Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 05:00:10 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #411 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 12 Nov 92 Volume 15 : Issue 411 Today's Topics: Apollo fire Automated space station construction Collisions and P/Swift-Tuttle Coverup - gravity doesn't exist? ESA ministerial conference at Granada (Spain) Ice hardness Japanese 1990 Lunar Probe Low-pressure O2 atmosphere Lunar "colony" reality check (4 msgs) Lunar "colony" reality check and Apollo fire Lunar astronaut covers earth with thumb (2 msgs) Man in space ... Man in the loop Media report on Swift-Tuttle threat. Obscure Help Needed reality check (2) Terraforming Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests 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: 11 Nov 92 16:48:51 GMT From: "Michael K. Heney" Subject: Apollo fire Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary In article mechalas@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (John Mechalas) writes: > >First off, it was Apollo 12, and not Apollo 1, that caught fire. The cause >of the fire was indeed the overpressure of test of the O2. As it turned >out, what killed the astronauts was not the fire, but the velcro inside the >spacecraft. Sorry, John, but the 1967 pad fire which killed 3 astronauts (Grissom, White, and Chaffee) was designated Apollo 1. This designation was assigned *after* the fire, I believe. Apollo 12 was a successful lunar landing, with Pete Conrad and Alan Bean walking around on the moon. I remember this flight especially well, as 1) my 13th birthday fell during the flight, and 2) I was *seriously* bummed when Bean pointed the color camera at the sun and fried it. No live video from this flight after the 1st half hour or so. Finally, the image of being killed by Velcro is mind-boggling. (Lunatic Loop-strips! Hook-strips from Hell!) Toxic fumes in the smoke were the cause of death - burning velcro could have been one source, but wiring, insulation, etc also contributed. -- Mike Heney | Senior Systems Analyst and | Reach for the mheney@access.digex.com | Space Activist / Entrepreneur | Stars, eh? Kensington, MD (near DC) | * Will Work for Money * | ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 92 14:06:13 GMT From: Charles Frank Radley <3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> Subject: Automated space station construction Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Nov8.064256.7682@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >Is anyone looking into robots with very limited autonomy? That is, >under direction from a human, but able to execute instructions on >their own for periods of, say, ten seconds? Yes, there are programmable mechanical systems on Freedom. They do not have arms legs and heads, and they do not look like androids, by they are intelligent machines, and therefore you can call them robots. The Mobile Transporter is controlled by a 386 MDM and contains very complicated control algorithms and decision making routines to carry payloads of different weights along the rail. It can faul-find itself, and report failures. (fault-find) It varies its acceleratioin and speed depending on the mass of the payload. It can be programmed to travel different distances, and to connect and disconnedt itself from space station main power, and transfer power back and forth to internal battery power, . Its battery power modeule contains sophistiacted algorithms to control the state ofc charge of the bbattery, and the control its charging and discharging. A obot by any other name. robot When you tell it to move to worksitee-N itk knows exactly what to do, and howe to do it, and will proceed autonomoulsly unl;ess it is interrupted, or unless it detects that something is wrong. > Frank Crary > CU Boulder ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 92 16:01:14 GMT From: Jack Hudler Subject: Collisions and P/Swift-Tuttle Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space In article <1992Nov9.081839.1@uwovax.uwo.ca> pbrown@uwovax.uwo.ca writes: >be in its orbit, not whether that orbit crosses the Earth's path. > >Please let me re-iterate what I previously stated in a message: The chance >of being hit by some asteroid or comet as yet undiscovered, and yet large >enough to have global effects (i.e. end of civilization as we know it), >before 2126 is of order 10 times as high as the chance that P/ST will >strike Earth in that year. Of course... you could be wrong. :-) -- Jack Hudler - Computer Support Corporation - Dallas,Texas - jack@cs.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 09:34:31 EST From: John Roberts Subject: Coverup - gravity doesn't exist? -From: dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) -Subject: Re: Coverup - gravity doesn't exist? -Date: 9 Nov 92 20:22:15 GMT -Organization: Vonnegut Tent Rentals, Inc. -John Roberts (roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov) wrote: -> There's an apple tree on the NIST grounds that's a direct descendant of the -> tree Isaac Newton was sitting under when he thought up the laws of gravitation. -Hmmm. After that fact was disclosed in your first-day orientation class, -were you sent out to fetch a can of striped paint ? Don't be silly - polka-dot is the current state of the art. Though we are working on a new instant-drying, non-toxic, zero-mass, non-protective invisible paint. It's for use on brick and natural wood, where you don't want to hide the appearance of the original surface. It has many advantages - no cleanup needed, can safely be sprayed on windy days, and if you spill some, nobody will ever know. There are still three bugs to be worked out: 1) hard to assure a uniform coating, 2) costs $50 per gallon, and 3) you can't tell when the can's empty. We also made up a batch of single-can camouflage paint for the military, but somebody set the cans outside and now we can't find them. Maybe we shouldn't have painted the labels to show the color of the contents... Hm, I guess I'll actually have to go out there and see what the sign says... TROMP TROMP Tromp Tromp tromp tromp tromp tromp... (long pause) ...tromp tromp tromp tromp Tromp Tromp TROMP TROMP (creak of chair). OK, here it is: .............. NEWTON APPLE TREE "Science has its traditions as well as its frontiers." This tree is a direct descendant of the original tree whose fruit gave inspirational impetus to Isaac Newton's theory of gravitational forces. It was nurtured by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and transplanted here on the grounds of the National Bureau of Standards April 1966. .............. No sign of the gravitationally anomalous apples underneath. Either they floated away, or the large herd of NIST Standard Reference Material Whitetail Deer had something to do with their disappearance. :-) John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 16:26:03 CET From: A6%ESOC.BITNET@vm.gmd.de Subject: ESA ministerial conference at Granada (Spain) -------------------------------------- ESTEC Public Relations - Announcement Subject: PR No.3 Ministerial Meeting Progress Report Issued by : Public Relations ESTEC Date , time : 92-11-11 , 11:49 EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY GIVEN MANDATE FOR THE COMING YEARS The Council of the European Space Agency, meeting at Ministerial Level in Granada on the 9th and 10th November 1992, under the Chairmanship of Profes- sor Hubert Curien, the French Minister for Research and Space, gave ESA a wide-ranging mandate to continue with all existing programmes. The ministers representing 13 Member States of the Agency, the Associate Member Finland, and Canada, re-affirmed the commitment made at the Munich -------------------------------------- Meeting to the continuity and strengthening of European space policy, while adapting the Agency's strategy for its future space programmes to the chang- ing political and economic circumstances. All Member States are strongly in favour of strengthening the Agency's ac- tivities in the pursuit of a greater understanding of the Earth's environ- ment and the problems that all countries feel in this domain. Envisat-1, a remote-sensing mission dedicated to the science and processes of the envi- ronment, thus ensuring continuity of the invaluable data provided by the Agency's ERS-1 and ERS-2 satellites received full support. Preparatory ac- tivities will go ahead for the operational climate monitoring mission Metop-1, planned for launch in 2000, to be developed in cooperation with Eumetsat and which will represent a significant contribution to the Eumetsat programme for long-term monitoring of "Plant Earth". A start will be made in 1993 on a second generation Meteosat system, again to be developed in close collaboration with Eumetsat; the first launch being planned for 1999. -------------------------------------- In pursuing the in-orbit infrastructure programmes, the development of APM has now been given the go-ahead. The Agency will negotiate with NASA on the exploitation costs of the international space station, aiming to achieve a firm ceiling, within which a significant portion of the Agency's contrib- ution will be made "in kind", which could include such services as the As- sured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV), the Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) using the Ariane launcher and the Data Relay System (DRS) Concerning Hermes, the decision was taken to continue with the orientation of the programme towards greater and deeper cooperation with Russia to ar- rive at a crewed space transportation system developed from Hermes which will be reviewed in 1995. The decision was taken to go ahead with the Data Relay Satellite, DRS-1. These developments together with an assessment on the operations uses of the DRS will be the subject of a major review in February 1995. -------------------------------------- Within the Columbus programme means to provide full funding for the attached pressurised module (APM) laboratory will be clarified; with specific meas- ures being taken over the next few years to align development with the fi- nancial resources available. A five per cent cut in APM costs was accepted. The problems faced by several Member States following the financial re-align ment in the last few months were fully discussed and the Agency must provide an equitable solution of an interim nature before the end of the year. The Ministers were enthusiastic about the synergy existing with the CEC on Earth Observation questions, Eutelsat and Eumetsat. They welcomed what had been achieved with ESA's international partners particularly USA, Russia and Japan, and they look for intensification and expansion of relations. Relations with Russia received particular attention, with emphasis on joint studies in the areas of in-orbit infrastructures and associated communi- -------------------------------------- cations, manned transportation systems and missions of European astronauts to the Mir station. Possible cooperation with other former USSR countries might be considered. ESA now has clear policies to follow for the coming years, and a further re- view at Ministerial Level will take place in 1995. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 10:29:59 EST From: John Roberts Subject: Ice hardness -From: andy@osea.demon.co.uk (Andrew Haveland-Robinson) -Subject: Ice hardness -Date: 10 Nov 92 02:15:43 GMT -Organization: Haveland-Robinson Associates -In article roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov writes: ->A number of science fiction writers seem to assume that water ice at ->cryogenic temperatures would be many times stronger than ice at slightly ->below freezing. Is there any indication that this is true? -"Air temperatures down to -50'C make the near surface ice a thousand times -stiffer than the basal ice, which geothermal heat from the underlying rock -can bring to near melting point" - Richard Frolick, Brit Antarctic Survey - Physics World Vol5/11 p21, IOP -I would assume that this is an indication that cryogenic ice is pretty -hard stuff... Thanks for the reference. I looked through the proceedings of two conferences on ice, and all I could find is that the tensile strength of ice goes up with decrease in temperature, at least down to -40 C. Another characteristic of ice (at least near the melting point) is that it "ages" - over time, it becomes more brittle. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 18:52 GMT From: Karl Dishaw <0004244402@mcimail.com> Subject: Japanese 1990 Lunar Probe I saw a UPI dispatch saying that Japan launched two satellites to the Moon in January 1990, but there wasn't anything in the FAQ about them. Does anybody know what happened on that mission and whether they got any useful data? Karl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 11:23:27 EST From: John Roberts Subject: Low-pressure O2 atmosphere -From: sl25@cus.cam.ac.uk (Steve Linton) -Subject: Re: Low-Pressure O2 Atmosphere -Date: 10 Nov 92 23:24:26 GMT -Organization: U of Cambridge, England -Once again. IT ISN'T THE PURITY IT'S THE PARTIAL PRESSURE!! -In a 0.2 atm 100% O2 environment things burn just like they do on -the ground. While that's mostly correct, the presence of inert gas makes *some* difference, since it conducts away much of the heat of combustion. In space, the local gravity has a strong influence on the rate of combustion. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 92 21:41:14 GMT From: Stan Ryckman Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary In article <8NOV199215122237@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >In article , szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes... >>Lunar "colony" reality check: >> > >Nick, Nick, Nick, at it again I see. [snip] >Calling this post a reality check is also abominable. You don't have to go >you do not have to particpate. Just get the heck outta our way. If you're planning to fund this with tax dollars, we will all be _forced_ to participate, and "reality checks" _are_ in order when the arguments _in favor_ are full of: "...question will remain unanswered..." "...water could exist there..." "...underground water and volatiles are a definite possiblity..." "...even water in the case of a comet..." that is, lots of maybe's. How likely? 1%? 50%? 99%? If you don't plan to spend tax dollars, though, I'm sure neither Nick nor I will stand in your way (though he, of course, can speak for himself). (BTW, I do agree that buses won't be needed for a long time there :-) ) >>Nick Szabo szabo@techboook.com >Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville Stan. -- "To the moon, Alice!!!" -- Jackie Gleason Stan Ryckman sgr@alden.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:34:33 GMT From: "John D. Boggs" Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary From article <1992Nov11.005151.15358@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>, by jenkins@fritz (Steve Jenkins): > > Oxygen, like many gases, has narcotic effects at very high pressures, > such as in deep-sea diving. It can cause blindness in newborns > Yes to blindness in newborns, but it is the *nitrogen* that has the narcotic effect in deep sea diving -- hence the use of helium for the really really deep dives. Trust me, I'm a librarian. -John D. Boggs john-boggs@uiowa.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:39:03 GMT From: "John D. Boggs" Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary From article <1992Nov11.020940.4767@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, by mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas): > > This is true for the most part, but at high O2 pressure, normally inflammable > objects burn quite well. So in that respect, it is indirectly a fire > hazard...sort of. :) > Actually, normally inflammable objects burn quite well at sea-level pressure of pure *air*. However, you need the high pressure to get normally *non*flammable objects to burn. [high pressure O2] Trust me, I'm a librarian. -John D. Boggs john-boggs@uiowa.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:36:08 GMT From: Herman Rubin Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article <629@alden.UUCP> sgr@alden.UUCP (Stan Ryckman) writes: >In article <8NOV199215122237@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >>In article , szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes... >>>Lunar "colony" reality check: >>Nick, Nick, Nick, at it again I see. >>Calling this post a reality check is also abominable. You don't have to go >>you do not have to particpate. Just get the heck outta our way. >If you're planning to fund this with tax dollars, we will all be >_forced_ to participate, and "reality checks" _are_ in order when >the arguments _in favor_ are full of: > "...question will remain unanswered..." > "...water could exist there..." > "...underground water and volatiles are a definite possiblity..." > "...even water in the case of a comet..." >that is, lots of maybe's. How likely? 1%? 50%? 99%? >If you don't plan to spend tax dollars, though, I'm sure neither >Nick nor I will stand in your way (though he, of course, can >speak for himself). But the government WILL stand in the way. This is the real problem; money can be raised. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet) {purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:30:00 GMT From: soc1070@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check and Apollo fire Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary >First off, it was Apollo 12, and not Apollo 1, that caught fire. The cause >of the fire was indeed the overpressure of test of the O2. As it turned >out, what killed the astronauts was not the fire, but the velcro inside the >spacecraft. > Although the velcro was fireproof for the low 3.5 psi, and up to 5psi, the >overpressure tests of pure O2 made them quite flammable. Hell, at 16psi of >oxygen, damn near anything will burn. In the words of Mike Gray, author of >_Angle of Attack_, "Somehow, in the labyrinth of the organization charts, the >people who tested the spacecraft materials for flammability were never >connected to the people who knew that-- for a brief period at the beginning of >the moon trip-- the astronauts would be bathed in high-pressure oxygen." > The fire ignited the velcro under high-pressure, and the resultant toxic >fumes killed the astronauts within seconds. > >-- >John Mechalas "I'm not an actor, but >mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu I play one on TV." >Aero Engineering, Purdue University #include disclaimer.h I beg to differ. It was in fact Apollo 1, as many have pointed out. If you check your Apollo history, you will see that 8 circled the moon, 9 did LEO tests, 10 tested the LM in lunar orbit, 11 landed, 12 landed next to the Surveyor, 13 blew an oxygen tank on the way to the moon, etc. Secondly, the cause of the fire was never traced to any specific source. According to Micheal Collens in _Carrying The Fire_, the inside of the craft was so fried that a single cause could not be found; rather there were several *probable* causes that resulted in an almost complete redesign of the inside of the capsule. You were right that almost anything will burn at 16psi pure O2, even stainless steel. Unfortunatly for Grissom, White, and Chaffee, they didn't die of toxic fumes. It was the fire that did them. ------ Tim Harincar Millions long for immortality Central Minnesota who don't know what to do with Association of Rocketry themselves on a rainy Sunday soc1070@vx.cis.umn.edu afternoon. -Susan Ertz ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 92 20:21:35 GMT From: Bruce Watson Subject: Lunar astronaut covers earth with thumb Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro On the last installment of "Space Age" Jim Lovell said while he was in the vicinity of the moon, he could cover the earth with his thumb while his arm was outstretched. (It was also attributed to Rusty Schweikart). I heard this a few years ago on a radio talk show with one of the lunar astronauts as guest--was it Jim Lovell? A caller, who had a German accent, had trouble with this reasoned: (1) This distance to the moon from the earth is the same as the as the distance to the earth from the moon, (2) The earth is larger than the moon, and (3) We ordinary mortals here on earth can't cover the moon with a thumb with arm outstretched. His unstated conclusion was that the astronaut could not have done it and you could sense his reluctance to call the astronaut a liar. What is the error the caller made? Give up? It's number (3). There's a full moon out tonight. Go out and try it. -- Bruce Watson (wats@scicom) Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:43:49 GMT From: Nick Haines Subject: Lunar astronaut covers earth with thumb Newsgroups: sci.space In article <30473@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes: [...] (1) This distance to the moon from the earth is the same as the as the distance to the earth from the moon, (2) The earth is larger than the moon, and (3) We ordinary mortals here on earth can't cover the moon with a thumb with arm outstretched. What is the error the caller made? Give up? It's number (3). There's a full moon out tonight. Go out and try it. (3) depends, of course, on the size of your thumb, the length of your arm, and the thickness of the gloves you're wearing. But you'd need a very skinny thumb indeed for it to be true. A pencil held at arms length will cover the moon. The illusion that the moon is much larger than this is related to the illusion that it is larger still when near the horizon (for that one, see alt.folklore.science). From the moon, it's a much closer call, since the earth is nearly four times as large (linearly). My outstretched thumb is 70cm from my eye and 2.5cm across. The earth is 3.8e5km from the moon, and 1.3e4km across. So my bare outstretched thumb would just do the trick. Anyone with fine thumbs or really long arms would have to be wearing thick gloves. Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 92 04:46:12 GMT From: Steve Willner Subject: Man in space ... Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Nov5.062650.20243@ils.nwu.edu>, eric@ils.nwu.edu (Eric Goldstein) writes: > The claim was that, in case of rapid decompression, a > human had 14 seconds to [respond] ...you would > be incapable of taking whatever actions were necessary to save your life > after 14 seconds. In altitude chamber training, we were given figures of 90 seconds of useful consciousness at 30,000 feet, 30 seconds at 40,000 feet, and 5 seconds at 45,000 feet. We all tried the first experiment, and the time seemed about right with considerable individual variation. I'm happy to report that we did not try the other two experiments. Perhaps the figure of 14 seconds refers to individuals (astronauts) selected for tolerance to hypoxia, or perhaps the time we were told was deliberately conservative. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu member, League for Programming Freedom; contact league@prep.ai.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 12:59:23 GMT From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Man in the loop I was reading through "The Home Planet" last night and thought this quote might be of general interest: "For seven long days, working both during the day-side parts of the orbit and by flashlight, we tried to find out what was causing the solar panels to fail. We wanted to get at least one bulb to light. Finally, we found the culprits when we checked all the storage batteries. Two of them had gone out of commission. We undid the thickly plaited cabling and connected the solar panels directly so they always faced the sun. The batteries began to recharge and finally there was light. Automation is indeed a wonderful thing, but in the end humanity has the last word." - Cosmonaut Viktor Savinykh ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:34:25 GMT From: Dave Tholen Subject: Media report on Swift-Tuttle threat. Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro > The article goes on to say that the "International Astronomical Union then > warned its member nations that Swift-Tuttle would cross earth's path in > August 2126." > > News to me! Anyone care to comment? An IAU Circular was issued. On the other hand, issuance of an IAU Circular is hardly a warning from the IAU to member nations! A reporter has, once again, misinterpreted the facts. Of course, P/Swift-Tuttle will cross Earth's path in 1992 as well. It's just that Earth won't be anywhere near the intersection point when it does cross. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 15:28:29 GMT From: Dave Jones Subject: Obscure Help Needed Newsgroups: sci.space James Davis Nicoll (jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca) wrote: > > > > An embarrassing request: my HP died and I discover I cannot > remember how to do logs with a slide-rule, nor can I find my sr-related > texts. Clearly, I am senile. Anyone out there recall how the damn things > work? > You're serious, right? I mean praying to the netgods is easier than dashing down to the university bookstore with a $10 bill in hand? OK, maybe you'd need $20 for a calculator these days. Anyway, the slide rule uses additivity of lengths to do it's stuff. The main scales are logarithmic, so when you add/subtract lengths, you effectively multiply/divide. If you really want to multiply/divide, you don't use logs, you just use the scales. For x * y, align the left extreme mark on the slide with 'x' on the body, then proceed along the slide to 'y' and read of the value on the body next to it. For x/y align 'y' on the slide with 'x' on the body and read off the answer from the body at whichever extreme mark of the slide is on scale. To get logs themselves with a slide rule, you have to have a log scale on the rule. I think this is just a linear scale, usually above the slide, and you just read off values based on the main scale on the body. Now when is my 1965 Faber-Castell going to become a collectors' item? -- ||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:04:10 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: reality check (2) Newsgroups: sci.space In article roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes: >-Most of this is for processes which will have lunar equivalents which >-don't use water. Abundant and cheap solar energy will provide alternatives. >Abundant - yes, cheap - no (at least by Earth standards). It may actually >make sense to start with fission and imported fuel (or a combination of >fission and solar power - performing the energy-intensive tasks only >during the day), until large power storage facilities can be brought on line. True enough for electricity but that's not what I had in mind. At first electricity will be hard to get (until the solar cell plant becomes operational) but raw heat is abundantly available with a few light weight mirrors. Many processes can use heat. >I'm in favor of establishing permanent human settlements on the moon, but I >think there's a tendency to underplay the problems (or overplay them :-). Granted but I believe that we won't know what the problems are until we actually do it. If we sit here and wait until all the problems are solved then we won't ever go. >I have a neutral opinion on whether asteroid mining should be a precursor >to lunar settlement - I'm sure it will be important in the long run. Asteroids will eventyally be important but the first facilities will need to be on the moon. We need a site close by to learn how to do it. If nothing else, a lunar base will be needed to test the automated asteroid mining equipment. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------164 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:03:17 GMT From: Steve Linton Subject: Terraforming Newsgroups: sci.space I heard a fascinating talk a few months ago about terraforming Mars. The speaker favoured what he called the `world-house' approach. The idea of this is to cover large parts (eventually all) of Mars at an altitude of about 1000ft with a plastic sheet, designed to be held up by the pressure of a suitable atmosphere below, to exert a greenhouse effect that would warm the surface, and to keep out harmful UV. This drastically cuts down the amount of gas needed to get a sensible atmosphere at the surface, while having very little effect on the usability of the resulting planet. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 411 ------------------------------