Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 05:09:09 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #014 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 7 Jan 93 Volume 16 : Issue 014 Today's Topics: averting doom (3 msgs) DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet (2 msgs) DC cost estimates Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements) Man rating again (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements) Post-StarWars Detritus (was: Who can launch antisats?) Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization Question about SETI?+ question on privately funded space colonization Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific) Space Plasma Physics Summer School on the Volga River. 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: Wed, 6 Jan 93 23:29:55 EST From: John Roberts Subject: averting doom -From: u108502@beta.lanl.gov (Andrew Poutiatine) -Subject: Re: averting doom -Date: 6 Jan 93 15:52:12 GMT -Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory ->In article jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes: ->>from a U.P. story ->> ->> WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Life on Earth as we know it will ->> come to an end in 1,500 million years and the planet will ->> look more like its dusty, volcanic sister Venus in 2,500 ->> million years, scientists said Wednesday. -I believe the above prediction is based not on earth climate and weather -considerations (for which I must agree predictions of more than a few days -are not very dependable), but rather on the evolution of the sun. -I am not an astronomer, but as I recall, theory predicts that stars of our -sun's size go through a stage in their evolution at the end of their lives -when they become hotter and expand. It is this, I believe, that would -parch the earth, killing life "as we know it." A significant feature of the recent calculations is that as temperatures rise, CO2 levels drop (thus regulating the surface temperature of the Earth to some extent). Eventually CO2 drops too low to support photosynthesis, leading to the death of multicellular organisms. The recent addition to the model is the observation that certain plants such as corn and other grasses do not require as much CO2 for photosynthesis as most other plants, so there should continue to be functioning plant life for much longer than previously expected. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 93 23:09:37 From: John McCarthy Subject: averting doom Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.physics,sci.environment Leonard Evens solemnly posts 4> Except as interesting speculation, why should anyone care? Remember that the real (plentiful) fossil record on earth is only about 500 million years old. Surely no one should worry seriously about what sort of actions humanity should take to deal with such a problem. Unfortunately, this may confuse people about the issue of global warming which is something which may radically affect human societies in the next several generations and which we may be able to do something about. No comment except the above adverb. -- John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 * He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 93 00:13:25 From: Craig Powderkeg DeForest Subject: averting doom Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.physics,sci.environment In article jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes: > WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Life on Earth as we know it will > come to an end in 1,500 million years and the planet will > look more like its dusty, volcanic sister Venus in 2,500 > million years, scientists said Wednesday. Not too likely, on a planet with over five billion potential planetary civil engineers and over 10^9 years to think of a solution! -- DON'T DRINK SOAP! DILUTE DILUTE! OK! ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 1993 05:11:01 GMT From: "Michael F. Santangelo" Subject: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet Newsgroups: sci.space Well, it occured to me after being subjected to a little CNN Headline News peice this evening regarding the new $23 MILLION DOLLAR toilet that will be flying aboard the shuttle Endeavour (GAO is somewhat concerned about this btw) that no mention has been made regarding this sort of thing with respect to the proposed manned, operational Delta Clipper program. Since DC-1(,2,3...) will have the ability to stay in LEO for at least some days with astronauts aboard, one wonders what kind of accomodations they will have while not engaged in flight activities (i.e. sleeping, eating, and what comes as a result of eating). A great deal of time, effort, and money has been spent on STS to accomodate humans living in space during week long missions in this regard. What's the scoop here Allen? Any info appreciated. -- -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Michael F. Santangelo + Internet: mike@cbl.umd.edu [work] Computer & Network Systems Head + mike@kavishar.umd.edu [home] Univ MD: CEES / CBL (Solomons Island) + BITNET: MIKE@UMUC [fwd to mike@cbl] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:49:50 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1ige15INN30a@cbl.umd.edu> mike@starburst.umd.edu (Michael F. Santangelo) writes: >Since DC-1(,2,3...) will have the ability to stay in LEO for at least >some days with astronauts aboard, one wonders what kind of accomodations >they will have while not engaged in flight activities (i.e. sleeping, eating, >and what comes as a result of eating). A great deal of time, effort, and >money has been spent on STS to accomodate humans living in space during >week long missions in this regard. Unnecessarily, if so, since the solutions developed for Skylab actually worked pretty well. (Notably, the Skylab toilet worked.) For rather longer than a week, too. I doubt that anyone has done enough detailed engineering on DC-1 to get down to this level of nitty-gritty. But it really isn't that big a deal. The Gemini 7 astronauts spent two weeks in space a quarter century ago. -- "God willing... we shall return." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 00:48:44 EST From: John Roberts Subject: DC cost estimates -From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) -Subject: Re: DC cost estimates -Date: 4 Jan 93 03:06:42 GMT -In article roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes: ->I hope you understand what I mean by the economic term "opportunity cost". -Sure I know what opportunity cost is. But I always assumed that the -higher opportunity cost was by using Shuttle. I admit I haven't worked -out the details but I suspect that for a years Shuttle costs we could -could find a way to use Mir for the locker experiments and redesign the -few payloads which MUST fly on Shuttle. That would allow us to switch to -far cheaper expendables if DC fails and still save money. I think cooperative ventures with the CIS space program are a good idea, but I don't think we should rely exclusively on Russian manned launch services while DC is being developed. There's a difference between carpooling with your next door neighbor Fred to save money and selling your car and relying on Fred to drive you to work for the next five years. Fred might get sick, or get mad at you, or his car might break down. With reference to your posts on adapting Soyuz to fit on US launchers, bear in mind that this might take nearly as long as getting DC-1 operational. So that's still several years without US manned launch capability (assuming the Shuttle were terminated immediately), and if DC lives up to its optimistic expectations, it will immediately kill the interim launch system. So all of that money and effort would be expended to get an interim system that's likely to be used for perhaps as little as a year or two. ->the fact that it's in use indicates that ->those who pay for it (NASA, the government in general, and the public in ->general) get get some value out of it. -But what is that value and is it worth the money spent? NASA's highest -priority is to keep its centers funded. To government, Shuttle is a jobs -program. If that's their main goal, then they're not doing a very good job of it - the social program people seem to be much better at it. :-) I'm inclined to believe that most of the people involved in the NASA programs are there largely because they think what they're doing is worthwhile. ->There are in fact a considerable ->number of missions scheduled over the next few years. If the Shuttle program ->were cancelled today, those missions would also have to be cancelled, or at ->least deferred. -Sure, but are those missions being conducted in the most cost effective -way? To date, nobody has been able to show that they have been. Probably not. But that's not the only valid criterion. One would hope that the "total value" of conducting these missions at the time they're conducted is greater than the cost. In planning a mission, one of the cost features that must be included is the uncertainties involved. If it is not certain that a given utility will be available at the planned time of the mission, then the risk to the timely accomplishment of the mission must be considered as a cost. -However, this is all moot. Shuttle cannot be killed; it has too big a -constituency. All we can do is hope it doesn't drag us all down with it. Then trying to emphasize that DC is primarily a way of killing the Shuttle (and further, that the Shuttle should be killed before DC is even proven to work and available for use) does no good to the DC program, and could cause considerable political harm to the DC effort. ->One question I'm not sure has been addressed before: is the DC-1 expected to ->provide for a "shirtsleeve" environment access tube to the cargo bay, like ->the Shuttle? In other words, would a "mini-Spacelab" be a viable option for ->a DC-1 payload? -A mini-spacelab would be viable. In fact, the DC design allows for delta-V, -and duration tradeoffs which make it attractive. there may or may not be -access however, between the flight crew and cargo bay (but there is no -reason there couldn't be). If DC-1 wants to replace the Shuttle, it had *better* have an access tube. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 03:48:41 GMT From: Jeff Greason ~ Subject: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements) Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >In <1993Jan5.215441.21415@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: > >The Shuttle also has zero availability, if your time frame is the >next few days. Your car has zero availability, if your time frame >is the next 30 seconds. (I'm assuming you're not a track star.) >Soyuz spacecraft/launchers purchased from the Russians have zero >availability, if your time frame is the next six months. DC-1 >has zero availability, if your time frame is the next four years. and... >Switching from the Shuttle to Vehicle X would certainly delay >some payloads and missions currently planned to fly aboard the >Shuttle. But remaining with the Shuttle might delay other >payloads and missions that are not yet planned but could be >flown on Vehicle X. You can't just look at one side of the >equation; you need to do a complete cost-benefit analysis. While your arguments about availability are sound in principle, they ignore the element of risk. Shuttle availability has a long time window to availability, in months, but it is reasonably likely to be available when predicted to be, with some error margin While I believe the DC-X and DC-Y programs should continue (although I'm not as sold as I once was), the uncertainty associated with the "four year" time frame is, to say the least, very large. While I THINK that the program can be managed with reasonable deadlines, and I THINK that DC-Y, if funded, will eventually demonstrate that SSTO is feasible, there is a very significant risk with both of these. One point that gets lost is that while DC-X is "bent metal" and will solidly demonstrate the "quick turn" aspects of a launch vehicle (or not), it will NOT demonstrate the key SSTO capability of a vehicle with the extremely small "dry mass" necessary to make SSTO work -- that is left for DC-Y. So, in spite of the encouraging signs, such as DC-X maintaining a close adherence to schedule, the risks are still very, very significant. This is not a criticism of the DC program -- far from it! If there were no risk associated with the program, it would, by definition, have to have extremely conservative targets, and "If you always do what you've always done, you always get what you've always got". So it is essential that the DC program take some risks if it is to demonstrate new concepts. Intelligent management (which I will never accuse NASA of), can reduce those risks, but not eliminate them. This is a fairly long-winded lead in to say that no matter how great DC may be, you cannot stop shuttle flights before an operational DC capability exists, or else your "downside risk" is an undetermined period of years, with no upper bound, before a manned spaceflight capability is reestablished. Given the current political/budgetary climate, that might be a very, very long time. This is NOT because of any advantage of the shuttle -- in my opinion it probably has none -- but because it is the ONLY system which we PRESENTLY have. Murphy willing, the DC program might change that, in which case we can (and should) retire the shuttles to the Smithsonian. Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own, and do not reflect the position of Intel, Portland State University, or Zippy the Pinhead. ============================================================================ Jeff Greason "You lock the door ... And throw away the key. There's someone in my head, but it's not me." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 02:57:46 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Man rating again (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan06.165148.9581@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes: >YOU say there's no need to man-rate. The astronaut community and anyone who >goes up on it IS going to disagree with you. Well after a successful test flight I would go up on it. I think lots of others would as well. Anybody with brains enough to read a test report and analyze risk wouldn't have any problem. I think most astronauts would be included in this list. The ones who don't want to go can quit. >I realize you'd like to treat people as another type of expendable, but it just >ain't so in the Western World. Wake up guy! The value of a human life simply isn't infinite. Look at the cost model for any large project. Part of it will include the costs associated with the people killed on the project. In fact, I'll bet that at least one person was killed building each of the 5 shuttle orbiters. People aren't expendable but nither do they have infinite value. If what you said where actually true then nobody woluld be flying Shuttles anyway. So if you want perfect safety, then stay home and leave the next frontier to the rest of us. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------108 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 93 04:18:48 GMT From: David Fuzzy Wells Subject: Post-StarWars Detritus (was: Who can launch antisats?) Newsgroups: sci.space >junk to ventilate any later space vehicles. But also, >if plutonium warheads are "destroyed" by Smart Pebbles >(or whatever they're being called now), couldn't the Is "Brilliant" the word you were looking for? Fuzzy ============================================================================== _ __/| | Lt. David "Fuzzy" Wells |"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice. \'o.O' | HQ AFSPACECOM/CNA | =(___)= | "We do debris" | "You must be," said the Cat, "or you U ...ack!| wdwells@esprit.uccs.edu | wouldn't have come here." ============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 1993 01:47:16 GMT From: Randall Tyers Subject: Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In response to this question, a group called the Lunar Society appears to be interested funding space colonization. I would like to know whether they are for real. Does anyone know if this group is legitimate and whether they have any chance of reaching their stated goals? Text of a old message describing this group follows. <1992Aug24.200917.8618@news.media.mit.edu> jeanie@media.mit.edu (Jean Y. Kim) wrote: Hi netters, I am forwarding this for a friend. *-----------------------------------------------------------------* It's less than ten years to 2001... ... do you know where YOUR space program is? THE LUNAR SOCIETY was founded because of a single profound and distrubing insight: politicians, bureaucrats, and aerospace corporate managers are not going to get US into space. We can't afford the price of a ticket, let alone the space-equivalent of the covered wagon. The only way WE are going is if we build the machines, vehicles, tools, habitats, factories, encampments and homesteads -- OURSELVES. Think about the early visions of von Braun and Ley, Clarke and Heinlein, Goddard and Oberth and Tsiolkovski, and ask youself why we haven't come farther in the last fifty years? A big part of the answer is -- the national space program doesn't exist to fulfill those visions. It does exist to create jobs in certain congressional districts and to advance national prestige. That approach won't open the high frontier of space. The Lunar Society was created because of the deeply held belief that if real progres is to be made towards the goal of settling the high frontier, private groups and individuals must lead the way. Governments will not be the agents of progress, nor is it desirable that centralized, monolithic, bureaucratic organizations dictate the future of free people on the frontier of space. TOO MUCH IS AT RISK TO DENY OUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO ACT TO CREATE OUR OWN FUTURE. _What are the Society's Goal?_ To provide the individuals the means to homestead the space frontier. To fund the infrastructure that will permit human settlement of near-Earth space and Earth's Moon. To conduct research into advanced technologies which will lower the cost of access to space. And to educate everyone about the challenges of the age of space, so that we all have the opportunity to play a role in this great adventure. In Herman Oberth's words: "This is the goal: to make available for Life every place where life is possible; to make inhabitable all worlds as yet uninhabitable and all Life purposeful." _Why now?_ In the past decade there have been rapid advances in materials, small computers, software, propulsion systems and life support. These technologies have enabled an assault on the barriers of access and cost which blocked small, non-governmental space efforts in the past. Taking inspiration from the experimental aviation community, and employing the experiences of entrepreneurs and scientists, engineers and enthusiasts, the time is right for a non-governmental program which will create a space civilization. _Why Another Organization?_ Because we have a unique role to play. The Lunar Society will not lobby Congress for more money for the U.S. space program, or publish glossy magazines for members. Others can play those parts. The Society is raising money to fund needed technology development which will make settling the high frontier feasible as well as economical. And then, we'll step aside and let private businesses pick up the effort. Let's not forget author Larry Niven's words: "After all, we're capitalists, right?" We're starting small, working on components such as engines, software, space suits, and design studies, but we're advancing quickly to flying vehicles, space platform design and planning lunar missions. REAL HARDWARE FOR REAL MISSIONS. No other organization today has the comprehensive space settlement program of the Lunar Society. _Join Us!_ The Lunar Society is leading the way on the return to the Moon, and the creation of the first human home on another world. We need your support in order to jump-start the future. For if not you, then who? "To accomplish this goal we have committed our lives, fortunes and honor. If you share this vision, join us." Jerry Pournelle, Ph.D., Chairman James Ransom, President ENROLLMENT The Lunar Society is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization founded in 1986 by Dr. Jerry Pournelle, present Chairman, along with Dr. Philip Chapman (former Apollo astronaut) and Mr. James Ransom (Society President). The Society has established an Associates Program to permit individuals to participate directly in the greatest adventure ever undertaken by the human race. Associates receive the Society quarterly newsletter _Cisluna_ plus discounted admission to the annual Society conference. Cost is $100/year. The Society is not a menbership organization, and the contributions of the Associates are principally used to support hardware development programs, not to provide menber services. Contributions are tax-deductible. Any amount of contribution is welcome; any donor of $25/year or more will receive _Cisluna_. Enroll by mailing a check to the Society at the address below, or by calling our voicemail/fax system and using your VISA or MasterCard. CISLUNA 93 Lunar Society Associates may attend the CISLUNA 93 conference and exposition (January 15-17, 1993, San Francisco Bay Area) at a discount. Attendance is $35 per person for the Associate and one guest before Nov. 30, 1992, or $50 after. Non-Associates $50 before Nov. 30, 1992, $65 after. Send a check to the Society at the address below, or call our voicemail/fax system and use your VISA or MasterCard. P.O. Box 2500, Menlo Park, CA 94025 Voicemail/Fax : (415) 593-5575 Email : cisluna@teracons.com [quotes deleted] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:02:37 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Question about SETI?+ Newsgroups: sci.space In article , tim@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au (Tim Roberts) writes: > OK, I'm a rank amateur, I don't normally read this group, so please be gentle > with me..... > > Lots of money (I understand) is being spent on SETI, on the usual quite > reasonable assumption that there may be millions of civilisations out there. > Now, it seems to me that it would be astonishing if another civilisation were > at exactly our point in technology. Those that are far below would not be > able to send or receive anyway. So we only need consider those that are in > advance of us, perhaps to almost unimaginable amounts. Further, we need only > consider those that want to contact a backward civilisation like ours - if > they don't want to, they'll make sure we never know about them. > > So, we are left with a civilisation that is probably very far ahead of ours, > but wants to contact us (for some reason). Now, how would they go about it ? > Surely they'd set beacons somewhere in space that could not possibly be > missed. And, remember, their technology is probably millenia (at least) ahead > of ours. > > So, my question is, given that we ought to look for beacons that cannot be > missed: has anyone examined the immediate vicinity of pulsars ? I mean, > REALLY examined them ? > > Wouldn't this be better than searching more-or-less random points in space ? > > Tim > Only major problem I might see with SETI is that what I see almost everday. NAmely to see two cultures that for one reason or another have to interact. The Local Eskimo (Inupiaq) and White (General American). Problem is I see lost people, kids who don't want to be eskimo but carbon copy whites (unless its to their benefit to be eskimo, when its fashonable to be eskimo).. Sorry for being pessemistic, just being open about possible problems with alien contact.. We can hope that the alien civilisation is of a lower technical level than our, we can always exploit them when possible. For if the civilisation is of a "higher" level, we might face lossing ourselves as human, what would the cost be?? I do liek the Star Trek ideal of alien contact, but we must be open about possible problems.. Also I don't think we give enought time and money to the proper SETI search. Well such is the budget.. == == Michael Adams alias Ghost Wheel/Morgoth NSMCA@acad3.alaska.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 00:17:37 EST From: John Roberts Subject: question on privately funded space colonization -From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) -Subject: Re: Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization -Date: 6 Jan 93 14:48:41 GMT -Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department ->In <3954@key.COM> rburns@key.COM (Randy Burns) writes: ->>What are the current estimates of folks in this newsgroup of how long it ->>will be until the world starts to see privately funded space colonization? -Can one -reasonably expect people to do things when the government can step -in at any time and say no, or say that what you have done belongs -to it? If it's the principle of eminent domain that you're worried about, then yes, that could theoretically happen. But the same applies to activities on the Earth. Does it make sense to refuse to buy a house or a car because in principle the government could take it away? In practice, most people don't have their houses or cars taken by the government - the political cost of doing so is high, serving to act at least as a partial check on the use of eminent domain. In fact, government seizure of a privately built lunar base could well be harder than (for instance) taking property on the Earth for a road or a landfill - not only is it much more "visible", but the US government hasn't claimed that the moon is part of its territory. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 93 03:31:18 GMT From: Francois Yergeau Subject: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific) Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >In <1993Jan5.211253.20530@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes: >>It is my understanding that since the post-Challenger return to flight, >>NASA has been forbidden to fly commercial stuff on the shuttle. Am I >>wrong? > >Yes, those restrictions have been relaxed, though not removed >entirely. Remember the Intelsat salvage mission? Subject beaten to death last year, no further comment. :) >>Is NASA doing that? On any scale bigger than small, occasional excess >>capacity? If so, I agree it's playing games with its charter. > >It's certainly tried. The original plan for the TDRS system >called for at least one on-orbit spare, which would be leased >to a private company for commercial service until/unless NASA >needed it. This never happened because NASA had trouble just >launching enough TDRS satellites for a minimal constellation. If all goes well next week, they'll have excess capacity aplenty. Given the current state of the comsat industry, putting that excess capacity on the commercial market could very well be called unfair competition. Stay tuned. >>As for NASA hiring its own flight crew, constructing its own >>communications facilities and in general operating the shuttle system >>on its own instead of contracting out the whole works, I don't see any >>inherent problem with that. Just like I don't hire Tektronix to >>operate my oscilloscope in the lab. > >There is some difference between operating an oscilloscope >and operating an airline. At least six orders of magnitude >worth. But the airlines do not contract out their operations. They procure planes, and fly them, just like NASA buys shuttles and operates them. It's certainly proper, legal, and it's not clear to me that doing otherwise would be beneficial. > And I don't think you actively try to put other people >out of the oscilloscope business, do you? No, my allocation of taxpayer's money is way too small. :-) -- Francois Yergeau (yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca) | De gustibus et coloribus Centre d'Optique, Photonique et Laser | non disputandum Departement de Physique | -proverbe scolastique Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, QC, Canada | ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 93 01:02:49 GMT From: Bo Thide' Subject: Space Plasma Physics Summer School on the Volga River. Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.math,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.electronics Here is the second announcment of the Space Plasma Summer School, to be held in Russia in June 1993. We think we have a very attractive list of lecturers, with the Noble laureate Anthony Hewish the top of the bill. Don't be late or you may miss it because of limitations in the number of attendees. Bo ============================================================================== Second announcement International Summer School on Space Plasma Physics Organised by Radiophysical Research Institute, NIRFI, Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia and Swedish Institute of Space Physics, IRFU, Uppsala, Sweden to be held Onboard a Cruise Ship on the Volga River, 1--10 June, 1993 The purpose of the school is to give an introduction to the problems of linear and non-linear space plasma physics, ionospheric modification, the use of the ionosphere as a space plasma laboratory, as well as to discuss current topics in astrophysics and ionospheric, solar, and stellar plasma physics. Preliminary list of lecturers and lectures Prof C E Alissandrakis, Greece, Emissions From Solar Flares. Prof T Chang , USA, Electromagnetic Tornadoes in Space---Ion Cyclotron Resonance Heating of Ionospheric Ions; Lower hybrid collapse, caviton turbulence, and charged particle energization. Dr F C Drago, Italy, Radio Emission of Active Regions of the Sun and Stars. Prof G Dulk, USA, Radio Methods For Investigating the Solar Wind Between Sun and Earth. Prof Lev Erukhimov, Russia, Space Plasma Laboratories. Dr J Foster, USA, Scattering in the Ionosphere. Dr C Hanuise, France, Coherent Scattering in the Ionosphere. Prof M Hayakawa, Japan, Terrestrial Electromagnetic Noise Environment. Prof A Hewish, UK, Mapping Interplanetary Weather Patterns. Prof Yu Kravtsov, Russia, Polarisation and Wave Propagation Effects in Inhomogeneous Plasma. Prof J Kuijpers, Holland, Magnetic Flares In Accretion Disks. Prof M Nambu, Japan, Plasma Maser Effects. Prof V Petviashvili, Russia, Vortexes in Space. Prof V Radhakrishnan, India, Pulsars--The Strangest Radiators in the Sky. Prof H O Rucker, Austria, Planetary Radio Emissions. Dr R Schlickeiser, Germany, The Theory of Cosmic Ray Transport and Acceleration and Astrophysical Applications. Dr K Stasiewicz, Sweden, Auroral Kilometric Radiation. Dr B Thide, Sweden, Controlled Generation of Radio Emission in the Near-Earth Plasma by Wave Injection from the Ground. Prof V Trakhtengertz, Russia, Alfven Masers. Dr V Zaytsev, Russia, Solar plasma. Prof V V Zheleznyakov, Russia, Cyclotron Resonance in Astrophysics. General and topical lectures will be mixed with seminars and poster sessions. The lecture notes and reports of new results will be pubished in "Radiophysics and Quantum Electronics". The definitive list of lecturers and lectures will be included in the school programme that will be mailed to all participants. Applications for attendance must be submitted before 1 March, 1993 to either of: Lev M. Erukhimov Bo Thide Radiophysical Research Institute Swedish Institute of Space Physics ul. B. Pecherskaya 25/14 Uppsala Division 603024 Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia S-75591 Uppsala, Sweden Fax: [+7] 8312-369902 Fax: [+46] 18-403100 E-mail: le@appl.nnov.su E-mail: bt@irfu.se There will be an excursion to Vasil'sursk where the NIRFI radio observatory ``Sura'' is located. The cultural program of the school includes sightseeing in interesting old Russian towns on the upper Volga, art exhibitions, and other activities. The total cost for full board an lodging on the ship for the school is estimated at between US300 and US500, depending on type of cabin (first class single, first class double, second class singel, second class double). -- ^ Bo Thide'----------------------------------------------Science Director |I| Swedish Institute of Space Physics, S-755 91 Uppsala, Sweden |R| Phone: (+46) 18-303671. Fax: (+46) 18-403100. IP: 130.238.30.23 /|F|\ INTERNET: bt@irfu.se UUCP: ...!mcvax!sunic!irfu!bt ~~U~~ ----------------------------------------------------------------sm5dfw- ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 014 ------------------------------