Message-ID: <oc2I4WC00WBwIKEU52@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 91 01:58:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #410

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 410

Today's Topics:
			   Re: Gaia & Mars
		 POTENTIAL MAJOR SOLAR FLARE WARNING
		      Re: SPACE Digest V13 #362

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  space+@andrew.cmu.edu.  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to
			 tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu

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

Date:         Sun, 14 Apr 91 23:30:57 EDT
From: Tommy Mac <18084TM@msu.edu>
Subject:      Re: Gaia & Mars

Re:  Gaia again

I learned just today that Lovelock (the originator of the 'Gaia Hypothesis')
first developed his ideas while doing research for the experiments that looked
for life on the Mars Viking landers.

Neat, huh.

Tommy Mac
18084tm@msu
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: Sun, 14 Apr 91 02:18:21 MDT
From: oler <@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU:oler@HG.ULeth.CA> (CARY OLER)
Subject: POTENTIAL MAJOR SOLAR FLARE WARNING
X-St-Vmsmail-To: st%"space+@andrew.cmu.edu"

                /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
 
                     POTENTIAL MAJOR FLARE WARNING
 
                /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
 
 
                            April 14, 1991
 
 
ATTENTION:
 
     Region 6583 has developed a beta-gamma-delta magnetic configuration and
is continuing to grow in size and complexity.  Some fairly good shear also
exists in this region, which has resulted in several M-class flares over the
last couple of days.  This region (located at N09E34) is now moderately
large, and contains 57 spots in an EKI optical configuration.  This region
could spawn a major class M or X flare anytime now.  It could also produce
frequent low level M-class flares.  Potential proton activity from this
region is not yet a great threat, although the risk is increasing daily
should a major proton flare erupt from this region.
 
     Region 6580 (N29W10) has also developed a clear delta configuration in
its spot complex, and is also exhibiting growth and increased complexity.
This region is capable of spawning low-level M-class flares and may become
capable of producing more intense major activity soon, if growth continues.
 
     Region 6555 (the major activity center responsible for seven large
X-class flares and the major geomagnetic storm of 24-26 March) is showing
signs of returning back into view on the east limb.  Surging was observed on
the southeast limb near 12 degrees south solar latitude.  Extensive plage is
also visible in that vicinity.
 
     An optically uncorrelated class M3.1 x-ray burst was observed beginning
at 08:41 UT, peaking at 08:52 UT and ending at 10:07 UT.  This long-duration
event could have been produced by returning Region 6555 (which will be given
a new number shortly).  We should know within the next 48 hours whether this
region has decayed significantly or not since it disappeared from view around
the west limb on 31 March.
 
     Watch for possible major flare alerts.
 
 
                /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

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

Date: 14 Apr 91 17:24:34 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!rex!rouge!dlbres10@ucsd.edu  (Fraering Philip)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #362

In article <21516@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:

>At a very slow, vastly underfunded rate.  The budget for a _single_
>chem rocket, the Shuttle, is higher than the entire NSF budget.
>This is outrageous and unacceptable for a society that wants to go
>into space.


>The economic arguments I presented are pretty straightforward, and
>the real-world evidence of rocket operations to date is overwhelming.  
>No, you can't 100% prove anything in this life, not even tommorrow's
>sunrise.  But the cost of working with such large amounts of fuel
>tied to such puny payloads is fairly certain.

>I again remind you this is technology we are talking about, not a point
>of law.  No technology should ever work, by this reasoning, because
>every technology that ever worked has had to grow from being "unproven" 
>to "proven".  New R&D is supposed to work on the unproven, to give us 
>new technological capabilities, not just rehash the same old ones and 
>call it "progress".


>The R&D funding for alternative launchers, _all_ of them, is less than 
>1/10 the R&D for the single technology of chemical rockets.  The system 
>is totally out of whack, nearly totally concentrated on pseudo-improvments 
>and megaprojects with a single technology rather than searching to find
>the best technologies.  We have a vast problem in misallocation of R&D 
>funds here that needs to be addressed.  One grad student at JPL working 
>on MHD rockets during the summer, three engineers at Boeing working on 
>magsails in their spare time, this is not even close to being sufficient 
>funding.  Let's get our priorities straight or we can forget about going 
>into space.

I remember earlier pointing out to you until I was blue in the face
that there were _CHEMICAL LAUNCHER DESIGNS_ that I thought, IMHO,
could achieve a lot of reduction over current systems, which would
cost 1/10 of the current R & D and operations budget for the Space
Scuttle to develop. The only cases where developers have gotten
funding to "bend metal" is in the Scuttle and the soon to be
instigated ALDS, which attempts to develop an economical launch
vehicle by building as large an experimental vehicle as possible and
then scaling down for the operational vehicle. The experimental
systems such as SSTO and others that would achieve a lot more than
these systems could also be developed for a fraction of the cost of
ALDS, more along the lines of how much it costs to launch the scuttle.
I suspect the main reason these efforts have failed (to be developed)
is the same reason the alternative-to-chemical launcher technologies
have failed to be developed: the research programs necessary are below
the critical size for Congressional sponsorship.

Please ask yourself: where would we be in terms of aviation if instead
of improving on the Wright Flyer some jerk at DoD convinced Congress
and NAPA that economical flight would only be possible in the future
if all Flyer-follow-ups had to have the payload of a C-5, and that
this would be the project at NAPA that would receive the most support
from DOD.

And if they had failed, it would be wrong to conclude that their
failure was mainly because they didn't use jet engines instead of
piston engines...

--
Phil Fraering
dlbres10@pc.usl.edu
"The reserve of modern assertions is sometimes pushed to extermes, in
which the fear of being contradicted leads the writer to strip himself
of almost all sense and meaning." - Winston Churchill, _The Birth of
Britian_
"X-rays are a hoax." - Lord Kelvin

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #410
*******************