Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_0/V16NO031.ZIP/V16NO031

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 36KB

Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 05:05:55
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #031
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 10 Jan 93       Volume 16 : Issue 031

Today's Topics:
                  *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP *** (2 msgs)
                   ** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ** (2 msgs)
            Cheap Mars Rocks (was Re: Moon Dust For Sale)
                     future space travel (2 msgs)
                      Galileo Update - 01/08/93
                          Making Antimatter
                   Mars Observer Update - 01/08/93
                          new Shuttle toilet
           question on privately funded space colonization
    Should NASA operate shuttles (was Re: Shuttle a research tool)
                 Supporting private space activities
                             u.f.o.e.s.p.
                UPCOMING on the ParaNet UFO CONTINUUM

    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: 10 Jan 93 02:13:04 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Jon J Thaler <[e-mail]> writes:
>> Current antiproton production is geared towards physics, not
>> rocketry.  It is probably possible to create antimatter more
>> efficiently if that is the primary goal.
>
>This is probably incorrect, for two reasons:
>* Antiproton production and capture  efficiency limits the rate
>  at which antiproton storage rings can be filled.  If easily
>  obtainable improvements were available, I expect that they
>  would have been used already.

As I understand it, there are other constraints that also have to be
observed.  For example, they want antiprotons with more or less the
same energy.  Robert Forward, who studied the issue on contract for
the USAF, said production rates *could* be improved considerably if
you custom-built the hardware for it.

>* A rocket fuel needs to be cheaply contained.  Storage rings
>  are expensive.  Unfortuantely, antiprotons are created moving,
>  so they will need to be brought to rest to simplify the containment
>  problem.  This is an additional manipulation that the physicists
>  don't need to perform.

It doesn't look like a hard problem, however.  There has been work
done in that direction for various physics projects.  For example,
there was a LANL project -- no longer funded -- to decelerate and cool
antiprotons to essentially zero energy for measuring their gravitational
mass.  (If you believe general relativity, it should be identical to
their well-known inertial mass... but some of the weirder theories of
gravity say it should be different.)  I heard a talk by one of the
folks involved; he said that it was interesting physics to be sure,
but it was also a way to do antimatter-handling work with an eye on
longer-term practical uses.

If memory serves, first estimates for propulsion efforts say that the
trickiest problem is the latent heat of freezing when you try to
convert antihydrogen gas to solid pellets.  There is no shortage of
possible methods for most of the handling problems, although a good
bit of engineering development would have to be done to find out which
ones will work best.

>There is no free lunch.  Baryon number is conserved...

Well, unless you believe in proton decay, in which case it isn't...

>This means it costs
>the same 2mc^2 (at least) to make an antiproton that one gets back when
>it annihilates.

Indeed so.  Antimatter is a *storage* system, not an energy source per se.
But it's an outstandingly lightweight storage system, assuming the handling
gear's mass isn't too bad.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:30:22 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>Quark-catalyzed fusion is for wimps. :-)

Compared to your description of magnetic monopole catalyzed proton decay, I
have to agree :-)

>Still... THAT's a Bussard ramjet powerplant for you!

No kidding.  Just to clarify what's going on, the exchange of virtual X
particles can change quarks into leptons and quarks into antiquarks.  Thus
the proton decay products are a positron and a neutral pion, i.e.,

                     +     o
               p -> e  + pi

However, in order to account for the long lifetime of a proton, the X particle
must be 10^14 times as heavy as a proton (ouch!).  This according to the
SU(5) grand unified theory.

I didn't know that magnetic monopoles could also mediate such a reaction, too.
However, I was aware that people are looking for them anyway :).  On Feb. 14,
1983, a group from Stanford led by B. Cabrera recorded an event that looked
very much like  the passage of a monopole through their apparatus.
Unfortunately, as in the case of free quarks, no one has seen a magnetic
monopole since.

(I might also mention that the X particle plays a role in proton decay
which is somewhat similar to that of the W- particle in neutron decay.)

--
Dave Michelson
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 06:57:17 PST
From: Jason Cooper <[e-mail]>
Subject: ** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP **
Newsgroups: sci.space

Thought I'd just do a blanket post on what I've seen here rather than
reply to each individual message.  Firstly, do we have a verdict of anyu
sort on whether or not antimatter-matter collisions are a good way to
produce the heat required for fusion?  Or might it be best to boost the
ramjet up to .017c (where the kinetic energy of the ship should roughly
equal the energy required for deuterium-deuterium (or was that d-p?)
fusion) using a more conventional method like nuclear pod propulsion,
such as the Orion starship?  Secondly, if it _IS_ a good way to produce
heat on the incoming H, does anyone out there have any idea how a
_smaller_ version of something that would create that kind of antimatter
(I figure it's probably better to produce it than to carry it) per second
would be like?  I'm not looking for first-draft plans here, just concepts
that may be used to DESCRIBE what such a device would look like and how
(if necessary) it might pipe protons out of the stream.  Thirdly, if we
were to STORE the antimatter, how would it be stored?  I have seen methods
for plasma, but can't seem to find antimatter storage.

Any response welcome...

                                                Jason Cooper

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

Date: 9 Jan 93 22:42:18 GMT
From: Chris Marriott <[e-mail]>
Subject: ** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP **
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>(if necessary) it might pipe protons out of the stream.  Thirdly, if we
>were to STORE the antimatter, how would it be stored?  I have seen methods
>for plasma, but can't seem to find antimatter storage.
>
>Any response welcome...
>
>                                                Jason Cooper
>

Storing antimatter should (in principle at least) be quite straightforward.
Assuming it's charged, you can both store it and move it using
magnetic fields.

Chris
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Chris Marriott                           | [e-mail]    |
| Warrington, UK                           | BIX: cmarriott              |
| (Still awaiting inspiration              | CIX: cmarriott              |
|  for a witty .sig .... )                 | CompuServe: 100113,1140     |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

Date: 8 Jan 93 20:06:23 GMT
From: Glen K Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cheap Mars Rocks (was Re: Moon Dust For Sale)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

<[e-mail]> writes:

>Why buy 1gramm moondust for about $4000.- (or 1 pound for $2'000'000)
>when I bought 4g Mars rock for $350.- two years ago???

>To get the Mars rock I'm talking of down to earth didn't cost a single cent,
>by the way. The 18kg SNC-meteorit simply fell out of the sky in October, 1962
>near Zagami rock in Nigeria.

>Taking all the known SNC meteorites known, there are hardly more than 100pounds
>of mars rock available. Thus, $100.000 for a two inch tape of moondust is quite
>a high price|| I think I'll wait until a *large* lunar meteorite drops down
>somwhere...

Why not go out and buy a tektite? Even cheaper!

>So kepp watching out for these space rocks|
>  Herbert

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

Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:00:45 GMT
From: rabjab <[e-mail]>
Subject: future space travel
Newsgroups: sci.space

If they don't find water on the moon, I have a hard time believing that
there will ever be large colonies there.  Maybe small stations devoted
to running astronomical instrumentation.

Mars will be the only real place for a large colony, but then again,
if there isn't anything there that's very interesting (like life or
fossils) I can't see large colonies being placed up there.

Seems like the future will see expanding development of robotic systems
that will be used to explore every planet and moon, at a vastly
reduced cost over sending humans.

Maybe in the next 100-200 years biology will advance to the point
where Venus could be altered with microbes.  Change the atmosphere
so SOMETHING could live there.  It would be interesting to see what
could live there if the temperature was reduced.

I think science fiction has given people a false sense of the possible.
The space travel fiction of over 100 years ago neglected things like
radio and computer electronics, and required a travelling human.
TEchnology has superseded the human, and the information can be
returned much more efficiently.

The urge to colonize the universe seems to come from an urge for
terretorial conquest that has been with us for a long time.  It is
interesting how old themes are constantly repeated in the present.
It's too bad we can't interest some of our race (Serbians, Saddam, etc.)
in coveting lunar instead of earthly real estate.

-rabjab

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

Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 02:32:25 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: future space travel
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (rabjab) writes:
>If they don't find water on the moon, I have a hard time believing that
>there will ever be large colonies there...
>Mars will be the only real place for a large colony, but then again,
>if there isn't anything there that's very interesting (like life or
>fossils) I can't see large colonies being placed up there...
>Maybe in the next 100-200 years biology will advance to the point
>where Venus could be altered with microbes...

Why do you assume a colony must be on a *planet*?  As the late Gerard
O'Neill pointed out a number of years ago, this is an error.  Open space
is a *better* place to colonize, given availability of resources from
the Moon or the asteroids.

Also, why do you assume that colonies are motivated by research?  Not so.
Bases, yes, but not colonies.  Colonies are motivated by either money or
freedom, broadly and loosely speaking:  either there's a buck to be made
and permanent residents are cheaper than migratory workers, or else the
residents find life at home intolerable enough to spend a lot of money
going somewhere where they can run their lives their own way.

>Seems like the future will see expanding development of robotic systems
>that will be used to explore every planet and moon, at a vastly
>reduced cost over sending humans.

It is yet to be established that this can be done effectively, except
perhaps on the Moon where speed-of-light lags are short.  Just flying
around and taking pictures is the easy part.  Interacting with a complex
planetary surface, without minute-by-minute human attention, is vastly
more problematic.  None of the currently-proposed Mars robots, for
example, is going to have anywhere near the fossil-hunting efficiency
of even an amateur paleontologist.  Unless robotics improves greatly,
in-depth investigation of planetary surfaces will still require humans.

Note, also, that human space exploration need not be impossibly costly.
See, for example, Zubrin's "Mars Direct" proposal for a way of doing
*human* exploration of Mars, in depth, relatively soon, on a budget
that would barely buy you good robots at NASA prices.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 9 Jan 1993 18:25 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo Update - 01/08/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from Neal Ausman, Galileo Mission Director

                               GALILEO
                   MISSION DIRECTOR STATUS REPORT
                             POST-LAUNCH
                 December 18, 1992 - January 7, 1993

SPACECRAFT

1.  On December 18, real-time commands were sent to disable the system fault
protection thruster flushing all clear response.  With the Plasma Detector
(PLS) and the Photopolarimeter-Radiometer (PPR) instruments being turned off,
the thruster flushing all clear response was no longer needed and was disabled
to eliminate unnecessary PPR heater cycles which would otherwise occur during
thruster firing activities.

2.  On December 18, real-time commands were sent to enable the Plasma Detector
(PLS) science alarm monitor after it had tripped on November 28 when the PLS
temperature exceeded 35 degrees C.  This monitor was reset in order for it to
be functional for the next PLS instrument on time.

3.  On December 18, Delayed Action Commands (DACs) were sent to turn the
S-Band ranging on December 19 which is the original background state of EE-11
(Earth-Earth #11 sequence).

4.  On December 18, the playback of the Earth/Moon conjunction movie was
completed.  This playback consisted of a 14-hour period showing the Moon
passing by as the Earth slowly rotated beneath it.  All the data was received
and processed on the ground.

5.  On December 18, a periodic RPM (Retro-Propulsion Module) 10-Newton thruster
maintenance activity was performed; 10 of the 12 thrusters were "flushed"
during the activity.  The P-thrusters were not "flushed" because they were used
to perform SITURN activities on December 16.  Spacecraft activity throughout
the period was normal.

6.  On December 21, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer
to 264 hours, its planned value during this mission phase.

7.  On December 22, the Dual Drive Actuator (DDA-5) Turn A sequence memory load
was uplinked to the spacecraft without incident.  This sequence covered
spacecraft activities from December 28, 1992 to January 4, 1993 and included a
DDA windup/hammer window opportunity on December 29-30 for approximately 20
hours (see Special Topic No. 2).

8.  On December 22, real-time commands were sent to set the command loss timer
to 96 hours.  NO-OP commands were sent on December 24 and 26 to reset the
command loss timer to 96 hours, its planned value during this mission phase.

9.  On December 28, as part of the DDA-5 Turn A sequence activities, the
warming turn to a 45-degree off-sun attitude started at approximately
1816 UTC and completed at 1854 UTC.  After turn completion, real-time commands
were sent to modify the Retro-Propulsion Module (RPM) thermal safing response.
Also, real-time commands were sent to modify the attitude control Fault Monitor
(FM) 2 persistence level from two hours to 55 minutes (see Special Topic
No. 2).

10. On December 29, after approximately 20 hours at the warming attitude, the
DDA-5 windup/hammering activities commenced at 1455 UTC.  A total of 2160
hammer pulses were executed along with three 20 second windup sequences. Data
analysis indicated the ballscrew rotated approximately 360 degrees for a total
ballscrew rotation beginning with the initial deployment attempt of
approximately 6.4 rotations.  There was no indication of a rib release
(see Special Topic No. 2).

11. On December 30, the spacecraft, under stored sequence control, was
commanded back to a 5 degree off-sun attitude at approximately 1048 UTC.
After the sun acquisition, sun gate data was collected to determine if an
antenna rib is still obscuring the sun gate signal.  Preliminary data
analysis indicates that the sun gate field of view is still obscured although
the signature appears to have changed.  Initial analysis indicates that rib
No. 2 may have moved out to a 43 degree angle.  Also, preliminary results may
indicate that the antenna mesh is covering the sun gate field of view.

     Additionally, real-time commands were sent to open the star scanner (SS)
shutter, reacquire celestial reference, and select scan type 6 to perform
precise wobble estimation.  The wobble estimate indicated a change of 0.3
milliradians which collaborated the motor current data indicating that no
ribs released (see Special Topic No. 2).

12. On December 30, real-time commands were sent to set the command loss timer
to 144 hours, its planned value for this mission phase.  On January 4, NO-OP
commands were sent to reset the command loss timer to 144 hours.

13. On January 4, a periodic RPM 10-N thruster maintenance activity was
performed; 10 of the 12 thrusters were "flushed" during the activity.  The
P-thrusters were not "flushed" because they are being used during the DDA-5
turn sequence activities.  Spacecraft activity throughout the period was
nominal.

14. On January 4, the Dual Drive Actuator (DDA-5) Turn B sequence memory load
was uplinked to the spacecraft without incident.  This load set the command
loss timer to 120 hours.  This sequence covers spacecraft activities from
January 5, 1993 to January 8, 1993 and includes DDA windup/hammer window
opportunities throughout the period (see Special Topic No. 3).

15. On January 5, as part of the DDA-5 Turn B sequence activities, the warming
turn to a 34-degree off-sun attitude started at approximately 2001 UTC and
completed at 2026 UTC.  After the turn completion, real-time commands were
sent to modify the Retro-Propulsion Module (RPM) thermal safing response in
the event of sequence termination.  Specifically, the change included turning
the external shunt heaters and bus distribution 2 heaters on while turning off
the NIMS (Near Infrared Mapping Spectrometer) shield heater and despun heaters.

     After approximately two hours at the warming attitude, hammering of the
HGA (High Gain Antenna) motors commenced.  Five 180 hammer pulse sequences
were sent beginning at 2225 UTC and ending at 0442 UTC.  The motor hammering
sequences were executed with the HGA motor temperature at 19.3 degrees C,
29.8 degrees C, 34.4 degrees C, 36.2 degrees C, and 40.6 degrees C.
Preliminary analysis indicated that the ballscrew was stalled with no
appreciable ballscrew rotation.  There was some suggestion of minor rotation
with the HGA motor temperature at 29.8 degrees C.  There was no indication of
a rib release (see Special Topic No. 3).

16. On January 6, HGA motor hammering started at 1800 UTC.  Two 180 hammer
pulse sequences were sent and the activity completed at 1958 UTC.  These motor
hammering sequences were executed with the HGA motor temperature at 47.2
degrees C.  Data analysis is in process (see Special Topic No. 3).

17. On January 7, two 180 hammer pulse sequences were sent while the HGA
motor temperature was at 47.2 degrees C.  Data analysis is in process
(see Special Topic No. 3).

18. The AC/DC bus imbalance measurements exhibited some change. The AC
measurement has ranged from 16DN to 19DN and now reads 18DN (4.1 volts).
The DC measurement has ranged from 62DN (6.9 volts) to 157DN (18.5 volts) and
now reads 150DN (17.7 volts).  These measurement variations are consistent
with the model developed by the AC/DC special anomaly team.

19. The Spacecraft status as of January 7, 1993, is as follows:

         a)  System Power Margin -  16 watts
         b)  Spin Configuration - All-Spin
         c)  Spin Rate/Sensor - 2.9 rpm/Acquisition Sensor
         d)  Spacecraft Attitude is approximately 32 degrees
             off-sun (leading) and 41 degrees off-earth (leading)
         e)  Downlink telemetry rate/antenna- 1200bps(coded)/LGA-1
         f)  General Thermal Control - all temperatures within
             acceptable range
         g)  RPM Tank Pressures - all within acceptable range
         h)  Orbiter Science- Instruments powered on are the EUV,
             EPD, MAG, HIC, and DDS
         i)  Probe/RRH - powered off, temperatures within
             acceptable range
         j)  CMD Loss Timer Setting - 120 hours
             Time To Initiation - 118 hours


UPLINK GENERATION/COMMAND REVIEW AND APPROVAL:

1.  The Dual Drive Actuator (DDA)-5 Part B sequence memory load was approved
for transmission by the Project on December 30, 1992.  This sequence covers
High Gain Antenna (HGA) motor windup/hammering activities from January 5, 1993
through January 8, 1993.  Individual sets of hammering/windup commands were
approved as required immediately prior to being uplinked to the spacecraft.

2.  The Dual Drive Actuator (DDA-5) Part C sequence memory load was approved
for transmission by the Project on January 7, 1993.  This sequence covers
High Gain Antenna (HGA) motor windup/hammering activities from January 11,
1993 to January 14, 1993.  As with previous windup/hammering activities,
individual sets of hammering/windup commands will be approved as required
prior to being uplinked to the spacecraft.


GDS:

1.  A Galileo MVT (Mission Verification Test) was performed on
December 20, 1992, from 00:00:00 to 05:00:00 GMT, using DSS-12 (Goldstone
34 meter antenna).  The purpose of the test was to evaluate the new Station
Communications Processor's (SCP) ability to support Galileo.  This test
exercised telemetry, monitor, and command for Galileo.  All telemetry rates
were to be tested, however due to resource and time constraints only two rates
were successfully run, (134.4 kbps HRW and 40 bps ESS [uncoded]).  The SCP
worked well for the two telemetry rates, monitor, and nominal command portions
of the MVT.  Galileo will run all remaining telemetry data rates through the
new SCP interface before any demo passes and/or the SCP is placed in SOAK.
The next available date for a SCP MVT is January 14, 1993.


TRAJECTORY

     As of noon Thursday, January 7, 1993, the Galileo Spacecraft trajectory
status was as follows:

    Distance from Earth         22,107,500 km (0.15 AU)
    Distance from Sun           156,587,900 km (1.05 AU)
    Heliocentric Speed          135,300 km per hour
    Distance from Jupiter       772,250,300 km
    Round Trip Light Time       2 minutes, 30 seconds


SPECIAL TOPIC

1.  As of January 7, 1993, a total of 25059 real-time commands have been
transmitted to Galileo since Launch.  Of these, 20010  were initiated in the
sequence design process and 5049 initiated in the real-time command process.
In the past three weeks, 16244 real time commands were transmitted: 16242 were
initiated in the sequence design process and 2 initiated in the real time
command process.  Major command activities included commands to modify system
fault protection response, enable science alarm monitor, turn S-Band ranging
on, reset the command loss timer, uplink DDA-5A sequence memory load, modify
attitude control fault monitor persistence level, windup and hammer the HGA,
open the star scanner shutter, reacquire celestial reference and select scan
Type 6.

2.  The Dual Drive Actuator (DDA) pulse mini-sequence No. 5A covered spacecraft
activities from December 28, 1992 to January 4, 1993.  The warming turn to a
45-degree off-sun attitude occurred on December 28.  The spacecraft remained at
the warming attitude for approximately 40 hours.  The motor windup/hammering
activities began approximately 20 hours at the warming attitude and continued
for 20 hours.  A total of 2160 hammer pulses were executed along with three 20
second windup sequences.  The sun acquisition back to approximately a 5-degree
off-sun attitude occurred on December 30.  Sun gate data was collected on
December 30.  The star scanner checkout along with collection of wobble data
was conducted on December 30.

3.  The Dual Drive Actuator (DDA) pulse mini-sequence No. 5B covers spacecraft
activities from January 5, 1993 to January 8, 1993.  The warming turn to a
34-degree off-sun attitude occurred on January 5, 1993.  The spacecraft will
remain at this warming attitude until January 11, 1993 at which time DDA pulse
mini-sequence No. 5C is scheduled to begin.  The motor windup/hammering
activities began approximately two hours after reaching the warming attitude.
A total of ten 180 pulse motor hammering sequences are scheduled which will
execute 1800 motor hammering pulses on the spacecraft.  The star scanner
checkout along with collection of wobble data is scheduled for January 8, 1993.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and

/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | a day in your life.

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

Date: 9 Jan 1993 16:12 CST
From: IGOR <[e-mail]>
Subject: Making Antimatter
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>
>Reality Check:
>We have never actually made antimatter. We have made anti-particles,
>but as yet they have never been cold enough to try to get them to
>link up into matter. Supposedly this experiment is intended in the
>relatively near future; perhaps Bill Higgins could comment on this.

using laser cooling techniques ?

any reference on this experiment ?




Igor
Texas A&M University

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

Date: 10 Jan 93 04:28:12 GMT
From: _Floor_ <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 01/08/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
] Teams are preparing Flight Software Build 7.1.1 for uplink on January 13

Sounds like they're using Apple Macintosh System Software! Is this the
next update? Can we get a copy? :-)

  _____    "But you can't really call that a dance. It's a walk." - Tony Banks
 /  ___\  ___  __ ___   ___      _____________   [e-mail]
 | / __  / _ \ | /   \ / _ \     |  physics  |   [e-mail]
 | \_\ \ | __/ |  /\ | | __/     |racquetball|   [e-mail]
 \_____/ \___/ |_| |_| \___/     | volleyball|   [e-mail]
 Gene Van Buren, Kzoo Crew(Floor), Washington U. in St. Lou - #1 in Volleyball

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

Date: 10 Jan 93 02:21:34 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: new Shuttle toilet
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>A few mitigating factors that might be considered:
>  * I understand the pre-Shuttle toilet facilities took around an hour
>    to use (for solid waste)...

That's the Gemini/Apollo stick-on baggies.  The Skylab toilet wasn't a
problem that way; it wasn't significantly more hassle than an ordinary
Earthbound toilet.

(I haven't seen details on the new shuttle toilet, but my impression is
that it more or less goes back to the Skylab approach.)
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 22:06:58 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: question on privately funded space colonization

-From: [e-mail] (Herman Rubin)
-Subject: Re: question on privately funded space colonization
-Date: 7 Jan 93 14:09:54 GMT
-Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

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

->-From: [e-mail] (Herman Rubin)
->-Subject: Re: Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization

->-Can one
->-reasonably expect people to do things when the government can step
->-in at any time and say no, or say that what you have done belongs
->-to it?
-...
-My concern has nothing to do with the principle of eminent domain.  It also
-has nothing to do with claims about ownership of the moon.

-Consider the possible scenario:  An American organization raises enough
-money to produce and operate a space station, acquires launching rights
-in Tanzania, acquires the necessary equipment, and then existing law is
-invoked to tell the organization that they cannot do it.  I believe that
-this law could be invoked if Americans even participate in a foreign
-organization.

If they want to launch a big beryllium-fuel rocket from the middle of a
city, sure. Your complaint is that US citizens can't circumvent US safety
regulations by going overseas. I don't see why they can't launch and also
conform to the safety regulations.

If you feel that people using private launchers should follow no safety
rules other than the ones they care to follow themselves, then I disagree.
If there are specific regulations that you feel are excessive, then you
should describe the specific ones you object to, and we could discuss
whether those rules should be relaxed. An example might be whether you
feel that low-altitude range safety should be more closely coupled to
local ground conditions. But you have to be specific about what regulations
you object to, and how you think changing them would help - generalizations
aren't much good.

-Or the bureaucrats decide that the presence of a lunar colony would
-"not be in the national interest," and invokes RICO (it sure is that
-broad) to seize at least any American assets of the organization.

Could you please explain more about RICO? I haven't been able to find
out much about it. Something to do with racketeering? If you can give
more details, I could try to look it up in the US Code.

-I doubt that the government of any industrial nation wants man in
-space unless it is strictly under its control, or at least under the
-control of those who would stifle mankind.

If you mean that it would not be in the interest of existing nations to
encourage the development of governments that ignore international laws
and agreements, you're right. And consider human rights issues - suppose
US citizens set up a colony on the moon, and decide to revive the
institution of slavery - would you say the US would have no legitimate
interest in the matter?

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 10 Jan 93 02:24:51 GMT
From: Francois Yergeau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Should NASA operate shuttles (was Re: Shuttle a research tool)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>When there's only one supplier in a market, that's usually
>a pretty good incentive for other companies to invest.  How
>many companies followed Federal Express into the day-next
>delivery market?

The success of Federal Express demonstrated that there was a large
market of buyers for this service, at the prices allowed by the mature
aviation infrastructure.  Investors jumped in to tap that market.  At
shuttle costs, even under private stewardship, buyers would not flock
in, so investors would be reluctant at best, except for the one who
would be guaranteed x launches at price $y (large) by NASA.  But even
if privatization of shuttle did not produce a competitive market,
perhaps the change of attitude needed for NASA to effect it would be a
Good Thing.

--
Francois Yergeau ([e-mail]) |  De gustibus et coloribus
Centre d'Optique, Photonique et Laser    |  non disputandum
Departement de Physique                  |          -proverbe scolastique
Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, QC, Canada    |

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

Date: 10 Jan 93 02:19:03 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Supporting private space activities
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Pugh) writes:
>The federal government paid the early airlines to carry mail. In some (most?)
>cases, these mail subsidies were the only thing that made the airlines profitable.
>So ... it seems reasonable to wonder if a similar program could be done for the
>private launcher market. What I'm proposing is that the government agree to pay
>$1000/lbs to deliver 1 million pounds to LEO each year from 1995 to 2015. At
>$1 billion/year, this would be a fairly small program (by government standards).

Congratulations, you've reinvented (more or less) the Commercial Space
Incentive Act, which was proposed a few years ago.  Congress didn't like it
and it didn't get anywhere.

Even if you could get it passed, there is the non-trivial problem of
convincing would-be launcher developers that it won't get repealed during
their development period.  It *is* a relatively small expense, and it
almost certainly *would* be extremely effective, but it's not the way
Congress likes to do things.

>... (I realize, of course,
>that NASA would ever let it pass no matter what we did to it)?

It's not NASA's decision.  Congress has passed bills that NASA didn't like.
Forget NASA; the hard part is selling it to Congress.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 9 Jan 93 22:51:22 GMT
From: rabjab <[e-mail]>
Subject: u.f.o.e.s.p.
Newsgroups: sci.space

What became of the space advocacy group United for Our Expanded Space
Programs (u.f.o.e.s.p.) led by Graham Maughan and Linda Strickler?

-rabjab

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

Date: 9 Jan 93 22:44:01 GMT
From: Andrew - Palfreyman <[e-mail]>
Subject: UPCOMING on the ParaNet UFO CONTINUUM
Newsgroups: sci.space

Perhaps, instead of a radio show, you should hold a Fair.

I for one would definitely attend if the rides were
reasonably priced and the craft stayed under 7 gees.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| lord snooty @the giant |  inceptus clamor frustratur hiantes             |
| poisoned electric head |              [e-mail] |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 031
------------------------------