Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v13_7/v13_794.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-05 | 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/McRM5yi00WBw0LdE4:>;
          Sat,  6 Jul 91 04:38:22 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat,  6 Jul 91 04:38:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #794

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 794

Today's Topics:
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #638
               Re: NASA Budget
               Re: NASA Budget
               What is the USF?
               Re: NASA Budget
 NASA tracks 4800-mile volcanic cloud from Mount Pinatubo (Forwarded)
             Solid-fuel Rockets and Ozone
            Re: Solar sails and Belt minin

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, 25 Jun 91 10:18:03 edt
From: [e-mail] (Arch Hughes)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #638

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
|> Subject: Expedition to the stars (hypothetical)
|>
|> >If a team of explorers were to hop a ship to a nearby star, what
|> >should they take and why?      ^^^
|>                                     Are they hitch-hiking? :-)

If they get off at the star, they better have taken some pretty good
insulators!

|>
|> Seeds - in case they find sunlight and liquid water.
|> embryos, eggs, etc. - Same idea.
|> Sunglasses - stars are really bright.
|>
|> Tom
|> Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

--

o o|  Arch Hughes, HyperDesk Corp.        Phone   [phone] x103
o o|  Suite 300, 2000 West Park Dr.       Fax     [phone]
---+  Westboro, MA   01581                E-Mail  [e-mail]

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

Date: 25 Jun 91 17:09:11 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax![e-mail]  (Douglas Creel)
Subject: Re: NASA Budget

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Bowery) writes:
>What the JSC dweebs seem to be at a loss to deal with is the
>growing realization within the real science community that the pseudo
>science community is their natural ENEMY.
>

I'm interested in clarifying exactly what is meant here by "real" scientists
versus "pseudo" scientists. Does that mean that say, for example, the life
sciences done on board the shuttle is not "real" science because its done
on board a manned vehicle. I'm sure this must come as a shock to all the
medical researchers who've flown on the shuttle that they're not really
scientists. What about scientists working with the EOS project? Is that pseudo
science also? EOS is estimated to cost nearly as much as space station Freedom,
so I suppose that places it under the banner of bad big science pushing out all
the little science. And, strictly speaking I suppose some could argue that EOS
isn't really space science at all, since none of the proposed instruments are
going to be pointed at the heavens but at Earth. So I guess that makes it Earth
science not space science, another enemy of "real" space scientists.

This is perfect. Now the scientists who opposed Freedom are turning on each
other to save their respective little niches. Why don't they learn the lesson
that they were taught on the House floor by the pro-manned space constituency
and not try and save their own pet programs by attacking other programs. If a
project cannot win approval on its own merit, then trying to steal from Peter to
pay Paul will only gain political enemies, not build the kind of constituency
needed to see multi-year project through to the end. Grow up people. You may all
think you're pretty smart when it comes to deciding where this nation is going
in space, but you're pretty naive politically when it comes to accomplishing it.

Douglas D. Creel
Mars Observer Navigation Team
Jet Propulsion Laboratory

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

Date: 25 Jun 91 20:05:56 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!isi.edu![e-mail]  (Craig E. Ward)
Subject: Re: NASA Budget

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Todd A. Brun) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Craig E. Ward) writes:
>>...
>>This is not a zero sum game.
>>
>Well, technically no, but practically yes.  The budget agreement was that
>domestic spending as a whole was a zero-sum game....
>If you think Congressthings
>are going to take money from veterans and give it to the Space Station, you're
>crazy.  So actually, within NASA it is pretty much a zero sum game.

Under the House version of the budget, some of the monies came from HUD;
however, you're missing some of the subtleties involved -- the Senate is a
whole new ballpark.

>Anyway, the point is moot. The fact is, the funding that was scraped up for
>the Space Station *did* come largely from space science.  Sobering reality,
>which cuts through all manner of theory.

It doesn't need to remain that way.  That's what I keep trying to get across
to the space science community.

You, and many of your colleagues, seem fixated on the math of the final House
vote.  That is the wrong place to focus your view!  Neither you nor any of
the other public respondents to my articles in this thread have focused on
the *coalition* aspects of my message: by forming a *coalition*, manned and
unmanned supporters can successfully fund programs and affect policy.
Programs such as AXAF and station can live together; embryonic programs such
as SEI can be moved away from a ho-hum 2019 TV special to an effective
foothold for the long-term development of space.  This takes *teamwork* and
leaders able to see beyond this-year's budget battle.  Politics is a
never-ending game.  Fighting amongst ourselves like this only helps the
luddites and earth bound.

What you should do is inform Sen. Mikulski (202-224-4654) that her committee
must find a way to fund station *and* space science.  It's part of her job.

The farther ahead you plan, the less of a zero-sum game it becomes.  Wait for
a floor vote and you may very well *have* a zero-sum game.

p.s. Since you're in the LA area, you may find it useful to attend a Space
Policy Forum and Debate being held by the Los Angeles chapter of the National
Space Society.  I will be part of the panel.  Come, listen and ask questions.
August 24, 2:00 pm, Torrance Public Library, 3301 Torrance Blvd., Torrance.
--
Craig E. Ward <[e-mail]>     Slogan:    "nemo me impune lacessit"
USPS:    USC/Information Sciences Institute
    4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1200
    Marina del Rey, CA 90292

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

Date: 26 Jun 91 03:48:29 GMT
From: haven.umd.edu!socrates.umd.edu!socrates![e-mail]  (Raul Rockwell)
Subject: What is the USF?

The USF is probably in lotsa people's kill files at this stage.  But
for those who are still reading about this...  I've spent a fair bit
of time writing to various people and talking on the phone, and this
is a crude summary of what I've found out.

Rick Dobson:  Well, like he says, he's not a particularly good writer.
He's more the knuckle headed sort with more enthusiasm than tact.  He
got internet access solely to promote the USF -- and is currently
exhibiting all the classic net-novice symptoms [no awareness of the 24
line attention span of news readers, little awareness that emotions no
longer remove ambiguity, etc.]

USF:  The USF, basically, is an attempt to direct efforts toward
"shared risk".  Maybe an example would be the best way to describe
this.

Consider a manned lunar facility.  There are [relatively minor] costs
associated with setting up such a facility that make it more expensive
than an orbital facility.  Estimates are on the order of 10% more
(moon vs orbit).  However, in the long run, a lunar facility would
probably be cheaper, safer and more productive than an orbital
facility supported solely from earth.

However, there is still considerable expense in setting up a lunar
facility.  Also, a lunar facility has less military value than an
orbital facility.  Finally, much development would need to occur
before industrial returns could be significant.  In other words, at
this stage, this sort of thing would best be tackled as a joint
international project -- so small countries and private outfits can
take advantage of economies of scale, and large countries can get more
development for their investment.

Now, international projects are rather tricky to get off the ground.
People wait for other people to participate.  People who participate
want to have things their way.  Etc.  So what you want to do is have
an arrangement where people get to use the "joint facilities" in
proportion to how much they invested.

But in order for something like this to happen, you need somebody to
get the ball rolling.  Thus the USF -- it is a starting point, a
tentative umbrella organization, and a handful of suggestions on
managing such a project.  If it is successful, it will change to meet
the demands of its contributors.  If it is not successful, it doesn't
really matter.

--------

Note that the USF will not really mean anything until *after* there is
some sort of agreement to build (for example) a lunar base.  [So as
far as I can see, there is really no point in "bull-baiting" Mr.
Dobson.  He is, at this point, trying to contact the sort of people
who can make this sort of project a reality.]

Also note that he has been using more methods of communication than
Internet.  Though I understand his reception on internet has been
somewhat ruder than, for example, at embassies.

--
Raul <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Tue, 25 Jun 91 08:21:18 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: crash![e-mail]
Subject: Re: NASA Budget

Craig Ward writes:
>Get the picture?  What the AGU is asking for is to have one of its natural
>political allies killed.  Not smart.

What the JSC dweebs seem to be at a loss to deal with is the
growing realization within the real science community that the pseudo
science community is their natural ENEMY.

Simply repeating an old lie won't make people start believing it
after they've caught on to the game.

Scientists have a number of natural allies that they are starting to
work with.  The non-NREN/SSC/Tokamak/HGP components of NSF, NIH and
DoE peer review scientists are the natural allies of the AGU and other
non-Shuttle/Frankenfred space scientists.  Also, commercial service
companies including launch companies and microgravity companies, are
natural allies of these genuine scientists.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      619/295-3164               The Coalition for
PO Box 1981                                   Science and
La Jolla, CA 92038                             Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 25 Jun 91 21:02:22 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA tracks 4800-mile volcanic cloud from Mount Pinatubo (Forwarded)

[Peripherally space related. -PEY]

Brian Dunbar
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                         June 25, 1991
(Phone:  [phone])

Delores Beasley
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
(Phone:  [phone])


RELEASE:  91-96

NASA TRACKS 4800-MILE VOLCANIC CLOUD FROM MOUNT PINATUBO


    Preliminary data estimates from a NASA satellite indicate a
4,800-mile-long cloud of sulfur dioxide has spread across the
tropical Northern Hemisphere from the major eruption of Mount
Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines.  Research by Dr. Arlin Krueger,
an atmospheric scientist at NASA's  Goddard Space Flight Center,
Greenbelt, Md., indicates the cloud has drifted 4,800 miles since
the June 16, 1991, eruption.

    The data was obtained from NASA's Total Ozone Mapping
Spectrometer (TOMS), an instrument on the NIMBUS-7 satellite that
measures ozone levels and monitors sulfur dioxide emissions.  TOMS's
mapping capability makes it possible to observe major volcanic
eruptions, then track the plumes and measure the sulfur dioxide
output during eruptions.  In the atmosphere, the gas reacts with
water to form a sulfuric acid aerosol.

    Sulfur dioxide is a toxic gas known best as a major cause of
air pollution.  Volcanic aerosols smaller than those produced by
Pinatubo have been shown to have small, but measurable effects on
regional climate.  The effects of the Pinatubo cloud will be
important not only in assessing the impact volcanoes can have on
climate, but in testing and modifying climate models as well.

    "What people can expect this fall are rosy sunsets as a result
of aerosol particles produced from the cloud," Krueger said.  "There
also is a possibility that the cloud will reflect back into space
some of the sunlight that would have reached the ground, resulting
is a small change in the heat balance of the Earth," he added.

    In terms of sulfur dioxide emissions, the Mount Pinatubo
eruption may be two times larger than the eruption of El Chichon
volcano in southern Mexico in April 1982, making Mount Pinatubo
possibly the largest eruption this century.

    The TOMS has monitored and measured ozone levels since 1978.
Another TOMS is scheduled to be launched on a Soviet Meteor-3
satellite on Aug. 15, 1991.  The TOMS program is managed by Goddard
Space Flight Center for NASA's Office of Space Science and
Applications, Washington, D.C.

-end-

Note to editors:  A NASA satellite image showing the cloud spreading
across the Indian Ocean is available to news media representatives
from the NASA Headquarters Audio-Visual Branch at 202/453-8373.

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

Date: 25 Jun 91 19:23:24 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!bbn.com!nic!kira!emily![e-mail]  (Steven S. Work 1st)
Subject: Solid-fuel Rockets and Ozone


                                                         6/25/91

The following article was in Utne Reader...

  " _NASA space shuttle destroys the ozone layer_
   Despite all the coverage given to the growing hole in the ozone layer,
   little or no attention has been paid to Dr. Helen Caldicott's claim that
   the space shuttle is one of the ozone layer's biggest destroyers. According
   to Cadicott, 250 tons of hydrochloric acid are released into the air every
   time a space shuttle is launched. With each launch, one quarter of 1
   percent of the ozone is destroyed. So far, claims Caldicott, the space
   shuttle has destroyed 10 percent of the ozone.
        In addition, Two Soviet rocket scientists have warned that the solid-
   fuel rocket boosters used on the shuttle release 187 tons of ozone-
   destroying chlorine molecules into the atmosphere with every launch, as
   well as seven tons of nitrogen (another ozone depleter), 387 tons of carbon
   dioxide (a major contributor to the greenhouse effect), and 177 tons of
   aluminium oxide (linked to Alzheimer's disease). Other solid-fuel rockets,
   such as the U.S. Delta rocket, the U.S. Titan, and the French Ariane V,
   also contribute to ozone destruction."

 Utne Reader, No.46, July/August 1991, Pg 62, under the article _The Top 10
 Censored stories of 1990_

What about all the test firing of the solid-fuel engines? I would think that
would also add a lot more crap into the atmosphere.

Has this been talk about in sci.space? IMO this is an important bit of news,
if true. Any comments?

---------------------------- Steven S Work -----------------------------------
Dept of Physiology, Given Med, D-205B, University of VT, Burlington VT 05405
    [e-mail],[e-mail],[e-mail]
----------\ Voice:[phone] (X) Fax: [phone] /--------------------
           \--------------------------------------------/

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

Date: 25 Jun 91 13:53:12 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!demon![e-mail]  (Codesmiths)
Subject: Re: Solar sails and Belt minin

In-Reply-To:  Ian Stirling <[e-mail]>

TITLE: Solar sails and Belt mining

> someone pointed out the problem that in space there is no gravity so
> convection currents don't form and you get very slow melting.

Electromagnetic stirring ?

   _                              Andy Dingley
 /  ) ' ,_  _,  /   _ ) _/_       [e-mail]
/_ / / / / (_) /_) (_)  /_        [phone]
          (_)

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #794
*******************