Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 05:05:55 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #031 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sun, 10 Jan 93 Volume 16 : Issue 031 Today's Topics: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP *** (2 msgs) ** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ** (2 msgs) Cheap Mars Rocks (was Re: Moon Dust For Sale) future space travel (2 msgs) Galileo Update - 01/08/93 Making Antimatter Mars Observer Update - 01/08/93 new Shuttle toilet question on privately funded space colonization Should NASA operate shuttles (was Re: Shuttle a research tool) Supporting private space activities u.f.o.e.s.p. UPCOMING on the ParaNet UFO CONTINUUM 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: 10 Jan 93 02:13:04 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP *** Newsgroups: sci.space In article <93008.103356DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> Jon J Thaler writes: >> Current antiproton production is geared towards physics, not >> rocketry. It is probably possible to create antimatter more >> efficiently if that is the primary goal. > >This is probably incorrect, for two reasons: >* Antiproton production and capture efficiency limits the rate > at which antiproton storage rings can be filled. If easily > obtainable improvements were available, I expect that they > would have been used already. As I understand it, there are other constraints that also have to be observed. For example, they want antiprotons with more or less the same energy. Robert Forward, who studied the issue on contract for the USAF, said production rates *could* be improved considerably if you custom-built the hardware for it. >* A rocket fuel needs to be cheaply contained. Storage rings > are expensive. Unfortuantely, antiprotons are created moving, > so they will need to be brought to rest to simplify the containment > problem. This is an additional manipulation that the physicists > don't need to perform. It doesn't look like a hard problem, however. There has been work done in that direction for various physics projects. For example, there was a LANL project -- no longer funded -- to decelerate and cool antiprotons to essentially zero energy for measuring their gravitational mass. (If you believe general relativity, it should be identical to their well-known inertial mass... but some of the weirder theories of gravity say it should be different.) I heard a talk by one of the folks involved; he said that it was interesting physics to be sure, but it was also a way to do antimatter-handling work with an eye on longer-term practical uses. If memory serves, first estimates for propulsion efforts say that the trickiest problem is the latent heat of freezing when you try to convert antihydrogen gas to solid pellets. There is no shortage of possible methods for most of the handling problems, although a good bit of engineering development would have to be done to find out which ones will work best. >There is no free lunch. Baryon number is conserved... Well, unless you believe in proton decay, in which case it isn't... >This means it costs >the same 2mc^2 (at least) to make an antiproton that one gets back when >it annihilates. Indeed so. Antimatter is a *storage* system, not an energy source per se. But it's an outstandingly lightweight storage system, assuming the handling gear's mass isn't too bad. -- "God willing... we shall return." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:30:22 GMT From: Dave Michelson Subject: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP *** Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >Quark-catalyzed fusion is for wimps. :-) Compared to your description of magnetic monopole catalyzed proton decay, I have to agree :-) >Still... THAT's a Bussard ramjet powerplant for you! No kidding. Just to clarify what's going on, the exchange of virtual X particles can change quarks into leptons and quarks into antiquarks. Thus the proton decay products are a positron and a neutral pion, i.e., + o p -> e + pi However, in order to account for the long lifetime of a proton, the X particle must be 10^14 times as heavy as a proton (ouch!). This according to the SU(5) grand unified theory. I didn't know that magnetic monopoles could also mediate such a reaction, too. However, I was aware that people are looking for them anyway :). On Feb. 14, 1983, a group from Stanford led by B. Cabrera recorded an event that looked very much like the passage of a monopole through their apparatus. Unfortunately, as in the case of free quarks, no one has seen a magnetic monopole since. (I might also mention that the X particle plays a role in proton decay which is somewhat similar to that of the W- particle in neutron decay.) -- Dave Michelson davem@ee.ubc.ca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 06:57:17 PST From: Jason Cooper Subject: ** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ** Newsgroups: sci.space Thought I'd just do a blanket post on what I've seen here rather than reply to each individual message. Firstly, do we have a verdict of anyu sort on whether or not antimatter-matter collisions are a good way to produce the heat required for fusion? Or might it be best to boost the ramjet up to .017c (where the kinetic energy of the ship should roughly equal the energy required for deuterium-deuterium (or was that d-p?) fusion) using a more conventional method like nuclear pod propulsion, such as the Orion starship? Secondly, if it _IS_ a good way to produce heat on the incoming H, does anyone out there have any idea how a _smaller_ version of something that would create that kind of antimatter (I figure it's probably better to produce it than to carry it) per second would be like? I'm not looking for first-draft plans here, just concepts that may be used to DESCRIBE what such a device would look like and how (if necessary) it might pipe protons out of the stream. Thirdly, if we were to STORE the antimatter, how would it be stored? I have seen methods for plasma, but can't seem to find antimatter storage. Any response welcome... Jason Cooper ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 93 22:42:18 GMT From: Chris Marriott Subject: ** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ** Newsgroups: sci.space In article <7Pc3wB2w165w@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca> lord@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca writes: >(if necessary) it might pipe protons out of the stream. Thirdly, if we >were to STORE the antimatter, how would it be stored? I have seen methods >for plasma, but can't seem to find antimatter storage. > >Any response welcome... > > Jason Cooper > Storing antimatter should (in principle at least) be quite straightforward. Assuming it's charged, you can both store it and move it using magnetic fields. Chris -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Chris Marriott | chris@chrism.demon.co.uk | | Warrington, UK | BIX: cmarriott | | (Still awaiting inspiration | CIX: cmarriott | | for a witty .sig .... ) | CompuServe: 100113,1140 | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jan 93 20:06:23 GMT From: Glen K Moore Subject: Cheap Mars Rocks (was Re: Moon Dust For Sale) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary writes: >Why buy 1gramm moondust for about $4000.- (or 1 pound for $2'000'000) >when I bought 4g Mars rock for $350.- two years ago??? >To get the Mars rock I'm talking of down to earth didn't cost a single cent, >by the way. The 18kg SNC-meteorit simply fell out of the sky in October, 1962 >near Zagami rock in Nigeria. >Taking all the known SNC meteorites known, there are hardly more than 100pounds >of mars rock available. Thus, $100.000 for a two inch tape of moondust is quite >a high price|| I think I'll wait until a *large* lunar meteorite drops down >somwhere... Why not go out and buy a tektite? Even cheaper! >So kepp watching out for these space rocks| > Herbert ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:00:45 GMT From: rabjab Subject: future space travel Newsgroups: sci.space If they don't find water on the moon, I have a hard time believing that there will ever be large colonies there. Maybe small stations devoted to running astronomical instrumentation. Mars will be the only real place for a large colony, but then again, if there isn't anything there that's very interesting (like life or fossils) I can't see large colonies being placed up there. Seems like the future will see expanding development of robotic systems that will be used to explore every planet and moon, at a vastly reduced cost over sending humans. Maybe in the next 100-200 years biology will advance to the point where Venus could be altered with microbes. Change the atmosphere so SOMETHING could live there. It would be interesting to see what could live there if the temperature was reduced. I think science fiction has given people a false sense of the possible. The space travel fiction of over 100 years ago neglected things like radio and computer electronics, and required a travelling human. TEchnology has superseded the human, and the information can be returned much more efficiently. The urge to colonize the universe seems to come from an urge for terretorial conquest that has been with us for a long time. It is interesting how old themes are constantly repeated in the present. It's too bad we can't interest some of our race (Serbians, Saddam, etc.) in coveting lunar instead of earthly real estate. -rabjab ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 02:32:25 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: future space travel Newsgroups: sci.space In article rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (rabjab) writes: >If they don't find water on the moon, I have a hard time believing that >there will ever be large colonies there... >Mars will be the only real place for a large colony, but then again, >if there isn't anything there that's very interesting (like life or >fossils) I can't see large colonies being placed up there... >Maybe in the next 100-200 years biology will advance to the point >where Venus could be altered with microbes... Why do you assume a colony must be on a *planet*? As the late Gerard O'Neill pointed out a number of years ago, this is an error. Open space is a *better* place to colonize, given availability of resources from the Moon or the asteroids. Also, why do you assume that colonies are motivated by research? Not so. Bases, yes, but not colonies. Colonies are motivated by either money or freedom, broadly and loosely speaking: either there's a buck to be made and permanent residents are cheaper than migratory workers, or else the residents find life at home intolerable enough to spend a lot of money going somewhere where they can run their lives their own way. >Seems like the future will see expanding development of robotic systems >that will be used to explore every planet and moon, at a vastly >reduced cost over sending humans. It is yet to be established that this can be done effectively, except perhaps on the Moon where speed-of-light lags are short. Just flying around and taking pictures is the easy part. Interacting with a complex planetary surface, without minute-by-minute human attention, is vastly more problematic. None of the currently-proposed Mars robots, for example, is going to have anywhere near the fossil-hunting efficiency of even an amateur paleontologist. Unless robotics improves greatly, in-depth investigation of planetary surfaces will still require humans. Note, also, that human space exploration need not be impossibly costly. See, for example, Zubrin's "Mars Direct" proposal for a way of doing *human* exploration of Mars, in depth, relatively soon, on a budget that would barely buy you good robots at NASA prices. -- "God willing... we shall return." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 1993 18:25 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Galileo Update - 01/08/93 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary Forwarded from Neal Ausman, Galileo Mission Director GALILEO MISSION DIRECTOR STATUS REPORT POST-LAUNCH December 18, 1992 - January 7, 1993 SPACECRAFT 1. On December 18, real-time commands were sent to disable the system fault protection thruster flushing all clear response. With the Plasma Detector (PLS) and the Photopolarimeter-Radiometer (PPR) instruments being turned off, the thruster flushing all clear response was no longer needed and was disabled to eliminate unnecessary PPR heater cycles which would otherwise occur during thruster firing activities. 2. On December 18, real-time commands were sent to enable the Plasma Detector (PLS) science alarm monitor after it had tripped on November 28 when the PLS temperature exceeded 35 degrees C. This monitor was reset in order for it to be functional for the next PLS instrument on time. 3. On December 18, Delayed Action Commands (DACs) were sent to turn the S-Band ranging on December 19 which is the original background state of EE-11 (Earth-Earth #11 sequence). 4. On December 18, the playback of the Earth/Moon conjunction movie was completed. This playback consisted of a 14-hour period showing the Moon passing by as the Earth slowly rotated beneath it. All the data was received and processed on the ground. 5. On December 18, a periodic RPM (Retro-Propulsion Module) 10-Newton thruster maintenance activity was performed; 10 of the 12 thrusters were "flushed" during the activity. The P-thrusters were not "flushed" because they were used to perform SITURN activities on December 16. Spacecraft activity throughout the period was normal. 6. On December 21, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer to 264 hours, its planned value during this mission phase. 7. On December 22, the Dual Drive Actuator (DDA-5) Turn A sequence memory load was uplinked to the spacecraft without incident. This sequence covered spacecraft activities from December 28, 1992 to January 4, 1993 and included a DDA windup/hammer window opportunity on December 29-30 for approximately 20 hours (see Special Topic No. 2). 8. On December 22, real-time commands were sent to set the command loss timer to 96 hours. NO-OP commands were sent on December 24 and 26 to reset the command loss timer to 96 hours, its planned value during this mission phase. 9. On December 28, as part of the DDA-5 Turn A sequence activities, the warming turn to a 45-degree off-sun attitude started at approximately 1816 UTC and completed at 1854 UTC. After turn completion, real-time commands were sent to modify the Retro-Propulsion Module (RPM) thermal safing response. Also, real-time commands were sent to modify the attitude control Fault Monitor (FM) 2 persistence level from two hours to 55 minutes (see Special Topic No. 2). 10. On December 29, after approximately 20 hours at the warming attitude, the DDA-5 windup/hammering activities commenced at 1455 UTC. A total of 2160 hammer pulses were executed along with three 20 second windup sequences. Data analysis indicated the ballscrew rotated approximately 360 degrees for a total ballscrew rotation beginning with the initial deployment attempt of approximately 6.4 rotations. There was no indication of a rib release (see Special Topic No. 2). 11. On December 30, the spacecraft, under stored sequence control, was commanded back to a 5 degree off-sun attitude at approximately 1048 UTC. After the sun acquisition, sun gate data was collected to determine if an antenna rib is still obscuring the sun gate signal. Preliminary data analysis indicates that the sun gate field of view is still obscured although the signature appears to have changed. Initial analysis indicates that rib No. 2 may have moved out to a 43 degree angle. Also, preliminary results may indicate that the antenna mesh is covering the sun gate field of view. Additionally, real-time commands were sent to open the star scanner (SS) shutter, reacquire celestial reference, and select scan type 6 to perform precise wobble estimation. The wobble estimate indicated a change of 0.3 milliradians which collaborated the motor current data indicating that no ribs released (see Special Topic No. 2). 12. On December 30, real-time commands were sent to set the command loss timer to 144 hours, its planned value for this mission phase. On January 4, NO-OP commands were sent to reset the command loss timer to 144 hours. 13. On January 4, a periodic RPM 10-N thruster maintenance activity was performed; 10 of the 12 thrusters were "flushed" during the activity. The P-thrusters were not "flushed" because they are being used during the DDA-5 turn sequence activities. Spacecraft activity throughout the period was nominal. 14. On January 4, the Dual Drive Actuator (DDA-5) Turn B sequence memory load was uplinked to the spacecraft without incident. This load set the command loss timer to 120 hours. This sequence covers spacecraft activities from January 5, 1993 to January 8, 1993 and includes DDA windup/hammer window opportunities throughout the period (see Special Topic No. 3). 15. On January 5, as part of the DDA-5 Turn B sequence activities, the warming turn to a 34-degree off-sun attitude started at approximately 2001 UTC and completed at 2026 UTC. After the turn completion, real-time commands were sent to modify the Retro-Propulsion Module (RPM) thermal safing response in the event of sequence termination. Specifically, the change included turning the external shunt heaters and bus distribution 2 heaters on while turning off the NIMS (Near Infrared Mapping Spectrometer) shield heater and despun heaters. After approximately two hours at the warming attitude, hammering of the HGA (High Gain Antenna) motors commenced. Five 180 hammer pulse sequences were sent beginning at 2225 UTC and ending at 0442 UTC. The motor hammering sequences were executed with the HGA motor temperature at 19.3 degrees C, 29.8 degrees C, 34.4 degrees C, 36.2 degrees C, and 40.6 degrees C. Preliminary analysis indicated that the ballscrew was stalled with no appreciable ballscrew rotation. There was some suggestion of minor rotation with the HGA motor temperature at 29.8 degrees C. There was no indication of a rib release (see Special Topic No. 3). 16. On January 6, HGA motor hammering started at 1800 UTC. Two 180 hammer pulse sequences were sent and the activity completed at 1958 UTC. These motor hammering sequences were executed with the HGA motor temperature at 47.2 degrees C. Data analysis is in process (see Special Topic No. 3). 17. On January 7, two 180 hammer pulse sequences were sent while the HGA motor temperature was at 47.2 degrees C. Data analysis is in process (see Special Topic No. 3). 18. The AC/DC bus imbalance measurements exhibited some change. The AC measurement has ranged from 16DN to 19DN and now reads 18DN (4.1 volts). The DC measurement has ranged from 62DN (6.9 volts) to 157DN (18.5 volts) and now reads 150DN (17.7 volts). These measurement variations are consistent with the model developed by the AC/DC special anomaly team. 19. The Spacecraft status as of January 7, 1993, is as follows: a) System Power Margin - 16 watts b) Spin Configuration - All-Spin c) Spin Rate/Sensor - 2.9 rpm/Acquisition Sensor d) Spacecraft Attitude is approximately 32 degrees off-sun (leading) and 41 degrees off-earth (leading) e) Downlink telemetry rate/antenna- 1200bps(coded)/LGA-1 f) General Thermal Control - all temperatures within acceptable range g) RPM Tank Pressures - all within acceptable range h) Orbiter Science- Instruments powered on are the EUV, EPD, MAG, HIC, and DDS i) Probe/RRH - powered off, temperatures within acceptable range j) CMD Loss Timer Setting - 120 hours Time To Initiation - 118 hours UPLINK GENERATION/COMMAND REVIEW AND APPROVAL: 1. The Dual Drive Actuator (DDA)-5 Part B sequence memory load was approved for transmission by the Project on December 30, 1992. This sequence covers High Gain Antenna (HGA) motor windup/hammering activities from January 5, 1993 through January 8, 1993. Individual sets of hammering/windup commands were approved as required immediately prior to being uplinked to the spacecraft. 2. The Dual Drive Actuator (DDA-5) Part C sequence memory load was approved for transmission by the Project on January 7, 1993. This sequence covers High Gain Antenna (HGA) motor windup/hammering activities from January 11, 1993 to January 14, 1993. As with previous windup/hammering activities, individual sets of hammering/windup commands will be approved as required prior to being uplinked to the spacecraft. GDS: 1. A Galileo MVT (Mission Verification Test) was performed on December 20, 1992, from 00:00:00 to 05:00:00 GMT, using DSS-12 (Goldstone 34 meter antenna). The purpose of the test was to evaluate the new Station Communications Processor's (SCP) ability to support Galileo. This test exercised telemetry, monitor, and command for Galileo. All telemetry rates were to be tested, however due to resource and time constraints only two rates were successfully run, (134.4 kbps HRW and 40 bps ESS [uncoded]). The SCP worked well for the two telemetry rates, monitor, and nominal command portions of the MVT. Galileo will run all remaining telemetry data rates through the new SCP interface before any demo passes and/or the SCP is placed in SOAK. The next available date for a SCP MVT is January 14, 1993. TRAJECTORY As of noon Thursday, January 7, 1993, the Galileo Spacecraft trajectory status was as follows: Distance from Earth 22,107,500 km (0.15 AU) Distance from Sun 156,587,900 km (1.05 AU) Heliocentric Speed 135,300 km per hour Distance from Jupiter 772,250,300 km Round Trip Light Time 2 minutes, 30 seconds SPECIAL TOPIC 1. As of January 7, 1993, a total of 25059 real-time commands have been transmitted to Galileo since Launch. Of these, 20010 were initiated in the sequence design process and 5049 initiated in the real-time command process. In the past three weeks, 16244 real time commands were transmitted: 16242 were initiated in the sequence design process and 2 initiated in the real time command process. Major command activities included commands to modify system fault protection response, enable science alarm monitor, turn S-Band ranging on, reset the command loss timer, uplink DDA-5A sequence memory load, modify attitude control fault monitor persistence level, windup and hammer the HGA, open the star scanner shutter, reacquire celestial reference and select scan Type 6. 2. The Dual Drive Actuator (DDA) pulse mini-sequence No. 5A covered spacecraft activities from December 28, 1992 to January 4, 1993. The warming turn to a 45-degree off-sun attitude occurred on December 28. The spacecraft remained at the warming attitude for approximately 40 hours. The motor windup/hammering activities began approximately 20 hours at the warming attitude and continued for 20 hours. A total of 2160 hammer pulses were executed along with three 20 second windup sequences. The sun acquisition back to approximately a 5-degree off-sun attitude occurred on December 30. Sun gate data was collected on December 30. The star scanner checkout along with collection of wobble data was conducted on December 30. 3. The Dual Drive Actuator (DDA) pulse mini-sequence No. 5B covers spacecraft activities from January 5, 1993 to January 8, 1993. The warming turn to a 34-degree off-sun attitude occurred on January 5, 1993. The spacecraft will remain at this warming attitude until January 11, 1993 at which time DDA pulse mini-sequence No. 5C is scheduled to begin. The motor windup/hammering activities began approximately two hours after reaching the warming attitude. A total of ten 180 pulse motor hammering sequences are scheduled which will execute 1800 motor hammering pulses on the spacecraft. The star scanner checkout along with collection of wobble data is scheduled for January 8, 1993. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | a day in your life. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 1993 16:12 CST From: IGOR Subject: Making Antimatter Newsgroups: sci.space In article , wallacen@beethoven.cs.ColoState.EDU writes... > >Reality Check: >We have never actually made antimatter. We have made anti-particles, >but as yet they have never been cold enough to try to get them to >link up into matter. Supposedly this experiment is intended in the >relatively near future; perhaps Bill Higgins could comment on this. using laser cooling techniques ? any reference on this experiment ? Igor Texas A&M University ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 93 04:28:12 GMT From: _Floor_ Subject: Mars Observer Update - 01/08/93 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary In article <9JAN199300533179@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: ] Teams are preparing Flight Software Build 7.1.1 for uplink on January 13 Sounds like they're using Apple Macintosh System Software! Is this the next update? Can we get a copy? :-) _____ "But you can't really call that a dance. It's a walk." - Tony Banks / ___\ ___ __ ___ ___ _____________ gene@cs.wustl.edu | / __ / _ \ | / \ / _ \ | physics | gene@lechter.wustl.edu | \_\ \ | __/ | /\ | | __/ |racquetball| gev1@cec2.wustl.edu \_____/ \___/ |_| |_| \___/ | volleyball| gene@camps.phy.vanderbilt.edu Gene Van Buren, Kzoo Crew(Floor), Washington U. in St. Lou - #1 in Volleyball ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 93 02:21:34 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: new Shuttle toilet Newsgroups: sci.space In article roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes: >A few mitigating factors that might be considered: > * I understand the pre-Shuttle toilet facilities took around an hour > to use (for solid waste)... That's the Gemini/Apollo stick-on baggies. The Skylab toilet wasn't a problem that way; it wasn't significantly more hassle than an ordinary Earthbound toilet. (I haven't seen details on the new shuttle toilet, but my impression is that it more or less goes back to the Skylab approach.) -- "God willing... we shall return." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 22:06:58 EST From: John Roberts Subject: question on privately funded space colonization -From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) -Subject: Re: question on privately funded space colonization -Date: 7 Jan 93 14:09:54 GMT -Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department -In article roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes: ->-From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) ->-Subject: Re: Question:How Long Until 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? -... -My concern has nothing to do with the principle of eminent domain. It also -has nothing to do with claims about ownership of the moon. -Consider the possible scenario: An American organization raises enough -money to produce and operate a space station, acquires launching rights -in Tanzania, acquires the necessary equipment, and then existing law is -invoked to tell the organization that they cannot do it. I believe that -this law could be invoked if Americans even participate in a foreign -organization. If they want to launch a big beryllium-fuel rocket from the middle of a city, sure. Your complaint is that US citizens can't circumvent US safety regulations by going overseas. I don't see why they can't launch and also conform to the safety regulations. If you feel that people using private launchers should follow no safety rules other than the ones they care to follow themselves, then I disagree. If there are specific regulations that you feel are excessive, then you should describe the specific ones you object to, and we could discuss whether those rules should be relaxed. An example might be whether you feel that low-altitude range safety should be more closely coupled to local ground conditions. But you have to be specific about what regulations you object to, and how you think changing them would help - generalizations aren't much good. -Or the bureaucrats decide that the presence of a lunar colony would -"not be in the national interest," and invokes RICO (it sure is that -broad) to seize at least any American assets of the organization. Could you please explain more about RICO? I haven't been able to find out much about it. Something to do with racketeering? If you can give more details, I could try to look it up in the US Code. -I doubt that the government of any industrial nation wants man in -space unless it is strictly under its control, or at least under the -control of those who would stifle mankind. If you mean that it would not be in the interest of existing nations to encourage the development of governments that ignore international laws and agreements, you're right. And consider human rights issues - suppose US citizens set up a colony on the moon, and decide to revive the institution of slavery - would you say the US would have no legitimate interest in the matter? John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 93 02:24:51 GMT From: Francois Yergeau Subject: Should NASA operate shuttles (was Re: Shuttle a research tool) Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >When there's only one supplier in a market, that's usually >a pretty good incentive for other companies to invest. How >many companies followed Federal Express into the day-next >delivery market? The success of Federal Express demonstrated that there was a large market of buyers for this service, at the prices allowed by the mature aviation infrastructure. Investors jumped in to tap that market. At shuttle costs, even under private stewardship, buyers would not flock in, so investors would be reluctant at best, except for the one who would be guaranteed x launches at price $y (large) by NASA. But even if privatization of shuttle did not produce a competitive market, perhaps the change of attitude needed for NASA to effect it would be a Good Thing. -- 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: 10 Jan 93 02:19:03 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Supporting private space activities Newsgroups: sci.space In article dep+@CS.CMU.EDU (David Pugh) writes: >The federal government paid the early airlines to carry mail. In some (most?) >cases, these mail subsidies were the only thing that made the airlines profitable. >So ... it seems reasonable to wonder if a similar program could be done for the >private launcher market. What I'm proposing is that the government agree to pay >$1000/lbs to deliver 1 million pounds to LEO each year from 1995 to 2015. At >$1 billion/year, this would be a fairly small program (by government standards). Congratulations, you've reinvented (more or less) the Commercial Space Incentive Act, which was proposed a few years ago. Congress didn't like it and it didn't get anywhere. Even if you could get it passed, there is the non-trivial problem of convincing would-be launcher developers that it won't get repealed during their development period. It *is* a relatively small expense, and it almost certainly *would* be extremely effective, but it's not the way Congress likes to do things. >... (I realize, of course, >that NASA would ever let it pass no matter what we did to it)? It's not NASA's decision. Congress has passed bills that NASA didn't like. Forget NASA; the hard part is selling it to Congress. -- "God willing... we shall return." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 93 22:51:22 GMT From: rabjab Subject: u.f.o.e.s.p. Newsgroups: sci.space What became of the space advocacy group United for Our Expanded Space Programs (u.f.o.e.s.p.) led by Graham Maughan and Linda Strickler? -rabjab ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 93 22:44:01 GMT From: Andrew - Palfreyman Subject: UPCOMING on the ParaNet UFO CONTINUUM Newsgroups: sci.space Perhaps, instead of a radio show, you should hold a Fair. I for one would definitely attend if the rides were reasonably priced and the craft stayed under 7 gees. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | lord snooty @the giant | inceptus clamor frustratur hiantes | | poisoned electric head | andrew_-_palfreyman@cup.portal.com | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 031 ------------------------------