Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Thu, 2 Mar 89 03:16:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 2 Mar 89 03:16:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #271 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 271 Today's Topics: Re: First concert from space--update Re: The never-ending argument Re: centrifugal forces Re: centrifugal forces Re: centrifugal forces Re: More good news! Put your money where your dream is. Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization Public thanks ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Feb 89 01:38:09 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!attcan!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: First concert from space--update In article <4111@ingr.com> brooke@ingr.UUCP (Brooke King) writes: >...The Iron Curtain launchers are simply facing the reality of their >need for hard currency and the results of the (until recently) >reality of the US government's foolish, all-the-eggs-in-one- >expensive-shuttle-basket, monopolistic launch policy. They >oughtn't be credited with any love of free enterprise. Neither should NASA, which really would prefer to go back to said monopolistic launch policy, so it could retain control. At the moment the space-launcher competition isn't between free enterprise and the socialist bureaucracies, it's between four or five different socialist bureaucracies. Predictably, the simplest and crudest one -- China's -- is the low bidder for current launch contracts, the most experienced one -- the Soviet Union's -- is not far behind, and the newest and most factionalized one -- NASA and the US aerospace contractors -- is dead last. There are some glimmerings of free enterprise here and there, at places like OSC/Hercules, Amroc, Pacific American, et al, but they are still very small and vulnerable. Pray that the US government doesn't step on them, deliberately or through sheer negligence, in the next few years. If they succeed, it will be a whole new ballgame. -- The Earth is our mother; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology our nine months are up. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 89 00:43:42 GMT From: minke!szabonj@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Nick Szabo) Subject: Re: The never-ending argument In article <243@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: >In article <154@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@minke.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: > sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: ><> ... most supporters of the Unmanned Program are against the Manned ><>Program altogether, or put it off indefinately. >< > >Which ammounts to exactly the same thing. Gee, you're sure a pessimist today. :-) >Knowledge about precisely >how to live and work in space will NEVER be obtained --- EVER --- >unless we go out there and try it. It can best be obtained with unmanned projects, as I have said before. When the above criteria are met, we can try it for real. If manned spaceflight does not provide economic or scientific return commesurate with its cost, it is a parasite, sucking resources away from the important endevours of our society, such as space development and future space settlement. If you want to waste money, waste your own. Let the public spend its money wisely. Nick Szabo szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 89 20:22:48 GMT From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Re: centrifugal forces In article <1047@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> johnson@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes: :Along the same lines, I once read a short story about a community housed in :a cylindrical space colony. : :As I recall, the propulsion system had failed and several of the citizens :had taken up with jogging around the cylinder to keep it spinning, thus :causing the spin (and of course the gravity) to increase. ... :The result was a compromise where they jogged one way around the cylinder :one day, and the other direction the next. Of course, the main thing this shows is that the writer of that story doesn't know about conservation of angular momentum! -- Mike Van Pelt "Hey, hey, ho ho, Video 7 Western culture's got to go." ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp Stanford students and faculty. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 89 19:01:21 GMT From: mailrus!uflorida!haven!aplcen!arrom@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Ken Arromdee) Subject: Re: centrifugal forces >The result was a compromise where they jogged one way around the cylinder >one day, and the other direction the next. I remember this too. It was from Analog. If I recall correctly, there was a big fuss over it in the letter column; scientifically inaccurate Analog stories tend to get such treatment. It was inaccurate. When a jogger stops jogging, the angular momentum of the jogger jogging in one direction exactly cancels out what was added to the angular momentum of the colony when the jogger started jogging. Conser- vation of angular momentum. -- EARTH | --Kenneth Arromdee smog | bricks | UUCP: ....!jhunix!ins_akaa AIR mud FIRE| INTERNET: arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu soda water | tequila | BITNET: g49i0188@jhuvm WATER |(please, no mail to arrom@aplcen) Element chart from "Science Made Stupid". (The chart seems rather popular...) ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 89 19:41:44 GMT From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu (Paul Dietz) Subject: Re: centrifugal forces In article <1047@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> johnson@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) writes: >Along the same lines, I once read a short story about a community housed in >a cylindrical space colony. > >As I recall, the propulsion system had failed and several of the citizens >had taken up with jogging around the cylinder to keep it spinning, thus >causing the spin (and of course the gravity) to increase. > >After generations of this, the non-jogging population got upset and started >an incident because the gravity was increasing beyond the original level, >whereas the joggers had gotten so accustomed to their daily ritual that they >refused to stop. > >The result was a compromise where they jogged one way around the cylinder >one day, and the other direction the next. Ah yes. I believe the story (which appeared in the now defunct Galaxy) was called "Jogging Up Main Street". The author and the editor were apparently both scientific illiterates, since they did not understand the law of conservation of angular momentum. Jogging would cause the colony to spin up very slightly as long as the runner kept moving, but as soon as he stopped, the extra spin would disappear (considering the mass of a runner vs. the colony, the effect would be unnoticable). Similarly, a space colony does not need a propulsion system to keep spinning. Another story with the same error (not as fatal to the plot) appeared in Analog a few years later, where it prompted letters from readers. Then there was the story in Analog about a race in earth orbit between human-powered vehicles with ion engines. What a stupid concept. Followups to rec.arts.sf-lovers. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 89 02:53:56 GMT From: att!pegasus!psrc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Subject: Re: More good news! In article <8902221536.AA08487@crash.cts.com>, jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery) writes that Vice Presient Quayle supports CDSF, and: } Would you please all write to him expressing your support for his } position? } } He can be reached care of the White House: } } Vice President } 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW } Washington, D.C. 20500 Golly, I never thought I'd agree with Dr. Bowery. Sure, Jim, I'll be happy to write him. I'll tell him that CDSF is an excellent way to encourage our fledgling commercial space industry (by showing that there *are* dollars at the end of the tunnel if you're doing something worth while). I'll also tell him that that a man-tended station is a supplement, but not a replacement, for the permanently manned space station that's our logical next step in the exploration and exploitation of space. }Jim Bowery, {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories, att!pegasus!psrc psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind. ------------------------------ Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov Date: Sat, 25 Feb 89 17:23:06 PST From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Put your money where your dream is. You now have the opportunity to begin investing in your own dream of space as a place to live, work and play. After reviewing my opportunities to invest in space businesses, I decided on E'Prime and made the largest investment of my life. I did this because I believe in what these people are doing whether or not they are eventually successful as a company. Christians tithe 10% of their income (if they are following their scriptures to the letter). How much more can we afford to INVEST in what, in many respects, is the religion of technological civilization? Look around, pick your favorites and invest what you can. Let them know WHY you are investing in their company (whoever they may be). You may not make it into space yourself, but your odds can only be increased by putting your money where your dream is. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Bowery Phone: 619/295-8868 PO Box 1981 Join the Mark Hopkins Society! La Jolla, CA 92038 (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.) UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 26 Feb 89 06:02:07 GMT From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (daniel mocsny) Subject: Re: manned vs unmanned, and space commercialization In article <1989Feb22.173756.9145@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <718@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes: > >What prevents you from using a tele-operated rig? > The complete lack of an adequate, workable "tele-operated rig" available > as reliable off-the-shelf hardware, perhaps? The time has never been better to develop an orbiting, tele-operated materials-processing and biological experimentation laboratory. With skillful miniaturization, an unmanned laboratory could be lofted by a fairly small, and thus inexpensive, expendable launcher. The launcher would be well within the range of a private launch service. The nation with the most efficient and inexpensive automated manufacturing technology will be the first to establish an extraterrestrial industrial base. By sinking our space resources into the shuttle and the space station, NASA may well be ceding space to, say, the Japanese (they'll ship VCRs to the Soviets in exchange for launchers, if necessary). Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1989 15:59-EST From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: Public thanks I want to thank Phil Karn for getting me a copy of an article that came up during a previous discussion. Although Phil and are almost invariably on the opposite sides of issues, I nonetheless consider him a gentleman and a scholar and one whose opinion is worth listening too, even when I disagree with it. I'll be doing another post on the "Great Face" as soon as I find a little time to think about it, so roll up your sleeves again, Phil... In this corner.... Dale Amon ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #271 *******************