Date: Sat, 16 Jan 93 05:08:53 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #055 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sat, 16 Jan 93 Volume 16 : Issue 055 Today's Topics: Freedom's orbit future space travel (2 msgs) Goldin's future (2 msgs) In Memorium, RAH (was:needed: a real live space helmet) SNC meteorites Supporting private space activities What's it like at the edge of the universe? 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: Fri, 15 Jan 93 22:17:54 PST From: Brian Stuart Thorn Subject: Freedom's orbit Newsgroups: sci.space >In article <1j6r6aINN6fs@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes: > >>And Alan thinks you'll see a Soyuz sitting on top of a U.S. booster launched >>from a U.S. facility.... > >Oh, that's a given. The booster may be the Shuttle but we will see Soyuz >being launched for (at the very least) ACRV on US launchers. > > Allen Why do you say that's a given? Isn't it cheaper to let the Russians deliver the Soyuz ACRVs to Freedom? -Brian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian S. Thorn "If ignorance is bliss, BrianT@cup.portal.com this must be heaven." -Diane Chambers, "Cheers" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 20:16:23 GMT From: rabjab Subject: future space travel Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan10.194826.27598@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: rabjab stated: >>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. >I don't think a colony depends on interesting sceintific research: With >out anything interesting, there wouldn't be a scientific base. But most >colonies on Earth were founded for reasons totally seperate from >science. Many were for religious/social reasons that had nothing to do >with the colony's location (i.e. anywhere where there weren't people >already, to persecute/disturb/whatever them.) I see no reason why >such a colony wouldn't be practicle on Mars. Since all the raw materials >needed for life are available, the only needed imports would be high >technology items. > Frank Crary An impressive scientific discovery on Mars will certainly result in international funding of expanded exploration and colonization. Travel to Mars and supporting human life there will be very, very expensive for some time to come. Any religious/social group whose sole purpose for being in space is to get away from Earth will have great difficulty obtaining funding, given the tendency for secular nations such as ours to avoid catering to particular belief systems. Popular sentiment might also be against taxpayers money supporting a colony of sepratists unless some direct benefit could be realized. If mining and industry gets going in space, then the most likely type of space colony would be the work camp. In this model, infrastructure would eventually be available to resourceful individuals to strike out on their own. But when will this happen? -rabjab ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1993 06:35:01 GMT From: Josh 'K' Hopkins Subject: future space travel Newsgroups: sci.space fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >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. Maybe small stations devoted >>to running astronomical instrumentation. >I'd have to agree with this: The key to a large colony would be minimizing >imports (since high transportation costs make them impracticle.) If >all the hydrogen needed to support a lunar colony had to be imported, >I doubt it would be possible. Not quite accurate, at least in the long term. Ask people on the street who they condsider the world's biggest economic powers and Japan is sure to come up. Now take a look at Japan's resources. It's not so much a question of minimizing imports as maximizing the balance of trade. Reducing imports is part of it, but if you add value to the raw materials and then send them back out you've met the real requirement. Even if there isn't water on the Moon, we know that hydrogen is around. It's the most common element in the Universe - helium is the only thing that comes within a few orders of magnitudes. More relevant, we know that hydrogen is available in quantity in the outer solar system and travel doesn't have to be that expensive. Now if the Moon has anything of value on it, and I think it might, then all it has to do is increase the value of it's exports over the value of it's imports. Personally I think projections this far in the future require more hubris than I can muster at this point. I'm reminded of one of Clarke's Laws (?) which, paraphrased says that people who say something is possible are probably right and people who say things are impossible are often wrong. >>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. >"... for my purpose holds to sail beyond the sunset and the baths of >all the western stars until I die... To strive, to seek, to find and >not to yield." (from Ulysses, assuming my memory is accurate...) Yes, and by James Joyce if my memory is accurate. I think there's an important difference between the desire to conquer new territories and the desire that I think many of us feel, which is expressed by the above quote. I don't need to control any of this stuff, I just have to experience it. -- Josh Hopkins jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu Q: How do you tell a novice from an expert. A: A novice hesitates before doing something stupid. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 19:59:52 GMT From: rabjab Subject: Goldin's future Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article <1j5ldbINNeaq@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> earle@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Greg Earle) writes: >Hate to say this, but you won't see me rushing to join the "Save Goldin" gang. >Background: I attended Caltech; I am now back at JPL for a 3rd tour of duty; >I've been at JPL for 5 of the last 7 1/2 years; ....long speech deleted.... > - Greg Earle I think you're DAMN lucky to be working at JPL at all, and if I was in your position I wouldn't give a hoot who was running NASA. Just do a good job without complaining and maybe someday you'll be administrator. -rabjab ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1993 06:27:41 GMT From: Jeffrey David Hagen Subject: Goldin's future Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space You went up to the administrator of NASA at a public meeting and accosted him for letting his agency not offer you enough money?! No wonder he didn't want to talk to you. You may have a perfectly valid point, but that is hardly an effective way to go about making it. Besides, catch a clue about JPL. It is widely considered to be the single most bloated, pig-headed, and inefficient part of NASA among industry folks I have dealt with. Having spent some time as a student at Caltech myself, I can certainly see were they get that impression. Jeff Hagen Rice University ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1993 03:20:50 GMT From: Tom A Baker Subject: In Memorium, RAH (was:needed: a real live space helmet) Newsgroups: sci.space In article ssi!lfa@uunet.UU.NET ("Louis F. Adornato") writes: >to those fields thanks to Robert Heinlien. Even though NASA gave him a ..... >What I'm wondering about is the possibility of naming some sort of geological >feature after him. Something on Venus would be appropriate, as all the other ..... >Any suggestions? Excellent Idea, but I'd be surprised if something hasn't already. Anyone know if there is a "Crater Heinlein" or something somewhere? Tom ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 1993 05:20:05 GMT From: Jeffrey Alan Foust Subject: SNC meteorites Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary In article <1993Jan14.225859.24442@siemens.com> aad@siemens.com (Anthony Datri) writes: >> 1)the SNCs were equilibrated at ~4.51Ga (U-Pb and Rb-Sr). > >Context makes this look like a dating, but I've never seen "Ga" used as a >unit. Ga = gigayears ago = billions of years ago. It's a not-uncommon unit in the geological sciences. -- Jeff Foust Senior, Geophysics/Planetary Science, Caltech jafoust@cco.caltech.edu jeff@scn1.jpl.nasa.gov Final score of the Interstellar Space Deep Space 9 Station Championship Softball Game: Babylon 5 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 93 22:15:05 PST From: Brian Stuart Thorn Subject: Supporting private space activities Newsgroups: sci.space >You want to be as close to the equator as possible to take maximum advantage >of Earth's spin. If you're launching rockets that fall apart (e.g. they >have multiple stages), you want to have lots of water downrange. Those were >the only really technical reasons for Florida (the weather is lousy). Being closer to the equator than almost anywhere else in the continental U.S. didn't hurt either. South Texas and the Georgia coast were viable, but not particularly better than Florida, weather wise. Besides, anyone living in Florida will tell you that if you don't like the weather, wait ten minutes. :-) Don't blame Florida because NASA chose to launch Challenger on the coldest day of the year. Don't blame Florida because NASA launched at Atlas-Centaur into a thunderhead (ignoring the near disaster of Apollo 12). Florida weather is no worse than anywhere else. The weather is a serious problem only in Shuttle landings, and even so more than one Edwards landing had to be diverted elsewhere. Of the nine launches in the past year, only one was delayed more than a day by weather. Two landings (one at KSC, one at Edwards) were diverted due to weather. -Brian >There's no fundamental problem with putting a launch site elsewhere -- >the Aussies are trying to do one at Cape York -- but the US is the single >biggest customer and is a prime supplier of bits and pieces even for >other people's hardware. The US is also just about the only country >that has a large space industry which is not completely a creature of >the government. >-- >"God willing... we shall return." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian S. Thorn "If ignorance is bliss, BrianT@cup.portal.com this must be heaven." -Diane Chambers, "Cheers" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1993 03:32:17 GMT From: Tom A Baker Subject: What's it like at the edge of the universe? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan15.031232.20458@cbfsb.cb.att.com> wa2ise@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.f.casey) writes: >I remember reading in (I think) Sky & Telescope some years ago an >article about the universe, and some theories on it's origin (big >bang, and such). One theory said something to the effect that our >universe was expanding, and was surrounded by a larger area of some >sort of superdense material. As if the universe was a bubble of >mostly empty space expanding inside this superdense material. >Which leads to the question: Is there a boundry, where you can >stand right next to the "surface" of the universe bubble, and >touch with your spacesuited hand the wall of superdense material? ..... >I suspect that I'm only half remembering an analogy in a discription >of some theory of multiple universes. ... >But is there even any connection with reality to this? One (predicted) corrolary (sp?) of the expanding universe paints a picture that is not too different from this. Remember "space dilation", from special relativity? Things change shape when they move fast (relative to you) ... they get "squashed". So, (almost) all the galaxies are flying away from us. Therefore, they get squashed too. The farther away the galaxy is, the more squashed it seems (to us). You can think of some very, very far away galaxies that might be flat as a pancake, 60,000 light years across, but unbelievablyt thin. Think of the matter that flew out of the Big Bang the fastest. Still zipping away at about the speed of light, it forms a thin, thin, tenous shell, maybe of very thin galaxies, all around us -- the "edge of the universe". -------------------------- Now, your question ... to someone *in* that region of space, everything looks normal, because it is at rest w.r.t. them. To them, we in the Milky Way are at the edge of the Universe and are unbelievably thin. So goes the theory. tom ------------------------------ Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space,comp.protocols.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip From: "Robert F. Stengel" Subject: Re: Broadcasting shuttle audio over the Internet? Message-Id: <1993Jan15.040339.8428@Princeton.EDU> Originator: news@nimaster Sender: USENET News System Nntp-Posting-Host: phoenix.princeton.edu Organization: Princeton University References: <1j5ceuINNa5m@spock.dis.cccd.edu> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1993 04:03:39 GMT Lines: 1 Source-Info: Sender is really news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 055 ------------------------------