Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v08/v8_360.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/po2.andrew.cmu.edu.268.0.0>;
          Tue, 13 Sep 88 04:08:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q002/QF.andrew.cmu.edu.232cd6a2.bba156>;
          Tue, 13 Sep 88 04:04:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00337> for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Tue, 13 Sep 88 04:04:02 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08666; Tue, 13 Sep 88 01:06:07 PDT
    id AA08666; Tue, 13 Sep 88 01:06:07 PDT
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 88 01:06:07 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #360

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 360

Today's Topics:
           Are we ready for terraforming???
                Re: Pioneer 10
            Re: Space Station power supply
            Naming the new Shuttle
              SETI and Prudence
         Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium)
         Re: Are we ready for terraforming???
            spce exploration/exploitation
            space exploration/exploitation
         Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 88 22:53:17 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!mfgfoc![e-mail]  (Mike Thompson)
Subject: Are we ready for terraforming???


Subject: Are we ready to terraform???
Newsgroups: sci.space
Keywords: terraforming earth mad scientist

In todays San Jose Mercury News (Monday August 10th) in the Science and
Medicine section there is an interesting article about extordinary
measures some scientist are proposing to repair the Earth's ailing
environment.  Among the proposals mentioned to reverse the depletion of
ozone and excess amounts of Carbon Dioxide:

1.  Mount giant infra-red lasers on mountain tops and zap the CFC's
(chlorofluorocarbons) while they are still in the lower atmosphere.
I guess if that doesn't work then can point the lasers at the factories
causing the CFC's. ( many :-} )

2.  Use rockets and balloons to dump massive amounts of ozone in the
upper atmosphere to replace what is being lost.

3.  Dump millions of tons (35M to be exact) of Sulfer Dioxide into the
upper atmosphere a year so that it would increase the Earths reflectivity
and thus cool us down.  Say good-bye blue sky, hello acid rain.

4.  Covering the ocean with white styrafoam chips and our roofs with mirrors
to reflect more radiation back to space.  Better check with the dolphins
and whales first though.

5.  Errecting huge, but very thin, orbiting satellites shaped like huge
umbrellas to reflect up to 2% of the suns light away from the earth before
it ever reaches the atmosphere.  I wonder if property values in the shadows
of these umbrellas will go up or down.

6.  Brief mention of re-planting new forrest to replace the ones we have
already destroyed and increase pressure on the major polluters to curtail
their evil ways.  I do have to admit that these ideas are to crazy and
radical for even me to accept. :-}

What I am wondering is that if each of these solutions are considered
technically feasible (albeit dangerous), can we not apply these
techniques to terraforming Venus or Mars.  I think the cost of transportation
would be only a minor expense when one considers the magnitude of such
proposals.  I would rather practice with these planets than the Earth,
although the Marsians and Venusians may disagree.

On the serious side though, I believe that it is incredibly sad that mankinds
first attempts at terraforming will be on the Earth just to keep it
habitable.  I feel that we will have to eventually implement some type of
global scheme to clean up the earth and the longer we wait, the more
drastic it will be.

Just thought I would post the above ideas to let everyone know that there
are many people out there thinking of ideas to make your tomarrow a
little brighter.  (or dimmer if you live under a space umbrella)

Mike Thompson

Disclaimer:  The article mentions that these proposals are not meant to
spark concrete plans, but to inspire thought.  I only worry that a
politician may think that styrafoam chips spread across our oceans and
dumping Sulfer Dioxide into our atmosphere may sound like good ideas.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael P. Thompson                      FOCUS Semiconductor Systems, Inc.
net: (sun!daver!mfgfoc!engfoc!mike)      570 Maude Court
att: [phone] ext 370              Sunnyvale, CA  94086 USA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 30 Aug 88 23:50:50 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Pioneer 10

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] () writes:
>I've always wondered about this so I'm finally asking.  Is Pioneer 10 still
>sending information back to earth?  Not just information on its well being but
>space data...

Yes, it's still returning data from some of its particles-and-fields
instruments.  There is considerable interest, in particular, in finding
out where the boundary between the Sun's atmosphere (aka the solar wind)
and the interstellar medium is.  It was originally thought that there
was a good chance that P10 would have passed it by now; nope.

>I'm sure it's too dark to take pictures (not much to take pictures
>at either).

Pioneer 10 didn't have a particularly spiffy camera anyway.

>... Can these data
> be distributed to people like you and me and crunched by our own computers?

You could probably get it, if you knew where to ask and were willing to pay
duplication costs.  (Actually, some of it may be covered by the usual sort
of "prime investigator gets one year's use of the data before it goes
public" rules, but it's all public domain eventually.)  Most of it will be
singularly boring.

>If Pioneer passed by an alien spacecraft will we ever know about it?

Hmm, someone more familiar with P10's instruments than I would have to
answer that one.  I suspect the answer is "maybe" -- it depends on whether
the alien spacecraft's propulsion systems, etc., show up on any of the
instruments.  They weren't designed for alien-spacecraft detection...
--
Intel CPUs are not defective,  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
they just act that way.        | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 31 Aug 88 01:07:46 GMT
From: island![e-mail]  (Robert Leyland)
Subject: Re: Space Station power supply

In article <8808190216.AA11489@watdcsu> [e-mail] (Peter Allsop) writes:
>
> ...
> In addition AC is safer. High tension DC creates two problems:
>
>      1) Unidirectional magnetic fields.
>      2) The "grab-hold" effect if a person touches a bare wire.
>
>The second property results from the fact that you can force a muscle
>to contract by applying an external DC voltage.  This means that if
>you accidently touch a live conductor your hand (arm, whatever) will tend
>"grab" the cable ... and you can't let go!  To make matters worse anybody
>that grabs you to pull you away may well end up stuck to you.  Have you
>ever touched a 115V AC line and felt a "pulsing" effect?  The pulses are
>when the power crosses zero, and if they weren't there you couldn't have
>let go!  ....

While I agree with Peter's assertions about the benefits of AC over DC. The
"grab hold" effect is *NOT* one of them. AC is more dangerous here, as those
"pulsations" happen to fast for your nerves to react, and you can't let go!

With DC you at least have the possibility of "peeling" off your hand without
the muscles continually being re-stimulated and gripping tighter.

Naturally this is not something that one *wants* to experience....

PS. the grab hold effect is why you should always approach something that may
be carrying an electric current with the back of your hand, so that if the
charge is present your muscles will contract pulling your hand AWAY from the
conductor.

Robert Leyland

[Professional Stunt Performers - Do Not Attempt This At Home]

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

Resent-Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 88 09:04:19 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-From: Ted Anderson <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: Space <[e-mail]>
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Aug 88 15:15:00 EDT
From: "DURDA" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Naming the new Shuttle
To: "ota" <[e-mail]>


    I realize that this is highly unoriginal but I want to get people
thinking about it - PLEASE, the new shuttle orbiter *must* be named Phoenix!
There are two reasons that this may not come about. First, as I understand it,
NASA has given the name selection process over to the nation's school children.
(Nothing wrong with this at all! I just hope someone would plant the seed of
the idea in their minds.) Second, (and this is the main problem), shuttle
orbiters must be named after maritime research vessels. My question, then, is
'Were there or are there any maritime research vessels named Phoenix?' I don't
think we need to ask HAL why this would be a good name!

                Dan Durda  <DDDURDA@UFPINE>

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

Subject: SETI and Prudence
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 88 10:06:26 -0400
From: "F.Baube" <[e-mail]>


Perhaps ridiculous, but ..
It wouldn't have taken much for Hitler to still be firmly
entrenched in Europe; my basis for believing this belongs in
alt.history, not here, but What If .. it were *his* type leading
our species into space.  Maybe his brand of mass insanity would
expire before the advent interstellar travel, maybe not, but ..
I for one would not want to be found out by a space-faring
"civilization" led by Hitler's ilk.

#include <disclaimer.h>

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

Date: 30 Aug 88 20:42:43 GMT
From: mcvax!unido!tub!tmpmbx!netmbx![e-mail]  (Thomas Cervera)
Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Pugh) writes:
> ...
>
> The easiest way to get rid of nuclear waste would probably be to
> use hard land it on the moon. Would it be possible to build a
> railgun/mass-driver/etc. which could launch small (1kg) payloads
> to crash land on the moon?

I think the moon isn't the right place to drop Pu garbage to.
Look, I hope that sometimes men will be able to live on extraterrestrial
places. Moon could be a first step on this way, because it's the nearest
'planet' to us.

But, what about two other suggestions :

1) We could send Pu garbage *out* of our solar system.
2) We could use the Space Shuttle to get spacecrafts payloaded with Pu to
orbit and then out of our solar system.

The problem I see is the danger if an accident occurs during launch.
The costs of dumping radioactive stuff into space, I think, wouldn't be
higher than keeping it here on earth under expensive security measures,
because time is money, as you know.

--

alderaan
OP RKOpdp (RSTS/E)
FB Mathematik/Informatik
RKO Berlin

Dieffenbachstrasze 60-61
1000 Berlin 61

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

Date: 31 Aug 88 18:14:40 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Jim Giles)
Subject: Re: Are we ready for terraforming???

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Mike Thompson):
>
> 3.  Dump millions of tons (35M to be exact) of Sulfer Dioxide into the
> upper atmosphere a year so that it would increase the Earths reflectivity
> and thus cool us down.  Say good-bye blue sky, hello acid rain.

Millions of tons is not far off the present volcanic loading of the
atmosphere with sulpher dioxide.  Well over 90% of the global
atmospheric loading of sulpher dioxide is volcanic.  This makes you
wonder why acid rain is such a recent problem (and it is).  Could it
be that _other_ pollutants are mainly responsible?

J. Giles

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

Date: 30 Aug 88 19:39:00 GMT
From: apollo![e-mail]  (Peter Nelson)
Subject: spce exploration/exploitation


 In response to my suggestion that a private company could
 be formed and even launch offshore if necessary, I got email
 from one individual (whose anonymity I wiil protect)--

>It is against the law to launch. It's against USA law for you
>(a USA citizen) to launch *anywhere*.

>Launch offshore, and get arrested when you return.

>(The ostensible reason is that the space treaty provides that the
>USA is liable for damages that its spacecraft create, where "its
>spacecraft" include launches by its citizens.)

  Perhaps the poster could cite specific legislation.

  The D.O.T. has an office of Space Commercialization which
  licenses companies who want to do this sort of thing.  I talked
  to people on both the House and Senate committees on science
  & technology and none of them claimed to be aware of any unreasonable
  restrictions.

  Of course, building a spacecraft can be very risky, both from a
  business standpoint and from the standpoint of anyone who happens to be
  on the ground where it falls out of the sky.  So one can understand
  why the government may prefer to license such things.  I can also
  understand why a Libertarian, especially, might resent such government
  paperwork but a lot of other industries are buried under paperwork
  and manage to turn a profit.  Granted it's a pain in the ass!

  I also might remind the readership that profits are only a secondary
  issue here.  Several people (who have yet to followup) were waxing
  poetic about the 'freedom' that space offered and how they 'planned'
  to be there someday.  I assumed they'd be willing to PAY money
  for this privelege.

  Unless there are some other pertinent facts, which you may care to
  bring to the fore, then by your definition running an airline or
  a hospital is also against the law.  On the other hand, if you can
  demonstrate that the DOT's office is really a clever ruse to keep
  Libertarians and others of their ilk out of space and that companies
  making good-faith efforts to comply with the licensing rules are still
  being denied then please present more details.

                                                  --Peter Nelson

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

Date: 30 Aug 88 20:17:00 GMT
From: apollo![e-mail]  (Peter Nelson)
Subject: space exploration/exploitation


 A followup to my previous posting:
> In response to my suggestion that a private company could
> be formed and even launch offshore if necessary, I got email
> from one individual (whose anonymity I wiil protect)--
>
>>It is against the law to launch. It's against USA law for you
>>(a USA citizen) to launch *anywhere*.

>>Launch offshore, and get arrested when you return.

>>(The ostensible reason is that the space treaty provides that the
>>USA is liable for damages that its spacecraft create, where "its
>>spacecraft" include launches by its citizens.)
>
>  Perhaps the poster could cite specific legislation.
>
>  The D.O.T. has an office of Space Commercialization which
>  licenses companies who want to do this sort of thing.  I talked
>  to people on both the House and Senate committees on science
>  & technology and none of them claimed to be aware of any unreasonable
>  restrictions.
> [...]

 I talked to the D.O.T. and they said that they've issued
 2 licenses so far, one to Conatec and one to McDonnell
 Douglas.  She also said that they have quite a long list
 of other applicants.  I sure hope they don't send
 McDonnell-Douglas to jail for this; they're a customer
 of ours (Apollo).

                                         --Peter Nelson

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

Date: 31 Aug 88 18:25:48 GMT
From: cat.cmu.edu![e-mail]  (David Pugh)
Subject: Re: The sun as a trashcan (was : Plutonium)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thomas Cervera) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Pugh) writes:
>> The easiest way to get rid of nuclear waste would probably be to
>> use hard land it on the moon.
>I think the moon isn't the right place to drop Pu garbage to.
>Look, I hope that sometimes men will be able to live on extraterrestrial
>places. Moon could be a first step on this way, because it's the nearest
>'planet' to us.

I hope so too, but that doesn't mean we can't get target practice in now.
There's no (well, virtually no) atmosphere/ground water to carry the Pu
from the impact site. So, provided the impact area is "small," colonies
won't be affected. Remember, the Moon is a big place.

In fact, the colonists might find the Pu useful -- scrape it up and
use it as a power source during the 2-week nights (or, for that matter,
scrape it up, turn it into bombs to attack the greedy Terrestrial
imperialists -- maybe using the Moon as a dump isn't such a good idea
after all).
--

                        David Pugh
                        ....!seismo!cmucspt!cat!dep

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

End of SPACE Digest V8 #360
*******************