Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V15_1/V15NO198.ZIP/V15NO198

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 32KB

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 05:02:42
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #198
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon, 14 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 198

Today's Topics:
                  Clinton and Space Funding (4 msgs)
                   Ethics of Terraforming (2 msgs)
         Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars? (3 msgs)
                  Nasa's Apollo rerun vs. Zubrin...
                         New lunar spacecraft
                     new name for NASA? (2 msgs)
                   Pluto Direct Propulsion Options
              Pluto Fast Flyby mission goals... (2 msgs)
             Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle
                      Value of Terraforming Mars

    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: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:56:09 GMT
From: alex <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (Vignes Gerard M) writes:
>
>>     but we also know that Clinton and Gore are
>>     hostile to technology and research spending
>>     and especially to projects involving
>>     space exploration and astronomy.
>
>Would you or someone else please explain this, particularly this last
>item?

    Yes, please explain. Gores voting record in the senate suggests
that he is one of the most outspoken supporters of technological investment.
Both Clinton and Gore have suggested increased suppport for national
computer networks ("internet", maybe you've heard of it), and a major
part of Clintons economic policy is government funding of technical R&D.
Thats not what I usually think of when I think "hostile".

--
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens,
 nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God"
                                     - George Herbert Walker Bush, Feb 1989

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

Date: 13 Sep 92 22:22:23 GMT
From: Vignes Gerard M <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (alex) writes:
>    Yes, please explain. Gores voting record in the senate suggests
>that he is one of the most outspoken supporters of technological investment.
>Both Clinton and Gore have suggested increased suppport for national
>computer networks ("internet", maybe you've heard of it), and a major
>part of Clintons economic policy is government funding of technical R&D.
>Thats not what I usually think of when I think "hostile".

    Because they're going to have to get
    lots and lots of money from somewhere,
    ---without raising taxes or slashing social spending---
    and they're going to have to do it in a Big Hurry,
    since there will be a lot of pressure on them to get quick results
    in order to prepare for the next election.

    (4 years is a short time by political/economic measures)

    Cutting deeply into research funding and space exploration
    is an easy way to do this without losing too much support.

    Perhaps you remember the slogans of the 60's:

        We shouldn't be sending people to the moon,
        while there are still people starving here on Earth.

    Clinton and Gore, for all their brand-new-packaging
    are essentially a throwback to '60s liberalism.

    Clinton is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat
    ---a liberal and a populist---and he's not about
    to favor technology and investment
    over traditional social goals.

    Clinton's main strategy is to get elected,
    and he will promise anything to anyone to accomplish that.
    After that, he will have to face reality
    and make hard decisions on what he can accomplish
    in his first (and maybe only) term.

    If you're a poor, uneducated person,
    you WILL probably benefit.
    But if you're a skilled white-collar worker,
    or an entrepreneur, or an investor,
    then Bill Clinton is going to soak you.

    The world econony is in a slump,
    major changes are taking place,
    and we are just going to have to ride it out.
    Throwing up trade walls only guarantees
    that when the recovery comes
    we will not be able to take part in it fully.

                        And that's all folks :-)

                        Gerard
--

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

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

Date: 13 Sep 92 23:00:19 GMT
From: D Gary Grady <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Vignes Gerard M) writes:
>    Clinton is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat
>    ---a liberal and a populist---and he's not about
>    to favor technology and investment
>    over traditional social goals.

All it takes is a little familiarity with Clinton's strongly
pro-business, pro-investment record as governor to see that this is
utter nonsense.  You've been paying too much attention to George Bush's
speechwriters and not enough to observable reality.

It doesn't surprise me that the Republican Party propagates this sort
of disinformation, but it does surprise me that otherwise intelligent
people take it seriously without checking it out.
--
D Gary Grady
[phone]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:07:30 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton

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

>    Yes, please explain. Gores voting record in the senate suggests
>that he is one of the most outspoken supporters of technological investment.

That may be, but space is not one of the places he wants to invest money.
I have tried to lobby Gore and his staffers on this.

Gore heads a subcommittee who has the responsibility of passing an
Authorization bill for NASA every year. He SHOULD have his bill passed
by May at the latest. This way, the bill can guide the Appropriations
Committee later on. That's his job.

In 88, he didn't bother to pas an authorization at all. In 90 he
wated until December to pass one (long after the appropriation).
The 91 bill was also so late to make it ineffectual. This year
it is looking like he won't bother to pass one.

Sure he will tell you he supports space but his record indicates
that he simply doesn't care. for myself, I didn't vote for bush
in 88 but I will in 92.

    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?"                               |
+----------------------223 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 15:21:25 -0400
From: David O Hunt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics of Terraforming
Newsgroups: sci.space

Tom @ msu.edu
>Perhaps Mars has life already.  So what?  Anything we do will increase the
>amount of life on Mars, and probably won't even interfere with whatever is
>there, assuming we aren't toxic to each other, as it is doubtlessly better
>suited to living on Mars than anything we could bring, engineer, or evolve.
>Suppose we do hurt the indigenous life.  Again, so what?  We can predict that
>it's natural course would be to eventually grow more complex, through the
>mechanism of evolution.  But we would bring already-complex stuff along,
>speeding the process, to the enourmous benefit of life itself.

At the cost of possibly destroying a life form of which we know nothing,
thus costing science a golden possibility of examining, firsthand, an
extra-terrestrial life form.

>Unfortunately, electric cars depend on energy even more than fossil-fuel cars,
>as they are less efficient (from the orignal source) than oil-powered
cars now.
>To really get pollution-advantages from electric cars requires a new energy
>source, not a new way of using more coal and oil.

EXCUSE ME?  Please support this.  Every TECHNICAL article I've read on the
subject says the opposte - that seperating the power generation into a more
effecient (because car engines aren't) means of generating electricity, then
using an effecient electric motor would save energy.



David Hunt - Graduate Slave | My mind is my own.          | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering      | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>>  | Jewish homeland!
============================================================================
Email:  [e-mail]            Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"

"Out there is a fortune waiting to be had; do you think I'd let it go you're
mad - you got another think coming!" -- Nazareth

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

Date: 13 Sep 92 20:18:17 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics of Terraforming
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>Perhaps Mars has life already.  So what?  Anything we do will increase the
>>amount of life on Mars, and probably won't even interfere with whatever is
>>there, assuming we aren't toxic to each other, as it is doubtlessly better
>>suited to living on Mars than anything we could bring, engineer, or evolve.
>>Suppose we do hurt the indigenous life.  Again, so what?  We can predict that
>>it's natural course would be to eventually grow more complex, through the
>>mechanism of evolution.  But we would bring already-complex stuff along,
>>speeding the process, to the enourmous benefit of life itself.

Perhaps the rain forest has life already.  So what?  Anthing we do will increase
the amount of life in the rain forest, and probably won't even interfere with
whatever is there, assuming we aren't toxic to each other, as it is doubtlessly
better suited to living in the rain forest that anything we could bring,
engineer, or evolve.  Suppose we do hurt the indigenous life.  Again, so what?
we can predict that its natural course would be to eventually grow more
usefull to us through the mechanism of science and breeding.  But we would
bring already-useful stuff along, speeding the process ... etc, etc.

The two biggest reasons to look for life on Mars are to see if it exists, and
to see what life can be like when it develops under completly different
circumstances.  Doubling the number of fungi in the Earth-Mars system is not
worth the cost of cripling the opportunity to answer the above questions.  Once
we know (or can be "reasonably" sure) that there is no life, then we can begin
to change Mars to suit our taste.

--
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: 10 Sep 92 01:26:09 GMT
From: Shari L Brooks <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

[Mr Kunich posts his idea for terraforming Mars, which is basically to send
a bunch of algae over and let Nature or, rather, *Gaia*, take her course]

>It is a simple, possibly even elementary, matter to find
>various bacteria, algae, fungi, lichen etc. that can exist
>in the harsh environment of Mars. Or, for that matter, the
>upper reaches of the Venusian atmosphere. These life-forms
>are small, light and quite capable of being transported in
>rather massive quantities to these planets by presently
>possessed technology. Should there not be appropriate life
>forms, our present knowledge of biotechnology should lead
>us to be able to develop some in fairly short order.

>I suggest that we send a space vessel bearing our life
>substitutes to Mars and Venus. The cost is relatively
>miniscule. Thereon we can sprinkle the makings of man
>himself.

I don't think we should necessarily send over anything that we have
bioengineered or altered or ensorcelled or whatever.  But I have
always thought, there are plenty of bacteria & single-celled algae
capable of putting up with the Venusian extremes.  I don't know
about the Gaia thing but certainly, with little or no native competitors,
evolution and survival of the fittest will take over.

Life is all-pervasive, and will grasp at any opportunity to fill its
environment to the maximum possible extent.  Look at how extreme the
measures are we must take to completely sterilize anything.

>Oh, maybe the results won't look like our ideas of life. If
>Gaia lives on Venus I am sure that she is a Venusian Gaia.
>We would find her, perhaps, a little hot blooded for our
>tastes. The Martian Gaia might be more to our liking but
>then again who is to say? So too for the Titan Gaia.

[...]

>Of course it would be unethical to interfere with any life
>there may be already there. So considerable exploration
>would be necessary to give a moral basis for such a
>project.

I am not sure that it would be wise or even interesting to seed every
planetary body we happen across.  There are other uses - both scientific
and commercial - for Mars.  Since no one has really concluded that Mars
*lacks* life now, it would be folly to seed it before that determination
has been finalized.  Even if only to prevent David Knapp from going
ballistic  :)   but seriously.  Once the opportunity to determine if native
life existed on Mars or Titan disappears, it cannot be regained.  ...I don't
think morals have anything to do with it...

>A couple of comments have come my way in regards to the
>Gaia principle. Maybe I ought to make myself lucid.

That always helps on the net ;) but we all get seized by incoherence sometimes!

[Mr Kunich goes on about his views on the Gaia principle at some length]

>Others can trace the beginnings of life on this planet,
>step by step, through eons of time. Showing how each
>evolution follows the previous and theorizing about the
>ecological changes that presented themselves to produce
>these changes. Cause and effect, cause and effect.

perhaps in 2 billion years when Earth is a burned out husk some weird
Venusian creatures will debate on whether life originated in a sulfuric
acid soup or whether it was seeded by the 3rd planet from the sun

>No, as I say, I find the principle of Gaia attractive. I
>find that it is a theory that can be tested. I have
>suggested a test of that theory that can be run for a
>miniscule fraction of what terraforming projects of other
>types would cost. Something that requires very little in
>the way of new technology. And something that could result
>in the bringing of life to other lifeless worlds in this
>universe.

I am not sure that you are testing Gaia so much as you are testing Darwin.

--
  Shari L Brooks                   |   [e-mail]
  NAVSOC code NSOC323D             |   [e-mail]
  NAWS Pt Mugu, CA 93042-5013      |
--> All statements/opinions above are mine and mine only, not the US Navy's.

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

Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 20:59:38 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Shari L Brooks) writes:

>I don't think we should necessarily send over anything that we have
>bioengineered or altered or ensorcelled or whatever.  But I have
>always thought, there are plenty of bacteria & single-celled algae
>capable of putting up with the Venusian extremes.

Excuse me?  If by the "Venusian extremes" you mean the surface
of Venus (with its extreme temperature and pressure), this is
simply wrong.  No living creature based on the common terrestrial
model (proteins, DNA, etc.) could survive those conditions.  Indeed,
even the somewhat less extreme conditions inside hydrothermal
vents here on earth are too hot for amino acids to survive.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Sep 92 22:50:56 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Newsgroups: sci.space

>I'd appreciate if you would not lump me into a PC pigeon hole because I
>prefer to maintain my life support system.

We were talking about Venus, not Earth, and I didn't think that
I was reffering to you.  I was reffering to people who naively
extrapolate Earth-bound ethics into space.

>If you want to make your backyard unlivable, go ahead, but the second you are
>doing things that make *everyone's* backyard unlivable, you should expect
>a response. If you think that this behavior is limited to vogue PC yuppies,
>you are quite mistaken.

You must have great barbeques in your backyard on Venus.  :-)  The point
is to make Venus livable, not to make Earth unlivable.  Ditto for
terraforming Mars, etc.



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

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

Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 19:06:47 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Nasa's Apollo rerun vs. Zubrin...

\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!

[Gore-y details deleted]

\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.

I suspect they're trying to attack Robert Zubrin's _Moon Direct_
scenario. This effectively refutes it, because if it were worth doing,
"we High Priests would have considered doing it by now.  Except we
haven't. We looked at his stuff, and we deceided we didn't want to do
it that way, so his way musn't be any good.  We'll do as much
materials research as the state of the art permits, as long as we
don't have to leave the stone age."

[reformatting Nick...]

\ 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

...

Nick, don't you think it's funny that they think they need a rocket
1.5 times the size of the Saturn 5 to return to the moon?

These guys couldn't even return to the moon if you gave them a
full-size, fully operational moon rocket. They'd complain about
how it was too small for the job.

BTW, Zubrin's Moon Direct uses 2 Titan IV's, or 1 Titan IV and
one shuttle. And in-situ fuel production for the return trip.
Check it out.

--
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: 14 Sep 92 07:06:27 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: New lunar spacecraft
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Stevenson) writes...
>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. :-(
>

The results of the Lunar Orbiter gravity data was published in 1968 and 1969,
and there's a nice map of the gravity field on page 605 in the Lunar
Sourcebook.  Note that there has been *no* gravity mapping of the Moon's
farside.  This is because lunar spacecraft were either too far from the
surface when on the farside, or the Moon itself blocked any radio transmissions
to Earth.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Anything is impossible if
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you don't attempt it.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 13:06:51 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
Subject: new name for NASA?

Nick Szabo writes:

>'Twas carelessness, but it is an interesting idea.  Since we have a
>North American Free Trade Agreement, it would make some sense to combine
>our efforts in space as well.

This is a really bad idea.

There are critical aerospace technologies getting support from Mexico
and Canada because NASA HQ has deemed them politically incorrect.

The more centralized we have made funding for space technology, the more
that funding has been used to suppress progress in space.

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

Date: 13 Sep 92 22:16:22 GMT
From: James Davis Nicoll <[e-mail]>
Subject: new name for NASA?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Glen K Moore) writes:
>
>> In the Sun Herald  (Sydney) on 13th September NASA's name was stated as
>> meaning North American Space Agency.
>> Since this appeared in an article by Peter Pockley on a two page 'Science
>> and Education ' column and appeared very authoritative perhaps NASA has
>> changed its name? But then again perhaps it is just newspaper carelessness.
>
>'Twas carelessness, but it is an interesting idea.  Since we have a
>North American Free Trade Agreement, it would make some sense to combine
>our efforts in space as well.

    The  problem with having a co-operative  program with another nation
is that should the other nation  change its priorities, the co-operative
program can get derailed as vital parts of  the program fail to be supplied
by the nation  changing its mind. Why place Canadian programs  at the mercy of
Congress (Or USAmerican ones at the mercy of Parliment)?

    Anyone care  to comment on  the USA's  track record  in international
space operations? I seem to recall it isn't good...

                                James Nicoll

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

Date: 13 Sep 92 23:39:08 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pluto Direct Propulsion Options
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>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.

I guess I wasn't too clear in my first follow-up: I meant an ion drive
flyby instead of an solid-fueled rocket flyby; surely it could build up
enough speed to get there in a reasonable amount of time before the sunlight
becomes totally useless (I guess around Jupiter) and a deployable concentrator
could be used...

(I can hear them now. "Eeek! deployable! Ever since Galileo, we're not
supposed to use deployable structures until hell freezes over! We're
supposed to be stuck with whatever can fit inside the payload shroud
until the end of time!" Why not just _not_ drive the probe across the
country half a dozen times before launch?)


--
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: 14 Sep 92 06:37:59 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pluto Fast Flyby mission goals...
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Richard Treitel) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth) writes:
>|> quick development schedule, as well as a short flight time.  The current plans
>|> are to launch in 1998 on an 8 year direct flight (hopefully).
>            ^^^^
>I'm puzzled.  Given a small number of pretty standard instruments, and a
>destination no more distant than Neptune which we've already visited, what
>needs six more years to be developed?  This may be fastER but I'd hesitate
>to call it fast.
>

The mission has only been proposed.  If it is approved, then the mission won't
officially start until around 1994.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Anything is impossible if
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you don't attempt it.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: 13 Sep 92 23:43:39 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pluto Fast Flyby mission goals...
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

>How long did they fire the test engines for?

I think several months of intermittent operation.
If you really want, we could keep the same design
for the electrode/screen et al and just take advantage
of all the neat new solar cell technology which has
gotten on the shelf in the meantime (shelf as in
"We can get it off the shelf.")

>   So, ion drives are cheaper and faster than ordinary propulsion.
>   I don't know of a "better" criteria you can apply...

>That you can be reasonably sure the mission will succeed?

Can you be that certain with using five stacked Star 48's (or
whatever they're using)?


--
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: 13 Sep 92 20:47:54 GMT
From: TS Kelso <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
carried on the Celestial BBS, [phone], and are updated daily (when
possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using
8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation
and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil
(129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.

STS 47
1 22120U          92257.58333333  .00075744  00000-0  25599-3 0    51
2 22120  56.9960 103.0456 0008624 282.6993 324.3532 15.89350753   178
--
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
[e-mail]                    Air Force Institute of Technology

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

Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 19:47:44 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Value of Terraforming Mars

>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?

I think you have under-estimated the value of terra-forming Mars.  Besides
the increase in farm (as well as other) land, there are also the cultural
changes that would occur, and also the fact that the power to terra-form
Mars implies an inter-planetary civiliaztion anyway.  Unless you go with
the idea presented originally, involving probe-o'-life missions that cost
little, and depend on time and natural growth for their power.

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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


          id aa03511; 13 Sep 92 14:28:02 EDT
To: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!boulder!ucsu!ucsu.Colorado.EDU!fcrary
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Terraforming Mars
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: Martian water lots of water
Sender: USENET News System <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 16:59:51 GMT
Lines: 30
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kenneth Freeman) writes:
>Water has mass. How much water would have to be poured on to
>Mars for it to stay there? (Or how many comets... Mars an
>ocean world? :)

That's one of the major questions about Mars: There are lots of
erossion features on the surface, and good reasons to think the
northern hemisphere was once a shallow ocean (during the first billion
years of the planet's history.)

You can also calculate the rate of water loss (e.g. from dissociation and
escape in the upper atmosphere), and the amount of water in the polar
caps and in permafrost.

Unfortunately, these estimates don't even come close to adding up: The
loss rate is fairly low compared to the amount of water that must once
have been there, but the polar caps and permafrost can't account for
this much water either. There are two possibilities: That there is
some (unspecified) additional loss mechanism (and Mars did, in fact,
loose most of it's primordial water) or there is _alot_ more water
on Mars than we currently observe (subsurface water tables?)

It's at least possible that _no_ additional water is required to
terraform Mars: Given a warmer and thicker atmosphere, enough water
might come out of the permafrost, polar caps and whereever else it is.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 198
------------------------------