen at all if Space Station
>Freedom is cancelled. Why? Because forever more any effort to explore space
>will be seen by the public who has to pay for it as another useless boondoggle
>and they will point to SS Freedom's demise at the hands of shortsided people
>who scream that everything but what they are working on is crap.

Very few people make this claim. Most people opposed to Freedom want very
much to see a permanent presence in space leading to a spacefaring
civilization. They think the existance of Freedom demonstrates by its
poor design and nonexistant systems enginnering that manned space
cannot be done in a cost effective manner. They fear that "forever more
any effort to explore space will be seen by the public as another useless
boondoggle and they will point to SS Freedom" (if I may paraphrase you).

>Do you know that after Mars Observer's mission is over, that we will
>know more about Mars and Venus than about the Moon!

We already have better maps of both Mars and Venus than Luna.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------277 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 15:00:32 CDT
From: [e-mail]

To Anyone on this list who would enjoy answering my question about outer
space:
   I am an artist and independent producer. I am going to the Space and Rocket
Center in Huntsville, Al. this Thursday to videotape people's answers to my
question. I am also collecting written answers which I may incorporate in my
narrative on the video. I begin putting all this together in post-production
the week of July 27th.
   The question is:
   The year is 2010. This is your last day on earth. Tomorrow you leave with
the first civilian crew hand-picked by NASA to colonize the moon. NASA
prepares your OFK - Offical Flight Kit - with all you need to survive
physically on the moon. You are also allowed to take your PPK - Personal
Preference Kit. It is the size of a traveler's shaving kit and must weigh no
more than a pound. In it you must pack whatever you need to sustain you
emotionally and spiritually in outer space.
   What will you choose??

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 018
------------------------------