Message-ID: <4ZrYFqu00VcJM7UU5F@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 90 01:45:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #57

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 11 : Issue 57

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Japan and the Moon in 2010?
		Re: The Japanese language a handicap ?
	   Re: Japan is 5 years behind the U.S. in software
			     Re: Base 12
		   Re: Japan and the Moon in 2010?
		       Re: inter stellar travel
		       Re: Recreation in Space
		       Re: Space Station Costs
		   Re: Why we would need a planet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 90 16:27:24 GMT
From: eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!unido!gmdzi!thg@bloom-beacon.mit.edu  (Thomas Hagemann)
Subject: Re: Japan and the Moon in 2010?

From article <13712@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, by elturner@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edwin L Turner):
> 
> A short news item in the "Briefings" column in the 2 February 1990 issue
> of SCIENCE (p. 530) notes
> 
> "Shimizu Corporation, the world's largest construction company, has
> assigned 25 engineers to develop concepts for a human-occupied lunar
> base."
> 
The Japan Economic Journal notes on Sept. 30, 1989, page 4

Construction firms launch space projects

Planet Earth holds no bounds for Japan's major construction companies.
Over the past two years, several construction-engineering groups have set up
special space project teams or announced designs for ambitious orbital or
lunar projects that might be biult next century.
They include plans for exotic moon resorts and orbiting "space hotels" for
idle rich who want an "out of this world" experience.
The construction industry's real interest in space began two years ago when
Shimizu Corp. became the first Japanese construction firm to establish a
space project office.
Since then, with an eye on lucrative contracts in the next few decades, both
Shimizu and Ohbayashi Corp. have explored the idea of moon bases, at first
unmanned, that could be constructed after 2010.

Space stations

Further, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., Japan's largest aerospace contractor,
is studying the concept of a Japanese space station, set to be in orbit about
10 years after the late 1990s start-up of the U.S.-led Freedom station.
Toshiba Corp. and Hitachi Ltd. also are doing space station investigations. In
their preliminary plans, robots would be deployed to do much of the assembly
and construction work.
Both the lunar base and space station proposals are among several on the long-
term drawing boards of the National Space Development Agency of Japan (NASDA).
Besides NASDA, researchers at the government's Institute of Space and
Astronautical Science (ISAS) and at the National Aerospace Laboratory (NAL)
are also investigating moon projects.
However, because of budget constraints, NASDA and NAL are carrying out
fundamental research on lunar bases with the understanding that such bases
would be built and maintained by multinational teams.
While the Ministry of Finance has yet to authorize such plans, the construction
companies believe they will have opportunities to play lerger roles in the
nation's space program.
So far their roles have been limited to construction work through consortia
for the new Yoshinobu launch site at the Tanegashima Space Center in Kagoshima
Prefecture and other facilities.
The Yoshinobu site will be used from about 1993 for launching NASDA's large
H-II vehicle, which is now experiencing serious development delays.

Space hotels and moon bases

Japanese space proposals run the gamut, from mundane studies of basic life-
support systems to so-called space hotels.
Shimizu, for instance, recently announced a proposal for a "space hotel" that
might be constructed in orbit around Earth after 2010.
Shimizu engineers say that the advent of transatmospheric spaceplanes early
next century might make such a space hotel feasible. Projected prices for a
five-night stay would start around $200,000, Shimizu engineers say.
Over at Ohbayashi, engineers have released a comprehensive study for a "Lunar
City" resort on the moon, with a target date of around 2050.
Takao Saito, manager of Ohbayashi's space project department, says the proposal
would include a helical tower - featuring a hotel and communications
equipment, with a large dome at its base.
Plans call for an earth-like environment to be enclosed within the dome.
Research centers, offices, life-support and sport facilities and factories
would be housed in separate buildings near the dome.
Ohbayashi has conducted preliminary studies on a "controlled ecological life
support system" for a lunar base together with the ISAS's Professor Kyoichi
Kuriki.
For example, it is testing a water treatment and purification system that
might be used for a lunar base.
Another construction firm, Takenaka Corp., syas it is a toilet and shower for
use in microgravity space conditions.

Catapulting rockets

The large construction companies are also interested in developing space-
related equipment for use on the Earth.
For example, Hazama-Gumi Ltd. recently did a feasibility study on ways to
"catapult" rockets or space shuttles from a 2,000-meter-deep shaft.
The idea is to use compressed air and linear motors to give an initial boost
to rockets before they leave the ground. Hazama's concept is based on its
mineshaft drilling technology, a company spokesman said.
Ignition of rocket engines would occur when the vehicle approaches Mach 1,
according to Hazama.
The company says the system would cost about $2.5 billion more than a standard
launch site. However, it would enable the launch vehicle to carry a heavier
payload because less rocket fuel would be needed.
Hazama's plan follows an above-ground "rocket catapult system" idea developed
by Taisei Corp. That Tokyo-based company suggests that shuttles be boosted into
orbit using a 2,100-meter-high inclined ramp featuring linear motors that
would provide an extra kick to the vehicle. The ramp, similar to a roller
coaster, would have a 3,650-meter-long base.
Just a few years ago, the construction companies had limited interest in space
research. They were members of the Space Activities Promotion Council of
Keidanren (the Federation of Economic Organizations) and did construction
work at launch sites and space centers.
Construction engineers and architects over the age of 35 doubt they will see
any of the projects completed before they retire.
But they say they want to pass on exciting tasks to younger colleagues while
urging them to set their sights high.

[by Neil Davis, special to the Japan Economic Journal]

---------------------------------------------------
Thats the Japanese spirit!
If a manager in a german construction company would propose to set up a planning
team for space bases in the year 2050, he could look for another job.

Thomas @ GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
thg@gmdzi.uucp

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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 17:20:11 EST
From: vn
Subject: Re: The Japanese language a handicap ?
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan

From article <6542@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, by jmu@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (James Unger):
> 
> A lot of people believe Tunoda Tadanobu's "Japanese brain" thesis, judging
> from sales of his books.  I certainly wouldn't take that to mean that his
> theories are worth anything, would you?

Just for reference:

%A Tadanobu Tsunoda
%T The Japanese Brain - Uniqueness and Universality
%I The Taishukan Publishing Company
%D 1985
%O ISBN 4-469-21129-X

Thomas @ GMD, Germany

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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 17:33:00 EST
From: vn
Subject: Re: Japan is 5 years behind the U.S. in software
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan

From article <13773@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, by hehuang@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Brother_of_Liberty):
> 
> BTW, there are some very good GO professionals in USA, as far as I know, and
> they are NOT TOO bad compared with Japanese players.
> 
The american GO professionals are mostly of korean ancestry, except for 2
(two) living in Japan: James Kerwin at Kansai Kiin, around 2-Dan, and
Michael Redmond at Nihon Kiin, 5- or 6-Dan.

Thomas @ GMD, Germany

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

Date: 17 Feb 90 01:27:48 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!lynx!neal@apple.com  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: Base 12

In article <9002160110.AA08876@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> John Roberts writes:

>Actually, I believe at least one ancient civilization used base 60.

It was the Babylonians, I think. This is where we get 60 seconds per minute,
60 mintes per hour, and 360 degrees in circle.

You want to know something REALLY weird about numbering systems? The Mayan
numbering system was base 20 (if I remember correctly), except that the third
position up from least significant had 24 counts before the next higher place
incremented! This was (I think....it has been a long time since I read this)
because their numbering system was based on their calandar, which was based on
some weird multiple of a lunar cycle and a cycle of the planet Venus.

I will try to find the book this weekend so that I can post the exact stuff.

>I suspect that civilization may have collapsed because the children were
>dying of old age before they could memorize their multiplication tables. :-)

How about the poor Romans......doing any calculations with their screwed-up
number system (not even a place value system) must have been impossible!


Neal

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

Date: 18 Feb 90 00:16:36 GMT
From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Japan and the Moon in 2010?

In article <2031@gmdzi.UUCP> thg@gmdzi.UUCP (Thomas Hagemann) writes:
>If a manager in a german construction company would propose to set up a
>planning team for space bases in the year 2050, he could look for
>another job.

While the rest of the free world permits itself a quiet sigh
of relief?  ;-)

(Hey, all I ask is that if there's a Moon treaty, we don't sign
it in Locarno!)
-- 
There's nothing wrong with Southern California that a    || Tom Neff
rise in the ocean level wouldn't cure. -- Ross MacDonald || tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET

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

Date: 17 Feb 90 00:19:44 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!uvaarpa!hudson!astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU!gsh7w@ucsd.edu  (Greg S. Hennessy)
Subject: Re: inter stellar travel

In article <1990Feb14.200816.25598@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry
Spencer) writes: 
#Tachyons are still a sort of vague theoretical possibility, but it takes some
#serious contortions to get around all the theoretical problems, and there
#is the major objection that nobody's ever seen one.  

Of course tachyons have been looked for, but not all that hard. The
limits are not all that restrictive. Although I imagine finding one
might be good for the Nobel prize.
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

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

Date: 16 Feb 90 18:34:10 GMT
From: jerbil@csvax.caltech.edu  (Joseph Beckenbach)
Subject: Re: Recreation in Space

In his article Tom Neff (tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET) writes:
> In article <1990Feb14.201604.25893@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
+ > ... NASA -- apart from not being exactly 
+ >a bastion of liberalism itself -- is terrified of provoking an uproar
+ >from the Bible Belt.  It's not an accident that the two or three
+ >husband-wife pairs of astronauts never get assigned the same mission.)
+ 
+ Gee, I thought the Bible Belt was all for this sort of thing
+ between husband and wife... :-)

	... and when it first happens in space, think of the list of journals
waiting for the resultant papers... :-)  A little judicious work with more
popular magazines could even help highlight the romance (;-) of space. :-) :-)
"Marital Relations and Relationships in Zero Gravity" rewritten as
"Playboy/Playgirl Exclusive:  Out-of-this-world Lovemaking"  :-) ^3

	Probably wouldn't have too much problem getting volunteers....
-- 
Joe Beckenbach		 jerbil@csvax.caltech.edu	VEGGIES FOREVER!
	Toto, kansasoseum nun est cognito.  -- Farley

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

Date: 17 Feb 90 23:37:45 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!yunexus!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Station Costs

In article <3405@oolong.la.locus.com> todd@roulette.UUCP (Todd Johnson) writes:
>...The reason I say short-lived is because of the amount
>of small debris we have in orbit...
> I suspect that even a rigid structure in orbit for 
>long periods of time (say 5+ years) at that altitude is going to
>take a fair bit of debris damage...  what's going to happen to an inflatable
>structure with five years of accumulated space debris damage?

About the same that would happen to a rigid structure, actually.  At those
velocities the structural properties of the pressure wall are irrelevant;
only its density and thickness really matter much.  The solution, which
will be necessary for either type of station, is protective shielding
outside the pressure hull.  The usual protective design is the old "meteor
bumper" concept, with a thin outer shell that converts an incoming object
to a plasma/fragment cloud, plus a thicker inner layer that soaks up the
impact of said cloud.  The LLNL study included such a protective system.

Even a shuttle external tank needs debris shielding if it's to hold
pressure for very long in orbit.

>I'm also not wild about LLNL's credentials as a space research organization.
>I think that's pretty far out of their area of expertise. 

There is no research involved here; this is a question of applying (mostly)
existing technology.  LLNL actually has a considerable history of wanting
to be involved more in space activity.  It is somewhat outside their
experience, but it's somewhat outside NASA's experience too.  The only two
operational systems which have any real relevance were build by the Soviets
(Mir) and the Europeans (Spacelab).

One of the biggest problems for anyone trying to get things done quickly
and cheaply in space is this widespread belief that the NASA way is the
only way, because space is somehow so difficult that only NASA knows how
to deal with it.
-- 
"The N in NFS stands for Not, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
or Need, or perhaps Nightmare"| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

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

Date: 18 Feb 90 03:29:15 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@rutgers.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Why we would need a planet.

In article <15183@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes:
>In article <1990Feb17.224335.26238@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>(1) Ok, our future civilization has used the asteroids, the moons of the
>>solar system, Pluto, Mercury, Mars and Venus.  At that point Earth is next.

>You know how expansions go.  If we have used up all the above, adding
>Earth to the list will probably buy us another couple of centuries,
>tops.  Clearly something else would have to be found.  I mean, just
>extend your list:

Well, I didn't say growth could continue forever.  I was rebutting
the assertion that the earth shouldn't be used because there are other
resources available -- eventually those resources may be used up.

>(1a) Ok, our future civilization has used the asteroids, the moons of
>the solar system, Pluto, Mercury, Mars, Venus and Earth.  At that point
>what do we do?
>
>Wait, don't tell me -- let me guess -- NOW we expand to other stars, right?
>Well, fooey -- if we can do it, do it before trashing Earth.  We have no
>right to destroy it until we understand it well enough to make a new one.

Well, we disassemble the outer planets and then the sun (the latter is
the hardest; you need on the order of 10^7 years if you fully utilize
the sun's power output; presumably more power could be produced to
speed things up).  Exponential growth would have to stop at that
point, but that's not an argument for stopping even earlier (not to
say that it shouldn't be stopped).

As for us not having the right -- that's your opinion, and it can only
be an opinion.  Future generations might define "right" differently.

>>(2) If they are human, future civilizations may still have wars.  The
>>Earth will be very vulnerable.  All it takes is one minor war with
>>29th century weapons to convert Earth from prime real estate to a
>>sterile graveyard.  
>
>This is lame, but EVEN so, at least wait until AFTER the war!

Well, yes, I thought that was clear.  I find the "Garden Earth"
scenarios of the space colony fans unconvincing in the long term;
war seems likely eventually.

>>(3) It is cheaper to maintain Earth than to disassemble it, but the
>>habitable surface you could produce by disassembly would be greater.
>>A future civilization running up against the resource limits of the
>>solar system might find disassembly worthwhile.
>
>See expansion argument above.  I simply cannot believe that we'd know
>how to bust and rearrange planets but not how to do other stuff like
>steal from Jupiter or the Sun or the Oort cloud.

Jupiter and the Sun have deeper gravity wells (and lots of fairly
useless hydrogen and helium).

Maybe this should be moved to rec.arts.sf-lovers?

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #57
*******************