Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v13_7/v13_706.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-24 | 19KB

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/ocNj:Ue00WBw8AH04I>;
          Tue, 25 Jun 91 03:37:04 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 03:36:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #706

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 706

Today's Topics:
                   Galielo
            SPACE Digest V13 #603
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #608
       Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated
            SPACE Digest V13 #608
         Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch??

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]

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Thu, 06 Jun 91 19:55:23 EDT
Resent-From: Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 91 19:51:04 EDT
From: Network Mailer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galielo
To: <18084TM@MSU>

Subject:  I can't remeber where it started

>>>Mining the asteroids for materials to_be_used_in_space makes sense over
>>>the long term. There is no hurry in the next twenty to fifty years,
>>>however. Meanwhile we need to keep our pet scientists happy with
>>>pretty pictures from the big gravity sinks.
>>
>>I think your 'ten-to-twenty years' comment shows that you grew up in an
>>age when space was not that important because it was a place for
>>scientific experiments and national prestige stunts, both of which cost
>>losts of money.

>Actually the time frame stated was "twenty to fifty" years, and I think
>that is highly optimistic. I grew up in a time when only Jules Verne
>thought travel to outer space was even possible. Nevertheless, with

I grew up in a time when American's hopes for the future were pretty
much dashed on the rocks.  The period 1945-1975 could arguably be called
America's Golden Age.  I would suggest that getting on the moon was our
ultimate show of power, and probably more monumental than the Pyramids
in Egypt.  (though the '72 Cutlass is close :-)
But we are very much in decline, and the original post,
as well as yours, is simply a symptom of the effects of that decline.
Just because you're all pessemistic doesn't mean you have a good grasp
of the possible.  I would even be so typically a 'young whippersnapper' as
to suggest that you are suffering from 'hardening of the opinion arteries'.
I hope you don't have any real power in the decisions that affect such things.

>Congress swinging the meataxe at space related items and pouring the
>money into their S&L buddies' pockets through HUD, the prospect of
>space industries, and their need for cheap materials, seems to be
>receding rather than getting closer. I predict that space related
>spending will continue to decline as a percentage of Federal revenues
>until America wakes up *again* as it did in 1957, and by then it may
>well be too late to catch up.

In other words, it's a good thing I'm not depending on it happening in
America.  When I said 'We" I kinda meant 'people', rather than 'American'ts'
I predict that in the next 20 years, your mind will find the events in
space completely flabbergasting, and most of it won't be American.

>>The resources I'm thinking of may be salable (even at VERY low prices) in the
>>very short-term.  I.E. before real operations get started.
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Take nickel.  It's current price is around $1/lb.  With a typical Nickel
>>Asteroid, you could sell it for $.05/lb, and still make a klilling. (Do you
>>know how much nickel would be in an asteroid 1km wide?).  Could any mining
>>company compete?  More importantly, could we get them to invest?

>More importantly, what does it cost to get that asteroid into LEO so
>that mining and return missions could be done? What does it cost to
>do the mining and return missions? Now what does the nickel cost per
>pound?

>Something the size of our little Jupiter probe isn't going to go fetch
>that monster chunk of nickel. We don't have an HLV to launch anything

But, as has been pointed out lots of times, we aren't in a position to
do any work, but only find out if that work is practicable.  That means
finding out if the resources for the whole shebang even exist!  Galileo
could do that, which is all I'm suggesting.

>Even if we
>were fortunate enough to discover an Earth orbit crossing pure nickel
>asteroid that only required 1000 m/s delta vee tommorrow, it would be
>five to ten years before we could even build up a probe to go take
>a look at it.

Assuming that 'we' means 'american gov.'  So what?  The government
can't even collapse efficiently, let alone centrally plan major
engineering systems.  What does gov's ability have to do with it?

>Let's look at some numbers:

>Annual worldwide consumption of nickel: 475,000 tons (950,000,000 pounds)
>Total global expenditure for nickel at $1 per pound:   $950 million/year
>Total global expenditure for nickel at $.05 per pound: $47.5 million/year
>Total mass of 1 km nickel asteroid: 4*10^12 pounds
>Years at current global consumption rates to deplete asteroid: 4210 years


A) I brought up the Giant Nickel Asteroid idea as an example of how space
could be profitable while real operations are starting.  I.E. it could
help cover costs, till the real bucks are flowing.  See emphasis above.
I ignored Power-Sats, which would eventually be the
major industry, other materials processing (gold, lead, silicon (rock),
copper, etc.), and who knows what else?  How much would a radio-scope on
the moon be worth (all frequncies un-interrupted on the far side, and if
you used another scope on earth, resolution would approac .0001 arc
seconds!  You could see seperate stars in 1000's of Galaxies!)
A moon-base in general?  Any number of space-based science bases?

B) Annual world-wide consumption of nickel would undoubtably increase, were
the price to drop by 20 times.  This was ignored in your analysis, despite
this technique's proven track record for making more money, overall.  You
also ignore the possibility of merely out-competing other nickel-suppliers,
rather than cutting their throats (say, pricing it at $.8/lb instead of
$.05?)

C) Were said power-sat systems to come on-line, nickel comsumption would
shoot through the roof.  Prices would continue to fall, as energy costs
would be tiny (being composed of nickel-mirrors made on-site), yet profits
would be huge.  There's always another customer for energy, the final
product, after all.  This chage in consumption was also ignored.  It won't
be ignored by the people who eventually do it (assuming it get's done).

>>It's interesting to note that the most abundant source
>>of nickel in the world has been determined to be the site of an ancient
>>meteor impact (See Doomsday_Has_Been_Canceled for more of these neat things).
>>Think of the savings if we caught the next on BEFORE it fell.

>Think of the savings of simply using the one we got delivered for free.
>Diverting an asteroid to LEO will cause one positive effect, the Christic
>Institute will go into orbit. :-) With all the publicity received by the
>Dinosaur Killer, advocating deliberately moving an asteroid near Earth
>will generate mass protests that will make the anti-nukes look positively
>pro-technology.

Despite the advantages (although one might disagree with your choice of
target), much of the processing could be done in the Asteroid's orbit,
not only lesseing the risk with Earth-hits, but also lowering the cost,
since you only need to move the stuff you plan to sell (in tiny, air-plane
shaped chunks), and detrius makes good reaction-mass.

_Doomsday_Has_Been_Cancelled_ is the book I got the Asteroid example from.
Vajk's (not a misspel) idea was to melt it down with solar furnaces, fill
it with hydrogen gas, making it's density extremely low, then let it cool.
(This is all with refined metal).  Once cool, it can be cut into
aerodynamic chucks.  These are put into an orbit that intersects Earth.
Because of their low density and shape, little mass is lost on re-entry,
after which they splash-down near your shipping/processing plant.  Again,
the low density comes in handy, since other-wise, it would sink.  These
chunks are collected and either melted into raw nickel, processed in some
other way, or just shaved into light, strong car bodies (for example).

Read this book.  You'll like it.

Tommy Mac
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Thu, 06 Jun 91 20:34:18 EDT
Resent-From: Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Thu, 6 Jun 91 03:27:17 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #603
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>

Subject: Who's the hero?

>>The something wrong is people who devote their attention to shallow
>>heroes instead of the real heroes of space like James Van Allen,
>>Ed Danielson, Eleanor Helin, Steve Ostro, and the many others who

>Please clear something up for me Mr. Szabo. Just who exactly is it that
>you consider "shallow" heroes. Is it perhaps the three astronauts who died
>on the pad during the Apollo program, or is it the seven men and women who
>died on board Challenger?  I'd really like to know how you can compare the
>likes of James Van Allen to these people who made the ultimate sacrifice
>in the service of their country. I'm waiting to hear what you have to say.

Just imagine how many 'heros' there would have been if the likes of the
folks Nick mentioned hadn't done the things they did.  Then a dead space-
traveller wouldn't have been heroic, just stupid (for even going).

Speaking from my own point of view, I don't think it's all that heroic
to do something that milions of people would gladly do in your place.
I'd consider myself really lucky, not heroic.  Dying for it is a shame,
but it doesn't elevate someone to some sort of demi-god status, and it
doesn't elevate their purposes.  People die for no reason all the time.
I wouldn't want to die for the Shuttle, but I'd risk it to see Earth.
(and the stars!  And the Milky Way!  I wonder if a pair of binoculars
would pass the weight requirements for personal stuff?)

I'm sorry if I sound like a cynical schmuck, but you seem to be implying
that we should feel the same guilt that you do about these people's
death's, and call them heros as if that would help.  Maybe they are
heros, but anyone can die.

Tom
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: 7 Jun 91 03:57:26 GMT
From: prism![e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #608

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Subject: Mars Info Requests

>I hope it doesn't muck up your plans too much, but Mars is not our sister
>planet.  Venus is.

The term 'sister', of course, being highly subjective.  With a 90atm
atmosphere of carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid, Venus isn't exactly
high on the habitability scale.  The 900F surface temperature isn't a
bonus, either.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Office of Information Technology      P.O. box."  - Zebadiah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]    _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: 6 Jun 91 19:39:31 GMT
From: mojo![e-mail]  (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Request For Discussion: sci.space.moderated

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim Bowery) writes:
>Doug Mohney writes:
>>                                  ....Peter Yee and the other Official
>> NASA folks (ooops, can't remember the other one) who bring us daily updates,
>
>> GIFs, plus the orbital stuff should go into one group.
>>
>> This would leave sci.space open for the political lobbying which it was not
>> intended for....
>
>The problem is the U.S. space program dominated by politics.  You
>don't solve that problem by shutting down political free speech on
>the net.

There is a VERY REAL difference between informational postings given to us by
the NASA folks and the frothing at the mouth which sci.space readers have had
to endure by People With Agendas.

I support the move to start a talk.space. It's probably overdue. If you wish to
rant and rave about calling my Congresspeople, fine. But, I (and others) should
have the RIGHT to choose to read it of my on volition, not slammed in as a
blatent political announcement between the updates on the status of the Hubble
telescope and the latest Voyager GIFs.

This has NOTHING to do with shutting down free speech. NOTHING, anymore than
alt.sex has to do with sci.space. Perhaps you object to segregating factual
information from propaganda and political lobbying. If I wanted that, I'd
subscribe to the publications of Lyndon LaRouche.

You will still have a lobbying forum. People will have the choice of reading
you and Sherzer. Or not. Isn't this called "freedom of choice?"

> You do it by talking about the nature of the problem to
>see how you can change the rules of the game so space becomes less
>political.  Changing the rules of the game requires political
>action.

What does this have to do with separating factual information from political
lobbying? Nothing. Go lobby somewhere else while I read about the technical
aspects of Beanstalk construction.

>This is very similar to the problem encountered when JSC/Fred
>supporters, having played politics with space funding in prior
>years, now object to space scientists playing politics

Nooo, the lobbying to information ratio has gotten quite heavy.


     Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Thu, 06 Jun 91 20:10:28 EDT
Resent-From: Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Thu, 6 Jun 91 03:30:55 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #608
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>

Re: Asteroid Impact / Dino killers

>>what I read (and partly understand).  The dinosaurs did not die out in
>>one instant.  The extinction appears to have taken hundreds if not thousands
>>of years.  This could be consistant with a climate change, but one might
>>expect the effects of a major impact to be more immedieate.

>This reasoning is odd indeed.  The dinosaurs were around for more than
>100 million years.  Impacts (or whatever) on the scale of the KT
>boundary (CT refers to another boundary) are very rare, as has been
>confirmed by the absence of similar iridium anomalies elsewhere in
>sediments.  It would be an enormous coincidence indeed if the were to
>die out within a few hundred or thousand years of such a rare event,
>unless the extinction and the iridium event are causally connected.

>I suspect the answer is that the dinosaurs were not dying out at
>the time; I understand sampling errors near sharp cutoffs can give
>the illusion of slow decline when none exists, especially in large,
>rare organisms such as dinosaurs where the spacing between fossils is
>large (and the temporal resolution is therefore low).  Oceanic
>microfossils of other kinds of organisms appear to document a
>knife-sharp discontinuity, as do pollen grains in continental
>fossils.

Actually, one theory of dinosaur-death holds that the Dino's were on
their way out (or at least down) and the Big One just put them down
for the count.

The evidence is pretty interesting.  Commensurate with the decline of the
Dino's is the ascendancy of Flowering Plants over the Conifers.  Though
conifers are still abundant, they are not nearly as numerous, compared to
other plant species, as they were at the time.

The other intersting bit of evidence was garnered from coal-mines.  In one
place (I don't remember where it was) One can look on the ceiling of a
coal-shaft (which would correspond to the next layer above the Carboniferous
era, which is the one Dino's lived in) and occasionaly see dinosour tracks!
They most often are found when fossilized, around the base of a fossilized
conifer.

This suggests some interesting things.

1) Dinosours ate a plant species that was losing ground anyway (perhaps
   from vigorous grazing) and hence may have been finding food difficult to
   get, proabably impossible, for the shorter ones.

2) Conifers, which evolved in a warm climate, adapted later to a cold
   climate, perhaps when they had to deal with climatic conditions
   created by an Asteroid Collision.

I wish I could point you to some resources if you'd like to pursue this,
but I only got this from my bio prof in an introductory course, as just
a possibility.  I'm sure interested parties could find more details.

Tom McWilliams
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: 6 Jun 91 01:21:29 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!kksys!wd0gol!newave![e-mail]  (John A. Weeks III)
Subject: Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch??

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Jenkins) writes:
> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Don Allen) writes:
> > report  by  Richard C. Hoagland, who believes the  United  States
> > might have a spacecraft on its way to the planet Mars in order to
> > investigate  the  "Cydonia Message" first  discovered  in  photos

> Wow!  I guess we better get busy with the Mars Observer telemetry
> system.  It's not scheduled for ground testing until later this year.

See, you are part of the conspiracy.  The real Mars Observer was
assembled somewhere else, and I bet there is a spare stored in one of
them hangers at Wright-Patterson.  The program that you work for is
just a cover.  8-)

-john-

--
=============================================================================
John A. Weeks III               [phone]             [e-mail]
NeWave Communications, Ltd.                        ...uunet!tcnet!newave!john

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #706
*******************