Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_2/v15no215.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 38KB

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 92 05:04:41
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #215
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 18 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 215

Today's Topics:
                "The Universe of MOTION" (book review)
                          A modest proposal
                       Drop nuc waste into sun
                Energy supplies  was (Re: Population)
                                Ethics
                       Ethics of terra-forming
                          Hubble's constant
                         Nasa's Apollo rerun
     PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EARTH
                              The E-car
         Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list
                             Who's broke?

    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 16:58 CST
From: NAME "Robert E. McElwaine" <[e-mail]>
Subject: "The Universe of MOTION" (book review)



          (Book Review):


          "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", by Dewey B. Larson, 1984, North
          Pacific Publishers, Portland, Oregon, 456 pages, indexed,
          hardcover.


               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" contains FINAL SOLUTIONS to
          most ALL astrophysical mysteries.

               This book is Volume III of a revised and enlarged
          edition of "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE", 1959.
          Volume I is "NOTHING BUT MOTION" (1979), and Volume II is
          "THE BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER" (1988).

               Most books and journal articles on the subject of
          astrophysics are bristling with integrals, partial
          differentials, and other FANCY MATHEMATICS.  In this book, by
          contrast, mathematics is conspicuous by its absence, except
          for some relatively simple formulas imbedded in the text.
          Larson emphasizes CONCEPTS and declares that mathematical
          agreement with a theory does NOT guarantee its conceptual
          validity.

               Dewey B. Larson was a retired engineer with a Bachelor
          of Science Degree in Engineering Science from Oregon State
          University.  He developed the Theory described in his books
          while trying to find a way to MATHEMATICALLY CALCULATE the
          properties of chemical compounds based ONLY on the elements
          they contain.

               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" describes the astrophysical
          portions of Larson's CONSISTENT, INTEGRATED, COMPREHENSIVE,
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, a kind of
          "grand unified field theory" that orthodox physicists and
          astro-physicists CLAIM to be looking for.  It is built on two
          postulates about the physical and mathematical nature of
          space and time:

               (1) The physical universe is composed ENTIRELY of ONE
          component, MOTION, existing in THREE dimensions, in DISCRETE
          units, and with two RECIPROCAL aspects, SPACE and TIME.

               (2) The physical universe conforms to the relations of
          ORDINARY COMMUTATIVE mathematics, its primary magnitudes are
          ABSOLUTE, and its geometry is EUCLIDEAN.

               From these two postulates, Larson was able to build a
          COMPLETE theoretical universe, from photons and subatomic
          particles to the giant elliptical galaxies, by combining the
          concept of INWARD AND OUTWARD SCALAR MOTIONS with
          translational, vibrational, rotational, and rotational-
          vibrational motions.  At each step in the development, he was
          able to match parts of his theoretical universe with
          corresponding parts in the real physical universe, including
          EVEN THINGS NOT YET DISCOVERED.  For example, in his 1959
          book, he first predicted the existence of EXPLODING GALAXIES,
          several years BEFORE astronomers started finding them.  They
          are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of his comprehensive Theory.  And
          when quasars were discovered, he had a related explanation
          ready for those also.

               As a result of his theory, which he called "THE
          RECIPROCAL SYSTEM", Larson TOTALLY REJECTED many of the sacred
          doctrines of orthodox physicists and astrophysicists,
          including black holes, neutron stars, degenerate matter,
          quantum wave mechanics (as applied to atomic structure),
          "nuclear" physics, general relativity, relativistic mass
          increases, relativistic Doppler shifts, nuclear fusion in
          stars, and the big bang, all of which he considered to be
          nothing more than MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES.  He was very
          critical of the AD HOC assumptions, uncertainty principles,
          solutions in principle, "no other way" declarations, etc.,
          used to maintain them.

               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" is divided into 31 chapters.
          It begins with a description of how galaxies are built from
          the gravitational attraction between globular star clusters
          which are formed from intergalactic gas and dust clouds that
          accumulate from the decay products of cosmic rays coming in
          from the ANTI-MATTER HALF of the physical universe.  (Galaxy
          formation from the MYTHICAL "big bang" is a big mystery to
          orthodox astronomers.)  He then goes on to describe life
          cycles of stars and how binary and multiple star systems and
          solar systems result from Type I supernova explosions of
          SINGLE stars.

               Several chapters are devoted to quasars which, according
          to Larson, are densely-packed clusters of stars that have
          been ejected from the central bulges of exploding galaxies
          and are actually traveling FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT
          (although most of that speed is AWAY FROM US IN TIME).

               Astronomers and astrophysicists who run up against
          observations that contradict their theories would find
          Larson's explanations quite valuable if considered with an
          OPEN MIND.  For example, they used to believe that GAMMA RAY
          BURSTS originated from pulsars, which exist primarily in the
          plane or central bulge of our galaxy.  But the new gamma ray
          telescope in earth orbit observed that the bursts come from
          ALL DIRECTIONS UNIFORMLY and do NOT correspond with any
          visible objects, (except for a few cases of directional
          coincidence).  Larson's explanation is that the gamma ray
          bursts originate from SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS in the ANTI-MATTER
          HALF of the physical universe, which Larson calls the "cosmic
          sector".  Because the anti-matter universe exists in a
          RECIPROCAL RELATION to our material universe, with the speed
          of light as the BOUNDARY between them, and has THREE
          dimensions of time and ONLY ONE dimension of space, the
          bursts can pop into our material universe ANYWHERE seemingly
          at random.

               Larson heavily quotes or paraphrases statements from
          books, journal articles, and leading physicists and
          astronomers.  In this book, 351 of them are superscripted
          with numbers identifying entries in the reference list at the
          end of the book.  For example, a quote from the book
          "Astronomy: The Cosmic Journey", by William K. Hartmann,
          says, "Our hopes of understanding all stars would brighten if
          we could explain exactly how binary and multiple stars
          form.... Unfortunately we cannot."  Larson's book contains
          LOGICAL CONSISTENT EXPLANATIONS of such mysteries that are
          WORTHY OF SERIOUS CONSIDERATION by ALL physicists,
          astronomers, and astrophysicists.


               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT Book Review is ENCOURAGED.


                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC



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

Date: 17 Sep 92 16:42:16 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: A modest proposal
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Terry Ballard) writes:
>   I expect to get flamed for this, but it's been more than 20 years, and my
>understanding is that any research concerning moon rocks has already been
>done...

NOT TRUE!  Active research on the lunar samples continues to this day,
although it is somewhat subdued by severe money shortages.  Lunar science
is a small and quiet field because of lack of adequate support, not because
all the questions have been answered.

>Considering how much moon material there is down here, why couldn't a
>few of those rocks be ground into little bits, mounted and sold...

Well, for one thing, because I believe the US is signatory to a treaty
that prohibits this kind of thing.  I don't remember the details.

More technically, just how many tons of lunar samples do you think
there are?  Nowhere near enough to meet the demand for something like
this, unless you set the price impossibly high.  And just when do you
think we're going to be able to replace the destroyed samples?

It wouldn't be an unreasonable idea *if* we had an ongoing supply of
lunar material.  Until we do, it's stupid to sacrifice irreplaceable
scientific resources to something like this.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 17 Sep 92 17:24:08 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeff Bytof)
writes:
>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.
>

Hey! What about us Vesuvians??
>----------
>Jeff Bytof
>[e-mail]
>
>
>

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

Date: 17 Sep 92 10:53:53 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Energy supplies  was (Re: Population)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.energy

Note that I have redirected followups to Sci.energy where this topic
really belongs.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Knapp) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>
>>Electric vehicles aren't what's being talked about here. At $35 a barrel
>>equivalent, alcohol produced from biomass is economical with known and

>>tested techniques available *now*. At $55 a barrel equivalent, Fischer-
>>Topish (sp) process synthetic gasoline from coal or shale is economical
>>and feasible with techniques known and tested in volume production over
>>50 years ago. As the price of oil eventually rises, there are known,
>>developed, and available alternative liquid fuel technologies that will
>>come on line to take the place of oil. This is a solved problem.
>
>Do I interpret what you are saying is that all fossil fuel dependent
>machinery will be supported on alcohol from *biomass*?  I don't count
>much on coal extractions much since when they are taxed (shut up, Doug)
>they will be diminshed even sooner. A recent lecture I attended reported
>oils etc running out in 50 years and coal running out in 100.  50 years
>doesn't seem that far away considering our current approach (our
>administrations) to alternative enrgies, which seems to be to ignore it.

Let me restrict myself to North America here since I have the best data
for this continent. *Proved* oil reserves in North America  are sufficient
for at least the next 50 years of North American consumption at current
levels. Now since we are currently *importing* nearly half of our petroleum,
that number is effectively doubled to 100 years at our present consumption
rates of *domestic* oil. *Proved* reserves in North America continue to
grow, though at a slower rate than the 1950s, but at a higher rate than
the 1980s, so this number will stretch out over time. In addition to
*proved* reserves, *estimated* reserves off the coasts and in other
areas where drilling is currently prohibited are expected to be substantial.

Beyond that, there is shale oil and tar sands, both hold the potential for
at least a 500 year supply *each*, though current extraction methods are
both costly and environmentally damaging. That puts us at a potential oil
reserve of nearly 1050 years, though we will likely switch to substitutes
much sooner due to increasing extraction cost and environmental considerations.
*Cheap* oil will no doubt cease to exist in the next 50 to 100 years
from North American sources unless extraction technologies improve
radically.

North America is in much better shape with coal. While currently mined
seams will be exhausted in 100-150 years, total *proved* reserves are
stated to be sufficient for all North American energy needs for the
next 2,000 years. Much of this coal is high sulphur or brown coal and
will require considerable processing to be useful, but the technologies
needed are understood, though not cheap or very clean at present.

Biomass conversion and natural gas supply offer long range supplies
of energy. With the proper choice of crop, biomass can be stretched
to *almost* meet North American transport energy needs with today's
technologies. Doing so would put considerable stress on agricultural
and wild areas however. Proved natural gas reserves have recently
been adjusted upward nearly tenfold. It has moved from a relatively
scarce and expensive fuel to a plentiful and cheap source of energy.
Long range prospects for natural gas look good.

Nuclear fission plants, using thorium breeder cycles can meet our
energy needs for thousands of years. If fusion ever becomes practical,
energy problems are effectively solved indefinitely. Needless to mention,
these technologies currently face considerable political opposition,
as do most of the fossils.

Geothermal power from liquid and from dry reservoirs offers the
potential for very very large amounts of power. A few shallow liquid
reservoirs are being tapped today, but the greatest potential is for
deep dry heat reservoirs. This is probably the largest untapped source
of energy on the planet that is obtainable with minimal engineering
advances.

That leaves Earth based and space based direct and indirect solar
energy. On the ground, indirect solar is already in heavy use. Wind
and water power are among the oldest of energy production methods.
Most major hydroelectric sites in North America are already tapped,
or face major political opposition. But many minor streams remain
untapped. Wind is unreliable and requires sophisticated control and
storage systems, or sophisticated grid technologies, to be viable as
a major player in meeting energy needs. But it is not beyond current
technical ability to tap substantial amounts of power from wind.

Direct solar thermal plants are *almost* competitive at today's
electric rates in some locations. The bankrupt Luz system produced
power at only a 20% price premium over conventional generation.
Photovoltaic technology is still too expensive for most bulk power
demands, but is economical for certain low demand, low reliability
sites that are far from the grid *today*. Future advances may halve
the cost of photovoltaics making them economical for more uses.

Space based solar, a favorite topic here, is presently much too
blue sky to be realistically considered as a source of base load
power. Large cost reductions and major technology advances are
needed to make this system competitive with Earth based direct
solar. As a source of energy for space based manufacturing, it
looks much more promising.

>>Electric vehicles are touted for two main reasons. One, they have low
>>point of *use* emissions. And two, they are the ultimate multi-fuel
>>vehicle since any fuel that can be used to make electricity can power
>>them. However, the storage battery problem remains intractable after
>>over a century of development.
>
>Yes, my point from above.
>
>>Electric vehicles, if they become common,
>
>They are already routinely used, although not a wide scale. ~100 mile
>range, overnight charge. They are reportedly lower on emissions, even
>taking into account coal burning for electricity generation.

This depends on how you measure emissions. If you include CO2,
electric vehicles operating from fossil generated electricity
cause a net increase in emissions over fossil powered vehicles.
If you restrict yourself to HC and NOx, total emission rates are
lower. The intermediate conversion processes lose too much efficiency
to allow a net CO2 savings. The lowering of *site of use* emissions
is dramatic which is why California is requiring them in the fleet.

>>will be externally powered or have short range and a limited performance
>>envelope until the battery problem is licked. I don't hold out much hope
>>that a miracle battery is on the horizon that will change this. Battery
>>science is as complex, if not more so, as rocket science. Rocket science
>>hasn't delivered cheap payload of orbit, and battery science hasn't
>>delivered cheap, light, high capacity batteries. Some here would claim
>>that that's *because* of government funded research, not in spite of it.
>
>Please explain the last sentence.

Many people feel that government projects inherently misallocate resources
and effort. This makes breakthroughs, or even just good straight engineering,
less effective and more costly than letting the market drive private
development. Many of the NASA bashers on this group feel that way. My
feeling is that some projects are too large or too long term for the
market to meet effectively, and that modest, but continuing, government
support can be helpful in ultimately bringing such projects to market.

Let me also expand a bit on externally powered electric vehicles. The
technologies to do this are well understood and could be deployed, though
at a cost rivaling the original cost of the road network. If only certain
high use roads are converted, and vehicles carry auxillary on board energy
storage systems for short excursions from the powered roads, this system
could be a viable way to convert to an all electric fleet that would have
the range and performance of current generation fossil powered vehicles.
I think that approach has more certainty of success than wishing for
better batteries, or accepting limited personal transport.

Gary

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

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 18:30:02 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics

>>Therefore, terra-forming Mars is bad, if and only if you don't value Life.

>>Only dead people can conclude that terra-forming Mars is bad.  I dare any
>>of them to flame me :-)

>FLAME!  And I'm not dead yet.  :)

So you're claiming to hold the 'anti-life' premise as true?  How do you
reconclie your own existence to your belief that life is bad?  I'll bet
you watch a lot of TV. :-)

>Assume:   1)  There is life on Mars
          2)  We understand it _completely_  (how long will that take, anyway?)

Completely?  Do we understand AIDS completely?  Polio?  That bear that tried
to run Daniel Boone down was doubtlessly only slightly understood by him at
all, yet you cheered when the bear died.  How about "We understand it so
much that no-one wants to spend the time/energy to learn more"?

>Do we have a right to change their environment, which would most likely lead
>to their extinction?

'Right' is a legal question, not a moral one.  We have no rights on Mars, as
Mars is not the jurisdiction of any law-making body.  Neither does any
potential Mars-life have rights, as it does not hold citizenship anywhere
on Earth.

So, again, the question is "Is it GOOD to terra-form Mars?"  Unless you
contradict your own eixistence by asserting a) that life-in-general is good,
regardless of human existence, or b) that values have no realtion to human
choice, you must conclude that terra-forming Mars is good, if you beleive
that life is good.

It's really that simple. You can't have a 'should' in a conclusion without
a 'should' in the premise.  If you have a should in your conlcusion, it's
pretty easy, in this case, to trace back the logical steps to the premise.
In your case, the premise MUST BE 'Life is bad'.  As long as you are alive,
you are a hypocrite for holding this view, and no-one need worry that your
logic has any bearing on the real world.  Killing yourself might convince
me, but, as I believe life IS good, I'd rather you changed your mind.

Oops, sorry, there are a few other positions possible. But I've totally
ignored them, making certain assumptions about the people on the list.
You can claim that 'value' has independent existence, which means you
have to measure it, explain what it's made of, etc.  Or, you can claim
that some force/being/diety/whatever makes value, not Humans.  The first,
though possible, is so unlikely, given the (lack of) evidence that I am
calling it impossible.  The second requires the existence of something
that makes all science and logic impossible (the untestable hypothesis,
God, or the omnipotent premise, whatever you want to call it).  Since
it defeats logic, the best it can do for you is to make the question
unanswerable.

>I answer no.  If hypothetical martians had done that to us, our life wouldn't
>be here.  Of course, one could argue that we wouldn't be here to complain
>about it!  :)

As long as we're going hypothetical, maybe that Martians did introduce life,
killing whatever WAS here, and we evolved from what they left, long after
their planet died.  So, the point being, hypotheticals like the above are
darn useless for answering moral questions.  That leaves logic and value
as the starting point, and unless you can see where I went wrong in my
previous development, your opinion is just that; opinion, lacking in logic,
rational thought, or values/goals.

The idea of our being here or not being here to complain about something
underlies your (mis)understanding of value.  Something is not 'bad' if there
is a being complaining about it.  Something is 'bad' if you can show
that an action will decrease the amount of something you (and I do
mean YOU) value.  Obviously there are a bazillion moral arguments based
on premises like "ice cream is good..." but, since we are talking about
planetary projects, we bring into questions the value of life itself.

Again, I can't 'prove' that life is good.  Maybe it's not.  I'm a little
biased on the subject, having been alive for as long as I could think about
it.  But, I can show why your ultimate premise contradicts your life. As
long as you think that terra-forming Mars is bad, you think life is bad.
So what?  I don't care if you want to spend several decades preserving
something you don't like.  Seems like just desserts for someone with
such a silly attitude.

>As to providing a "cushion" for safety; what about space colonies?
>Asteroids? Bubbleworlds?  Moon colonies?

I metioned 'cushions' to mean, for example, "We should preserve wetlands,
since there are lots of diverse life-forms in them, and we may need them
more than we think."  But I agree with the half-expressed thought above, that
greater geological area improves chances for greater ecological stability.

But that's just another argument for terra-forming Mars! (Or any other terra-
formable world.)

>I submit that you have a Mars fetish...   :P

Maybe.  But then, I did only bring this whole 'moral logic' thread up
because everyone was spending so much time on someone's weak premise, when
there was a very shaky, easily defeated premise they could have refuted.

I refuted it, and have yet to see an argument based on LOGIC that supports
the premise that "we can/will hurt Mars by terra-forming."

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 19:30:09 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics of terra-forming

>What ever life there might be on Mars, or anywhere else for that matter,
>at least has the right to exist.

'Right' is a legal term, not a moral one.  I would agree that any *person*
had a right to exist, as well to liberty and property.  But your argument
is easily shown wrong by the fact that you ate today.  All food was once
a life-form, for heterotrophs, like you.  That food died that you might
live.  That's how life works, and your belief that all life-forms have a
right to exist contradicts your own existence.

>Is man God, to destroy other life-forms without much measured forethought?

1) There isn't a god.  2) We are the closest thing to whatever we thought
God was.  So the best answer to your question, if it even is answerable,
since it assumes that God does exist; Yes!   3) Who said anything about
no forethought?

>Besides you never know the full extent
>of what you might do by changing some significant variable in any given
>environment. Or in other words -- saving some Martian bunny rabbit may
>retain the planet's only-somewhat-hostile environment rather than having
>an actively hostile environment. (Slinging trillion ton gobs of water/ice
>at Mars might not do what you would think it would do.)

This is an argument against acting without forethought, but not an argument
against terra-forming.

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

Date: 17 Sep 92 04:15:15 GMT
From: Jon J Thaler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble's constant
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

This belongs in sci.astro, so I'm crossposting it there.

[e-mail] (Richard J Brooks) says:

> I read this past week about a researcher stating that some measurements
> indicate that the HUBBLE constant is changing with time.  The acticle
> stated that the change was fast enought that a remeasurement in 2 or 3 year
> would verify this.

I haven't heard about this, but considering that people can't agree what the
value of the Hubble constant is to within a factor of two, I'd be surprised
if there exists any reliable measurement of its time derivative.

> (As a side comment - If my memory is correct, Hubble's constant is used
> in determining distances in space.  Does this mean that the size of the
> universe is changing?)

In the standard cosmology the first sentence is true.  Thus, if the
"constant" is really changing, either:
* We're in *BIG* trouble, or
* The standard picture (big bang, and all that) is wrong.  In the standard
  picture, the time derivative is about one part in 10**10 per year.

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

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 16:12:25 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nasa's Apollo rerun
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
>
>However, the purpose of the Apollo program was to get to the Moon
>ahead of the Soviets.  It was not obvious, at the time, that we
>could have done that using the space-station-first approach.  Indeed,
>it's not obvious even today.

Quite true.  A space station stopover has a signficant delta-v
cost, and the benefits are dubious.

>The Apollo program did, however, beat
>the Soviets to the Moon (so decisively that the Soviets then decided
>to drop out) and was, therefore, a success...

Certainly, in the narrow goal of "putting a man on the moon and
returning him safely" it was a smashing success.  It was exciting
as well. In terms of other expectations people had for it -- opening
up a new frontier, for example -- it was a very expensive failure.
Its $120 billion pricetag soaked up most of the Sputnik-inspired barrage
of funding.  Its very success at achieving its narrow goal provided
closure on the space race; that and its visibility made
NASA a prime target for budget cuts.  NASA's biggest budget cuts
occured during the trips to the moon and its budget hasn't recovered
since.  But the most expensive part of all may be that we don't seem to
have learned Apollo's lessons yet.


--
[e-mail]        Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian

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

Date: 17 Sep 92 16:29:31 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EARTH
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Not to mention which, you could have nasty side effects like causing
>other planets to leave the solar system. As recent papers have shown,
>all 9 planets are in chaotic orbits...

Chaotic orbits don't necessarily imply a situation where a small change
could send planets flying off in all directions.  It is quite possible
for an orbit to be chaotic, in the sense that you cannot predict *exactly*
where it will be in a billion years, and still be bounded (either absolutely
or just with high probability), in the sense that you can say that it will
stay *somewhere* between Venus's orbit and Mars's orbit.  My impression
is that the recent findings are along those lines:  there is no reason
to suspect Velikovskian planets-wandering-wildly behavior in either the
past or the future, but small-scale variations appear to be unpredictable
in any practical sense.

Agreed that we should put planet-moving work on hold for a few years :-)
until the situation is better understood.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 19:10:15 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: The E-car

>>But everything I've ever read says that converting crude oil into burnable
>>fossil fuels, then converting that into electricity, then converting that
>>into motion, is less efficient than skipping the electric step.  With ceramic
>>car engines (higher engine temperatures) I'm not sure how burning-in-the-
>>plant will be more efficient than buring-in-the car.  Perhaps you could
>>post some excerpts from your TECHNICAL articles?

>However, if D-He3 fusion comes to pass, you go straight from nuclear energy to
>electricity. The fusion releases high energy electrons from which the energy
>can be extracted by magnetic fields. The electric car isn't really a great
>saver until fossil fuel plants are replaced.

Indeed.  That's exactly what I said in a previous post on this subject.
Don't forget that a working SPS system would have the same effect as
Mr. Fusion (on the E-car :-)

But, since the Hydrogen Engine depends as much on cheapo electricity as
the E-car, the E-car will still have a viable competitor if either fusion
or SPS become operational.

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

Date: 17 Sep 92 16:35:08 GMT
From: Jon Leech <[e-mail]>
Subject: Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle

    This notice will be posted weekly in sci.space, sci.astro, and
sci.space.shuttle.

    The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list for sci.space and sci.astro is
posted approximately monthly. It also covers many questions that come up on
sci.space.shuttle (for shuttle launch dates, see below).

    The FAQ is posted with a long expiration date, so a copy may be in your
news spool directory (look at old articles in sci.space). If not, here are
two ways to get a copy without waiting for the next posting:

    (1) If your machine is on the Internet, it can be obtained by anonymous
FTP from the SPACE archive at ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3) in directory
pub/SPACE/FAQ.

    (2) Otherwise, send email to '[e-mail]'
containing the single line:

help

    The archive server will return directions on how to use it. To get an
index of files in the FAQ directory, send email containing the lines:

send space FAQ/Index
send space FAQ/faq1

    Use these files as a guide to which other files to retrieve to answer
your questions.

    Shuttle launch dates are posted by Ken Hollis periodically in
sci.space.shuttle. A copy of his manifest is now available in the Ames
archive in pub/SPACE/FAQ/manifest and may be requested from the email
archive-server with 'send space FAQ/manifest'. Please get this document
instead of posting requests for information on launches and landings.

    Do not post followups to this article; respond to the author.

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

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 19:19:01 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who's broke?

>>      Keep in mind that the
>>    countries that need this are dirt poor.  Come to think of it, all the
>>    countries of the world seem to be broke about now.

Then who has the money?  The people don't; the corporations are posting losses;
>the govt's have deficits; the black market isn't *that* big of a black hole.
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm sorry, I realize this is way off the subject, but I just couldn't stand
by.

About 'black markets' (gov-ese for 'free markets') being black holes:
Just a single example:  Before Yeltsin decreed that "anyone could sell
anything, anywhere, anytime", it was realized that in the USSR, the
'black' market was 60-80% of the economy.  Your 'black-hole' was
probably keeping most of the people you know from the USSR alive, as
well as lots of people you didn't know.  Yeltzin had the presence of mind
to make it legal.

BTW, the original post would translate as "The governments of the world
have so badly inflated their money, that the whole world is now on a debt
standard."  We aren't poor.  You couldn't read this if you were, as you
would not have a computer at your disposal.  We're just badly mis-managed
in areas that shouldn't be 'managed' anyway.

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 215
------------------------------