Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V15_1/V15NO193.ZIP/V15NO193

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

Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 05:00:27
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #193
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 13 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 193

Today's Topics:
                         3 Booster Questions
                      Clinton and Space Funding
         Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars? (3 msgs)
               Maximum Interplanetary Launch Velocity?
                     NASA working on Apollo rerun
                         New lunar spacecraft
                            overpopulation
                   Pluto Direct Propulsion Options
               QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options (2 msgs)
                                RL-10
Rockwell & Lockheed investigate Soyuz as "interim rescue vehicle" for SSF
             Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...)
                        Technology development
                   Terraforming needs to begin now

    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: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:15:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: 3 Booster Questions
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes...
>[e-mail] writes:
>
>>In response to Josh's statment about single engines for the booster phase of an
>>HLV.
>
>>Josh the NLS one booster which as an Atlas II class launcher only uses one
>>STME booster (600,000 lbs thrust) for 20,000 lbs to orbit.
>
>[Stuff Deleted]
>
>>Dennis, University of Alabama Huntsville
>
>I know Dennis. However, I don't consider this a Heavy Lift Vehicle.  I can't
>calulate how much a single F-1 can put into orbit without knowing what else
>you have in mind, but I don't think the extra thrust is enough to put it in
>the HLV class either.
>
>
The Baby Saturn with an STME upper stage is between 52-65,000 lbs to LEO,
depending on the materials used in the stages themselves.  This is more than
a Titan IV at a fraction of the cost.  Even if I make Allen happy and add
20 million per launch, the costs are still only 75-85 million per launch. With
this lift capability we get two Hughes 601's to GEO.  This replaces two
Atlas IIAs launches with one baby saturn.

You design the baby saturn to take Two F1As from the beginning by stretching
the tanks (this is the least expensive method of incremental improvement for
all launchers, proven by GD and MacDac) Also, you have the plumbing and
launch platform set up for it.  Then for a very small incremental cost you
get 2 F1A'a and Two or One STME's on the upper stage for about 110,000 to
125,000 lbs to orbit.  This is certainly in the small HLV range and is the
same or a little more than Titan V or HLV Delta.

Then This sets the stage for incremental improvement II.  You tool for a
Short fat booster for a Three Engine F1A and STME bird.  Same pads same
infrastructure same engines.  The only cost is the new jigs for the
larger diameter tanks.  Then you can icrementally grow to the full Saturn
V configuration as the market evolves to need the demand.  This is the
pattern of all of Allen's HLV plans BUT with the use of a far more powerful
and flexible system for improvments in mass to orbit.  Also the system
is far more environmentally friendly by having no pesky polluting Ammonium
Perchlorate solid boosters.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 12 Sep 92 19:47:02 GMT
From: Vignes Gerard M <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

    Bill Clinton claims he will cut taxes,
    balance the budget, and increase social spending.

    We all know those are empty campaign promises,
    but we also know that Clinton and Gore are
    hostile to technology and research spending
    and especially to projects involving
    space exploration and astronomy.

    If you've not yet done so,
    please register to vote.
    There's still time.

    When election day comes,
    please get out and vote.
    It's your right AND your duty.

    A non-vote is not a form of protest;
    it's a clear signal that you're happy with things
    just the way they are and you really don't care anyway.

    Don't stay home that day just because you're disgusted,
    and let a pitifully small percentage of people
    determine our nation's future.

--

[e-mail]    Gerard Vignes, USL PO Box 42709, Lafayette LA 70504 USA

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

Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:57:26 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:

>>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.

> I've always wondered about logic like this.  I suppose the increasing
> population in sub-saharan Africa to going to stabilize politics thus
> making food available?  Sure.  Makes sense to me.  If there's food in the
> grain elevator they have no excuse for going around and starving themselves
> to they?

Let's try again.  To first order, the density of population in
sub-saharan Africa is not the cause of food shortages there.  Reducing
the population in Somalia by 50% will not reduce the fraction of
people starving.  This is because people produce food as well
as consume it.

Your non sequitur appears to be the following: If there is
overpopulation, then people would starve.  People are starving.
Therefore, there is overpopulation.

Societies in Somalia and Ethiopia have always had to cope with
intermittent food supplies.  They've had successful ways of doing
this, employing private stockpiles and liquidation of lifestock during
times of drought.  These strategies are vulnerable to interference
from despotic governments or general anarchy.  Looters in Somalia
have destroyed much of the country's infrastructure: water supplies,
agriculture equipment, livestock.  Is it surprising that people
die when the social life support system on which they depend
is destroyed?

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:38:39 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:

>>>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.

>> I've always wondered about logic like this.  I suppose the increasing
>> population in sub-saharan Africa to going to stabilize politics thus
>> making food available?  Sure.  Makes sense to me.  If there's food in the
>> grain elevator they have no excuse for going around and starving themselves
>> to they?

>Your non sequitur appears to be the following: If there is
>overpopulation, then people would starve.  People are starving.
>Therefore, there is overpopulation.

I think my question was legitimate.  Do you believe the situation is going to
improve as population gets larger?  I'm not so worried about "overpopulation"
per se.  What I do believe is that allowing people to have control of the
number of children they raise will result in a lower growth rate, which I
believe to be an improvement.


--
Josh Hopkins        "I believe that there are moments in history when challenges
                     occur of such a compelling nature that to miss them is to
[e-mail]   miss the whole meaning of an epoch.  Space is such a
                     challenge"       - James A. Michener

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

Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:02:25 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:

> I think my question was legitimate.  Do you believe the situation is going to
> improve as population gets larger?  I'm not so worried about "overpopulation"
> per se.  What I do believe is that allowing people to have control of the
> number of children they raise will result in a lower growth rate, which I
> believe to be an improvement.

I see no reason why it should get worse.  To first order, and within
limits, the population doesn't matter, because food production
increases as you have more labor input (Africa is actually not that
densely populated a continent; in Zaire(?), for example, only 6% of
arable land is being farmed, although that is partly due to insane
government price controls).  Conversely, if the social organization is
such that the normal food production is disrupted, reducing population
does not help.

Larger populations also enable economies of scale that increase
efficiency.  For example, electricity distribution, water distribution
and transportation all become cheaper per capita as population density
increases.

I view blaming starvation on overpopulation as, at best, a game of
blame-the-victim, and, at worst, an expression of lazy-minded racism.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Sep 92 09:49:24 EDT
From: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Maximum Interplanetary Launch Velocity?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, lordSnooty@cup (Andrew - Palfreyman) writes:
>Relative to the Earth, what is the highest velocity we
>can currently boost to for interplanetary missions? - is
>this significantly higher than typical orbit speeds?

It's hard to answer this question since it's somewhat vague.  Using the largest
current boosters, and a sufficiently small payload mass, we can get higher
velocities than have been employed so far.  Working from memory, I recall that
Ulysses left Earth with the highest speed, which I believe was slightly over
twice the orbital velocity of the shuttle that launched it.  (Any Earth escape
mission is going to have to achieve a velocity which is greater than orbital
velocity by a factor of at least the square root of 2).

After a day or two, the velocity with respect to the Earth is less interesting
than velocity with respect to the Sun.

>Would a gravity assist from the Moon make much difference,
>even if repeated?

Some difference, I'd guess.  The ISEE spacecraft, as it was being turned into
the ICE spacecraft (its mission was being changed from monitoring the solar
wind to flying by a comet) made many passes by the moon for gravity assist.
Its destination, however, didn't require a great velocity change, so I'm not
sure that the moon is really a great source of energy; it's just what's
available.

>Is the maximum speed likely to change drastically due to
>improved technologies in the near future?

The improved technologies which would make a difference are various forms of
nuclear or electric propulsion.  Using these efficient, low thrust methods
would allow dramatically higher velocities to be reached (I expect the whole
paradigm of interplanetary travel would change from near instantaneous
acceleration/coast/near instantaneous deceleration to something more like slow
acceleration/slow deceleration).  As to "the near future", there are no such
technologies under development, although research and study has been going on
for the last 30 years or so.
--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:24:38 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA working on Apollo rerun
Newsgroups: sci.space

Those expecting a lunar base out of NASA's proposed "return to the
moon" are in for a big disappointment, according to a recent Aviation
Week article.  It describes FLO, which stands for "First Lunar
Operations", apparently because it repeats in form and function
our first lunar operations, Apollo.

The missions would have a crew of four instead of a crew of three, in
an enlarged Apollo-style capsule.  The craft would land directly on
the surface instead of doing Apollo's lunar-orbit rendesvous, increasing
costs but allowing the craft to land at lattitudes higher than the
equator.  The system requires -- get this -- a launcher 1.5 times the
size of Saturn 5!

The function of these missions is an extension of Apollo.  Geology
treks using an Apollo-style rover (again made larger to hold four
astronauts) would be the main justification.  They would try out
tiny experiments in making LOX and lunar soil bricks, as a sop to
those who want a real lunar base.  No production plants, no
mass driver, and no biosphere.  Most time at the "base"
would be spent by the astronauts huddled in their capsules,
studying each other.  There would be no revenue or commercial
interest in the project.

Like Apollo, these missions would be utterly dependent on Earth for
food, water, and shelter.  The lander would consist both of LOX/LH
propellants and storable propellants for the return trip, a rather
expensive, kluged combination.  The space suits would be designed
from scratch instead of using those from Apollo or STS.

No estimate of cost was given, and perhaps none is needed, given
the political unviability of the project.  The project requires
a new upper stage, a new habitation capsule, a new 4-propellant lander,
a new rover, new spacesuits, along with the various experiments.  They
propose a monster rocket 1.5 times the capability of Saturn 5, which
would not be used by anybody outside NASA.  Thus, I would give a
conservative guestimate of the cost of Apollo plus the cost of SSF,
or $270 billion.  In an attempt to mollify Congress, NASA proposes
to take the money out of other NASA projects, but this cost is 19
times the entire annual NASA budget, and NASA already admits to having
more projects than it can fund. NASA has already cut the planetary exploration
budget down to $300 million per year, one-one-thousandth (1/1,000) the
cost of this project to study the geology of one body.  No doubt clever
accountants will give us a lower number in an attempt to make the project
politically viable, but that number will deserve a critical look.  As will
the rationale for repeating the exciting-once but dead-end missions of
Apollo.


--
[e-mail]        Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian

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

Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:23:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: New lunar spacecraft
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Stevenson) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
>
>[stuff deleted]
>
>> While old data sets often contain overlooked gems, for some questions,
>> they will not help at all. The Lunar Orbiters did optical imaging from
>> roughly equatorial orbits about the Moon; if you wanted to look for
>> lunar water, you'd need a polar-orbiting spacecraft with infrared
>> imaging and better, also spectroscopic instrumentation - not unlike
>> what's going on the Mars Observer.
>>
>Lunar Orbiters 5 and 6 were in polar orbits. The radio navigation data
>collected (which would be used to develop models of the lunar
>gravitational field) are either lost or stored on punch cards and so far
>unretrievable. JPL was attempting to recover this data in support of the
>Lunar Observer mission, which has since been cancelled. The loss of such
>pricey and important data is representative of the post Apollo era. :-(

Correction:  That is Lunar Orbiters IV and V that were in polar orbits.  Also
there is a vast quantity of gravity map information about the moon.  The problem
with it is that the data is of fairly low resolution, hence the gravity maps
are not all that accurate.


>The lunar resource mapping mission by SEI out of JSC selected two
>contractors for the next phase (not TRW :-(  ) but, of course,the
>congresscritters have decimated the SEI budget. Don't hold your breath.
>
The contractors selected were Boeing and Martin Marietta.
LRM is in hibernation till after the election and slick Willie and Blood and
Gore have both said specifically that lunar missions would not be funded by
their administration.  Also, it was the senator from Arkansas that led the
fight to cut all funds from SSF and divert the money to Vetrans and HUD. Tell
me now, who is blowing smoke about supporting space with nothing behind it?

Dennis, UNiversity of Alabama in Huntsville.

"My friends take the advice of the candidate of the other party, do not inhale!"
Ronny Raygun at the Republican convention.

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

Date: 12 Sep 92 17:28:08 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: overpopulation
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Don Roberts) writes:

>In article <ryvnn1#[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

>>Let's see: China and India are hovering on the raged edge of subsistence
>>right now. Most of Africa is one meal away from starvation. -- Why that means
>>that more than half of the world is bearly producing enough food to exist
>>and no more.

>Ah yes, we use the examples of two nations with incredibly corrupt and
>inefficient systems of political economy, and a continent that's been
>wracked by tribal and civil warfare, and assume the whole planet acts that
>way. Very good.

Fine.  So it's their fault.  That makes everything OK.

I actually thought the post was reasonable, factually based and quite rational
until I came to this line.

>The trick is technological and economic development, not forcing
>Africans at gunpoint not to have babies.

Coments like this blow me out of the water.  Yes, making everyone a first world
citizen is the long term solution, but you can cut growth drastically without
using guns.  Contraception is _not_ available in Africa.  A very large
percentage of women would prefer to have fewer children if that was an option.
Given that population growth negates much of the progress made by foreign aid
shouldn't we be encouraging family planning rather than giving out short term
help?

--
Josh Hopkins        "I believe that there are moments in history when challenges
                     occur of such a compelling nature that to miss them is to
[e-mail]   miss the whole meaning of an epoch.  Space is such a
                     challenge"       - James A. Michener

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

Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 12:19:22 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Pluto Direct Propulsion Options

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:
>
>Just out of curiosity, is there a way to convince them to use post-early-
>1960's technology, like an ion drive of some sort?

And Henry replies:

\Not until somebody space-qualifies modern hardware of that sort, so it can
/be done without major risk of cost or schedule overrun.  This particular
\mission is time-critical because of the impending freezeout of Pluto's
/atmosphere, so the fewer unknowns the better.

But they apparently intend to use very new modern hardware for
the sensors. Why is this not "risky" but propulsion is?

\There is also a serious technical problem with using electrical propulsion
/for this particular mission:  what's your power supply?  RTGs are too heavy
\for major power outputs, and solar doesn't work so well in that neighborhood.
/It would have to be a nuclear reactor.  A sound idea, but not something that
\can be done in a hurry.

Use solar. I'm currently thinking along the lines of a Pluto flyby,
but with ion drives instead of solid rockets for the final kick,
so maybe, _maybe_, they could have a higher instrument payload than
5 kg.

\There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
/mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

Using advanced propulsion, instead of just another set of solid
rockets, would, if it turned out to be a mistake, at least be
a _new_ mistake.

Well?

--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone] SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560

           --> Support UN military force against Doug Mohney <--

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

Date: 12 Sep 92 17:09:02 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Mario Wolczko) writes:

>Given that there are two bodies (Pluto and Charon), would it be
>possible to lose enough energy by sling-shotting around them
>repeatedly (the opposite to what's been done by the Voyagers, Ulysses,
>etc., at Jupiter)?  Or are they too small to have enough of a
>gravitational effect?

Pluto and Charon are teeny and light.  Pluto is something like .002 Earth masses
and Charon is even smaller.  So no.  Unless you were going _really_ slow - which
these probes won't be - you can't use gravity to slow you down.  Repeatedly
isn't an option since you can't do it more than once unless you've already lost
enough velocity to stay in the system.
--
Josh Hopkins        "I believe that there are moments in history when challenges
                     occur of such a compelling nature that to miss them is to
[e-mail]   miss the whole meaning of an epoch.  Space is such a
                     challenge"       - James A. Michener

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

Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:34:06 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mario Wolczko) writes:
>Given that there are two bodies (Pluto and Charon), would it be
>possible to lose enough energy by sling-shotting around them
>repeatedly (the opposite to what's been done by the Voyagers, Ulysses,
>etc., at Jupiter)?  Or are they too small to have enough of a
>gravitational effect?

The velocity change you can get out of a fly-by is proportional to the
body's surface escape velocity (plus a whole string of other issues
that amount to a factor of 0 to 2, or so...)

Pluto's surface escape velocity is 1.1km/s, so at best you might
hope to get around 2km/s velocity change out of a fly-by.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder

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

Date: 12 Sep 92 14:55:56 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: RL-10
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>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

On Atlas' first flight, June 11, 1957, it went boom. On Atlas-Centaur's
first flight, May 8, 1962 the Centaur went boom. The next to last Centaur
went boom on a March 26, 1987 launch attempt. The last Atlas-Centaur
was so badly damaged on the pad while technicians were trying to repair
a stubborn leak in the Centaur that it was scrapped. In between, the
Ranger and Surveyor programs were delayed by numerous problems with the
Centaur. And the Centaur was replaced by the PAM or IUS designs for all
Shuttle launches since the Centaur was considered too dangerous to fly
on the Shuttle.

Titan first flew February 6, 1959 and they still go boom occasionally.
Three of five 34D's failed. Since 1960, 12 Delta boosters have gone boom.
These 30 year old designs have not had stellar success records.

Gary

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

Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:35:11 GMT
From: Jonathan Hardwick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rockwell & Lockheed investigate Soyuz as "interim rescue vehicle" for SSF
Newsgroups: sci.space

I can't find the end of the previous "Soyuz can do emergency crew
return for SSF -- no it can't -- yes it can" thread, but this just
appeared in the "Weekly Science Summary" on clari.tw.science
(copyright Clarinet, [e-mail]):

>  Rockwell International says it has signed an agreement to investigate
>use of the Russian Soyuz (SAH'-yooz) spacecraft as an interim rescue
>vehicle for the Space Station Freedom.
>  The company says the discussions will be held in concert with NASA.
>  Last week, Lockheed Missiles and Space Company announced a similar
>pact with N-P-O Energia... the builder of the Soyuz. Lockheed and
>Rockwell are the NASA contractors conducting studies for the space
>station's rescue vehicle.
>  Space Station Freedom is NOT expected to be permanently occupied
>until after 1999.

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

Date: 12 Sep 92 15:10:03 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>Goldin says we should consider the Shuttle program to last "at least"
>>until 2005, but not much beyond that.  12 years != forever.
>
>we could probobally make it last until 2012 or so. At that time, and
>only then unless radical changes are made, will the funds be available
>to build the replacement the government way. Add another fifteen years
>to actually build it and we are looking at 35 years.
>
>I'm getting on in years and for me that 35 years just might be
>forever.

So instead you want to stretch designs, Titan and Delta, that are
already 30 years old one more time. No thanks. We can count on
general technology advances in the next 12-35 years that will allow
us to build something *better* than those roman candles when we
actually *need* them. You and Nick both will have long been dust
in the wind before the solar system is settled by ice miners and
Martians. They won't appreciate being stuck with Hudson Hornets
when they could have a 300ZX.

Gary

Gary

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

Date: 7 Sep 92 15:29:41 GMT
From: Jim Bowery <[e-mail]>
Subject: Technology development
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Tom) writes:
> An example of the best way to develop this new technology can also be
> seen in the fridge example.  Currently, GE is offering a huge cash
> prize for refridgeration technology based on something other than CFCs,
> with comparable or better efficiency.  I think the prize is $3 million,
> with a bonus for improved efficiency, but is was a while since I heard
> about it, so I may have the exact figure wrong.
>
> If the goals in space were as easily defined, this would probably be a
> cheaper way for NASA to develop launchers, etc., than the current system.
Clearly, this is feasible.  I suggest people try defining some prizes.

--
INTERNET:  [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA [phone]

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

Date: 12 Sep 92 17:14:32 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terraforming needs to begin now
Newsgroups: sci.space

There are two issue that need to be adressed before anyone is going to take
this seriously.

1)  Is this cheaper than massive planting projects?
2)  Is the cost of the enormous project going to be even partly paid back by
    the increase in farmland?  My guess would be no.  Keep in mind that the
    countries that need this are dirt poor.  Come to think of it, all the
    countries of the world seem to be broke about now.

Maybe you should consider more realistic options.  For example, just turn the
solar energy you're going to be using into power and sell it to buy food with.
--
Josh Hopkins        "I believe that there are moments in history when challenges
                     occur of such a compelling nature that to miss them is to
[e-mail]   miss the whole meaning of an epoch.  Space is such a
                     challenge"       - James A. Michener

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 193
------------------------------