v.postman%UCLA-LOCUS@sri-unix.UUCP (07/08/83)
From: UCLA-DEPTVAX Mail Handler <v.postman@UCLA-LOCUS>
===== POSTMAN output follows =====
"borris": not delivered (unknown user)
===== unsent message follows =====
Received: from S1-A by SU-AI with TCP/SMTP; 8 Jul 83 03:04:28 PDT
Date: 08 Jul 83 0302 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <OTA@S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V3 #148
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 148
Today's Topics:
Myths through history and space exploration
Re: Need Telephone Number - (nf)
Re: Phase III AMSAT - (nf)
Re: Shuttle History Wanted
more shuttle orbiters, cheap
taking no chances
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 7 July 1983 19:10 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Myths through history and space exploration
To: SPACE @ MIT-MC
A few minutes ago I tuned in on the middle of a terrific program on
channel 60 (KCSM, San Mateo;PBS/teleclasses) -- I was wondering if
anybody else saw it or knew more about it.
The credits at the end said it was produced by Miami-Dade Community
College, copyright 1978. I didn't recognize any of the actors or other
contributors.
The program when I tuned in was about myths in history: including the
New World myth that America was a re-enactment of the Garden of Eden
except this time it'd come out with a happy ending. It mentionned the
myth of Aryan supremecy and the myth of Communism.
It then moved on to the myths of the space age: (1) Flying saucers are
friendly people watching over us, ready to intervene to save us if we
start to destroy ourselves; (2) Flying saucers are enemy people who
will exterminate us and take over our planet; (3) There's no evidence
for live elsewhere than on Earth, and in fact we may be the only
intelligent life anywhere in the Milky Way galaxy, thus our expansion
through this galaxy will be an important event in the history of the
whole galaxy; (4) Biological organisms faced with extinction sometimes
evolve to survive the crisis, and we now (faced with threats of
nuclear war and other disasters) are starting to adapt to space and
populate space to survive these threats.
I thought it was highly fascinating. Anybody else remember seeing it?
Anybody know when it'll be shown again? (I don't have a TV log.)
------------------------------
Date: 7 Jul 83 17:19:14-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!sjk @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Need Telephone Number - (nf)
The best way to find the current 900 numbers is to dial 900 information:
(900) 555-1212.
scott kramer <sjk@ucbvax, ucbvax!sjk>
------------------------------
Date: 7 Jul 83 17:19:41-PDT (Thu)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: menlo70!sri-unix!larson @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Phase III AMSAT - (nf)
Yes, but there are some problems. Hopefully they will be resolved
soon. See net.ham-radio for details.
Alan
------------------------------
Date: 1 Jul 83 11:16:00-PDT (Fri)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Shuttle History Wanted
Can someone fill in the details I am missing on the manned
shuttle missions? Mail or posting here will be appreciated.
Manned free flight (ALT) tests in OV-101 Enterprise:
Time Separation Test
Date m:ss Altitude Crew Objectives
08/12/77 5:21 24100 ft Haise, Fullerton separation test
09/13/77 5:28 26000 ft Engle, Truly flight control
09/23/77 5:34 24700 ft Haise, Fullerton test autoland
10/12/77 2:34 22400 ft Engle, Truly no tail fairing
10/26/77 2:02 19900 ft Haise, Fullerton 15000 ft. runway
STS Launched Duration Rev. OV# Crew (CDR, PLT, MS, ...)
1 04/12/81 54:20:52 36 102 John W. Young, Robert L. Crippen
2 11/12/81 54:13:?? 36 102 Joe H. Engle, Richard H. Truly
3 03/22/82 193:??:?? 128? 102 Jack R. Lousma, Charles G. Fullerton
4 06/27/82 168:??:?? 112? 102 Thomas K. Mattingly, Henry W. Hartsfield
5 11/11/82 122:14:25 81 102 Vance D. Brand, Robert F. Overmyer,
William B. Lenoir, Joseph P. Allen
6 04/04/83 120:24:32 80 099 Paul J. Weitz, Karol J. Bobko,
@13:30 EST F. Story Musgrave, Donald H. Peterson
7 06/18/83 146:24:20 98 099 Robert L. Crippen, Frederick H. Hauck,
@06:33 EST John M. Fabian, Sally K. Ride,
Norman E. Thagard
Notes:
STS-1 Landed Rogers Lake bed at Edwards AFB (EAFB).
STS-2 Successful RMS test. Shortened from 83 rev (124 hr) mission
because of fuel cell failure. Landed EAFB again.
STS-3 Landed Northrup strip at White Sands NM one day late due to
high winds there; EAFB was too wet.
STS-4 Final test flight. SRBs lost in Atlantic. First landing on
concrete runway (#22 EAFB).
STS-5 EVA scrubbed due to EMU failure. Launched SBS, Canada Telesat
(Anik-C) satellites.
STS-6 First flight of Challenger. TDRS-A deployed but IUS failed.
First U.S. EVA in 9 years (Musgrave & Peterson, 04/07/83).
STS-7 Launched Canada Telesat (Anik) and Indonesian (Palapa) satellites.
Deployment, formation, and retrieval of SPAS-01. KSC landing
cancelled because of fog; landed EAFB #22.
If any of this is incorrect, PLEASE don't hesitate to correct me.
Roger Noe ...ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe
------------------------------
Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 8 Jul 83 02:33:41 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 8 Jul 83 2:25-PDT
Date: 2 Jul 83 23:18:15-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genrad!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: more shuttle orbiters, cheap
Article-I.D.: utzoo.3065
In the midst of an otherwise-irrelevant paper in the Journal of the
British Interplanetary Society I ran across something a bit startling.
It was discussing the matter of an expanded Shuttle fleet. The current
production price of an orbiter is about $1 billion, mostly because it
is essentially a one-shot construction job. The price would drop quite
dramatically, it seems, if a production line were set up. The paper
gave the number of $200 million per orbiter. Now, here's the striking
part: as few as half a dozen more orbiters could justify setting up
the production line. In other words, $1 billion right now will buy you
one more orbiter; $1.2 billion will buy SIX more orbiters! Now that
is more like a reasonable fleet!
The odds of NASA funding a fifth orbiter right now seem poor, and the
time for a decision is fast approaching. Startup costs for further
production will rise sharply in the near future as the construction
facilities start to shut down. STC's bid to privately fund a fifth
orbiter in exchange for orbiter marketing rights is still unresolved,
last I heard. But if STC puts up $1 billion for one orbiter, maybe
NASA could be convinced to spend $0.2 billion to change "one" to "six".
Does anybody know if the figures are accurate? The author of the
paper didn't give a reference for them.
--
Henry Spencer
U of Toronto
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 8 Jul 83 02:34:09 PDT
Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 8 Jul 83 2:24-PDT
Date: 2 Jul 83 23:22:45-PDT (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genrad!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: taking no chances
Article-I.D.: utzoo.3066
A recent issue of Flight International had an interesting photograph.
It was one engine pylon of the 747 Shuttle Carrier, as seen on the
ground at the Paris Air Show. The interesting part was the two little
cylinders fastened to the pylon, high up under the wing. These are
not standard 747 equipment. According to the caption they are infrared
jammers, for confusing heat-seeking missiles! Seems NASA and the USAF
weren't taking any chances on somebody shooting at the Enterprise
while it was out touring the world.
--
Henry Spencer
U of Toronto
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
End of SPACE Digest
*******************postman%UCLA-CS@sri-unix.UUCP (01/09/84)
From: Mail Handler <postman@UCLA-CS>
===== POSTMAN output follows =====
AERROR - (n < SLOCKTRIES) CAN NOT GET LCK.SEQL
mailers/ucla: error writing to UMAIL
"v.Burris": not delivered
===== unsent message follows =====
Received: from S1-A by SU-AI with TCP/SMTP; 9 Jan 84 03:03:34 PST
Date: 09 Jan 84 0303 PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA@S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V4 #85
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
SPACE Digest Volume 4 : Issue 85
Today's Topics:
Interstellar travel -- will it happen?
Challenger Moved to VAB
Mission to Mars -- planetary chauvinism
Palaces and Pyramids on Mars?
Re: Interstellar space travel -- is it possible?
BC-REVIEW-ASTRONOMY 2takes (Undated)
Re: Astronaut requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 8 January 1984 14:25 EST
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-ML>
Subject: Interstellar travel -- will it happen?
To: dietz%usc-cse @ USC-ECL
As I think I pointed out in my last msg to REM, I retract my comment
about interchange, but let me respond to your comments anyway.
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL at SRI-NIC
I don't understand this objection. What is "interchange", anyway?
Interchange is informational, social or commercial intercourse.
Communication? Trade? And why should wanting to establish this
"interchange" be the only possible reason people could want to
undertake I.S.? It certainly isn't the motivation for the US planetary
exploration program -- curiosity (& pork barrel politics) is.
In the current climate, no one would send a probe without a way of
getting information back from it. The only question is how long it
would take. Can you imagine a current political leader authorizing
a probe that would take a million years to report its findings?
It wasn't the motivation for the Pilgrims to come to America. It
wasn't the motivation for Magellan to circumnavigate the world.
True enough on the Pilgrims. Are you suggesting that space will
become a haven for those that are oppressed and persecuted? Then
you have to find a way of funding the trip, and oppressed and
persecuted people usually have a hard time getting money.
Magellan? Would he have gone if he had essentially no hope of
returning in his lifetime, of his children's lifetime, or his
great-great-great... grandchildren's lifetime? I think not.
The fact that the data from these observations would take years to
reach earth is unimportant, since there's no other easy way to gather
it.
You have a far greater faith in the long-term perspectives of humans
than I do. Given that it is nearly impossible to get Congress to
even consider two year appropriations for ANYTHING, you are talking
about a climate for scientific inquiry that I cannot imagine in my
wildest dreams.
One can easily come up with other motivations. Political or religious
rivalry, for example. Some religious systems today have builtin dogma
that serves to increase the number of members of that religion
(catholicism vs. birth control, for example). A religion that had as
one of its precepts the idea of interstellar colonization would also be
self propagating. Motivation here could be that holders of certain
belief systems desire to have many others agree with them; what better
way to do that than to fill up the galaxy with 10^20 true believers?
Now this is something I had not considered. You're right about this
one. Religious fanatics will do anything.
------------------------------
Date: 7 Jan 84 16:53:24-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Challenger Moved to VAB
Challenger was moved to the VAB today in preparation
for STS-10.
------------------------------
Date: 8 January 1984 23:26 EST
From: Robert E. Bruccoleri <BRUC @ MIT-ML>
Subject: Mission to Mars -- planetary chauvinism
To: space @ MIT-MC
I also read the Technology Review article on the manned mission to Mars
and was deeply disappointed by it. If that turns into NASA's next big space
project after a space station and lunar station, it will be crowning waste
of effort, opportunity, and time. Like pyramids and palaces.
Now that I've got everybody hot under the collar, let me explain what I mean.
The biggest problem with a manned Mars mission right now is that it doesn't
return very much to earth (so it'd be horrible politically, and we should
learn that lesson from Apollo), and most importantly, it won't get many
of us into space (I really want to go into space once before my life
is up). It's an end unto itself, it doesn't establish much of an
infrastructure for doing much else in space, and it could be blown away
with a turn of the political wind.
The amount of money involved for that Mars mission is probably
adequate to get a space settlement started a la O'Neill's High
Frontier. His idea being that all you really need to start a
settlement that can house thousands of people and build enough solar
polar plants to replace earth-based generated electrical is a lunar
mass driver, an LEO to L5 (or so) mass driver shuttle, a chemical
separation plant for processing lunar ore, and a general purpose
manufacturing facility of fairly small capacity. The key point is that
the manufacturing facility first be used to construct another
separation plant and manufacturing facility (expensive or specialized
components would come from earth so the space based technology
required is not great), and then one would repeat the doublings enough
times until you could crank out anything big you wanted. Settlements,
solar power stations, ships, thousands of people living in space,
plenty of energy for people on earth, no limits to growth, and no way
to stop our exploration and use of space. Plus, a Mars mission would
be a piece o' cake.
Another point that the Technology Review article assumed was that
manned bases should be planets. In fact, it would be cheaper and easier
to build a base in space where you don't have to worry about gravity
or weather or nightfall. If man does succeed to evolving to a space faring
species, he will probably spend most of his time in structures of his
own creation in free space because that's where most of the opportunities
will lie.
------------------------------
Date: 08 Jan 84 2216 PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA@S1-A>
Subject: Palaces and Pyramids on Mars?
To: space@MIT-MC
CC: bruc@MIT-ML
I must agree with Robert Bruccoleri's objections to the Technology Review
article about a manned mission to Mars. The shorted sightedness of the
so-called space-scientists has always annoyed me, since it is one of the
few serious divisions among the space enthusiasts. However, I haven't
really worried about it until this recent message reminded me that the
President's science advisor Keyworth has chastized NASA for not being
sufficiently visionary. I have some faith that the NASA administrators
will not fail us in this matter it is worth thinking about.
In anycase it is probably worth writing a few letters to Technology Review
to let them and their readers know that not everyone thinks that Mars is
the obvious next step.
Cheers,
Ted Anderson
------------------------------
Date: 7 Jan 84 19:38:27-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!cbneb!cbnap!whp @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Interstellar space travel -- is it possible?
The motivation for reproduction should not be defended logically.
Actually, humans (and I suppose other animals) do not select goals
in a logical or even rational manner; in this respect the image many
people have of themselves is false. Humans are *not* rational
beings, instead they are rationalizing beings. The difference to
me is that a ration being would chose completely logical, rational
goals and carry them out in a logical and rational way. A rationalizing
being choses goals to satisfy biological urges, but attempts to
reach that goal through logical means. There is not defensible,
imperitave motivation for manned exploration of the universe, but
then there is no defensible logial reason for the continued existence
of mankind either. The urges to explore, gain territory, etc., are
similar to the urge to reproduce. These urges are programmed into
our genes and historically seem to have been good survival traits.
So it is probably true that many years from now these "stay at home"
stick-in-the-muds will die out of the gene pool.
I am sure that interstellar will happen despite the arguments
of these people when enough people *want* it to happen.
W. H. Pollock
------------------------------
Date: 09 Jan 84 0001 PST
From: Hans Moravec <HPM@SU-AI>
Subject: BC-REVIEW-ASTRONOMY 2takes (Undated)
To: space@MIT-MC
n044 1217 08 Jan 84
(The Week in Review)
c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service
ASTRONOMICAL HIGHLIGHTS OF 1983 - A STELLAR YEAR
Old Data Yielded New Insights, New Instruments Unveiled Ancient
Phenomena and
Earth Waved A Very Long Goodbye to the Satellite Pioneer 10.
Earth's rotation is erratic, usually slowing, rarely speeding up. As
a result, scientists must insert ''leap seconds'' every few years to
keep world clocks in step. An extra second was added last year on
June 30. The minute beginning at 7:59 EDT that evening was 61 seconds
long. It was the 12th such second to be added since these kinds of
adjustments began in 1972, when two leap seconds were added to the
year. The variability in the rate of Earth's rotation is believed to
be caused by a number of factors, including friction in the planet's
atmosphere, in the oceans and in the core.
Without much hoopla, the standard for defining all units of length
in the world was changed by the General Conference on Weights and
Measures in Paris. What has this to do with astronomy? For one, the
definition affects the units of force, wavelength and radio
frequency. For another, the new standard is based on the speed of
light, in part because time-measuring methods are far more precise
than those applied to distances.
For many decades, all length measurements were based on the meter as
defined by the distance between two scratches on a platinum-iridium
bar stored in a vault at the International Bureau of Weights and
Measures at Sevres, near Paris. Since 1960, length measurements have
been based on a more accurate and more readily available standard -
the wavelength of orange light emitted by the gas krypton 86. Under
the new system, one meter is defined as the distance traveled by
light through a vacuum in one-299,792,458th of a second.
SOME STORM
-A reanalysis of data from the two Voyager spacecraft that passed
Saturn revealed recordings of a peculiar static. Astronomers said it
was the mark of a gargantuan atmospheric lightning storm 40,000 miles
long, wrapping a sixth of the way around the planet (almost twice
around Earth) and lasting at least 10 months.
-Information collected by Soviet Venera 13 and 14 landing craft,
together with data from orbiting Pioneer Venus spacecraft, indicated
that Venus should join the list of volcanically active objects in the
solar system. The list includes Earth and Jupiter's moon Io.
-Triton, a satellite of the planet Neptune, may have a near-global
ocean - not of water but of liquid nitrogen. Scientists at the
University of Hawaii in Honolulu announced that spectral data had
provided ''the first direct evidence for an ocean on an
extraterrestrial body'' - that body being Triton. The other leading
candidate for an ocean is the Saturnian moon Titan, whose seas are
thought to be 70 percent ethane, 25 percent methane and 5 percent
nitrogen.
SOLAR SIGNS
The appearance of twin dust rings around the Sun, hypothesized as
early as 1927, was recorded by Japanese astronomers over Indonesia
during a solar eclipse. Scientists had theorized that cosmic dust
spiraling in toward the Sun would begin to glow as it grew nearer and
would continue to do so until close enough to evaporate. Given the
geometry of the dust spiral, the glow seems brightest at the outer
and inner edges of the zone.
The picture was obtained with a video system suspended from a
balloon and a computer-based enhancement process. The glowing region
lies 900,000 to 1,500,000 miles above the solar surface. Scientists
calculated the distance from the Sun at which the inner dust
disappeared and used it as an indication of the ring's vaporization
temperature. From this, they guessed that the dust is a silicate
comparable in composition to quartz.
ASTEROID ALERT
Asteroids have struck Earth in the past, hurtling from space with
such speed that they vaporized on collision. Astronomical and
geological observations showed last year that large asteroid
collisions can still occur. More than 50 asteroids are known to be in
orbits that might send them charging into Earth, and recent samplings
of the asteroid population signal that the total number of
Earth-threatening asteroids may approach 100,000. Asteroid fragments
weighing about 500 tons plunge into the atmosphere, on average once a
year, but usually break up before hitting the surface.
STAR LIGHTS
Infrared Astronomy Satellite, an orbiting observatory launched last
January and now out of service, discovered that the star Vega is
surrounded by a giant disk or shell of material. Scientists at the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory of the California Institute of Technology
hailed the discovery as the first direct evidence of solid objects
orbiting a star other than the Sun. Some astronomers suggested that
the shell may be an early planetary system in formation.
Vega is near our solar system, only 26 light years - or about 156
trillion miles - away. It is the brightest star in the constellation
Lyra (the Harp) and the third brightest star in the night sky. It is
thought to be less than a billion years old, less than one-fourth the
age of the Sun and its family of planets. Vega's properties have
turned it into an astronomical measuring piece on which scientists
train instruments to test equipment sensitivity. That's what
astronomers were doing with IRAS when they found the Vegan shell.
Data from the infrared satellite also indicate that cool, solid
material may be orbiting the star called Fomalhaut, the brightest
star in the constellation Piscis Austrinus and one of the 20
brightest in the heavens. It can be seen in the winter sky with the
unaided eye.
THE UNIVERSE...
A new variation on a recent theme of the cosmos' formation, the
''inflationary universe,'' was unveiled. The revised inflationary
model postulates, in part, that the universe did not start with a big
bang, but bubbled up out of virtually nothing and then suddenly
inflated to astronomical proportions. Dr.Alan H. Guth of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology proposed the first inflationary
model several years ago.
Meanwhile, cosmic surveys by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics, along with some fancy computer modeling, led
cosmologists to picture the current universe as a piece of Swiss
cheese, with the force of gravity making particles of matter clump
together into long filaments and flat, pancake-like structures.
Between these areas of dense matter are bubbles of largely empty
space. The model assumes that neutrinos, atomic particles thought to
constitute about 90 percent of all matter in the universe, have some
mass and therefore clump together.
...AND BEYOND
Pioneer 10, the satellite launched March 3, 1972 from Cape
Canaveral, Fla., left the outer limits of the planetary system. No
human artifact had ever traveled so far. Its next stop - no one
knows. According to the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, ground-based antennas should maintain communications
for eight years more, to a distance of five billion miles. Scientists
hope that in the time remaining the satellite will detect gravity
waves, the gravitational radiation that in theory emanates from
cataclysmic events, such as exploding stars, but in practice has not
been found. When it does turn a blind eye toward Earth, the craft
will carry on with a message for passersby - a plaque engraved with
images of a man, a woman, Earth's location and some terrestrial
scientific ABC's.
In November 1988, the satellite Voyager 1, which was launched five
and a half years ago, will become the first spacecraft to cross the
orbits of all nine planets in the solar system. (Pioneer's path took
it outside Pluto's orbit.) Voyager 2 and Pioneer 11 are also swinging
out beyond the outer planets.
METEORIC RISE
The Murchison meteorite, which fell on Australia in 1969, gave up
one of its greatest secrets - that it contains the five chemical
bases of human genes. Scientists at the University of Maryland's
Laboratory of Chemical Evolution said their detection of the bases -
precursors of life - and their ability to synthesize all five in a
single experiment simulating primordial conditions on Earth, boosted
the theory that terrestrial life arose by comparatively simple,
natural chemical processes.
Their success further suggested that life may have arisen by the
same processes elsewhere in the universe, wherever the appropriate
conditions existed.
COMET TRIALS
A new comet, named for its discoverers Sugano-Saigusa-Fujikawa, and
passing unusually close to Earth, was discovered as another comet,
IRAS-Araki-Alcock, receded from Earth. IRAS-Araki-Alcock passed
within 2.9 million miles of the planet - closer than any other comet
since 1770. Sugano-Saigusa-Fugikawa came within about 6 million miles.
Astronomers also estimated that the total number of comets roaming
the outer reaches of the solar system, beyond the outer planets, may
be at least 2 trillion - far more than the 100 billion previously
imagined. The recalculation resulted in part from the discovery of
several comets traversing the inner solar system. Most comets were
thought to be slowly circling the Sun far beyond the outer planets.
Finding these inner system trespassers hinted that other comets are
nearby successfully escaping detection from Earth.
nyt-01-08-84 1521est
***************
------------------------------
Date: 7 Jan 84 21:00:00-PST (Sat)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!genrad!security!linus!utzoo!watmath!looking!brad @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Astronaut requirements
In-Reply-To: Article <15152@sri-arpa.UUCP>
It interests me that all astronaut requirements ask for people in the
peak of physical health. Now, while there is nothing wrong with good health,
I think they should deliberately send up people with average health.
(I am not referring to the astronauts but rather to the mission specialists)
All these space-sickness experiments being performed right now are going on
with prime physical specimens. We need to find out what the effects of space
are on out-of-shape people, too. Thus people should not be rejected from
the mission specialist program just because they don't run twenty miles a day.
--
Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ontario (519) 886-7304
------------------------------
End of SPACE Digest
*******************postman%UCLA-CS@sri-unix.UUCP (01/12/84)
From: Mail Handler <postman@UCLA-CS>
===== POSTMAN output follows =====
AERROR - (n < SLOCKTRIES) CAN NOT GET LCK.SEQL
"v.Burris": not delivered
===== unsent message follows =====
Received: from S1-A by SU-AI with TCP/SMTP; 12 Jan 84 03:03:35 PST
Date: 12 Jan 84 0303 PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA@S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V4 #88
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
SPACE Digest Volume 4 : Issue 88
Today's Topics:
height requirements
Lunar landings, cold mining, launchings
Why nuke planets?
Re: Deuterium on Venus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wednesday, 11 January 1984 09:34 est
From: Chris Jones <CLJones@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>
Subject: height requirements
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
Message-ID: <840111143423.136768@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>
re the comment "All space suits are custom made": not true anymore!
The era of off the rack space suits has arrived. According to the Space
Shuttle Operator's Hnadbook, suits come in "several" standard sizes,
with straps inside to adjust them for fit. They don't say how many
"several" is, but do mention that there are fifteen glove sizes
available. Still, I don't see this as preventing people who are too
small for any of the standard sizes from riding the shuttle, since only
two crew members are equipped with suits, while the rest have to climb
into those rescue balls in the event of cabin decompression.
------------------------------
Date: 11 Jan 1984 11:03-PST
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
To: space@mit-mc
Subject: Lunar landings, cold mining, launchings
Last month I sent a message describing an idea by Krafft Ehricke to
land payloads on the lunar surface. It involved skidding the payloads
on a long strip of lunar soil at orbital velocity (about 1650 m/sec).
A difficulty is sifting the lunar soil to remove rocks from the top
1/2 to 1 meter. But this may not be necessary. The rocks could be
removed by a special vehicle.
The vehicle would have pipes that would be extended several meters into
the lunar soil. Around the outside of the vehicle is a gas-tight skirt
that would be anchored in the soil. Gas would be injected into the
lunar soil through the pipes. Sufficient gas flow would liquify the
soil, causing large objects such as rocks to sink. Smaller soil
particles would be buoyed by the gas flow. Gas would be collected
under the skirt for recirculation. Care must be taken not to let the
vehicle sink. Subsurface lunar soil is quite cold, so the gas will
have to reheated, probably with sunlight. Or, the cold gas could be
used as a heat sink to increase the efficiency of solar powered heat
engines.
Another way to sift the soil would be to give the soil particles
electrical charges. The particles repel one another, allowing large
rocks to sink. This suggest a novel form of earth moving possible only
in a vacuum: spray the soil to be removed with an electron beam while
giving a soil collector a positive charge. Lack of moving parts should
help reliability.
I previously proposed using an aluminum strip to levitate rockets for
lunar launches. Samarium-cobalt magnets should be sufficiently light
to make the scheme practical. For extra efficiency, high launch
accelerations could be used (10 gee's, say), and the strip could be
covered by a gas-tight tunnel ~14 km long. The rocket would use lunar
oxygen and imported hydrogen as fuel; the water produced by combustion
would be trapped in the tunnel, recovered and the hydrogen recycled.
The tunnel would have gas tight doors on the east end which would
close after launch to trap the water. This scheme will help keep a
lunar atmosphere from developing.
------------------------------
Date: Wed 11 Jan 84 21:13:58-EST
From: Anthony J. Courtemanche <AC%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Why nuke planets?
To: space-enthusiasts@MIT-MC
I hope I do not sound like I'm flaming but I am a bit concerned with
this talk of significantly altering our solar system.
What gives us the right to nuke Venus or any other planet or moon in
the hopes that it will make it habitable? We have done much to
destroy Terra's ecology, so now we must work on other places??!! It
seems to me that until Mankind learns to be responsible enough to take
care of his own planet, he should lay off trying to change other
planets to suit his needs.
Anthony
ac@mit-oz
-------
------------------------------
Date: 10 Jan 84 16:29:28-PST (Tue)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: decvax!duke!ucf-cs!giles @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: Re: Deuterium on Venus
In-Reply-To: Article <14945@sri-arpa.UUCP> 3 January 1984, <730@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Let us say you wanted to raise the temperature by a factor of 4.
This requires 64 times as much incident intensity. Assume that
this is gotten from solar sails in Venus vicinity. They need a
total surface area of 7.24 billion km**2. If their thickness is
.15 microns, then the volume of material required is only 1.1 km**3,
not an unreasonable quantity.
And we wave a fond farewell to the lightsails as they accelerate into
the darkness of interstellar space.
(may not make too much sense towards the end, but it sounds good)
(hint: divide 7.24 billion km**2 light pressure at Venus by the mass
of 1.1 km**3 of material, and use F = ma).
Bruce Giles
---------------------------------------------
UUCP: decvax!ucf-cs!giles
cs-net: giles@ucf
ARPA: giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay
Snail: University of Central Florida
Dept of Math, POB 26000
Orlando Fl 32816
---------------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of SPACE Digest
*******************postman%UCLA-CS@sri-unix.UUCP (01/17/84)
From: Mail Handler <postman@UCLA-CS>
===== POSTMAN output follows =====
AERROR - (n < SLOCKTRIES) CAN NOT GET LCK.SEQL
mailers/ucla: error writing to UMAIL
"v.Burris": not delivered
===== unsent message follows =====
Received: from S1-A by SU-AI with TCP/SMTP; 17 Jan 84 03:05:56 PST
Date: 17 Jan 84 0303 PST
From: Ted Anderson <OTA@S1-A>
Subject: SPACE Digest V4 #93
To: SPACE@MIT-MC
Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC
SPACE Digest Volume 4 : Issue 93
Today's Topics:
Re: interstellar misquote of Dietz by me
Re: Re: "Rights" of planets?
Re: "Rights" of planets?
Right of planet?
destroying planets?
Made in Space
Satellite killer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 84 11:05 EST
From: Gocek.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: interstellar misquote of Dietz by me
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc:
Sorry, I misread the century that you thought the first interstellar
flight would occur in.
By the way, open minded scientists, please stop beating the Phoenicians
and their ocean crossing canoes down my throat. I made a mistake when I
stated that the first oceanic crossing was not in a canoe.
I still won't go on an interstellar flight that won't return.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: 16 Jan 84 11:28:50 EST (Monday)
From: Heiny.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Re: "Rights" of planets?
In-reply-to: DMS%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA's message
To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA
cc: DMS%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA, Heiny.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
"If some other lifeform came along back then and attempted a major
experiment on this planet, we might not be around today."
But then again, that might be why we ARE around today. By the same
logic you use, I shouldn't clean my bathtub in order to keep the
descendents of the bacteria therein around, even though they seem
worthless today.
Chris
------------------------------
Date: Mon 16 Jan 84 11:27:04-CST
From: Art Flatau <CMP.FLATAU@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
Subject: Re: "Rights" of planets?
To: space@UTEXAS-20.ARPA
In-Reply-To: Message from "David Siegel <DMS%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>" of Sun 15 Jan 84 06:05:50-CST
Who is to say that Venus is certainly a lifeless, inanimate object
anyway? In the early days of our planet's life it too may have seemed
worthless. If some other lifeform came along back then and attempted
a major experiment on this planet, we might not be around today.
Don't forget, nature has always seemed to be wiser than humans in the
past!
Who's to say that some other lifeform came along, and did attempt a major
experiment on this planet and that's why we are around today.
Just a thought!
-------
------------------------------
Date: 16 Jan 1984 20:06:22-EST
From: Marty.Uram at CMU-RI-FAS
Subject: Right of planet?
Date: 16 Jan 1984 8:15 EST
From: Marty Uram @CMU-RI-FAS
To:Space bboard
Subject: Siegel on "'Right' of planet?"
from Siegel<DMS%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Who is to say that Venus is certainly a lifeless, inanimate
object anyway? In the early days of our planet's life it
too may have seemed worthless. If some other lifeform came
along back then and attempted a major experiment on this
planet, we might not be around today. Don't forget, nature
has always seemed to be wiser than humans in the past!
Who's to say we "humans" aren't the result of some other lifeform's
"major experiment?"
------------------------------
Date: 15 Jan 84 11:28:56-PST (Sun)
To: space @ Mit-Mc
From: harpo!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!crm @ Ucb-Vax
Subject: destroying planets?
What is the difference between "destroying" an environment and
"changing" an environment?
I suspect that what I see as "controlling my environment" and thereby
ensuring the survival of my progeny (and thereby, the human race)
might very well be something like the sort of desctruction others
have derided.
I believe that humans are more valuable than uninhabited planets.
I amke no immediate claim that this is logical, and in fact suspect
it is at essence a religious question. However, anyone who believes
that mankind shouldn't change things to suit themselves is cordially
invited to stay the hell outa my garden.
Charlie Martin
------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 17 January 1984 05:47:05 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER
To: space@mc
Subject: Made in Space
Message-ID: <1984.1.17.10.45.26.Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER>
a028 0120 17 Jan 84
PM-Made in Space, Bjt,500
'Made in Space' Label to Appear Soon
By HARRY F. ROSENTHAL
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Plastic beads so tiny that millions fit in bottles
smaller than your little finger will earn NASA $210,000 next year as
the first commercial product entitled to the label: Made in Space.
Nowhere else could they have been made uniform and perfectly round.
They were created in four flights of the space shuttle, and the only
thing that remains before they can be put to use is that they be
measured and their size guaranteed.
In the hands of medical researchers, the beads will be put to such
exotic uses as measuring the ''exit channels'' of the eyes of glaucoma
victims and determining the size of the pores of stomach and
intestinal walls in cancer studies. They will be used to calibrate
industrial and electronic instruments and devices that measure
pollution.
With ceremony appropriate to the occasion, the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration soon will turn over 25 grams of beads - less
than one ounce - to the National Bureau of Standards. The bureau will
certify their 10 micrometer size within one hundred-millionth of a
meter, said Stan Raspberry, chief of the office of standard reference
materials.
A micrometer equals one-millionth of a meter.
When that project is completed in 1985, the beads will be divided
into 600 units and sold to private researchers for $350 a unit.
While technology developed for space has found applications on
Earth, the latex beads created in the shuttle's ''monodisperse latex
reactor'' are the first true space products to find commercial uses.
There are many more such products to follow, however, including drugs
made with a purity obtainable only in space.
On Earth, it is possible only to make latex beads up to three
micrometers because gravity tends to make larger sizes egg-shaped and
irregular. The beads created in the microgravity in which the shuttle
flies can be made in uniform, perfectly round sizes in large
quantities.
John W. Vanderhoff, a professor of chemistry at Lehigh University in
Pennsylvania and chief scientist of the latex bead producing project,
said the beads will be made in ever-larger sizes on four future
flights.
He compared the manufacture to the seeding process in which oysters
are forced to create pearls.
''The pearl oyster gets a grain that acts as an irritant,'' he said.
''In this, we prepare a nucleus and it grows to larger size.'' The
beads are made of polystyrenes, the same material used in foam
drinking cups.
''Let's say you are interested in calibrating an electronic particle
counter in a hospital,'' he said. ''It's desirable to calibrate it
once in a while with a particle of known size.''
Raspberry said eventually the Bureau of Standards expects to certify
space-produced spheres of 30 and 100 micrometers.
To measure the tiny spheres, technicians at the bureau will use a
number of sophisticated methods. One technique uses the angle at which
light is scattered off the beads to record the diameter of the beads.
Another uses a scanning electron microscope.
The beads then will go into the bureau's inventory of materials that
are yardsticks against which similar materials are measured.
ap-ny-01-17 0420EST
***************
------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 17 January 1984 05:55:38 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER
To: space@mc, arms-d@mc
Subject: Satellite killer
Message-ID: <1984.1.17.10.54.25.Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER>
a019 2345 16 Jan 84
PM-Anti-Satellite, Bjt,510
Force Ready To Test Satellite Killer
By TIM AHERN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - After months of delay, the Air Force is ready to
flight test its new satellite killer - a weapon launched from a
fighter jet which hunts down and explodes objects in space.
The Pentagon says it needs the weapon to keep pace with the Soviets,
but arms control advocates fear it will lead to a new weapons race.
The U.S. anti-satellite weapon will be fired from under a
high-flying F-15 jet and the first two stages of the three-stage
weapon will be ignited, but no warhead will be exploded, according to
officials who declined to be identified.
The test, which may be this week, has been scheduled since last
summer, but was postponed because of operational problems which now
appear to have been solved, the officials said.
In later tests, the weapon's effectiveness will be judged as it is
fired against high-altitude balloons.
The Soviet Union and the United States rely heavily on satellites
for communications and reconnaissance, particularly in systems
designed to warn against nuclear attack.
The U.S. anti-satellite system, designed to be operating by 1987,
has become more controversial in recent months as arms control
advocates argue that it may touch off an expensive new round of
weapons competition by the two superpowers.
Last year, as it approved the Pentagon's budget authorization bill,
Congress banned all tests ''against objects in space'' until the
White House tried to negotiate a ban of such weapons with the Soviet
Union. But the Pentagon has interpreted the language to allow the
first round of flight tests.
Soviet President Yuri Andropov last year called for negotiations to
limit the weapons.
While the United States officially said it would study any serious
Soviet proposal, U.S. officials have cautioned that such a treaty
would be difficult to verify and there are no current negotiations
under way.
The $4 billion U.S. system uses an 18-foot, three-stage rocket slung
beneath an F-15, the top Air Force fighter, that fires it from about
60,000 feet. The rocket then hunts down its target and explodes it.
The Soviets, by contrast, have an anti-satellite weapon which
Pentagon officials say is operational, but which arms control
advocates say is far less effective than the U.S. plan.
The Soviet weapon, launched atop a large booster rocket, goes into
low orbit, maneuvers near its target, and then explodes, destroying
both itself and the target, according to Pentagon officials. About
half of the 20 tests the Soviets have conducted since 1968 have been
successful, according to published figures.
The Soviet system, according to Pentagon officials who declined to
be named, is relatively cumbersome, since the time it takes to prepare
and launch it allows for observation by American satellites.
By contrast, the officials say, the American weapon could be stored
at various sites and attached quickly to any F-15, meaning the U.S.
system is more mobile.
The Soviets generally have lower orbits for their satellites,
meaning more would be within range of the U.S. system. American
military satellites are commonly in higher orbits, making them
relatively safe from the current Soviet system.
ap-ny-01-17 0246EST
***************
------------------------------
End of SPACE Digest
*******************