home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Space & Astronomy
/
Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso
/
pc
/
text
/
spacedig
/
v16_3
/
v16no372.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-07-13
|
29KB
|
725 lines
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 93 05:00:14
From: Space Digest maintainer <digests@isu.isunet.edu>
Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu
Subject: Space Digest V16 #372
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk
Space Digest Sat, 27 Mar 93 Volume 16 : Issue 372
Today's Topics:
25 kg. to Venus, how much would it cost?
Athmosphere Interaction Venus/Chemical?
Aurora spotted ?
Dust for Venus
Gravity waves, was: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise (2 msgs)
How long to cool Venus
Idle Question
In what craft did Glenn orbit the E
Life in the Galaxy
Luddites and Flaming??
Magellan Update - 03/22/93
Nasa & Congress
Orbital Skysurfing Club/DTO...
SDIO VS NASA (was Re: Retraining at NASA)
space news from Jan 25 AW&ST
SS-25 conversion launches satellite
Time Travel --Great Book--
Timid Terraformers (was Re: How to cool Venus) (2 msgs)
Why is Venus so hot?
Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to
"space@isu.isunet.edu", 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 space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 26 Mar 93 05:29:48 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>
Subject: 25 kg. to Venus, how much would it cost?
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <rabjab.83.733091933@golem.ucsd.edu> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
>Using existing technology and launch vehicles, what would be the
>cheapest way to deliver a 25 kg. payload to the upper Venusian
>atmosphere?
For maybe $15M you can get Pegasus plus a spin-stabilized kick motor,
which will give you about 75kg to Earth escape; with *another* kick
stage that might get you to Venus. It will be tricky, because you
absolutely must be able to do mid-course corrections -- solid kick
motors are not very precise -- and you don't have much mass to spare.
For not a lot more, maybe $20M, you should still be able to buy a
Molniya launch from the Russians: 1700kg (!) to Earth escape and
some moderately smaller amount into Venus trajectory.
--
All work is one man's work. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
- Kipling | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 04:44:47 GMT
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Athmosphere Interaction Venus/Chemical?
Newsgroups: sci.space
I have an odd question, do we or don't we know enough about the composition of
the atmosphere of venus to find a way to use the atmosphere and such to keep a
probe protected.. After all why not use some form of atmospheric interaction to
protect the probe.. Venura and such..
I know we can heat things with chemcial reactions, why not figure out a way to
cool things and figure out things??? am I being to unclear or to wierd??
==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked
------------------------------
Date: 26 Mar 93 06:10:41 GMT
From: Dean Adams <dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu>
Subject: Aurora spotted ?
Newsgroups: sci.space
PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR writes:
>>For example, the SR-71 flying at Mach 3+/85,000 ft. normally took
>>about 200 miles to decelerate/decend when coming in for a landing.
>>Dean Adams (Tue, 23 Mar 93 07:17:28 GMT):
>From Mach 3.5 to speed 0 across 200 miles => mean deceleration a
>little less than 0.2 g. Is this a good performance ?
<sigh>... *Please* don't start calling the Blackbird "seriously flawed".
It happens to be just about the finest aircraft ever built, particularly
in the "performance" category. The Shuttle reenters at Mach 25, and it
decelerates over the whole length of the U.S. when landing at KSC.
Does that mean it doesn't have "good performance"?
At Mach 3+ the SR-71 is flying at around 40 miles a minute. A 200 mile
standard approach pattern should not seem at all an unusual practice.
For example, it also takes over 200 miles to execute a TURN at Mach 3.
These are simply the facts of life for high-speed flight operations,
with no sort of "flaws" involved whatsoever.
>How does work the SR-71 used by the NASA ?
Huh?
The aircraft and aerodynamic requirements are still the same. A basic
NASA SR-71 high-speed mission profile (non-refueled) gives an hour of
Mach 3 time, with a total distance of 2500 miles traveled and just over
1.6 hours total flight time. That also includes a 230 mile/14 minute
descent from Mach 3.
>>> "Airquakes"
>>It does not seem to be that much of a problem.
>Why then these articles in the Los Angeles Times and Los Angeles
>Daily News?
Because it is NEWS.
>It seems that many people were afraid of a possible earthquake.
Possibly.
>And if there were a real earthquake, wouldn't some
>people stay home saying "that's just Aurora"?
Huh? If there was a real quake, then "home" is probably where they
SHOULD stay. Besides, there would be NO problem telling the "real"
thing from Aurora. At least if it was a big enough quake to matter.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 00:10:41 EST
From: Callec Dradja <GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Dust for Venus
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <C4BEML.BGv.1@cs.cmu.edu>, 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) says:
>
>Gregso Vaux says:
>>Will this proposal of putting dust
>>in orbit around Venus in order to cool the planet work?
>
>Venus's albedo is already pretty high. The dust that fell out from orbit
>would only decrease the albedo, increasing absorbtion. Maybe if you had some
>really reflective dust?
>
>Also, dust is an efficient converter of UV/optical to IR radiation,
>so that effect could be quite high. Plus, with dust in orbit, the venus-dust
>system will have a higher cross-section, catching more light than ever.
>
>-Tommy Mac
Perhaps what you say makes sense, but are you sure that putting dust
in orbit would not cool the planet? Once again, I want you to think
of the "nuclear winter" effect. If dust in our upper atmosphere would
cool our planet, why would not dust in orbit around Venus do the same
thing? Why isn't dust around Venus analagous to dust around earth?
I suspect that the clouds of Venus do significantly cool the planet
but the greenhouse effect is so strong that the surface temperature
will melt lead. I believe that dust would indeed cool Venus, even
black dust much as would be thrown up by a nuclear weapon or a
volcanoe (mount Pinatubo) on Earth.
Gregson Vaux
********************************************************************
* If all we do is live and die, * Gregson Vaux *
* then tell me about the birds that fly. * Penn State University *
* If all we did was die and live, * Semitics & English *
* would springtime be there to forgive? * GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu *
********************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 16:40:18 GMT
From: Nick Haines <nickh@CS.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Gravity waves, was: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics,alt.sci.planetary
In article <25MAR199314440102@csa1.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
There is no other dimension. The manifold of spacetime is still
four-dimensional, it's just changing shape a little as the wave
goes by. Curved spacetime is not embedded within some other flat
space. It just "is". Maybe someone else can explain this better.
Sure, I'll have a go.
When most people come across the idea of `curved spacetime', they do
so by means of analogies: a balloon in real space (a curved 2D space
embedded in 3D) or a circle on a page (a curved 1D space in 2D). So
they think of curvature as `requiring' the embedding space. When one
talk about curving spacetime (a 4D space), they think one is implying
some 5D (or higher-dimensional) space `to curve it in'.
But curvature is actually a property of the surface itself. Let's go
back to the balloon example. Imagine you're an ant on the balloon. How
can you tell that you're on a curved surface and not a flat one?
Simple: you measure the area or circumference of a circle. You can
draw a circle with a marker and a piece of string, and measure the
circumference with the same tools (alternatively you could measure the
angles of a triangle, and such experiments were actually done in the
late 18th century, when non-Euclidean geometry was in its infancy,
using observers on 3 hills).
- If the ratio of a circle's area to the square of its radius is pi,
the surface is flat. Likewise, if the ratio of the circumference to
the diameter is pi, the surface is flat. If these are less than pi,
the surface is positively curved (like a sphere); if they're more
than pi then it's negatively curved (like a saddle). (If one is more
and the other is less then you've fouled up your measuring).
Remember, pi is not defined here by using circles, but as the limit
of some number-theoretic series. If your ant civilisation doesn't
have much number theory, then a dead giveaway is that both ratio's
_change_ as the radius changes (their limits as r->0 are both pi).
Now suppose your ant civilisation lives on the surface of a cone (not
near the vertex). You do this experiment. You find these numbers are
always equal to pi, and you conclude you're living on a flat surface.
Hey, what went wrong?
Nothing. You _are_ living on a flat surface. A cone (or a cylinder)
_is_ a flat surface, from the point of view (POV) of something living
in the surface. It's only from the POV of some higher-dimensional
space that they are curved. Since when considering spacetime curvature
we're only concerned with what happens _in_ spacetime, these other
ideas of curvature (seen from `outside' the space) are irrelevant.
They can't affect the experiments conducted by the ant civilisation.
The curvature in which we're interested is thus a property of the
surface (or space) itself, and does not require the concept of an
`embedding space.' Since we can never observe such a space, why
suggest it exists? It's not required by our theory, it's no part of
our description of the universe, and is thoroughly bogus.
Should this go in the FAQ?
Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 11:47:31 GMT
From: Hartmut Frommert <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
Subject: Gravity waves, was: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics,alt.sci.planetary
sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>tes@motif.jsc.nasa.gov. (Thomas E. Smith) writes...
>>... It still stretches space,
>>though it has to do it in another dimension.
>There is no other dimension.
:) Sure ?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 00:47:32 EST
From: Callec Dradja <GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: How long to cool Venus
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <C4GFL2.IDG@brunel.ac.uk>, mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter) says:
>
>
>BTW, I think the idea of snowing out Venus was Dyson's idea originally, and
>Freitas wrote a paper suggesting:
>
> Snow out CO2
> Ship out CO2 as blocks
> Warm up again and terraform
>
>but I haven't got the references here.
I am curious, how did Dyson propose cooling Venus?
Gregson Vaux
********************************************************************
* If all we do is live and die, * Gregson Vaux *
* then tell me about the birds that fly. * Penn State University *
* If all we did was die and live, * Semitics & English *
* would springtime be there to forgive? * GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu *
********************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: 26 Mar 93 05:31:07 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>
Subject: Idle Question
Newsgroups: sci.space
I wrote:
>>How much weight would I get to lob into LEO ? [using Scout]
>
>My copy of the Scout user manual is at home, but typically it's a few
>hundred pounds, as I recall.
Best case -- very low orbit launched from San Marco -- is just under
270kg for the standard Scout.
--
All work is one man's work. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
- Kipling | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: 26 Mar 93 07:46:00 GMT
From: tom@igc.apc.org
Subject: In what craft did Glenn orbit the E
Newsgroups: sci.space
it wasn't a ship it was a mercury CAPSULE. i believe it was called
freedom 7.
also he wasn't the first man to orbit the earth in a u.s.
spacecraft.
answer tomorrow.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 11:42:50 GMT
From: Hartmut Frommert <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
Subject: Life in the Galaxy
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>bafta@cats.ucsc.edu (Shari L Brooks) writes:
>=PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR writes:
>=>From "Nature", Vol 362, 18 March 1993 (p. 204):
>=>habitable zones around various types of star (fortunately, Venus and Mars
>=>fall outside the limits for the Sun).
>=why is this fortunate, somebody tell me.
>Because if Venus and Mars fell within the range, the article wouldn't've been
>published.
and why's that fortunate :) ?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 04:33:06 GMT
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Luddites and Flaming??
Newsgroups: sci.space
Why do people have so much energy for flames, and so much brains (hum or lack
of such) on flames and such.. I wonder what would happen if they used those
brains and that energy on more positive endevours (Im currently very depressed
so I need to get myself out of it).... I thought this newsgroup was for people
who were adults, intelligent, self controlled and knowledgeble on space..
Flaming proves me wrong I might think, am I wrong??
Luddites are good for compost for biospheres??
==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 05:21:55 GMT
From: Eric H Seale <seale@possum.den.mmc.com>
Subject: Magellan Update - 03/22/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>Now, the rest of the next cycle is going to be eaten up
>by aero-braking and the gravity mapping mission, but
>if they can get teh transmitters running, it'd be
>nice to try and get some more detailed radar data, but from what you say,
>it looks like the radar has just about had it.
To be fussy, the radar is doing fine -- Magellan can map all it wants
with the radar. Problem is, both transmitters are pretty much shot when
it comes to sending back science data (one's gone entirely, the other
can only transmit high-rate data when you get it REALLY, REALLY hot --
say, 60 deg C). One option that I heard being talked about is called (I
think) bistatic radar -- Magellan transmits the radar which bounces off
the surface and is then received at Arecibo. Even with a low circular
orbit, I'm not sure that this buys you much, tho' ...
Eric
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 93 15:24:58 EST
From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu>
Subject: Nasa & Congress
I wrote
>>I see the point about enourmous scope, and the very real problems that
>>can and do occur, but I have a real problem with 'only the gov can...'
>>For one thing, gov only gets it's $$ from citizens or inflation, so
>>it's patently fallacious to say that only gov can afford it.
Fred condescendingly reponds;
>Ok, Tom, how about "only government can *realistically* afford it,
>because only someone with that kind of coersive power can collect
>sufficient money in one place and commit to spending it on one thing"?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bwa ha ha ha ha!
I could argue that the gov's ability to afford this kind of thing is
historically inversely proportional to the amount of money they don't
take from the private sector, but instead I will merely take issue
with your extremely laughable last phrase.
Now, if you has said "Attempt to spend it on anything and everything..."
>[Long book of libertopian diatribe deleted ...]
^^^^^^^^
From the same guy who accuses Nick of being intolerant of other ideas,
and who claims he 'only flames back'. Gimme a break. If I was as sensitive
as you, I'd call that last phrase a flame, giving me the moral authority
to flame you back with impunity. At least I'd get to compete in the
flame derby with you real champions :-)
BTW, Fred, you've really crossed the border, since you admit that the ideas
you support can only be carried out with coercive power. Now that's really
f***in' intolerant, so get off yer high horse about tolerance.
-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\ Inhale to the Chief!
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu | 336-9591 (hm)\\ Zonker Harris in 1996!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: 26 Mar 93 04:21:41 GMT
From: jeff findley <spfind@sgidq7.sdrc.com>
Subject: Orbital Skysurfing Club/DTO...
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1993Mar25.104726.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:
|> Anyone want to start a Skysurfing Club,
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
I think this guy has been watching a cartoons a LITTLE bit too much.
Disney's Tailspin is not a very good engineering reference :-).
|> I know its a little bit easrly for
|> this, but this is a Development Test Objective idea club/think tank idea.. Who
|> wants to be Club President or Email contact site??
|>
|> ==
|> Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked
Jeff
--
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| Jeff Findley, SDRC | This is a test of the .signature system. |
| Cincinnati, OH | Remember, this is only a test. |
| e-mail: jeff.findley@sdrc.com | All opinions above are my own, I think. |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: 26 Mar 93 02:49:10 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <aws@iti.org>
Subject: SDIO VS NASA (was Re: Retraining at NASA)
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1993Mar25.191418.1480@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>Even without SSTO, SDIO spends half to a third of what NASA does to send
>>a pound to LEO...
>Isn't this due primarily to having an exemption from FARs?
They don't have an exemption, they simply use different regulations. It's
riskier for the government managers but a lot cheaper. All the FAR's do is
cover your ass. If it doesn't work but you did it by ther numbers, your
all set.
>I recall
>GD testified to Congress that they could start delivering vehicles for
>half what they charge now if they didn't have to meet FARs.
That was Dennis Dunbar testifying in 1990. Not all of it was due to
using commercial procurement but much was.
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
| aws@iti.org | nothing undone" |
+----------------------83 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 11:27:49 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <aws@iti.org>
Subject: space news from Jan 25 AW&ST
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <C4FEJI.9t2@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Draculauncher is rising from the dead yet again, as the USAF prepares
>specs for son-of-son-of-ALS, this one dubbed Spacelifter.
This time however it looks like the USAF may have learned something. They
will be looking at lots of ideas including SSTO and allowing the vehicle
to be operated by commercial providers.
Some sources say Lockheed will propose a SSTO for Spacelifter which could
force others to do the same.
NLS deserved to die but Spacelifter could be turned into something
worth supporting.
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves |
| aws@iti.org | nothing undone" |
+----------------------82 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+
------------------------------
Date: 26 Mar 93 04:18:47 PST
From: thomsonal@cpva.saic.com
Subject: SS-25 conversion launches satellite
Newsgroups: sci.space
[excerpted and paraphrased from an AP wire story, with additional
material and corrections]
MOSCOW (AP) -- Russia launched a satellite Thursday , March 25
1993, using a converted Soviet RS-12M road-mobile intercontinental
ballistic missile (known in the West as the SS-25) in the first
test of the rocket for civilian use.
The ITAR-TASS press agency said the converted rocket, called
"START," can carry payloads of up to 1.1 tons,
The project was financed by private Russian investors but was
guided by Military Space Forces technicians, ITAR-Tass said.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 93 18:31 GMT
From: THE ARTSTONE COLLECTIVE <0004651657@mcimail.com>
Subject: Time Travel --Great Book--
For those of you interested in Time Travel
I think you should read this book
"The Montauk
Project"
Experiments in Time
by Preston Nichols with Peter Moon.
ISBN 0-9631889-0-9
I got my copy from
Adventures Unlimited Press
Box 74
Kempton, Illinois 60946-0074
They have a very interesting catalog
Harry G. Osoff
Science & Technology Editor
Access News Network
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 00:25:14 EST
From: Callec Dradja <GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Timid Terraformers (was Re: How to cool Venus)
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1993Mar22.182741.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill
Higgins-- Beam Jockey) says:
>
>In article <93078.141219GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu>, Callec Dradja
><GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>> I would also like to address the solution that one person offered
>> of using nuclear devices to blast the atmosphere out into space. This
>> idea sort of frightens me because such large forces seem sort of
>> difficult to control.
>
>Then you should get out of the game of terraforming! A thermonuclear
>weapon is a pipsqueak compared to the planetary-scale energies you
>want to manipulate.
>
>In general-- if I may say so without giving offense-- your ideas could
>benefit from a quantitative understanding. You should learn to do the
>mathematics behind these problems; much of it is not difficult.
>Perhaps you could discuss it with friends on your campus who
>specialize in physics, astronomy, or engineering.
>
Bill, I am afraid that you did not quote all of what I said. The reason
that I do not like the idea of using nuclear weapons to blast the
atmosphere into space is because I feel that this would be a waste of
Oxygen. At one time, the trees of Earth seemed limitless but today
we realize that we should use these resources carefully. Oxygen, as I
am sure you know, I an important resource that mankind will need as we
move out to the other planets and stars. We should use it carefully.
Although I do not have the formulas at hand that you mentioned, I do
know how to use them since I have a B.S. in general science. What you
must remember is that these formulas for this situation are theoretical
and not empirical. No one knows what would actually happen with what
you propose. Sure we THINK we know what will happen but you cannot be
sure untill you actually do it. Ask an engineer about this.
Your proposal is a one shot deal, it may work, it may not, plus you
then have a lot of long lasting radioactive fallout to clean up.
My proposal, I feel, makes more sense in that it is slower and more
managible. I propose using organisms to fix the CO2 into a solid form.
Someone suggested carbonate rocks which sound like a good idea to me.
This method is controlable and does not cover the planet with
radioactive fallout. It is also slow so you can stop it if something
goes other than the way that you expected. Of coures, you would need
water and a cool planet for this to work but you would need water
no matter what and I hope that orbiting dust could be used for
temperature control.
Gregson Vaux
********************************************************************
* If all we do is live and die, * Gregson Vaux *
* then tell me about the birds that fly. * Penn State University *
* If all we did was die and live, * Semitics & English *
* would springtime be there to forgive? * GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu *
********************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 11:44:00 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <dietz@cs.rochester.edu>
Subject: Timid Terraformers (was Re: How to cool Venus)
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <93085.002514GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu> Callec Dradja <GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> Bill, I am afraid that you did not quote all of what I said. The reason
> that I do not like the idea of using nuclear weapons to blast the
> atmosphere into space is because I feel that this would be a waste of
> Oxygen.
Good grief. Oxygen is one of the most common elements beyond helium.
The earth's crust is 46% oxygen by mass; the rocky parts of the other
inner planets are likewise oxygen-rich. Venus's atmosphere contains a
negligible fraction of that planet's oxygen.
Paul
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 04:28:28 GMT
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Why is Venus so hot?
Newsgroups: sci.space
Seems the way to cool venus down is basically to find some way to burn off the
Sulfar and all the nasty gases and turn down the green house effect..
Okay find a microbe to convert the CO2 and other gases for greenhouse into
oxygen and other gases..
Oxygen and try to find some way to attract more hydrogen or some way to make
water (not sure how??).. Im not a technical person but.. I think I have some
interesting ideas..
So here is a good question, why is venus so hot? the gasses known and such and
the effects and such?? We need why so that we can attack the reasons why and
defeat them or neutralize them... Now what is the parameters for a "normal
planet" basically so we have something to know how to work towards??
==
Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 93 13:07:39 EST
From: MAILRP%ESA.BITNET@vm.gmd.de
Press Release nr 16-93
Paris, 26 March 1993
Environment, Telecommunications and Crewed Spaceflight
ESA Council takes positive decisions
The European Space Agency's Council, meeting in Paris on
24 and 25 March 1993, unanimously approved a Resolution
that will allow the start-up of programmes decided on by the
Council meeting at ministerial level at Granada in November
1992. These are the environmental programme, with the
Envisat missions (for observation of the Earth and its
environment) and Metop missions (in meteorology and
climatology) and the telecommunications programme, which
includes the data relay and technology mission (DRTM); this
has two elements the Artemis technology mission and the
DRS data relay system, together with work on the Hermes
programme.
Where crewed space stations are concerned, it was agreed to
look again at the content of these programmes between now
and the end of the year, so as to adapt if necessary to what
happens with the international space station Freedom.
Additional contract authority was however unblocked, to
safeguard the work needed for continuing, in 1993, the
programmes for the Columbus attached laboratory, the polar
platform and the Mir flights that are part of the precursor
flights.
The participating States were asked to confirm their level of
contribution to the various programmes, by 20 June this year.
Following the meeting, ESA's Director General Jean-Marie
Luton said he was optimistic about the future of the European
space programmes: The ESA member countries have clearly
shown their will to carry on with the development of
ambitious programmes, while taking account of the political
changes going on in Europe and round the world", he said.
------------------------------
End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 372
------------------------------