Message-ID: <AZrtRSC00VcJI-6E5s@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 90 01:51:11 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #63

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 11 : Issue 63

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Why we would need a planet.
		       Re: Space Station Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 18 Feb 90 13:11:36 PST
From: pjs@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Peter Scott)
Subject: Re: Why we would need a planet.

zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!csc!dxb105@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu writes:

>In article <26033*@rpi.edu>, jimcat@itsgw.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) writes:
>> People who considered our planet of origin 
>> to be useless and disposable would probably no longer be human.
>
>In your experience, how do most people feel about the East African grasslands?
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>David Bofinger	

A cute point (I liked it), but remember that barring considerable
catastrophes, it is likely that there will be a good continuity of record
of human activities through the rest of our history.  We have already
established "time capsules", not to mention libraries and other durable
recording facilities, so in the absence of another Dark Ages people will
feel attached to the old planet.  We haven't had that luxury with the
E.A.g. because we didn't even suspect that they were the birthplace of
humanity until this century.  If we had had the same kind of continuity of
record for the last 3 million years that we will probably enjoy for the
next 3 million then there would be a giant theme park in the Nile Valley,
with concession stands selling clockwork _Australopithecus_ toys and an
audio-animatronic model of Lucy taking you on guided tours of her first cave.
:-}

Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov)

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

Date: 19 Feb 90 02:06:29 GMT
From: nuchat!steve@uunet.uu.net  (Steve Nuchia)
Subject: Re: Space Station Costs

In article <15181@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes:
>and tubes.  Anything that holes the enclosure with sufficient enthusiasm
>to make an interior stowed "quick patch kit" worth a shirtsleeved
>astronaut's time to deploy is also likely to play hell with Station
>systems, and possibly spew some dangerous stuff around.

Granted.  Spalling and systems damage are going to be a problem, as
will the exit hole.  BUt...

>Presumably most significant impacts will dissipate their energy on an
>outer layer.  If anything makes it all the way through, SOP will probably
>be to get the hell out of that module and worry about patching later.

This is overly dramatic.  Perhaps you are thinking of the effect
of a hole in a submarine with tens of atmospheres differential
pressure?  Or of an airliner with a sudden opening the size of
a door or window?

Calculate the flow rate through a 1 square inch (oops, 600 sq. mm)
hole with 14 PSI (I won't convert that one) differential pressure,
and calculate the air volume of a module (what, 10m X 3m diameter?).

After the pieces stop flying around, ie faster than a human can
react, the only dangers will be 1) bleeding people, 2) burning
machinery, and 3) slowly leaking air.  All three of which require
attention, not running away.
-- 
Steve Nuchia	      South Coast Computing Services      (713) 964-2462
"If the conjecture `You would rather I had not disturbed you
 by sending you this.' is correct, you may add it to the list of
 uncomfortable truths."   - Edsgar Dijkstra

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #63
*******************