Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_2/v15no212.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 17KB

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 05:11:46
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #212
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 17 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 212

Today's Topics:
                 Alien substance from space (2 msgs)
                         Clinton, Gore, Space
                   Drop nuc waste into sun (3 msgs)
                    Ozone depletion (satellite ?)
                              Population
             Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...)
        Space Platforms (political, not physical : -) (2 msgs)
                STS-47 element set GSFC-014: orbit 65

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 00:30:40 -0400
From: David O Hunt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alien substance from space
Newsgroups: sci.space

Has the chemical composition been established?

David

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 19:10:57 GMT
From: Stupendous Man <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alien substance from space
Newsgroups: sci.space,misc.headlines

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stupendous Man) writes:
>
> :    Anyone have any ideas as to what the substance found on NASA's long
> :term exposure unit is?
>
> :    Apparently it's something never before seen on Earth.
>
> :    The substance is a few microns of crystal-like material found on a
> :piece of teflon from the structure.
>
> You mean the green crystals that they code named Andromeda?

    Okay people, enough "dilithium crystals" and Andromeda jokes.  Isn't
anyone really interested in this?

Brett
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster                           (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:                                   NOT!

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 19:34:05 GMT
From: Alex Howerton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton, Gore, Space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:
>In fact, private ventures will be very important in the future
>because they aren't subject to the extreme short-term thinking
>of the government...

No, they'll only be subject to the short-term thinking of businessmen ;-)

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

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 21:15:45 GMT
From: Dillon Pyron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Stevenson) writes:
>
>What little I do know:
>1. The volume and mass of the really nasty stuff is not unreasonable for
>multiple launches.
>2. Launch accidents can be designed for so that the waste material stays
>contained and the container is recovered.
>3. Significant (space class) dollars are being spent on what appear to be
>unacceptable alternatives.
>4. Waste disposal is the single biggest technical problem preventing
>growth in the nuclear power industry. (technical, not pr).
>
>So, oh wise ones, enlighten me. What am I missing?
LITIGATION!  Assuming that you have killed all the technical problems (see
below), you still must handle the legal ones.  If you think the Christics put
up a fuss over a few pounds of Pu, what do think they will do over a few tons?
There is probably no nation on the face of the other that would be willing to
have any part of the launch happen over its heads.

Technically.  Somebody help me, but isn't it almost as hard to "land" something
on the sun as to get it to Jupiter?
>Thanks
>
>John Stevenson
>[e-mail]
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
[phone] (when I'm here)     |
[phone] (when I'm home)     |"Do something different, DISAPPEAR"
[e-mail]          |  "DISAPPEAR"
                                     _A Day On Earth_
                                     Brave Combo

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

Date: 16 Sep 1992 19:43:40 GMT
From: Jeff Bytof <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun
Newsgroups: sci.space

John Stevenson asks:

>Why not drop all the longlived nuclear waste into the sun to permanently
>dispose of it?

To go directly into the Sun quickly requires either a lot of delta-V to
null out the Earth's orbital velocity (18 miles/sec), or trip out
to Jupiter for a gravity assist and back to the Sun.  Various
aeromanuevering options at Venus and Mars may also be possible to
cancel your tangential heliocentric velocity.

I would wonder, though, what happens at the Sun to the radioactive
waste.  Does it vaporize, and sink to the center?  I don't think
it's hot enough, except near the core, to transmute the elements.
Would the materials ionize and get entrained
in the solar wind and just get send back out, possibly towards Earth,
albiet in a highly diluted concentration?

If I had to choose, I would pick Venus as a waste disposal site,
unless there was a serious plan to save it for terraforming :-).
It's fairly easy, energy-wise to get stuff there, and you could just
drop it straight in - just make sure there's no chance of a near
miss and it gets slung back to Earth!

I thought of using the moon, but placing material there is not 100%
safe.  A large meteor could hit a site and knock stuff clear back
to Earth.

So, Venus gets my vote, assuming the problems and concerns with
launching the material from Earth are solved.

----------
Jeff Bytof
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 23:34:11 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jordin Kare) writes:

>The sun is the wrong destination, even though it is the most naively
>popular, because it's extremely hard to get to from Earth; you have to
>kill Earth's _entire_ 30 km/s orbital velocity.  Alternatives include:
>    Dumping in a lunar crater (lowest delta-V; "pollutes the Moon")
>    Storage in very high Earth orbit (recoverable, but questionable
>        stability over long times)
>    Storage in L-4/L-5 points (ditto, and ties up valuable regions)
>    Dumping on Venus/Jupiter (requires precise navigation)
>    Storage in Solar orbit betw. Earth and Venus
>        (NASA's preferred destination, recoverable)
>    Ejection from the Solar System (My preference; requires
>        16 kms delta-V in _one_ burn, no final burn, no precision
>        navigation.


There's an easier way to get the stuff out of the solar system.  Shoot
the stuff off into solar orbit, then blow it up (I mean really blow it
up, to vapor, via a low-yield nuclear explosion).  The debris gets
entrained in the solar wind and is swept out of the solar system at
100 km/s.  This would reduce the delta-V needed to only 4 km/s or so.

It would be silly to dispose of most the fission products in space
(most are too short lived), but one, I-129, is rather longlived (16
million year halflife) and could simply be allowed to sublime and be
swept away.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]



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

Date: 16 Sep 92 21:02:36 GMT
From: Jeff Andres <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ozone depletion (satellite ?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

I've been puzzled about something about all the hype with ozone
depletion and our current status. In the past I've seen pictures
of the globe indicating "hot spots" and I understand that measurements
are made with wind ballons over the poles, but this raises a number of
questions on this subject matter.

[1] Is there, or was there any satellite/payload/module which was
ever sent up to measure the quanities (?) in space ?  If so, what
did the actual experiment entail and to whom should I contact for
further information.

[2] If measurements are done, what are they measuring ? and is this
being done below the Earth's atmosphere or not ?

All this leads to this GREAT :)  idea that I have fore measuring the
current state of ozone.


Those of you who are interested, get directly
in contact w/ email so we don't clog the net with an overload of
information. If enough of you want we can publically discuss it on the
net.

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

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 22:26:58 GMT
From: Gary Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Population
Newsgroups: sci.space

 And that is exactly the problem,as illustrated so well on this board.
When the issue of world population emerges noone can agree.
If the first world subtly or otherwise advocates population control
they are accused of being both selfish and racist.
Unfortunately population growth in absolute terms is far more distructive
when it means more roads,fossil fuel consumption,conversion of agricultural
acres to paved urban jungles. It means all these things much more in the
developed countries than the third world,but these arguments are frequently
used as "smoke screens" and leave all population control discussion at
loggerheads.

Population control in terms of environmental damage is far the more
crtical in the USA than Southeast Asia or non-industral areas.
The world collectively must first admit that human numbers need to be
controlled. If we can't do this nature eventually will in the cruelest
terms.

Unfortunately relgion is 2000 years out of step with reality in most
places and the status of women the poorest in areas with highest
population growths.

Perhaps what will evetually happen already has happened in Croasia.
Open season on all two legged bipeds.
Perhaps not a bad idea,but not the most humane method of population
control.

--
                     Gary E. Davis WQ1F (On AO13)
        University of Vermont  Land Liner's dial 802-656-1916
 References " The Joys of Rumination Without The Cud", Elsie circa 1965

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 23:46:03 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>2. The existing Titan and Delta are very different from what they
>>   where 30 years ago. 30 years of continuous improvement will do
>>   that.

>Yes, I'm sure that the Wright Flyer would have been a hell of a biplane
>after 30 years of add ons too. That would still leave it outclassed by
>later designs.

 I agree that newer would probably be better, but just what does a Delta 7925
have in common with a Delta B (of 1962 vintage) besides the name?  Not the
same engines or structure for sure, and I seriously doubt the avionics are
the same.  I think Cary is falling for the "Grandfather's axe" phenomenon.
You can replace the head and the handle as often as you like, but as long as
you don't replace both at the same time, it's still grampa's old axe :)
--
Josh Hopkins              "I believe that there are moments in history when
                           challenges occur of such a compelling nature that to
                           miss them is to miss the whole meaning of an epoch.
[e-mail]  Space is such a challenge"       - James A. Michener

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 20:56:52 GMT
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Platforms (political, not physical : -)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Barry Schlesinger) writes:

     In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes...
               ...
   >From memory, the Libertarian platform has two signficant statements on space:

   >* Privatize the radio spectrum and orbital slots, and disavow all
   >  treaties (Sea, Moon, Antartica, etc.) that prohibit private
   >  property and enterprise in frontier areas.
   >* Disband NASA, turning over science to the universities, R&D
   >  operations to commerce, and anything the military needs to the
   >  military.

   >I strongly support the former...


   Does that mean no more intenational agreements to keep certain
   frequencies clear for radio astronomy?

Does it mean Cuba can finally turn on its big transmitter and start
enlightening the population of Florida (+47 nearest states or so)
as to the true benefits of socialism? ;-)

Or does it mean I can go out and bomb the local country stations

to clear the air for the low power alternative rock stations?

Maybe Hughes should start development work on "bumper" satellites,
might be some neat ways to clear out valuable orbital slots needed
soon...

|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
| [e-mail] |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

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

Date: 16 Sep 92 21:25:40 GMT
From: David Vessell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Platforms (political, not physical :-)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian

[e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:

>>Well, now that we've seen bandied about various versions of both the
>>Democratic and Republican Official Platforms Re: Space, would anyone
>>happen to know the Libertarian Official Space Platform?
>
>From memory, the Libertarian platform has two signficant statements on space:
>
>* Privatize the radio spectrum and orbital slots, and disavow all
>  treaties (Sea, Moon, Antartica, etc.) that prohibit private
>  property and enterprise in frontier areas.
>* Disband NASA, turning over science to the universities, R&D
>  operations to commerce, and anything the military needs to the
>  military.
>
>I strongly support the former, but my own position on the latter
>is more relaxed: NASA should reform its bureacracy, privatize its
>infrastructure, such as the DSN and TDRSS communications networks,
>should purchase all launch services, and should pursue R&D in support
>of the commercial space and airline industries as well as conduct
>exploration of space.

I rather like your idea on the latter.  Keeping NASA but reforming it would
likely make it better and worthy of tax buckage yet at least give it the
potential to reach some level of self-sufficiency.  I also think repealing
laws that restrict private enterprise in space travel and exploration would
be appropriate as well, as to give NASA some competition.

--
=========*davE*.....making the world safe for intelligent dance music.=========
              I need a trephining like I need a hole in the head.
--------------------------{[e-mail]}---------------------------

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

Date: 16 Sep 1992 21:36:36 GMT
From: Jay Maynard <[e-mail]>
Subject: STS-47 element set GSFC-014: orbit 65
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

STS-47
1 22120U 92 61  A 92260.62193077 0.00076508  00000-0  25599-3 0   146
2 22120  56.9980  89.0316 0008492 291.6347  68.3824 15.89553425   657

Satellite: STS-47
Catalog number: 22120
Epoch time:      92260.62193077         (16 SEP 92   14:55:34.82 UTC)
Element set:     GSFC-014
Inclination:       56.9980 deg
RA of node:        89.0316 deg          Space Shuttle Flight STS-47
Eccentricity:    0.0008492                  Keplerian Elements
Arg of perigee:   291.6347 deg
Mean anomaly:      68.3824 deg
Mean motion:   15.89553425 rev/day      Semi-major Axis: 6681.6662 Km
Decay rate:       0.77E-03 rev/day*2    Apogee  Alt:        308.95 Km
Epoch rev:              65              Perigee Alt:        297.60 Km

G.L. Carman
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
[e-mail]      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
      "Certainly I can comprehend pre-beta.  Translations: 1. Alpha
             2. Microsoft marketing BS." -- Chris Waters

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 212
------------------------------