Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Fri, 17 Nov 89 01:35:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 17 Nov 89 01:34:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #256 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 256 Today's Topics: Re: Galileo's Flybys Re: Moon Ants Re: Moon Colonies / Ant Tanks Re: Inflatable Space Station Re: Space exposed tomato seeds are coming home Galileo's Flybys Re: Hubble Space Telescope Re: Future Space Missions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Nov 89 19:59:02 GMT From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!shadooby!sharkey!itivax!vax3!aws@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Allen W. Sherzer) Subject: Re: Galileo's Flybys In article <2186@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: >Galileo's two flybys of Earth will slow the Earth's orbital velocity by >9.6 billionth-billionth of a mph. That means in a billion years Earth's >position would be altered by 5.3 inches. Yeah, I read about that in Avation Week. Of course this means the Earth will move toward the sun so Galileo will also be responsible for accelerated global warming. Let's keep this to ourselves. Otherwise the Christics will waste another few million of the taxpayers money trying to halt Galileo again. Allen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Allen W. Sherzer | Is the local cluster the result | | aws@iti.org | of gerrymandering? | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Nov 89 18:46:05 EST From: John Roberts Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. Subject: Re: Moon Ants Two replies combined to reduce header overhead: >From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) >Subject: Re: Moon Colonies / Ant Tanks >Olympic athletes, like Henry's odd claustrophiles, prove that some >people choose extreme lifestyles and prosper. But what about the >kids, is the question! If you tried to force your toddler to >be a shot put maniac they'd nail you for child abuse; same thing >if you never let him leave the basement. You cannot expect children >to share their parents' maladjustments. I agree that there might be a problem with some of the kids (who never volunteered to live in space) being discontented, as well as adults who decide after a while that they want to return to Earth. However, I suspect that most kids would become accustomed to the environment in which they had been brought up, to the extent that they would probably be uneasy (at least at first) walking around unprotected on the open surface of the earth. For those who are truly unhappy and wish to return to Earth, there are several possible solutions. Drawing again upon the many works of Heinlein (which included considerable thought on social structure), there is a colony which allows nobody in until they have posted sufficient funds for a return trip. (This deposit could be considered a "savings account", with the individuals receiving interest payments.) Similarly, parents could be required to make a deposit for each child. (This may seem like an imposition on individual liberty, but you're the one who assumes that a high percentage of the population will want to leave.) If it turns out that only a small percentage of the kids are unhappy, the deposits could be reduced in size, or supplemented with a tax. (If tax money is used to return the discontented, there will be a strong social pressure to remain.) Another option is for individuals to travel on credit, to be repaid when they are back on earth. Perhaps a simpler solution in many cases would be for these people to work to improve the quality of life in the colony. With such a strong incentive, they could accomplish a lot. ................................. >From: uceng!dmocsny@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (daniel mocsny) >Subject: Re: Moon Colonies / Ant Tanks >In article <8911140126.AA02081@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>, roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes: >> >> A US Olympic athlete goes through years of what I would consider sheer >> torture, with little or no financial incentive, for the slim chance of >> being able to participate in the Olympics. >I think this sentence is probably misleading in many cases. While the >sports media do like to drum into our heads how elite athletes are out >there paying their dues and living lives of austere asceticism, all >you have to do is try hanging out with elite athletes for a while to >see that this is mostly a load of BS. You missed the point of my posting. *Of course* the athletes want to train and compete. They wouldn't do it otherwise. Again according to Heinlein, nobody makes any choice unless the expected benefits outweigh the expected costs. The benefits can be wealth, prestige, accomplishment, but they can also include long-term goals, sense of duty, avoidance of fear or guilt. I was saying that *I* wouldn't like to train and compete as an Olympic athlete, nor would most people, nevertheless there are some people who *do* make this choice, and I respect their right to do so. This is analogous to Tom Neff's contention that most people wouldn't like the living conditions of an early space colony, to which I replied that some people would choose such a life, and we shouldn't try to prevent them from going just because we wouldn't like it. It is of course important that these people be fully informed of what conditions to expect, which may have been part of the motive for Tom's posting. >Certainly, elite athletes in many sports have to endure a great deal >of pain and discomfort during training and competition. However, all >of the elite athletes I have known really enjoyed training and >competing. Most of them found it more rewarding than any other >occupation available to them. Remember that every major and minor >sport incorporates some activity that many people are willing not only >to do for free, but to pay serious money to do. That means many people >consider those activities to be very enjoyable. You could substitute "prospective space colonists" and "space colonization" for "athletes" and "sports", and it would still be fairly valid. Incidentally, this enthusiasm is why the first space colonies are expected to be uncomfortable. Uncomfortable colonies are cheaper, and more nearly within the reach of our technology and resources. There is no inherent reason that we couldn't wait until we are able to build comfortable colonies. However, as soon as it is practical to build uncomfortable ones, they will be built, and people will move in. To them, the benefits will outweigh the costs. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 89 18:11:26 GMT From: uceng!dmocsny@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (daniel mocsny) Subject: Re: Moon Colonies / Ant Tanks In article <4423@itivax.iti.org>, aws@vax3.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: > The expense is the time of the person doing the EVA. A shuttle > crewmember is only up there for a short while so they can work > extra long hours and need to because time is limited. However, > a lunar colonist there for years will have free time. Since labor and living costs on the moon are likely to be phenomenally high, at least in the near term, I would be surprised if early lunar colonists will have any free time to speak of. They will probably have to spend every waking moment slaving to provide for their material existence. This does not mean lunar colonies are impractical; consider the lifestyle of a medical student. Some people thrive on 100-hour workweeks, though they often do succumb to more than the usual level of stress-related diseases. Lack of free time by itself does not rule out the possibility of EVA. However, the cost of EVA (or EHA, Extra- or Exo-Habitat Activity), may be higher than running a teleoperated manipulator. This will almost certainly be true if any significant distance is involved. The lunar colony will not be able to afford luxuries for quite some time, unless their labor productivity is far higher than present technology permits. > The only expense is the suit itself. Don't neglect transportation costs to (potentially) distant worksites. The lunar colony is unlikely to find any one site that provides every available and needed resource. Since the Moon will have a shortage of labor early on, and essentially no transportation infrastructure, the cost of shuttling people back and forth between worksites will be very high. On the Earth, a severe economic loss means humiliation; on the Moon, it means you die. When you have to buy the very air you breathe, we aren't talking funny money. Even if the worksite is right outside the door, the time spent suiting up will be a great loss. Consider how high labor costs are on terrestrial construction projects in hostile, remote areas (e.g., Alaska pipeline). Cumbersome protective clothing takes time to put on and off, and it interferes with work. I read once that Alaska pipeline workers were 10% as productive as their Texas oilfield counterparts. Since their living expenses were higher, and high wages were necessary to attract them, the project only succeeded because its economic return was so high. A Lunar colonist teleoperating a well-designed manipulator is likely to be at least as productive as an on-site space-suited worker. Since the investment cost of the suit is not likely to be cheaper than the manipulator (never mind the lost time for suiting up and travel), EHAs on the Moon will be rare. This does not have to be psychologically oppressive, however. Even existing teleops can provide the operator with an extremely convincing illusion of "being there." See the article in the December, 1989 issue of _Scientific American_. > Currently suits are expensive because > we have little experience building them and don't view them as > comodity items. That does not mean they will remain custom made > items forever. One can expect as more are build and as the learning > curve is traversed they will become much cheaper. But how much cheaper? And when will we see a suit that can be built entirely from lunar materials? The fundamental complexity of a space suit is very high, as is the need for reliability. While the price can come down from the present $1 million or so by perhaps a factor of ten, that still isn't particularly cheap. I can't think of too many terrestrial corporations that can issue $100,000 uniforms to their employees and still show a profit. Remember, going broke on the Moon is fatal. > So what is wasted? Oxygen? There is plenty of that on the moon. However, it is not already in usable form. That means you have to build a plant to extract it, you have to power that plant with something (solar arrays? Nukes?), you have to ship and store the product. Every step takes capital equipment that you have to get from somewhere, and you have to have labor to tend that equipment. This is an enormous expense that doesn't exist on the Earth. Since industry of any kind on the Moon will be several orders of magnitude more expensive to establish than on Earth, at least initially, you aren't going to survive unless you can drive waste down to phenomenally low levels. Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu p.s. To those who failed to grasp (what I thought to be) the (plainly evident) humor in my "discover Pluto" post, I apologize. Next time I'll include a smiley, or perhaps run banner on the the string 'this is a joke'. Or perhaps I'll say something funny. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 89 21:59:34 GMT From: ogccse!blake!milton!maven!games@ucsd.edu (Games Wizard) Subject: Re: Inflatable Space Station In article , V071PZP4@UBVMSC.CC.BUFFALO.EDU writes: > 1) Livermore Labs could build a 7 module space station, (ea. module > 49ft by 16ft), launch it ALL in ONE rocket by 1992. > NASA said the Livermore team "has good ideas, a lot of in-depth ideas" > that "we didn't dismiss out of hand." NASA is considering funding of the > team for further study, and would have a decision within a month. I imagine that NASA wouldn't dare to "dismiss it out of hand", as Livermore does have some reputation, and clout, but to brag ( well thats what it look like) about not dismissing it out of hand... that smarts. I can just imagine the general publics reaction to this when the newspapers get it out to the whole country... Space station freedom may well suffer as a result. That is not to say that this is either necessarily good, or bad, just that it may happen. Another note : Does it not seem a little pompous to state "Consider funding for FURTHER STUDY". This does not mean that the intent of the statement is pompous, just the verbiage used. Either "will be funded for further studies" or "Consider funding for actual development" might be a bit better, less imperious, and at least a little more accurate. I would also be interested to know who funded the original study there, was it NASA? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trendy footer by: John Stevens-Schlick Internet?: JOHN@tranya.cpac.washington.edu 7720 35'th Ave S.W. Seattle, Wa. 98126 (206) 935 - 4384 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My boss dosn't know what I do. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Nov 89 08:48:53 PST From: greer%utd201.dnet%utadnx@utspan.span.nasa.gov X-Vmsmail-To: UTADNX::UTSPAN::AMES::"space+@andrew.cmu.edu" Subject: Re: Space exposed tomato seeds are coming home Space exposed tomato seeds are coming home (Forwarded) >From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) > >Terri Sindelar >Headquarters, Washington, D.C. November 14, 1989 > >RELEASE: 89-174 > >SPACE EXPOSED TOMATO SEEDS ARE COMING HOME > > NASA is offering 12.5 million tomato seeds to budding >student gardeners in the first experiment ever to study the >effects of long-term space exposure on living tissue. > > It has been more than 5-1/2 years since the Space Shuttle >deployed 12.5 million tomato seeds, housed in the Long Duration >... > The SEEDS project has the potential to directly involve 4 >million students and 40,000 educators, in 250,000 classrooms. Is this a good basis for a paranoiac-sci-fi-horror script or what? ---- "...that flag is a symbol of something | Dale M. Greer greater than just the rights | Center for Space Sciences in this country." | University of Texas at Dallas Rep. Lawrence J. Smith of Florida | UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTD750::GREER ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 89 19:11:19 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Galileo's Flybys Galileo's two flybys of Earth will slow the Earth's orbital velocity by 9.6 billionth-billionth of a mph. That means in a billion years Earth's position would be altered by 5.3 inches. Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov Jet Propulsion Lab M/S 301-355 | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov 4800 Oak Grove Dr. | Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 89 22:05:31 GMT From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!acu@purdue.edu (Floyd McWilliams) Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope In article <89319.203033MRW104@PSUVM.BITNET> MRW104@PSUVM.BITNET writes: >As far as long base-line interferometry is concerned, I did some calculations, >and, going back to the continent-on-a-planet-orbiting-A.-Centuri problem, >two HST's in 3000km high orbit 180 degrees apart would resolve North America at >4.3 light years... I just don't see how this can work. Even ignoring the issue of the planet's light being washed out by its sun, how can two telescopes provide better detail? Wouldn't the planet just look like a point of light in BOTH telescopes? Yes, I know baseline interferometry works for radio waves. But can it work with light? -- "You have angered the great Chac-mool. You will burn in the fiery pits of eternal damnation. That is all." Floyd McWilliams mentor.cc.purdue.edu!acu ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 89 01:40:25 GMT From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!bucc2!moonman@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Subject: Re: Future Space Missions To lmg: The reason why NASA isn't making plans to use "appropriate" boosters for the rocket probes {like Galileo} is because they haven't got any. I believe that sometime just after the Space Shuttle program was underway, the bureaucrats decided that the shuttle was THE launch vehicle for the U.S., & scrapped the expendables that would have been "appropriate", leaving only the IUS & the now-abandoned Centaur stages. Centaur was abandoned after the Challenger explosion because the same bureaucrats who destroyed the shuttle now got the butterflies over having tons of hydrogen & LOX placed in the shuttle's cargo bay. uiucdcs\ noao>bradley!bucc2!moonman cepu/ Internet: bradley!bucc2!moonman@a.cs.uiuc.edu Arpa: cepu!bradley!bucc2!moonman@seas.ucla.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #256 *******************