Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.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 ; Thu, 9 May 91 02:35:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 9 May 91 02:34:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #514 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 514 Today's Topics: Cheap Rocket Society Re: Saturn V and the ALS Ethics of Terraforming (was Re: Terraforming Venus) Re: Ethics of Terraforming (was Re: Terraforming Venus) Re: Terraforming Mars? Why not Venus? Ulysses Status for 05/03/91 (Forwarded) SPACE Digest V13 #497 Re: Saturn V and the ALS Re: SPACE Digest V13 #491 Re: Terraforming Venus Re: Why the space station? 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: 3 May 91 20:51:34 GMT From: csus.edu!wuarchive!usc!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!caen!math.lsa.umich.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (Paul Blase) Subject: Cheap Rocket Society To: 2hnemarrow@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu 2> We, the CRS (Cheap Rocket Society of Kansas) are looking for 2> stainless steel air tanks rated (or formerly rated) for around 2> 72 cubic feet or better, for experimental use as fuel tanks. Take a trip to the nearest SCUBA shop (well, that may be a bit of a trip for you) and investigate used SCUBA tanks. Most of them are aluminum, is stainless necessary? Steel tanks are, however, available. Most shops sell off their old rental gear every year. Good Luck. --- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR] -- Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104 UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase INTERNET: Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 91 15:18:26 GMT From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS In article <350.2822830C@nss.FIDONET.ORG> Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG (Paul Blase) writes: >3) The system is being designed for >low cost<. The simpler, more >inexpensive engines and the fly-by-wire avionics (electric actuators are >cheaper than hydraulic systems) were mentioned before. At the design goal >of 25 launches per year, the system will cost 300$ per pound to orbit... Latest issue of AW&ST notes a NASA/USAF announcement of a proposal for a very Energia-like heavylift booster, aimed at $500-1000/lb, including a note that ALS's $300/lb "has never been credible", or words to that effect. The piece doesn't elaborate, but one obvious question is where in the world anyone is going to find customers for launching a heavylift booster every two weeks. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 91 16:32:50 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!caen!news@decwrl.dec.com (Ken Sheppardson) Subject: Ethics of Terraforming (was Re: Terraforming Venus) We had progressed to... >Well if all you want to do is melt the polar caps, why don't you just >nuke it? Is there anyone else out there who questions the ethics of tampering with other planets (with or without the presence of life) to make them more 'earthlike'? I'm all for non-intrusive exploration and the construction of free-floating stations/colonies, but given our history of 'Manifest Destiny', rain forest destruction, ozone depletion, strip mining, etc, I feel like we should take a hands off approach to space. =============================================================================== Ken Sheppardson Email: kcs@sso.larc.nasa.gov Space Station Freedom Advanced Programs Office Phone: (804) 864-7544 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA FAX: (804) 864-1975 =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 91 17:32:09 GMT From: convex!cash@uunet.uu.net (Peter Cash) Subject: Re: Ethics of Terraforming (was Re: Terraforming Venus) In article <1991May7.163250.2333@engin.umich.edu> kcs@sso.larc.nasa.gov (Ken Sheppardson) writes: > Is there anyone else out there who questions the ethics of tampering > with other planets (with or without the presence of life) to make them > more 'earthlike'? I'm all for non-intrusive exploration and the > construction of free-floating stations/colonies, but given our history > of 'Manifest Destiny', rain forest destruction, ozone depletion, strip > mining, etc, I feel like we should take a hands off approach to space. You talk as though these things were evil in themselves; I had thought that they were evil only to the extent that they make this planet a less hospitable place to live. Suppose that Mars has an ozone layer; what harm would it do to deplete it? (Assuming that no one lives on Mars, of course.) And if we can make Mars more like Kansas, how could this be a bad thing? (Well, maybe we should try for Oregon...;-) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist. | Peter Cash | (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein) |cash@convex.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 91 16:56:24 GMT From: wuarchive!rex!rouge!dlbres10@decwrl.dec.com (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: Terraforming Mars? Why not Venus? In article <1991May7.015231.2299@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >Mars' atmosphere IS important for some mechanical purposes: Heat Transfer. >It is MUCH easier to dump excess heat into the Martian environment than >into a deep space. This is especially usefull for a spacesuit, where >the cooling systems account for a BIG chunk of the suit mass. Actually, the reason Mars is a better thermal enviornment (_IF_) heat buildup rather than freezing is a problem, is that the permafrost makes one hell of a heat sink. The martian atmosphere is too thin to do that much about heat transfer; and cryogenics is _much_ harder than in open space, if you were setting up cryogenic industries. How much does the cooling system on a skintight weigh? And isn't carrying around the extra mass of a space suit in gravity going to be harder than in zero gravity? Finally, if anyone is interested in space habitat thermal control, there was an excellent article in the L-5 News about five years ago called "Nome, Nome on Lagrange" which I would like to recommend. It is also hilarious... -- Phil Fraering dlbres10@pc.usl.edu ''It's a Flash Gordon/E.E. Smith war, with superior Tnuctip technology battling tools and weapons worked up on the spot by a billion Dr. Zarkovs.`` - Larry Niven, describing the end to _Down in Flames_. ------------------------------ Date: 6 May 91 23:12:16 GMT From: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Ulysses Status for 05/03/91 (Forwarded) ULYSSES MISSION STATUS May 3, 1991 Routine spacecraft operations and data collection remain the primary activities as Ulysses heads for Jupiter. Today the spacecraft is approximately 456 million kilometers (283 million miles) from Earth, cruising at a heliocentric velocity of 79,200 kilometers per hour (50,500 miles per hour). Standard precession maneuvers to re-point the high-gain antenna toward Earth are being conducted about every five days. One such maneuver was performed today. Real-time operations and recovery of tape recorder data during each daily eight-to-ten hour pass over the Goldstone Deep Space Network facility are being conducted from the mission control center at JPL. A command sequence to return various components of the spacecraft to their normal thermal environment (prior to occurrence of the wobble) was successfully carried out April 17. The sequence involved switching off the spacecraft's thruster heaters and switching on other heaters to maintain specific temperatures for various onboard electronics components. Ulysses is a five-year mission to study the sun's poles and interstellar space beyond the poles. The spacecraft, launched Oct. 6, 1990, is managed jointly by the European Space Agency and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. ------------------------------ ReSent-Message-ID: Resent-Date: Tue, 07 May 91 20:34:04 EDT Resent-From: Tommy Mac <18084TM@msu.edu> Resent-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu Date: Tue, 7 May 91 01:50:41 EDT Reply-To: space+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU@msu.edu From: space-request+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU%CARNEGIE.BITNET@msu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #497 Comments: To: space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU To: david polito <15432DJP@MSU.BITNET>, Tom McWilliams <18084TM@MSU.BITNET> Re: Planets vs. Open Space >>It is safer for man to live on a planet, at the bottom of the gravity >>well, than it is for man to live in space... >Actually, not so. The space environment is much more controllable. It's >the variations that kill you, not the constant and predictable part of the >environment. This was Gerry O'Neill's first and foremost contribution: >the observation that open space is a *better* location than the surface >of a planet for human civilization. You want gravity? Make as much of >it as you want using centrifugal force. Nit-Pik: I think Gerry O'Neill and his freshman physics class concluded that open space is better for Industrial Processes, but not necessarily for Human Homes. The Human Homes in his scenario were a product of abundant resources in space. Though I agree that open space is better in terms of industrial (perhaps even agricultural) processes, I think a planet would still be safer to live on. The large atmosphere/hydrosphere/lithosphere will tend to keep the basic fluids of life in balance, and the large atmosphere will tend to protect one from radiation from space, which requires large (heavy) shielding in space. Plus, you can't fall off a planet. (Except maybe a really teeny one) I'd STILL like to find out which would REALLY be better..... Tommy Mac Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU> ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 91 04:41:40 GMT From: wuarchive!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!ptimtc!rdmei!icspub!astemgw!kuis!rins!will@louie.udel.edu (will) Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS In article <1991Apr27.201141.10098@saylor.mn.org>, jim@saylor.mn.org (Jim Anderson) writes: >. The talk about increasing launches by an order of magnitude or so > with use of a 'rebuilt Saturn V/VI/ALS/whatever' brings to mind > the discussion that keeps cropping up (that I haven't seen for > a while though) about space debris. Wasn't the Saturn V putting > a bunch of garbage into orbit? And wouldn't any serious usage > of a heavy lift launcher produce that much more space garbage? > Would this garbage start affecting launch successes? (If a payload > isn't usable once it gets on station, and stays usage, I don't > consider it a successful payload. > But, buy the same token, Would'nt it be possible to use the heavy launch rockets to put larger "space vaccum cleaners" into orbit, to do away with such mess? I read about the "space vaccum cleaners" in Popular Science. Will.... ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 91 17:04:06 GMT From: wuarchive!rex!rouge!dlbres10@decwrl.dec.com (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #491 In article <9105062246.AA01126@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> space-request+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Tommy Mac) writes: [about Saturn V] >Where do you get those things now, anyway? I haven't seen one in years. Well, you might consider visiting JSFC, MSFC, or Kennedy; I know there's one in Huntsville, and I think at the other two places. Yes, that big thing on its side with the pigeons roosting in those bell-shaped things on the end. That's it. -- Phil Fraering dlbres10@pc.usl.edu ''It's a Flash Gordon/E.E. Smith war, with superior Tnuctip technology battling tools and weapons worked up on the spot by a billion Dr. Zarkovs.`` - Larry Niven, describing the end to _Down in Flames_. ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 91 05:58:10 GMT From: wuarchive!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!ptimtc!rdmei!icspub!astemgw!kuis!rins!will@louie.udel.edu (will) Subject: Re: Terraforming Venus Well if all you want to do is melt the polar caps, why don't you just nuke it? Will.... ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 91 16:17:51 GMT From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Why the space station? In article <1991May7.024811.8157@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> rwmurphr@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert W Murphree) writes: >... I see no signs that the >exploration of the solar system is really limited by the lack of an >orbital base. There is an IMMENSE amount of science that can be done >with present technology... You are assuming that "science" and "exploration" are synonymous; care to explain this? -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #514 *******************