Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 05:00:09 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #017 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Tue, 21 Jul 92 Volume 15 : Issue 017 Today's Topics: Antimatter (was propulsion questions) (2 msgs) Chemical unit operations in space DSN Update - 07/20/92 ESA Future First International Conference on Optical SETI If the sun went out-how long life survive? (3 msgs) Labour Costs (2 msgs) Propulsion questions (2 msgs) Salyut-7 diary Space Power Space Transportation Infrastructure Costs (Was Re: Interstates) Star Trek and public perception of space/science/engineering Whale killing for "science" -- so for what? Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu". Please do **NOT** send (un)subscription requests to that address! Instead, send a message of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), RICE::BOYLE (SPAN/NSInet), UTADNX::UTSPAN::RICE::BOYLE (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Jul 92 15:54:33 GMT From: Rob Douglas Subject: Antimatter (was propulsion questions) Newsgroups: sci.space In article , henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: |> In article <1992Jul17.221155.25364@bradley.bradley.edu> darknite@buhub.bradley.edu (John S. Novak III) writes: |> >... just exactly how much antimatter are we capable of |> >producing today, without extra tool-ups, and how much would it |> >cost? How much cost to store it? |> Today, we make enough for experimental particle physics |> |> According to Forward, there appears to be no fundamental obstacle to |> making the stuff in fractional grams at a few million dollars per milligram. |> That may sound expensive, but it's cheap enough to wipe out all competition |> for in-space propulsion. Not just chemical rockets, but fission and fusion |> rockets stop being competitive. The dominant cost of all of them is mass |> lifted from Earth into orbit, and antimatter needs far less. Milligrams |> may not sound like much, but they can turn an awful lot of hydrogen into |> incandescent gas. This would put the solar system in our hands. |> OK, now to play earths advocate, what kind of danger does releasing all that incandescent gas, etc. cause. Also, security has to be pretty damn tight to keep people away from this stuff, I suppose, because releasing it makes it go BOOM, right?? So how safe is the idea of starting an antimatter drive system??? Anybody involved in the safety studies??? ROB -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ Rob Douglas | (508) 831-5006 | Computer Science Department ~ ~ rdouglas@cs.wpi.edu | AI Research Group | Worcester Polytechnic Institute ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 18:25:35 GMT From: Nick Haines Subject: Antimatter (was propulsion questions) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Jul20.155433.9735@wpi.WPI.EDU> rdouglas@cs.wpi.edu (Rob Douglas) writes: OK, now to play earths advocate, what kind of danger does releasing all that incandescent gas, etc. cause. Also, security has to be pretty damn tight to keep people away from this stuff, I suppose, because releasing it makes it go BOOM, right?? So how safe is the idea of starting an antimatter drive system??? Anybody involved in the safety studies??? You don't do it on earth. Anyone who brings more than milligrams of antimatter onto a planet has to be crazy. One gram of antimatter can cause a 43kT explosion. Even a milligram is bigger than any conventional bomb. A microgram would be as big a bang as, say, the IRA bomb in the City of London earlier this year. Nick ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 92 13:11:18 GMT From: bjgaed@bb1t.monsanto.com Subject: Chemical unit operations in space Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space In article , rlbell@babbage.waterloo.edu (Richard Bell) writes: > The point of building a chemical plant in space is not to make the things > that chemical plants make on Earth, but to make things that cannot be made > in the Earth's gravity field, things like perfect crystals and foamed steel. The point of building a chemical plant in space *is* to make the things that chemical plants make on Earth, but *not to be used on Earth.* You make the things that *are to be used in space.* You just can't keep dragging mass up the gravity well and still expect to achieve an economically stable system. The reason for making the type of special materials you mention that can only be made in microgravity or hard vac is to trade for the tools/raw materials/personnel that can't be more economically produced in space. Has there been an analysis of what can be provided by the space environment and what cannot? (Along the lines of a strategic materials survey done by military planners.) This would be at some point in the future when space habitats become self-sustaining trading partners with Earth. How long would this take? Can we even *think* of an economic breakevn poin where total economic output exceeds total economic input from the start of the project? What about personnel? It seems to me that the sf idea of emigration to space as a way of reducing population pressure on earth would never work because fo the vast amounts of energy required. With that kind of energy you could build a pretty comfortable life down here, so why burn it up getting people out there? With that kind of energy available population would probably stabilize faster than you could stabilize it by removing excess through emigration. No, space will have to provide its own personnel, but if that resource becomes limiting then selective emigration to space may be necessary. --Electric Monk (Bruce Gaede) "...and then time started seriously to pass." --Douglas Adams, _Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency_ ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 92 00:08:13 GMT From: Ron Baalke Subject: DSN Update - 07/20/92 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,ca.earthquakes Deep Space Network Status Report July 20, 1992 On July 19 at 9:47PM PDT, a 4.6 earthquake centered 5 miles northeast of Barstow caused DSS-12 (Goldstone 34 meter antenna) to halt their Voyager 1 support and DSS-15 (Goldstone's other 34 meter antenna) to halt their Voyager 2 support. DSS-15 took the antenna to stow to check for structural damage, and DSS-12 also checked for structural damage but did not go to stow. The station reported that there was no structural damage to any of the antennas. The Goldstone 70 meter antenna which was damaged by the two earthquakes on June 28 is still having its subreflector repaired, and is due to be back up on July 22. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Most of the things you /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | worry about will never |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | happen. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 16:52:12 GMT From: Doug Mohney Subject: ESA Future Newsgroups: sci.space In article <14apriINNco2@agate.berkeley.edu>, gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes: > >outlook: > Poor. If you think NASA is in deep do-do over Freedom, take a >closer look at ESA. Our space agencies globally may need our help >just to survive much longer, at this rate. 8-( ESA could buy space and transport to Mir. Somebody should make sure the Russian capabilities don't rot. Previous signature chastized by Canadian Grad Student who flayed the United States as a bully from his bastion of free speech in Pittsburgh, PA. Yes, fact IS stranger that fiction. -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 92 15:41:00 GMT From: Derek Wee Subject: First International Conference on Optical SETI Newsgroups: sci.space Original to: higgins What IS optical SETI? Looking around for LGMs with nothing but a pair of binocs? I'd just like to mention here that with the enormous amount of money gone into the Hubble Telescope, I would have expected pictures of aliens waving at us. --- * Origin: Coffee Au Go-Go. We don't know what it means either. (3:680/820) ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 92 12:10:28 GMT From: FRANK NEY Subject: If the sun went out-how long life survive? Newsgroups: sci.space If memory serves me correctly, a SF short story was written on this premise and was made into a show during the 'Golden Age' of radio. I forget the author, but the title was "A Bucket of Air." Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-P LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E" Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia Send e-mail for an application and more information ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vote Marrou/Lord in 1992. And get all 535 bums out of congress! -- The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C. 703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 92 14:25:26 GMT From: Richard Ottolini Subject: If the sun went out-how long life survive? Newsgroups: sci.space Maybe the sun has gone out already, at least in the fusioning core :-) The measured number of neutrinos is only a half to a third of that predicted. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 92 14:25:32 GMT From: "James D. Jones" Subject: If the sun went out-how long life survive? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1447@tnc.UUCP> m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes: >If memory serves me correctly, a SF short story was written on this >premise and was made into a show during the 'Golden Age' of radio. >I forget the author, but the title was "A Bucket of Air." The author is Fritz Leiber. The story should be available in one or another of his short story collections. In the story, I believe, the sun did not go out. Rather, a massive planet or dead sun passed near enough to the earth to pull it out of orbit and away from Sol. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 92 18:39:18 GMT From: Ralph Buttigieg Subject: Labour Costs Newsgroups: sci.space Does anyone have an idea as to how much labour cost contribute to the cost of a launch of a commercial rocket like the Atlas or Ariane? It seems to me that rockets from third world countries like, Russia,China etc may have an advantage here. ta Ralph --- Maximus 2.00 * Origin: Vulcan's World-Sydney Australia 02 635-1204 (3:713/635) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 14:12:40 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Labour Costs Newsgroups: sci.space In article ralph.buttigieg@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Ralph Buttigieg) writes: >Does anyone have an idea as to how much labour cost contribute to the cost >of a launch of a commercial rocket like the Atlas or Ariane? >It seems to me that rockets from third world countries like, Russia,China >etc may have an advantage here. Cost is only half the battle. US workers make more because they produce more with their time. Don't think about just money, think about value for money. Example: a friend of mine did a tour teaching people in a third world nation to repair jet engines. In the US the first lesson would be on the principles involved and how the components work. In this nation, the first lesson was on what screwdrivers and wrenches where. Then they tought them how to screw in screws. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they | | aws@iti.org | put a man on the Moon?" | +----------------------277 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 92 14:49:26 GMT From: Bob Martin Subject: Propulsion questions Newsgroups: sci.space What about Arthur C. Clarke's A-Drive. Blow a small stream of reaction mass past a mini-black hole (A few tons??, the size of a proton??) Some of the stream is accellerated into the singularity. The frictional heating of its accelleration and accreation is absorbed by the rest of the matter in the stream which then roars out the exhaust nozzle and supplies thrust. The singularity can be held in place by putting a whopping charge on it and using electrostatic fields.... The advantage of this scheme is that you don't need any fuel, the energy comes from a small percentage of the potial energe of the reactio mass. Of course, the creation of mini-black holes is problematic... -- +---Robert C. Martin---+-RRR---CCC-M-----M-| R.C.M. Consulting | | rmartin@rational.com |-R--R-C----M-M-M-M-| C++/C/Unix Engineering | | (Uncle Bob.) |-RRR--C----M--M--M-| OOA/OOD/OOP Training | +----------------------+-R--R--CCC-M-----M-| Product Design & Devel. | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 16:58:50 GMT From: Nick Haines Subject: Propulsion questions Newsgroups: sci.space In article rmartin@thor.Rational.COM (Bob Martin) writes: What about Arthur C. Clarke's A-Drive. Blow a small stream of reaction mass past a mini-black hole (A few tons??, the size of a proton??) Some of the stream is accellerated into the singularity. The frictional heating of its accelleration and accreation is absorbed by the rest of the matter in the stream which then roars out the exhaust nozzle and supplies thrust. Problems: - if the black hole is small enough to be light (you have to carry it along, you don't want too much mass) it's also small enough to evaporate in a burst of extreme gammas. - you still need lots of reaction mass. - it's probably at least as tricky to control as a bottle full of anti-hydrogen. BTW, John Novak and I have had a short email discussion about anti-matter propulsion. He suggested using naked anti-protons rather than anti-hydrogen, so that you can keep it in a magnetic bottle. I thought there was something wrong with this idea, and I was right: the energy needed to put anti-protons (in any quantity) in a bottle is significantly _larger_ than that generated by annihilating them. Specifically, if you have a bottle size d (metres) with N anti-protons in it, the mass energy is 1.5e-10 N joules And the energy it took to put them there (to overcome the repulsion) is 1.5e-28 (N^2/d) joules So for a kilogram of anti-protons in a one-metre bottle, mass energy = 9e16 J but potential energy = 5e25 J. Clearly such a bottle is going to be very difficult to build. :-) Seriously, can someone tell me what happens if you confine protons like this? I guess once the per-particle potential energy becomes too high you start generating new particle-pairs, but I don't know. (if you have only a microgram of protons in your one-metre bottle, the potential energy is as high as the mass energy). So the anti-proton idea seems to die. So how _do_ you contain anti-hydrogen? Nick Haines nickh@cs.cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 92 11:33:28 GMT From: TIMOTHY FREER Subject: Salyut-7 diary Newsgroups: sci.space SALYUT-7 DIARY (Apr82 to Feb91) ------------------------------- This is the third in my series of 'Salyut' diaries. This particular diary was compiled by Robert Christy, and was published in the June 1987 issue of the now defunct Space Flight News magazine. In his introduction, Christy suggested that tis was the first time a complete diary of major events involving the Salyut-7 orbital laboratory had been published. The listing includes all the launches to Salyut, all dockings, all docking port transfers, all undockings and re-entries and all spacewalks. To make this diary complete I have added the date of Salyut-7's re-entry which occured after the publication of the magazine article. I trust that sci.space readers will find this diary to be a usefull resource. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Salyut-7 diary (Apr82 to Feb91). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1982. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 APR Salyut-7 launched by Proton rocket into 213 x 261km orbit at 51.6 degrees inclination. 09 MAY Salyut-7 established in its 350km, operational orbit. 13 MAY Soyuz T-5 launched with Anatoly Berezovoi and Valentin Lebedev aboard. 14 MAY Soyuz T-5 docks at the front port. 17 MAY Iskar-2 experimental amateur-radio satellite released from Salyut-7's airlock. 23 MAY Progress 13 launched. 25 MAY Progress 13 docks at the rear port. 04 JUN Progress 13 undocks. 06 JUN Progress 13 directed into the atmosphere to burn up. 24 JUN Soyuz T-6 launched with Vladimir Dzhanibekov, Aleksandr Ivanchenkev, and Jean-Loup Chretien (France) aboard. 25 JUN Soyuz T-6 docks at rear port, despite computer problem. 02 JUL Soyuz T-6 undocks and re-enters with Dzhanibekov, Ivanchenkev, and Chretien aboard. 10 JUL Progress 14 launched. 12 JUL Progress 14 docks at the rear port. 30 JUL Berezovoi and Lebedev make a 2 hour, 33 minute spacewalk to retrieve samples from outside of Salyut-7. 11 AUG Progress 14 undocks. 13 AUG Progress 14 directed into the atmosphere to burn up. 19 AUG Soyuz T-7 launched with Leonid Popov, Aleksandr Serebrov, and Svetlana Savitskaya (second woman cosmonaut) aboard. 20 AUG Soyuz T-7 docks at rear port. 27 AUG Soyuz T-5 undocks and re-enters with Popov, Serebrov, and Savitskaya aboard. 29 AUG Soyuz T-7 transfered to front port by Berezovoi and Lebedev. 18 SEP Progress 15 launched. 20 SEP Progress 15 docks at rear port. 14 OCT Progress 15 undocks. 16 OCT Progress 15 directed into the atmosphere to burn up. 31 OCT Progress 16 launched. 02 NOV Progress 16 docks at rear port. 18 NOV Iskra-3 experimental amateur-radio satellite released from Salyut-7's airlock. 10 DEC Soyuz T-7 undocks and re-enters with Berezovoi and Lebedev aboard. They have set a new, 211 day spaceflight duration record. 13 DEC Progress 16 undocks. 14 DEC Progress 16 directed into the atmosphere to burn up. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1983. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 02 MAR Cosmos 1443 (prototype space-station module carrying cargo) launched by Proton rocket. 10 MAR Cosmos 1443 docks at the front port. 20 APR Soyuz T-8 launched with Vladimir Titov, Gennady Strekalov, and Aleksandr Serebrov aboard. 21 APR Soyuz T-8 approaches Salyut-7 but fails to dock because of a problem with its renezvous radar. 22 APR Soyuz T-8 lands. 27 JUN Soyuz T-9 launched with Vladimir Lyakhov and Aleksandr Aleksanderov aboard. 28 JUN Soyuz T-9 docks at the rear port. 14 AUG Cosmos 1443 undocks. 16 AUG Lyakhov and Aleksanderov piolet Soyuz T-9 round to the front port. 17 AUG Progress 17 launched. 19 AUG Progress 17 docks at the rear port. 23 AUG Cosmos 1443 sends a landing capsule (containing experimental material) back to earth. 17 SEP Progress 17 undocks. 18 SEP Progress 17 directed into the atmosphere to burn up. 19 SEP Cosmos 1443 directed into the atmosphere to burn up. 27 SEP Soyuz T-10A launch fails when the rocket explodes - Vladimir Titov and Gennady Strekalov use an escape system to pull themselves clear of the pad. 20 OCT Progress 18 launched. 22 OCT Progress 18 docks at the rear port. 01 NOV Lyakhov and Aleksanderov make a 2 hour, 50 minute spacewalk to add extra solar cells to one of Salyut-7's three solar panels. 03 NOV Lyakhov and Alexanderov make a 2 hour, 55 minute spacewalk to complete installation of the solar cells. 13 NOV Progress 18 undocks. 16 NOV Progress 18 directed into the atmosphere to burn up. 23 NOV Soyuz T-9 lands with Lyakhov and Aleksanderov aboard, after 150 days in space. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1984. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08 FEB Soyuz T-10B launched with Leonid Kizim, Vladimir Solovyov and Oleg Atkov aboard. 09 FEB Soyuz T-10 docks at the front port. 21 FEB Progress 19 launched. 23 FEB Progress 19 docks at the rear port. 31 MAR Progress 19 undocks. 01 APR Progress 19 directed into the atmosphere to burn up. 03 APR Soyuz T-11 launched with Yuri Malyshev, Gennady Strekalov and Rakesh Sharma (India) aboard. 04 APR Soyuz T-11 docks at the rear port. 11 APR Soyuz T-10B lands with Malyshev, Strekalov, and Sharma aboard. 13 APR Kizim, Solovyev and atkov pilot Soyuz T-11 round to the front port. 15 APR Progress 20 launched. 17 APR Progress 20 docks at the rear port. 23 APR Kizim and Solovyev make a 4 hour, 15 minute spacewalk to repair Salyut-7's rocket engines. 26 APR Kizim and Solovyev make a 5 hour spacewalk to continue the engine repairs. 29 APR Kizim and Solovyev make a 2 hour, 45 minute spacewalk to continue the engine repairs. 03 MAY Kizim and Solovyev make a 2 hour, 45 minute spacewalk to complete the engine repairs. 06 MAY Progress 20 undocks. 07 MAY Progress 20 directed into the atmosphere to burn up. 07 MAY Progress 21 launched. 10 MAY Progress 21 docks at rear port. 18 MAY Kizim and Solovyev make a 3 hour, 5 minute spacewalk to add extra cells to the second of Salyut-7's three solar panels. 26 MAY Progress 21 undocks and is directed into the atmosphere to burn up. 28 MAY Progress 22 launched. 30 MAY Progress 22 docks at the rear port. 15 JUL Progress 22 undocks and is directed into the atmosphere to burn up. 17 JUL Soyuz T-12 launched with Vladimir Dzhanibekov, Svetlana Savitskaya, and Igor Volk aboard. 18 JUL Soyuz T-12 docks at the rear port. 25 JUL Dzhanibekov and Savitskaya (the first woman to do so) make a 3 hour, 35 minute spacewalk to perform a number of technical experiments. 29 JUL Soyuz T-12 lands with Dzhanibekov, Savitskaya and Volk aboard. 08 AUG Kizim and Solovyev make a 5 hour spacewalk to purform further repair work on Salyut-7's rocket engines. 14 AUG Progress 23 launched. 16 AUG Progress 23 docks at the rear port. 26 AUG Progress 23 undocks. 28 AUG Progress 23 directed into the atmosphere to burn up. 02 OCT Soyuz T-11 lands with Kizim, Solovyev and Atkov aboard - they have set a new space endurance record of 237 days. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 06 JUN Soyuz T-13 launched with Vladimir Dzhanibekov and Viktor Savinykh aboard. 08 JUN Soyuz T-13 docks at the front port. 21 JUN Progress 24 launched. 23 JUN Progress 24 docks at the rear port. 15 JUL Progress 24 undocks and is directed into the atmosphere to burn up. 19 JUL Cosmos 1669 (a progress-type cargo ferry) launched. 21 JUL Cosmos 1669 docks at the rear port. 02 AUG Dzhanibekov and Savinkh make a 5 hour spacewalk to add extra solar cells to Salyut-7's third solar panel. 28 AUG Cosmos 1669 undocks. 30 AUG Cosmos 1669 directed into the atmosphere to burn up. 17 SEP Soyuz T-14 launched with Vladimir Vasyutin, Georgi Grechko and Aleksandr Volkov aboard. 18 SEP Soyuz T-14 docks at the rear port. 25 SEP Soyuz T-13 undocks, carrying Dzhanibekov and Grechko. 26 SEP After a day of independent flight, Soyuz T-13 lands. 27 SEP Cosmos 1686 (a forerunner of the Kvant astrophysics module) launched by Proton rocket. 02 OCT Cosmos 1686 docks at the front port. 21 NOV Soyus T-14 lands with Vasyutin, Savinykh and Volkov aboard - the mission cut short by Vasyutin's illness. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1986. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 05 MAY Soyuz T-15 leaves Mir space station with Leonid Kizim and Vladimir Solovyev aboard. 06 MAY Soyuz T-15 docks at the front port. 28 MAY Kizim and Solovyev make a 3 hour, 50 minute spacewalk to retrieve equipment from outside Salyut-7, and experimental space construction techniques. 31 MAY Kizim and Solovyev make a 5 hour spacewalk to continue space construction experiments. 25 JUN Soyuz T-15 undocks to carry Kizim and Solovyev back to Mir - the end of the last planned expedition to the laboratory. 22 AUG Salyut-7 reaches a 475km high, circular orbit, after a combination of firings by both its own and Cosmos 1686's engines. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1991. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 07 FEB Salyut-7 with Cosmos 1686 still attatched re-enters the atmosphere, burning up over Argentina. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ My final diary will be the Salyut-6 diary that I have compiled. It will be posted soon. Bye for now Tim. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 92 16:17:56 GMT From: Ralph Buttigieg Subject: Space Power Newsgroups: sci.space Original to: Szabo@Techbook.Com szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo), via *IXgate 3:713/602 jabbered: >x) Szabo's Jupiter Satellite Scheme. Wrap one or two of Jupiters inner >moons in superconducting coils and it will act as a huge generator as it >orbits in Jupiter's powerfull magnetic field. s> This is more properly called Dietz's scheme, though I jabber about it s> alot and have some refinements. I might argue with your heiarchy of s> difficulty. Putting a conducting tether (a la TSS-1) on Metis is s> pretty easy, given a magsail or electromag brake for getting low enough s> in Jupiter orbit. Equipment mass per kilowatt is s> orders of magnitude less Would not the radiation be a danger to the deployment? Or do you (or Mr Dietz) intend to use robots teleoperated from Callisto? s> than SPS. The hard part is getting the power back to Earth. Somebody s> suggested using an IR laser for beaming from the Moon; anybody ready for s> X-ray power transmission? :-) How about anti-matter production? Bring it back to Earth a tiny-weeny bit at a time to minimise any adverse political reaction. Or use it for Spaceship (Starship?) engine. " Engage!" Ralph --- Maximus 2.00 * Origin: Vulcan's World-Sydney Australia 02 635-1204 (3:713/635) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 14:05:13 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Space Transportation Infrastructure Costs (Was Re: Interstates) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <19JUL199216484071@judy.uh.edu> seds%cspar.dnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >> If NASA were willing to look past the Shuttle, it would realize >>that it could redesign the station in 15klb chunks (ugh), develop the >>DC SSTO concept, and fly Freedom in it for less than it'll cost to >>fly it on Shuttle as is. >Yea right. What is your expertise for this wonderful suggestion? >Consider the assembly problems for such a tinker toy approach just for starters Using modular chunks it should be doable. Remember, with SSTO it saves about $8,000 for each pound of weight it launches compared with the Shuttle. It is therefore worth a lot to find a way to do it. >SSRT is a good idea but it has a specific place and that place is not >putting up small chunks of a theoretical space station. BTW, many think that the SSTO concept will scale very nicely. If so, building a second generation vehicle which lifts Shuttle weight payloads for the same low price is possible. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they | | aws@iti.org | put a man on the Moon?" | +----------------------277 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 92 15:53:01 GMT From: Derek Wee Subject: Star Trek and public perception of space/science/engineering Newsgroups: sci.space Original to: bmartino > Anyone remember the first STNG episode with Lt. Barkley? > (silly question. EVERYONE remembers it) I thought the first STNG episode was the one where they first met Q. Oh well, it was here in Oz. > The ship's warp engines got stuck *ON* and the people in > engineering > were trying to figure out what was happening. Maybe Geordi forgot to take his foot off the accelerator > hypothesis about contamination by a substance that couldn't be > scanned by conventional sensor sweeps, and used a process of Whoah! That's a pretty hefty hypothesis. Couldn't they have gone for the simpler ones? (i.e. computer's fault) > A big problem with public education today is that students > don't > find the subjects interesting. Damn right! I'm a student and the only thing I find interesting are Physics and Lunch. Cest la vie! > kids to > think critically about what they see and hear on TV. One problem: TV doesn't realy help stimulate thinking. In fact, it dampens it. I suppose not many teachers have tried using commercial programs (instead of the ones made by the education dept) which are more popular. But TV in terms of subversive quality rates very high indeed. --- * Origin: Coffee Au Go-Go. We don't know what it means either. (3:680/820) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 15:45:42 GMT From: Ken Arromdee Subject: Whale killing for "science" -- so for what? Newsgroups: sci.misc,sci.skeptic,sci.space In article phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert) writes: >Contributions to these magazines are usually written by serious scientists. >So having a language, well-developed social behavior, etc. are not >manifestations of intelligence. Communicating with one another is not a language, and reacting to the actions of one another is not "social behavior" in the sense that humans have social behavior. Otherwise, computers and ants are intelligent. >(As I see, spacecraft Galileo found *NO* >evidence for the existence of intelligent life on the surface of Earth). Wrong. -- Hi! Ani mutacia shel virus .signature. Ha`atek oti letoch .signature shelcha! Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm; INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu) ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 017 ------------------------------