Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v13_2/v13_237.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/sbp9a8C00WBw4C7U4M>;
          Wed,  6 Mar 91 02:26:00 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed,  6 Mar 91 02:25:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #237

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 237

Today's Topics:
              Re: Space Profits
            SPACE Digest V13 #199
       MAJOR SOLAR FLARE ALERT - 06 MARCH (OTHER INFO INCLUDED)
      Re: Why bother? (was Re: Terraforming, sun shield)

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 14:01:34 -0500
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Space Profits
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc:

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

[Lunar oxygen]

>* All customers would have to add refueling equipment to their
>  satellites

Yes but I doubt it would be that hard when it is done in a standard
way and everybody does it. This would also have the advantage of allowing
satellites to be refueled thus making their operational lives much longer
and reducing costs. Remember, a replacement for a satellite which is in good
working order but just ran out of fuel will set you back hundreds of
millions. It would be worth a lot of money to be able to refuel it.

>  and upper stages to enable rendesvous with a fuel depot,

Why haul them up all the time? Attack an ion engine or solar sail so they
can be recovered and reused in LEO. That will save more millions. A
Centaur stage could be used (in theory) several times before repair is
needed.

>  LOX to LEO
>  must achieve a large price reduction over LOX from LEO (probably at
>  least 2:1) in order to cover these extra customer costs.

It just needs to be cheaper. Just having the capability to refuel is worth
millions.

>* The amount of LOX used for OTV and stationkeeping is less than 100 tons
>  per year, which at half current costs to LEO is $150 million,

100 tons at current launch costs to LEO is closer to $1 billion per year.
If we can interest the Soviets in a joint venture then that market size
would double.

>  or only 1/10 of 1% the proposed cost of NASA's manned lunar base.

But about 25% the cost of the LLNL infrastructure (which includes
LEO fuel depot and lunar fuel mining equipement). The incrimental cost
would be a few hundred million per year.

>  I have not
>  heard cost estimates for earth-teleoperated equipment

The LLNL design is fully automated. It can recover a years worth of
H2 and O2 in a year. It even includes the extra fuel needed for transport
from the moon to LEO. Adding a mass driver would double their productivity.

  Allen

--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen Sherzer |A MESSAGE FROM THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF KUWAIT: |
|[e-mail]   |       "If rape is inevitable, enjoy it!"                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Resent-Date: Tue, 05 Mar 91 20:36:51 EST
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 01:49:18 EST
Resent-From: Tommy Mac <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #199
Resent-To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Resent-Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Comments: To: [e-mail]

RE: Gaia, and our role in her Reproduction
(Kenneth Arromdee)  writes

>This is getting pretty far from sci.space.

I disagree.  My whole point in the first place is the assertion that any space
based industry or habitation would prove the gaia hypothesis, because it would
constitute a "baby gaia" by most defenitions of life (that I've heard).  I've
never actually FOUND a defenition of life.  Biology doesn't seem to feel it's
all that important, I guess.  I'd love to get any reference anyone can offer.

>>>-- Automobiles
>>>-- use energy
>>>-- experience growth (by performing functions for humans, in exchange for
>>>   which the humans replace parts)
>>>-- reproduces (an automobile factory is a place for reproduction of
>>>   automobiles; just because it's external doesn't mean it's not reproduction
>>>   Plus, automobiles play a part in maintaining the very economy that makes
>>>   it profitable for automobile factories to work in the first place).
>But I believe that the biosphere (the tao?) is alive, so I will defend it:
>Second, to qualify as reproduction, some material from the parent must be moved
>>to the body of the offspring.  Seeds would be the minimal case (not including
>>the questionable case of a virus).  DNA, at the least, would be required.  By
>>this defention Gaia's potential reproduction fits, while the car anology does
>>not.  To qualify as growth, material that the organism takes into itself must
>>be remade into parts of the organism.

>Interesting.  So if someone invents a Star-Trek type transporter, and transport
>someone by reconstituting them from atoms available at the destination, humans
>can spread through the system without Gaia being alive, since no material
>from the Earth is used in the process?  I doubt you meant this.

I'm afraid that using "if" as part of an argument makes the whole thing invalid
Example:  If radiant man were here, he'd zap your brain, and you'd agree :>
 Seriously, Redefine "DNA" as "biologigal structural information" and it still
fits just fine.  BTW, how does the machine that does the reconstituting get to
the destination in the first place, if it's not material from earth?

>you also seem to suggest that sterile humans are not alive, since they cannot
>reproduce.  (Of course, other humans reproduce, but then other machines build
>cars....)

I'm assuming that by attaching an adjective "sterile" to "humans" you are im-
plicitly acknowledging a state of abnormality.  They are not 'fully' alive, if-
you-will, since they can not participate in the greater (more long term) aspect
of human life i.e. passing genes on to the next generation.

>>I.e.  you are what you eat.  Cars do not
>>make spare parts out of gas and oil (food?)...

>Sure they do.  Cars have many parts: doors, steering wheel, engine, gas tank,
>battery, gas tank contents, stored energy within battery.  They cannot easily
>replace the first five without the aid of symbiotic humans, but by consuming
>gasoline they can replace the last two parts using material from their food
>source.

No, "They" don't.  "WE" do.  In no defenition of symbiote will one organism do
the other organism's growing.  Organisms Grow.  Cars are built by organisms.

>>One less stringent defention that Gaia fits anyway:
>>   -  Possesses DNA (This is why a virus doesn't count)

>1) This means that _some_ viruses do count.
>2) This would mean that a test tube full of artificially synthesized DNA
>counts as alive too.  (You could object that the DNA must be a blueprint
>for the organism containing it, but then Gaia no longer fits your
>definition.)

About 1):  Good point.  I mis-spoke.  The problem with Viruses is the growth
issue (at least), not the DNA.

About 2):  I guess I will argue it.  Not only must the DNA be a part of the
organism containing it, but the "Organism" must meet the other criteria.  I.E.
growth, decay, death, etc.
    And Gaia still fits, since Gaia contains all the DNA that would be required
to reproduce her, just like you and me.

If you reply again (you seem more interested in this than most), please offer a
defenition of life and/or biological individual, and explain how it can be used
to assign or deny 'oganismness'
If you feel strongly about this not belonging here, send it to me personally.
I'd like to hear from you, because I've been milling this gaia-space relation
around in my head for about two years now.  I'd like as much give-and-take as I
can get from my peers.

Tommy Mac               Q. Show one way that radiation can be useful to humans
  [e-mail]    A. Atomic Bombs
                            -grade school science test result
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:    Tue, 5 Mar 91 23:24:19 MST
From: [e-mail] (CARY OLER)
Subject: MAJOR SOLAR FLARE ALERT - 06 MARCH (OTHER INFO INCLUDED)
X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"[e-mail]"

                        --  MAJOR SOLAR FLARE ALERT  --

                                MARCH 06, 1991
                                   Alert #1

                              Flare Event Summary
                           Potential Impact Forecast
                           Other Informational Notes


                                    --------


MAJOR ENERGETIC EVENT SUMMARY

     Another major flare erupted off the southeast limb.  The event began
at 23:24 UT on 05 March, peaked at an x-ray level of M6.2 at 23:29 UT on 05
March, and ended at 00:46 UT on 06 March.  This event was optically
uncorrelated.  The fact that this flare was optically uncorrelated points
to the likelihood that part of the flaring region(s) are still beyond the east
limb.  No sweeps were observed from this latest flare.

     Region 6538 is still rotating into view and is not yet in a good
position for detailed observations.  We are therefore, unable to determine
just what sort of characteristics this region posesses.  More will become
known over the next 2 days.


POTENTIAL TERRESTRIAL IMPACT FORECAST

     This latest energetic event will have no terrestrial impacts.  It was
well out of range and too far east, as were the other major events of 05
March.

     There have been numerous SID's and SWF's coincident with the major
flare activity today.  Six notable SWF's have been observed.  Frequencies
have been affected up to 30 MHz.  Some brief HF blackouts have occurred
during the flash phase of the flaring.  Frequencies most heavily affected
have been those below 15 MHz.  SID's and SWF's will continue over the next
several days at least, as major flaring continues.

     Major flaring is expected to continue for at least the next three days.
There is a high probability that major flaring will include large X-class
flares of optical classes 2 and 3.  No proton activity is expected at the
present time.  The regions are still too far east for proton activity to
occur.


OTHER INFORMATIONAL NOTES

     Minor to major high latitude geomagnetic storming occurred over the
past 24 hours, particularly between 06:00 UT and 15:00 UT on 05 March.  The
cause of this activity is presently unknown.  Magnetic storming has
returned to more quiet levels now.

     Activity is expected to increase to generally unsettled levels over
middle latitudes over the next 24 to 48 hours.  A coronal hole will soon be
capable of influencing magnetic activity.  High latitudes will experience
generally active conditions.  Brief localized minor storming will be
possible over some high latitude regions.

     HF propagation conditions have rebounded recently.  MUF's have
increased due to the emergence of the new active regions on the east limb.
However, fading and periods of distortion have also been observed as a
result of the barrage of recent major flares.  This trend is expected to
continue for at least the next three days.

     Signal enhancements in VHF bands are possible over the coming days
coincident with major flaring.  However, some distortion and instability in
signals propagating via SID enhancements are likely.  These conditions
should persist for at least the next three days.

     Auroral activity has increased recently over the high latitude regions.
Moderate auroral activity (with possible brief bursts of high auroral
activity) are possible over the next three days (ending 08 March,
inclusive) over the high latitude regions.  No southward expansion is
expected, hence the northerly middle latitudes should witness low levels of
auroral activity during the moonless hours of the evening.  The southerly
middle and low latitudes will not witness any auroral activity at this time.
However, it may be of interest to note that if solar activity persists at
high levels as Region 6538 transits the solar disk, major auroral and
geomagnetic storming could occur.  Such terrestrial effects will not likely
be possible until sometime after 09 or 10 March.

     Current projections give Region 6538 the following information on the
given dates below:

        Date      Location     Impact Probability (rough)
       ------     --------     --------------------------
       08 Mar  -   S24E52   -   25.0%
       09 Mar  -   S24E39   -   48.1%
       10 Mar  -   S24E26   -   69.8%
       11 Mar  -   S24E13   -   82.1%
       12 Mar  -   S24W00   -   85.0%

The impact probability is only a rough estimate given a major long duration
energetic event with moderate to high intensity Type II and IV sweeps.
The percentages only represent the chance of a major flare increasing
terrestrial geophysical activity.  These percentages are not representative
of possible proton impacts (which become more likely after the region has
crossed into the western hemisphere).

     Continue to watch for further major flare alerts and possible
terrestrial impacts over the coming days.  Daily updates will continue to
be posted for as long as necessary.


**  End of Alert  **

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

Date: 6 Mar 91 01:21:38 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!aurora.physics.utoronto.ca![e-mail]  (Christopher Neufeld)
Subject: Re: Why bother? (was Re: Terraforming, sun shield)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bryan Bankhead) writes:
>
>Terraforming is my least favorite option for creating living space for
>humanity.. The energy cost estimated for the terraforming of mars, the
>most earthlike planet in the solar system is in the area of 10^23 watts,
>or about 100 million times as much as the entire energy consumption fo
>humanity for all purposes.  and that is just to convert the atmosphere!
>
   Well, nice big numbers, but meaningless. Watts are units of power,
not of energy. For instance, the Sun puts out a continous power of
4.24x10^26 Watts.

>There will still be an immense effor in setting up a self sustaing
>ecology. for such a cost we could create billions of O'Neill colonies a
>lot faster.
>
   Well, I believe that terraforming would be performed with life forms
doing much of the work. Earth was terraformed from a methane/ammonia
mess without the use of huge artificial power systems, it just took a
little while. Humans don't have the capacity now to generate even one
tenth of one percent of the power which the Sun pours down onto us, so
comparing energy costs with human power consumption or generating
ability is pretty pointless. At the moment, humans are a small
perturbation (in terms of energy) on the machinery of the Earth.
   According to some articles I was reading a few months ago, if the
surface of Venus were scarred, and liquid water made to collect on the
surface (two very big 'if's, but indulge me), a significant fraction of
the atmosphere would be absorbed into the exposed rocks. The water
catalyzes the reaction so that it occurs on the scale of centuries
instead of eons.

   As has already been pointed out, terraforming will not be used to
alleviate overpopulation problems on Earth. That doesn't mean it's
pointless, though I don't imagine that people will really want to make a
liveable gravity well out of it. Why go all the way out of this gravity
well just to leap down the next one? Mars might stand a better chance
than Venus of being terraformed, as it's a much more likely place for
colonization, and once there, some people might want to give their
surroundings some variety.


--
 Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | Note: new host.
 [e-mail]    Ad astra! | helios will still
 cneufeld@{pnet91,pro-cco}.cts.com               | forward my mail to
 "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" | me on aurora.

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #237
*******************