Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v08/v8_371.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Received: from 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/andrew.cmu.edu.6510.0.0>;
          Wed, 21 Sep 88 22:24:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q001/QF.andrew.cmu.edu.23386431.ddc1964>;
          Wed, 21 Sep 88 22:23:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA06470> for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Wed, 21 Sep 88 22:21:07 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06868; Wed, 21 Sep 88 19:07:50 PDT
    id AA06868; Wed, 21 Sep 88 19:07:50 PDT
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 88 19:07:50 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #371

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 371

Today's Topics:
                 Cosmos 1900?
                 Cosmos 1900
               Re: Cosmos 1900?
               Re: Cosmos 1900
              Shuttle names--old and new
              Space probe speed
               Re: SPACE Digest V8 #350
              Re:  SPACE Digest V8 #351
              Re: Why no aliens
          RE: Space Exploitation/Exploration
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 88 14:56:22 GMT
From: mcvax!enea!kth!draken!chalmers!tekn01.chalmers.se![e-mail]  (Mikael Lerner)
Subject: Cosmos 1900?


    Sometimes there have been 'horror'-stories in the Swedish news-
    papers about the Soviet Cosmos 1900-satellite, with which the
    Russians have lost radio contact, which means that they can't
    separate the nuclear reactor that powered the satellite. It has
    been said that it would reenter in August or in September, but
    I haven't heard anything about it for several weeks. Anyone on
    the net who has actual information?


                        Mikael Lerner

    And another question ... how to get on the mailing list for
    Space Digest?

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

Date: 17 Sep 88 05:50:43 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Richard the Nerd)
Subject: Cosmos 1900


Our group of satellite observers (based in Toronto) has been attempting
to track Cosmos 1900.  It is indeed decaying fast now and should decay
on the order of days from now.  I'll give more information as it becomes
available; in the meanwhile, here is a recent element set:


Norad # 18665
Epoch  88257.87186801
n dot over 2  .00244519
n dot^2 over 6  .35493E-04
B star        .83369E-04
Bultin #   471
inclination  64.9552
RA of A node  262.4211
eccentricity  .0015167
arg. of peri  282.9835
mean anom   76.9422
mean motion  16.250448637
rev #    4449


Rich

"Cruising under your radar
 Watching from the satellites
 Take a page from the red book
 And keep them in your sights"

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

Date: 17 Sep 88 21:52:03 GMT
From: attcan!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Cosmos 1900?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mikael Lerner) writes:
>    Sometimes there have been 'horror'-stories in the Swedish news-
>    papers about the Soviet Cosmos 1900-satellite, with which the
>    Russians have lost radio contact, which means that they can't
>    separate the nuclear reactor that powered the satellite. It has
>    been said that it would reenter in August or in September...

Reentry is now predicted for late September.  Emergency organizations are
being alerted to the potential problems.  (For example, I recently saw a
news story -- in Flight International, I think -- discussing the alert
that has gone out to British police.)
--
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 20 Sep 88 01:49:21 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Richard the Nerd)
Subject: Re: Cosmos 1900


Cosmos 1900 reentry is now predicted for October 7th 1988.

Rich

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

Date:    Tue, 6 Sep 88 08:38:54 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Shuttle names--old and new
X-St-Vmsmail-To: JPLLSI::"[e-mail]"

A while back there was a discussion about where NASA got the names for
the Shuttle orbiters.  Here's the straight dope direct from NASA itself.
As you know, the next orbiter is going to be named by a contest in the
nation's schools.  My wife teaches second grade and just received the
entry packet for her class from NASA.   The following is taken from that
packet:

"Each team must propose one name for Space Shuttle Orbital Vehicle (OV)
105.  The name must be the name of a sea vessel used in research and
exploration.

"NASA's first orbiters were named after such sea vessels.  The sea-going
'Columbia' entered and explored the mouth of the Columbia River in 1792.
'HMS Challenger' made the first prolonged oceanic exploration cruise;
the data gathered about the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans on that voyage
became the basis for the study of oceanography.  Various ships have borne
the name 'Discovery': one of Henry Hudson's in his search for a northwest
passage in 1610 and 1611, a second in Captain Cook's voyages of the 1770's,
and Commander Robert Scott's steam bark which made the first scientific
survey of Antarctica.  The ketch 'Atlantis' logged half a million miles
between 1930 and 1966 as the first American-operated vessel designed
specifically for ocean research.

"The space missions carried out by the 'Columbia', 'Challenger', 'Discovery',
and 'Atlantis' also have contributed significantly to world research and
exploration, making them worthy of sharing the names of their historic
predecessors.

"The name for OV 105 should be a name suitable for an American spacecraft
and should capture the spirit of America's mission in space.  In honor
of the 51-L crew, the name 'Challenger' has been retired and cannot be
used for OV 105."


Hmmmm......they didn't mention the "Enterprise".  Now I have a question.
Back in college in the mid-70's I either read or had someone at JSC tell
me that the shuttle names did double duty: they had to represent both
a historic research ship AND the name of a famous spacecraft from science
fiction.  Anyone out there know anything about this?  I can get three of
them ("Enterprise" from "Star Trek"; "Columbia" was the name of Jules
Verne's spaceship in "From the Earth to the Moon", which was why it was
also chosen for the command module of Apollo 11; and "Discovery" which was
the Jupiter-bound spacecraft in "2001").  Supposedly either "Challenger"
or "Atlantis" was the name of Tom Swift's rocket, but I've never been
able to track that down for sure.  Any sci-fi fans out there have any
suggestions or leads?

Also, anyone who wants to get contest information, it's open to any school,
public or private, grades K through 12th.  For an entry packet write to:
    NASA Orbiter-Naming Program
    Council of Chief State School Officers
    400 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 379
    Washington, DC 20001
Deadline for entries is December 31, 1988.

Marc Hairston--Center for Space Sciences--Univ of Texas at Dallas
SPAN address   UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTD750::HAIRSTON

"Any opinions expressed above are my own, as are any typos."

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

Date: Tue,  6 Sep 88 09:38:25 PST
From: Peter Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space probe speed
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"[e-mail]"

> apollo![e-mail]  (Peter Nelson) writes:
> At 1,000,000 miles an hour (i.e., pretty damn fast by today's standards)
> it would take about 2900 years for a probe to get to Alpha Centauri.
> The electronics and other systems are not likely to last anywhere near
> that long.  With a lot of rendundancy and careful design and choice of
> material we *might* be able to make a probe last a hundred years.  So
> to get to Alpha Centauri in that time would require going at 4% of the
> speed of light (not counting acceleration/deceleration time).

The British Interplanetary Society published a report of a highly-detailed
study called _Project Daedalus_ several years ago, still excellent reading.
They concluded that an unmanned, undecelerated flyby of Barnard's Star
(12 l.y.) would be technologically and economically feasible in short
order given reasonable extrapolations.  The mission time was 50 years,
with a peak velocity of 12% of the speed of light.  I'd recommend reading
this report.

Peter Scott ([e-mail])

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

Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1988 11:17-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #350

As just about anybody would guess, I side with Dillon Pyron over Peter
Nelson. Mr Nelson may be right about the dreamers who only watch star
trek re-runs. But those aren't the only people out there.

As far as I'm concerned there is only one real space program around.
That is the one being run by people like Gary Hudsen, Deke Slayton, Max
Faget, George Koopman...

Because if they succeed, people like me get to go.

The only thing I get out of the government space program is the honor
of paying taxes.

And if these people succeed, it won't be all that long before the
treaties simply get relegated to the dustbin where they belong.

Space is very very expensive. IF you do it the NASA/AEROSPACE way.

It just might be affordable if realistic hard headed businessmen (WITH
a dream, not a B-school toilet tissue) do it.

Most effort by statist space programs is aimed at creating facilities
which will keep people totally dependent. All their pictures, all their
efforts are aimed at generating this as the 'weltenschaung' of spcae
exploration.

I suggest that it is a falsehood that is becoming truth only because no
one is putting resources into alternatives. Yet.

Let us place ourselves 150 years in the future on the lunar surface.
Our trusty prospector is peddling across the lunar maria in his four
wheeled prospectors bike.(1)  He is wearing a skin tight suit (2) and
is protected from the sun by a parasol. Food and Oxygen is purchased
from small farm(2.5) homesteads sheltered in craters and powered by small
cold fusion generators (3). The cheap CFG will be the equivalent of the
modern plow in sofar as opening the lunar land to farming. All
electronics is self repairing to a great extent. If not nanotechnology,
then something at least as good as far as reliability. All electronics
are grown on the homestead by 'blueprints' ordered and delivered
electronically out of the 2150 online Sears Catalog.

Some very scarce materials are purchased, some of which may be imports.
The monetary standard may well be defined in terms of scarce volatiles.

Water will be totally recycled. Solid wastes will be used as fertilizer
and will be of value. They will probably not have the same standards
and taboos about human waste that are prevelant in US urban nonculture.

NOTHING will be thrown away.

Neighbors will help each other out, as they always do on the frontier.
Violence will actually be at a minimum, as it was in truth on the REAL
american frontier, and most dispute resolution and land titling will be
handled by private agencies.(4)

Independent settlers are isolated and quite capable of defending
themselves. The dug in nature of their shelters makes them difficult to
find by sensors and makes them as impervious to a near miss by a nuke
as to a solar flare. With the energy at their disposal with the CFG's
and the robotic help, they are quite capable of defending their land.
Even a major military ground force would break it's back after taking
on a few thousand of them, one at a time.


I certainly don't expect that I have accurately describe the
technology of 2150. Although the details of HOW things might be done
may be totally wrong, I'm sure that if people try to find the
solutions, there WILL be ways of doing all the things I have described.

Anyone who wants to discuss this topic and prove that prospectors and
independent farmers can't exist on the moon and tries to prove it by
describing 1980 technology limitations will be ignored. If you can't
see the effects of 100 years more of a ride on the technological
exponential, you aren't worth my wasting time talking to. (If you have
trouble, please try placing yourself in the year 1888 or 1838 and
describing how the number of passengers per year in flight is a
substantial fraction of the total population of the Earth in 1988.
Using your 1888 or 1838 reference, describe the technology, economy and
infrastructure that will support this.

1: Scientific American, Dec 1983, "Human Powered Vehicles"
2: Discussion on this net
2.5: I don't have the reference handy, but plants can grow in lunar
     soil, given water and some added microfauna. They do need
     protection from direct illumination, according to a comment from a
     biologist heard during the 2nd Lunar Base Symposium, so the
     shelters will need to hardened just like the people's shelter.
     Keep in mind that many plains farmers lived in dugout sod houses
     at least initially. So a bunch of neighbors get together and plow dirt
     over your new domes. A doming-bee?
3: I think this is Paul's area?
4: Journal of Libertarian Studies, "An Experiment in
   Anarcho-Capitalism: The NOT So Wild, Wild West"

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

Date:     Tue Sep  6 12:44:53 1988
From: "Philip C. Plait" <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject:  Re:  SPACE Digest V8 #351

This may seem a bit naive, but....

Does anyone out there have an idea of when the Discovery is going to
launch? I **know** NASA hasn't set a firm date, but I don't even have an
idea better than late September. I have a friend down in Florida who
has a NASA downlink, but of course they're not talking.

The reason I need to know is that I'd like to fly down there and get a look
first hand at one of these things lifting off... and the airline wants my
me to make reservations a few days in advance.

HELPPPPPP!!!
Excuse me. If anyone knows, please bitnet me soon. Thanx!

{Phil Plait/[e-mail]/UVa Dept of astronomy}

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

Date: 6 Sep 88 14:16:50 GMT
From: att!alberta!auvax![e-mail]  (Ralph Hand)
Subject: Re: Why no aliens

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>
> Very questionable with respect to the aliens, though.  We would have to
> catch one to find out what can kill it - ...
>
>             ... Bill

Why bother trying to kill it.  We just land, one of our diseases goes
rampant through their population presto we have control of our first
new world.  (Sort of like the Spanish in South America, or any of the
hundreds of other civilzations wiped out in that period).

Then if that didn't work we could study them!!!

Ralph

Any and all opinions are my own.

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

Date: Tue, 6 Sep 88 15:46:19 CDT
From: [e-mail] (It's not how fast the car can go, it's how fast you can go)
Subject: RE: Space Exploitation/Exploration

> Sure if you don't mind living in lo-grav, crowded quarters and never
> going to the beach.  I don't know what you mean by 'room' but unless
> you like living in a pressure suit you're going to be living 'indoors'
> all the time.  Sounds cramped to me.  Besides you miss the entire point
> of what the Palestinians, white South Africans, et al, want.

  Mayhaps that is crowded, but a stucture similar to O'Neil's work is sound
  and do-able with some macrotechnology.  Besides, very few beaches of late
  are worth (or safe) going to.

  Maybe I don't really know what the various displaced peoples the world
  want.  Since I'm 1/8 American Indian, please tell me!

> Currently the world's population is growing at about 75 million
> people a year.  Even if we could slow our population growth to 50
> million a year, we'd have to ship a million people a week into space
> just to break even.  It's not like shipping colonists to the New World.
> The shelter, food, and life-support systems for them would have to be
> waiting when they arrived.


  And what are you doing about this.  The whole operation would perforce
  be a bootstrap, similar in many ways to Jamestown (start small and fast).

> One of the (many) reasons why our space program is going nowhere fast
> is that we have too many romantic dreamers who spend their time reading
> Omni and watching reruns of Star Trek and too few pragmatists.  Do you
> have any idea what it costs to even put a *handful* of people into
> space for a few days and keep them there safely?  Do you have any concept
> of what would be required to create even a *small* self-sustaining colony
> of even a few hundred people?  Lots and lots of money and an enormous
> technological, industrial and academic base.  Do you really think they're
> going to waste those resources and training putting 'misfits' up there?
>
>                                             --Peter Nelson

  Yes, I know what it costs.  I also know how much a HARM missle costs, and
  I'd rather spend the money putting people into space.  In both your
  commentaries, I have not seen one response which actually addresses any
  of the issues presented.  The reason we are stuck is because nay-sayers
  like you are afraid we can't do it, so let's not.  My plans involve pushing
  my employer into space in one form or fashion, as a first step.  Do you
  have any idea what it will cost not to put nations in space?

Dillon Pyron

My lips speak what my heart knows to be true.  The thoughts and feelings
are mine alone.

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

End of SPACE Digest V8 #371
*******************