Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V15_1/V15NO189.ZIP/V15NO189

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 33KB

Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 05:05:10
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #189
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 12 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 189

Today's Topics:
  Club of Rome (was Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?)
                       How to build ion engine?
         Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars? (4 msgs)
                  Magellan Science Results Published
                               Mirrors
          One Small Step for a Space Activist... Vol 3 No 9
                        Pluto Direct/ options
                              Relativity
                            RL-10 (2 msgs)
                        Terraforming (4 msgs)

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:02:51 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Club of Rome (was Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>> Furthermore, the Club of Ignorance also ignores little things like A)
>> Technological Innovation is not static, B) Free-market economies
>> stimulate the
>> development of more efficient use of resources and substitutes.

> I might add that the Club of Rome types also refuse to consider
> extraterrestrial resources and energy. All of their simulations are based
> on closed, technologically static systems. This makes their models a waste


Ahem.  The Club Of Rome, a group of non-scientists (businessmen, I
think), did no such things.  "Limits to Growth" was a report on a
study commissioned *for* the CoR, not conducted *by* the CoR.  Indeed,
I don't think publication of LtG was done under CoR direction, nor do
I think the CoR ever endorsed the conclusions of LtG.

I understand the CoR also commissioned a panel to review some of the
conclusions of LtG from a bottom-up perspective (just which resources
are tight?), and this panel reached completely different conclusions.
Alvin Weinberg was on this panel, and some of his writings (in
Science, for example) explain just how substitutable most resources
are.  No ET resources are required to dismiss LtG -- its methodology
is manifest nonsense anyway.  Read some of the reviews of the book
when it came out.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:28:04 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: How to build ion engine?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Peterson) writes:
>I'd like to know if it would be possible to build a micro-sized
>platform that could lift itself in the air powered by a solar cell
>or very small battery.  I thought that perhaps a tiny ion motor...

In a word, no.  Ion thrusters have miniscule thrust, and furthermore
they operate properly only in vacuum.

In any case, this is the wrong way to go about it.  Jet power (ignoring
losses) is thrust*exhaust_velocity/2; for a minimum-power system --
and anything powered by batteries or solar cells really has to be
minimum-power, those are lousy power sources -- you want the lowest
possible exhaust velocity.  An ion rocket specializes in very high
exhaust velocity.  You're at the wrong end of the spectrum; you want
to think "helicopter", not "rocket".
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:05:56 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:

>It is obvious this person will not be the one doing the terraforming.
>Now, at the moment this is all moot argument. But in about 50-100
>years, my return question would be different and to the point:

>    "And just HOW do you propose to stop me?"

>Oh, by the way .... I expect to be quite well armed....

More to the point: you wake up forty years from now and
overnight, without warning, someone's gone ahead and dumped
about a megaton or so of halon into the Martian atmosphere,
and there seem to be all these lakes and oceans forming
all over the place.

Question: who owns the land?


--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone] SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
If seven maids with seven brooms swept for half a year,
do you think, the Walrus asked, that they could make it clear?
I doubt it, said the Carpenter, and shed a bitter tear.
---------
"NOAH!"                        \           \ Lewis Carrol
"Yes lord?"                     > Bill Cosby, The Story of Noah
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"/

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

Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 17:42:06 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Knapp) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Knapp) writes:
>>
>>>You mean ignoring any possible consequences of ozone loss and maybe even
>>>global warming? Let's even completely ignore increasing risks of nuclear
>>>war (from non-NATO develpment) or from nuclear disaster.  We can also ignore
>>>steady expansionism of the populace.
>>
>>Hey, and I bet you were kvetching about the Evil Stockpiles of Nuclear War
>>between the United States and the Soviet Union a couple of years ago.
>
>Now why would *I* mind having half of my tax dollars go to a mass of weapons
>that could eliminate all life on Earth several times over? I doubt that the
>stockpiles were actually evil. Maybe the pentagon invested in exorcists for
>them too?
>
>I'll be you knew alllll along that the evil empire wasn't so evil, didn't you.

Obviously, I need to spell things out for you.

You were one of the ones whining for a "nuclear freeze" in the early 80s.
Surprise, it didn't happen. Now, we'll end up CUTTING TOTAL EXISTING WEAPONS in
half. But, instead of being happy because the United States and the Former
Soviet Union are going to CUT weapons. We are off of "hair-triggers" on both
sides. You'd have to work really really hard to go back to the way things were,
with bombers on pad alert, loaded with gravity bombs and SRAM and ALCMs ...

Nope. Can't celebrate that. Instead, you've (re)discovered the creeping
proliferation, so now that's the BIG threat and oh-my-gawd it's actually MORE
possible to have a nuclear war because NATO is not developing?

>>It's also laughable to look at "global warming" when a single volcanic eruption
>>kicks enough enough ash to DROP temperatures despite our many years of
>>unregulated environmental engineering, hmm?
>
>You are clearly not well read on the subject. You cannot extract enough
>information on that subject from a headline to discuss it intelligently.

>>Another Club of Rome member. <yawn>
>
>Huh?

Hm. Suggest you become well-read on Club of Rome, _Limits to Growth_ and other
various pop-mythos.

>>We also don't have enough of a dataset on our world to show what the "real"
>>temperature should be. I kid you not. Would you like to average in the ice ages
>>and the time before the DinosaurKiller impacted?
>
>But the theory that dinosaurs were killed by a meteor impact is only a theory,
>right?

No, the point is, based upon roughly 100-150 years of "good" factual reporting,
you can't really project anything other than the fact we don't know too much :)

>You are correct about global warming. We have no conclusive evidence. On the
>other hand if it is truly happening, and we just cannot figure it out, we're
>fucked.

Nope. We're not. It is known that the earth goes through various climatic
phases. Can you say "Ice Age"? Thank you. Man will adapt. It may be beneficial
because you'll be able to grow more food in Siberia and other colder areas.

> Ozone loss, on the other hand, is quite real and quite anthropogenic,
>or will you now call me a bunny hugger because I liked ozone the way it was?
>
>I urge you to fight against the chicken littles of the world and stop
>wearing sun screen just to prove you're right.

We know there are two holes in the ozone layer. We know these holes fluctuate
in size. We do not know if these holes are dramatically affected by man's
activity, or by sunspot cycles.

>>I didn't know we had gone to world goverment. Now, who in the third world is
>>going to come and tax US, hmm?
>
>There is effectively a world government, Yes. You misinterpreted the context of
>the word 'taxed'.

If you're referring to the U.N., it is not a "world government." At least not
in the sense of government which you seem to have the hots for. It's more along
the lines of a mutual cooperation society by individual member-states. It does
not collect taxes. It does not build infrastructure. It does not elect a
Congress to live off the largess of taxes :-).

>>Besides, population growth is self-correcting.
>Ultimately, yes, but you won't like the way it corrects itself.

Let me key you in: Starvation in Ethopia and Somalia is due to political
warfare and strife, not because there's a lack of food production. We're not
going to starve ourselves off the planet.

>> People who have nothing better
>>to do start little piss-ant wars and end up killing themselves off.
>
>When the global population saturates, you will not be thinking 'piss ant'
>wars anymore. I don't have to try to convince you either because all you
>have to do is wait and remember somebody mentioned it to you.

When? Malthus and each successive generation of doom-sayers has picked a
magical date where population growth was supposed to exceed the support limits
of the world ecosystem. Funny, those numbers keep on going and going and
going... just like that Energizer Bunny. (Hm, does he wear shades to be cool,
or to avoid too much UV? ooooh, how subtle ...)

>>We've been running out of fossil fuels for 100 years. Before that, there was a
>>fear of a great shortage of whale oil, due to overhunting.
>
>No, we will *run out* of fossil fuels in less than fifty years.

Allegedly. Before we run out, the price on a barrel of oil will go up.

What happens when the price of oil goes up? People start to conserve,
industries develop new technologies to extract oil more efficiently, and
alternatives are developed which are price competitive to substitute for oil.

Pretty soon, the price of oil drops, not because of any magic, but due to the
basic laws of supply and demand. More oil produced and less demand for it.

Oh, I think you'll find we were supposed to run out of oil by 2010 or so,
if you look at the "estimates" of the '70s. You're saying we're going to run
out by 2040. Your son will, no doubt, be saying we're going to run out by
2060-2080.

Or nobody will really give a damn, because we'll be using a combination of
other things to do what we use oil for now.

>>Could you tell me what the current demand for whale oil is?
>
>Ah, you're right. Somebody will think of something before there is a problem.
>Let's have a beer.

Let's cry wolf. Makes a lot of money for certain parts of the population via
booksales, lecture tours, and the like. If you scream loud enough, you can
probably find a way to make a buck too, hm?

>When we do run out of fossil fuels, I'm sure I won't see you shoving to get
>an electric car because you were so convinced it wouldn't be an issue. I hope
>you like the bus.

Naw, I'll be drivin' my Saturn III (GM, not NASA product:) past your raggy
eco-bike with my "John DeArmond for President" bumpersticker in your face.
:->

>>Furthermore, the Club of Ignorance also ignores little things like A)
>>Technological Innovation is not static,
>
>Not at all, I'm frankly quite excited about our government

You mean your mythical world goverment, right? Not the U.S. government..
>launching space
>based mirrors and dumping millions of tons of methane into the stratosphere
>to correct the ozone hole caused by, er, technology.

And just which loonie is suggesting we do this? Not that your fixes will only
aggreviate the situtation due to the pollution they cause...

> Well, heck, that was
>just one *teensy* error that I'm *certain* can't happen again 'cuz we're
>technologically *advanced* now! (makes me feel safe all over)  Probably
>we can stuff acid rain (bunny hugger fantasy I'm sure), love canal neighbor-
>hoods, and pcbs in penguins in that lot too. CONSPIRACY!!!

Gradual fixes to gradual problems. I know that's scary to consider.

>> B) Free-market economies stimulate the
>>development of more efficient use of resources and substitutes.
>
>Right. Go Bush!  "I love what you do for me!" (and the ecomomy) "But this time
>I *promise* not to raise taxes, those damn democrats made me do it"  "Hey,
>'merika! Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat! (not that trick again..) Nuttin
>up my sleeve.... PRESTO!"

Uh, excuse me. Earth to Dave. Someone pass him some O2. This has nothing to do
with George Bush, but basic resource economics. It's a 300 level course.
Maybe you should consider taking it.

>>Naw, you'd better line up now to put Saturn's rings off-limits to Szabo's Ice
>>Mining, Inc. And then prepare to go out there and enforce your law, hm?
>
>I'll have some of what you're smoking! ;-)

I respect Mr. Szabo <ack, gag> in certain areas, despise him in others. If he
got a couple of billion dollars, he might be able to do some of what he has
proposed in messages on here.

Like I said, Saturn's rings are off-limits, and I'll add Halley's comet to the
protected list :)

>>                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia
>
>Didn't you just imply there was no world government?

There isn't a world goverment. There's an organization to coordinate
cooperation between nations. Big difference. I know, it's a little bit subtle
for you to figure out, but I'm sure if you examine the role of the U.N. in the
past 40 years, you'd figure it out.

>No, really, I see what you're saying, until we see that it is a problem,
>we should not worry about it. Good strategy.

Sounds good. Prove to me there is a problem.

Now, if population growth is such a bad thing, will you be the first one to
castrate yourself so as to slow the rate of growth? Will you be the first to
hang yourself in order to save the ecosystem?

                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 16:01:31 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?

> You do not know there is no life on Mars or anywhere else other than Earth.
> I don't see the relevance of arguing over the label of 'back yard'.  I don't
> think as a society, or even a planet, we have yet learned how to manage our
> *own* planet, not even a *little*.  Because of this I don't think we are
> qualified to begin applying our ignorance to anther planet.
>


As the joke about the Lone Ranger and Tonto goes, when the Lone Ranger saw the
indian war party on the hill, he turned to Tonto and said "We're in a heap
o'trouble". To which Tonto replied: "What you mean, WE, white man?"

My response to the above, is "What you mean, WE, <insert favorite politically
incorrect phrase here>?"

It is obvious this person will not be the one doing the terraforming. Now, at
the moment this is all moot argument. But in about 50-100 years, my return
question would be different and to the point:

    "And just HOW do you propose to stop me?"

Oh, by the way .... I expect to be quite well armed....

================================================================================
Give generously to the Betty Ford Home        [e-mail]
for the Politically Correct.            Belfast, Northern Ireland
================================================================================

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

Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 18:15:55 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>
>I might add that the Club of Rome types also refuse to consider
>extraterrestrial resources and energy. All of their simulations are based
>on closed, technologically static systems. This makes their models a waste
>of MIPS.

Well, I kinda have problems about adding ET-Ms, because the bootstrap
requirements are pretty freakin' high, despite Szabo's Ice Mining Inc.
numbers. There's a LOT of room for optimization in ground-bound processes, even
if you use minimal-impact (i.e. bunny-hugger :-) technology.

Small example: Cleaning circuit boards with ordinary water and lemon juice
rather than CFCs. Saves money AND keeps GreenPeacers happy.

Bigger example: Explosive development of faster-stronger computing power and
the race by computer science folks to use it all :-)

Most Club of Romer's can now watch the world die in the privacy of their own
homes, rather than running sloppy models on electricity-sucking mainframes.

>I really don't think the eventual use of ETM's is questionable. The only
>possible argument between optimists and pessimists is whether the have a
>big impact in the next couple decades or whether it is a hundred or a
>thousand years in the future. Is there anyone out there dumb enough to make
>a bet that there won't be significant imports to Earth from Mars by 2992?
>
>PS: I think I'd win the bet if I lived even until 2050.

We'll have to go through another generation or two of transporation systems
before we create real markets. Consider one generation = 20 year... call it
2030ish.

The real work starts on the Moon. Minimal gravity and natural resources by the
ton. It's unlikely we'll start for-profit (EVILEVILWORD) mining of it before
2010-2015, because it's going to take the United States (or any other economic
congomerate) til 2000+ to get back and do proper resource recon & R&D in a
pilot sense.


                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 11 Sep 92 16:57:50 GMT
From: Martin Connors <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Science Results Published
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
> The "Journal of Geophysical Research - Planets" has dedicated two issues
> of their journal to the science results of the Magellan mission.  I
> have just received Part 1 today in the mail (Volume 97, Number E8, dated
> August 25, 1992).  This hefty issue consists of 27 articles and over
> 600 pages.
For those who like me may have attempted to obtain the so-called
"Six-Month Report", this appears to be it. Great reading and let's hope
the next issue rolls off the presses soon.
Martin Connors - U. Alberta

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

Date: 11 Sep 92 13:16:25 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mirrors
Newsgroups: sci.space

-From: [e-mail] (Richard Nickle)
-Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?

[This week's award for most frequently used inappropriate subject line]

-Date: 10 Sep 92 12:55:04 GMT
-Organization: The Trystro System [phone] v.32/v.42bis

->Do you understand how many 'mirrors' would be required to raise the polar
->caps one degree centigrade?

-Use solar sails to transport cargo to Mars orbit: (sensing gear, microbe
-packages (when needed), the dirt for covering the poles to help it absorb
-heat, gear for colonies....and just leave them there.

How come those solar sails zoom across space while carrying a payload, then
when you get to Mars and remove the payload (thus making them even less
massive), they just sit there? :-)

I think at the very least, with such light mirrors, you have to continue to
actively sail them, which probably rules out using them to reflect light
onto Mars more than part of the time.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 17:45:12 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: One Small Step for a Space Activist... Vol 3 No 9
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael V. Kent) writes:

>I, personally, believe a Delta Clipper, HL-20, or NASP-derived vehicle will
>be funded very shortly after PMC (well, probably EMCC).

Aurora-derived? :-)

                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 11 Sep 92 17:29:31 GMT
From: "Kevin W. Plaxco" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pluto Direct/ options
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

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

>I don't think the planets will cooperate on this.  In the early 1970's, the
>outer planets were lined up so that a spacecraft could have slingshoted
>from Jupiter to Saturn to Uranus to Neptune to Pluto via gravity assists.
>In fact, this was the original Grand Tour envisioned for Voyager.  But
>delayed funding caused the Pluto option to be dropped, and the alignment
>among the other planets has worsened since then.  Voyager 2 just did
>make the window for Uranus/Neptune.
>

I do not think that a trajectory exists that will hit all of the
gas giants and Pluto, as Pluto is rather far from the ecliptic.

I believe the original "Grand tour" plan was the name given to the
trajectory of Voyager 2.  NASA considered this too risky (12 years in
space?  No way!) so they asked congress to fund a modified grand tour:
two craft-- one on a jupiter-uranus-neptune flight and one on a
jupiter-saturn-pluto flight.  Congress balked at the cost and we got
voyagers 1 and 2 jupiter-saturn only.  With fingers crossed, voyager
2 was sent on the Grand tour trajectory (without funding for the last
half) and, as we all know succeded rather nicely.

Voyager 1 flew most of the Jupiter-Saturn-Pluto trajectory, but was
diverted get a closer look at Titan.  I have often wondered,
considering the somewhat unexpected longevity of the Voyagers, how
many times the folks at JPL kicked themselves for not trying
harder to lobby for the J-S-P trajectory for Voyager 1.


--

            -Kevin

         Be particular

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

Date: 11 Sep 92 13:08:09 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Relativity
Newsgroups: sci.space

-From: [e-mail] (Shawn McCarthy)
-Subject: Relativity
-Date: 9 Sep 92 21:53:00 GMT

-Ok.. you look like you know what ur talking about (considerably more than i do
-anyway.. :>  ) got a question: what if that train is moving just 5mph slower
-than c (as measured from the station) and i run forwards at 6mph? According to

-the train, i am moving at 6mph.. what does the station see? (or move a flag
-foreward at that speed on the outside, so they can see it) ... when the object
-(me or the flag) moves past c according to the station, what happens? or is that
-a case of the train being shorter (from the station) so the speed really ISN'T
-faster than c..?

I think you've got the right idea - also, the Lorenz contraction of observed
passage of time must be taken into account. Basically, the addition of
observed velocities is not linear, and the result never exceeds c. The observer
at the station would see you moving slightly faster than the train, but
still less than c. If you take a flashlight on the train and aim it forward
(or backward or sideways for that matter), the person at the station will
perceive the beam of light as moving at c (as will you).

Actually working out the math for relativistic vector additions requires:
 - finding the book on relativity (one with actual math, not just a popular
   account)
 - a calculator with lots of digits of precision

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Sep 92 17:15:16 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RL-10
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:


>-From: [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)
>-Subject: Re: 3 booster questions
>-Date: 10 Sep 92 15:59:12 GMT

>->[2].Atlas still goes *boom* a lot?  Is this inherent to the design of having
>->two of the engines fall off and the difficulty in shutting off the fuel flow
>->to these engines?

>-Neither.  The recent failures have been Centaur problems.  They're a bit
>-surprising, since the RL10 has been a very reliable engine.

>RL-10 failures? What does that do to Allen's statistics for the reliability
>of the engine to be used for DCX?

>John Roberts
>[e-mail]

They may be _electronics_ failures of some sort. I don't think
we've gotten enough parts back to find out for sure.

If they ever actually used the shuttle for retrieval like all
the people here talk about how they need to spend 5 billion a
year to the end of time on the shuttle for payload retrieval,
we'd know what the problem was.

--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone] SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
If seven maids with seven brooms swept for half a year,
do you think, the Walrus asked, that they could make it clear?
I doubt it, said the Carpenter, and shed a bitter tear.
---------
"NOAH!"                        \           \ Lewis Carrol
"Yes lord?"                     > Bill Cosby, The Story of Noah
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"/

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

Date: 11 Sep 92 17:23:22 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RL-10
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:

>-Neither.  The recent failures have been Centaur problems.  They're a bit
>-surprising, since the RL10 has been a very reliable engine.

>RL-10 failures? What does that do to Allen's statistics for the reliability
>of the engine to be used for DCX?

Even with the failures it's still extreemly reliable. However, it is not
a problem because in both cases the problem was that the engine failed
to fire, not go boom. So all DCX need is enough engines for an engine
out capability (which it has).

  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?"                               |
+----------------------225 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 11 Sep 92 13:41:36 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terraforming
Newsgroups: sci.space

-From: [e-mail] (Nick Janow)
-Subject: Re: Terraforming Mars
-Date: 10 Sep 92 06:58:13 GMT
-Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

[e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
-> It's probably harder than you think. The main challenge on Mars is not
-> necessarily the scarcity of water (though that is a major problem), but
-> finding a location where they can get the energy to support life processes
-> without being killed by the UV in the sunlight or the reducing soil that
-> destroys organic matter.

-Does it destroy _all_ organic material (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen material),
-or is there a molecule that can convert UV photons to chemical energy without
-being destroyed?  Even if no organic molecule could manage that, there are
-other possibilities.  What of a microorganism (similar to Terran types) that
-fills a silicone or silica bubble with inorganic chemicals that can be split to
-form useful chemical energy (H2 and O2, for example)?  It could shove the
-bubbles above the sand, while the body is deep below, connected by silicone
-tubes.

I believe that portion of the discussion involved a search for terrestrial
organisms that could live on Mars unmodified. I believe the Viking tests
found *no* organic material, and they should have found some from meteorite
impacts.

-The entire organism could be underground, using silica fibres to the surface as
-light pipes.  I think some Terran life forms use something like this (there are
-plants that use light pipes).

There's a desert plant (related to cactus, I think) that's mainly underground,
with a transparent upper coating to let light through. However, in that case,
I'm pretty sure the transparent coating is living tissue.

-Limiting your thoughts to Terran organic processes leaves out a _lot_ of
-possibilities.

Like I said, designing new organisms that are capable of living on Mars
should be done only with great caution and advance planning. (Remember the
fire ant, European mussels, African bees, gypsy moth, dandelion, etc.) Maybe
with a little modification, we could set up a stable kudzu / fire ant
ecosystem on Mars. Of course, we'd have to make them a lot tougher than they
are now, and we'd probably want to test them on Earth by releasing them into
the environment. :-)  :-)

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:09:38 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terraforming
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:

>... Maybe
>with a little modification, we could set up a stable kudzu / fire ant
>ecosystem on Mars. Of course, we'd have to make them a lot tougher than they
>are now, and we'd probably want to test them on Earth by releasing them into
>the environment. :-)  :-)

Actually, the aliens are in this solar system. They're planning
to "terraform" Mars. They've engineered fire ants to do this.
They're testing them here now.

Of course, they're being phased out in the terraforming plans.
The aliens have discovered possums and armadillos. And blackberries.

--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone] SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
If seven maids with seven brooms swept for half a year,
do you think, the Walrus asked, that they could make it clear?
I doubt it, said the Carpenter, and shed a bitter tear.
---------
"NOAH!"                        \           \ Lewis Carrol
"Yes lord?"                     > Bill Cosby, The Story of Noah
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"/

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

Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:25:16 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terraforming
Newsgroups: sci.space

On the subject of contaminating Mars with life...

I understand the Europeans are pushing to relax the sterilization
requirements for Mars landers (they have a spacecraft planned that may
be cancelled if they have to sterilize it).  A study just came out
concluding that the only landers that have to be sterilized are those
doing exobiology experiments.  It concluded that contaminants from
other landers would not spread.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Sep 92 18:04:31 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terraforming
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:

>I understand the Europeans are pushing to relax the sterilization
>requirements for Mars landers (they have a spacecraft planned that may
>be cancelled if they have to sterilize it).  A study just came out
>concluding that the only landers that have to be sterilized are those
>doing exobiology experiments.  It concluded that contaminants from
>other landers would not spread.

Wow, just the conclusion they needed!

Can't they sterilize a smaller lander? Maybe just send the probe real
close to the sun on the way?

--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone] SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
If seven maids with seven brooms swept for half a year,
do you think, the Walrus asked, that they could make it clear?
I doubt it, said the Carpenter, and shed a bitter tear.
---------
"NOAH!"                        \           \ Lewis Carrol
"Yes lord?"                     > Bill Cosby, The Story of Noah
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"/

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 189
------------------------------