Date: Sun, 4 Apr 93 05:03:11 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #417 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sun, 4 Apr 93 Volume 16 : Issue 417 Today's Topics: Alaska Pipeline and Space Station! Atlas rocket question (2 msgs) Biosphere Books Wanted! Commercial point of view Elevator to the top floor Flame Derby aka 20 KHz Power supply Luddites in space Metric conversion sheet request!! Mexican Space Program? nuclear waste (2 msgs) Prefab Space Station? Space Research Spin Off Terraforming Venus: can it be done "cheaply"? UFO: meteor or Secret US AURORA aircraft? What happened to "space philosopher" Earl Hubbard? 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: 01 Apr 93 18:03:12 GMT From: Ralph Buttigieg Subject: Alaska Pipeline and Space Station! Newsgroups: sci.space Original to: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu G'day rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu 28 Mar 93 22:24, rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu wrote to All: rhue> Sure, companies could do it. As it is, companies WILL do it, rhue> iof it's done. The government (via NASA) will just hand out the rhue> contracts. rhue> But what's in it for them? Remember that a company is in business to rhue> make money. Where's the money in a space station? rhue> Raymond L. Swartz Jr. (rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu) Why can't the government just be a tennant? Private commercial concerns could just build a space station system and charge rent to the government financed researchers wanting to use it. ta Ralph --- GoldED 2.41 * Origin: VULCAN'S WORLD - Sydney Australia (02) 635-6797 3:713/6 (3:713/635) ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 1993 12:53:37 -0500 From: Pat Subject: Atlas rocket question Newsgroups: sci.space I always thought the nozzles were the combustion chambers. Is this a semantic difference, or does it vary in engine design. The SRB's for SHuttle are one giant CC, but i thought in liquid fueled engines, the combustion started at teh top of teh nozzles. pat ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 1993 20:09:23 -0500 From: Pat Subject: Atlas rocket question Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: | |This is what you get when you really lean on rocket engineers to make |a lightweight rocket stage, instead of having them build a heavy-duty |tank with rocket engines attached. Which is why Atlas made it into |orbit on 1.5 stages in 1958, a performance unequalled to this day. |-- Of course, it's fragile like heck. I think one got wrecked when it got bumped with a scaffold. It may make sense just for proving SSTO, but for reliable performance I think we need better performing materials and heavier duty aircraft like rockets. pat ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 1993 20:54:57 GMT From: CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON Subject: Biosphere Books Wanted! Newsgroups: sci.space > Is there any books or ? on Biospheres, types, and operation and such..??? Are talking about Biosphere II??? If so, I am aware that the gift shop of Biosphere II have a couple of books about the project. C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV ------------------------------ From: Greg Moore Subject: Commercial point of view Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space Organization: The Voice of Fate References: Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 18:11:30 GMT Lines: 162 Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In article szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: >strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes: {stuff deleted, apology accepted] > >> First of all, once again you drag NASA in only to kick them >>down. I don't believe *I* ever mentioned NASA. > >I was explaining why most "space resources" studies to date have >had such a narrow focus. That's an important part of my point; >this whole thread is about the difference between commercial >planning and government central planning, and related differences >in attitude and vision. I'm not doing it to "kick NASA down", and >I don't believe that NASA is an "evil empire". Isn't it possible >to making factual statements or reasonable observations about something >anymore without being guilty of "bashing"? Furthermore, I never >claimed you mentioned NASA. I mentioned NASA because it was important >to my point. That's putting words in my mouth #1. > Granted, you never claimed that I mentioned it. From the context, I misunderstood your mean. Sorry. >>>Think tech constraints, not timeframes. .. >>> >> Hmm, I see. Let's see, I want to invest $100,000 in Szabo >>Enterprises because I think I might see some good come out of it. > >That's putting words in my mouth #2. I have not solicited >private investment funds for any of my proposals. I consider >_exploratory_ business planning to be crucial for long-range >planning for NASA. I have worked out explicit numbers for returns >based on meeting tech constraints and various conservative trend >assumptions (eg launch costs dropping by a factor of 2). The >important aspect of such planning, like I said, is tech constraints >not absolute schedule times ("Manned Mars Landing: 1980" -- from >NASA plan c. 1970). > Err, thanks for playing. I never claimed your were soliciting private investment funds. I do believe though that if you believe strongly in your ideas, you'd be willing to put your own money into them. So, no, I did NOT put words into your mouth. But, I guess I'm asking you to put your money where your mouth is. How about we agree that I was trying to put cash in your mouth? >In fact, I explicitly said that I would not consider large scale >private investment likely until these tech constraints have been >satisfactorily met. There's a role for NASA exploration and R&D >if NASA is truly interested in space development and economic >competitiveness. > >>Hell, if you said 10-50 years, I'd be happy. > >Most of my scenarios pay off IRR 20-40% over a 10-20 year period, >assuming probable tech, discovery, and cost drop conditions are met (an >inherently unpredictable proposition in the absolute timeframe, central >planning pretensions notwithstanding). See my original post >on this thread for more details. NASA has to give up pretensions >of predicting the future and learn to live with the uncertainty >just like everybody else in the R&D world. Ditto for space fans. > Thank you. This was exactly what I was looking for in my original post. However, at the time you refused to give me a timeframe. >> Once again you use my question as a place to get on your >>high horse about centralized beaurcracy. I never mentioned it, and >>I don't support it. > >Glad to hear it. I mention it because centralized bureaucracy >dominates today's space program and the thinking of most people >involved in it. It's quite relevant to the discussion, and I >never claimed you support it. Words in my mouth #3. > Then tell me, why did oyu mention it? Obviously because you believe it dominates today's space program. However, we weren't discussing it. To me that would be like if in the middle of this post I started commenting on the use of double rope systems vs. a single rope systems for rock-climbing. That dominates the climbing industry. But since you and I aren't discussing climbing, I won't mention. Additionally, I never claimed that you said I supported it. My argument is that I never mentioned but you felt compelled to leap into the discussion with it. >>>Fixed plans CAN be silly. But setting goals >>>is not. > >Setting goals implies choosing some end points at the expense >of others -- eliminating goals before they have been demonstrated >to be unworthy. I explore scenarios, a wide variety of scenarios >and try to find those which payoff the most soonest. A diverse >set of goals can then be based on the most promising scenarios. > Hmm, so having a goal of an active affordable self-supporting presence in space is bad. So, I should have no goals? I'm not trying to goad you here. I'm really not clear on where you support goals and where you don't. At what point do you select goals? What criteria do you use? >> Ah, I see, respected climatologists say it's ok so >>I should believe them. Sorry, I'd still like to see more data. > >So get on your library's computer and do a lit search for >"ethane && ozone && Science" already. I never said you >should believe them just based on what I said. I was just >pointing out another potential large market for space development, >which readers can explore further if they wish. Words in my mouth #4. > Hmm, yes you did say I should believe them. You commented that several respected scientests in "Science" thought it was feasible, implying that I should trust them. >> So, when does your venture capital company start up? > >Again, you totally misconstrue the reason for using business >style planning here. Whoever has the talent to implement when >the tech constraints are met, that's who you invest in. >Meanwhile, the business scenarios are for exploring which >are the most productive future prospects for commercial >space development for the lowest amount of NASA exploration >and R&D (the tech constraints to be met). > Hmm, I misconstrue the reasons for using business style planning? Why then use it if you don't ultimately want to do it as a business. Fine, if you don't start a company, I'll invest in someone who does. Again though, I'm asking you, given the environment you desire, would YOU put your money where your mouth is? >Finally, please stop accusing me of misediting and putting >words in your mouth. That is a very common occurence on >this kind of forum, quite difficult to avoid, especially >given this subject matter. You've screwed up badly at least >four times yourself, claiming I said things that I >never came close to saying, but that you arrived at by >hasty interpretation. I suggest you read my posts more >deeply for meaning, and I will endeavor to do the same. >As usual, those interested in the exact words can go back and >look at the complete text of the previous posts, they have >commands in newsreaders for that. > Several points. Yes, one or two places I may have mis- construed what you said. For that I apologize. I'm not sure who's fault it is, though I must mention that I've not had as bad a problem with other people as I have had with you. Perhaps I don't follow your style, or your style does not lend itself to being easily followed. But, as several other people have commented on it, I think it's a combination of factors. BTW, I think double rope systems are safer regarding breaking, but I think single rope systems are easier to handle and less prone to human error. (Oops, not in context sorry. And yes, this is a JOKE! If you comment on this, I'll seriously wonder. :-) (Eeek, I jsut realized the last line could be flame bait, Please ignore it.) > >-- >Nick Szabo szabo@techboook.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 16:40:18 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Elevator to the top floor Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr2.211549.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >In article <1pi32vINNsho@phantom.gatech.edu>, matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >> In article <1993Apr2.171546.24396@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >>>Mountains are the easiest. A two hundred mile high mountain would >>>only need a base 3300 miles across to be "stable". That much mass >>>would upset the tectonic balance though, and who's willing to donate >>>a continent for the site? >> >> Gee, this sounds like a perfect job for Australia. :-) > >Why not do some drilling, start a volcano on the ocean floor, and create your >own mountain and such, might not have to worry about tectonic plates or do >we... Im not a geologist.... Grasp the scale involved. Hawaii and Iceland formed from undersea volcanic eruptions. Look at the globe and picture the amount of water displaced by a Hawaii or Iceland 3300 miles in diameter. Try to figure where that water would go. Hint: beachfront property in Idaho looks like a good investment. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 1993 20:27:48 -0500 From: Pat Subject: Flame Derby aka 20 KHz Power supply Newsgroups: sci.space I think what bothered me about the whole design nature of SSF was it's lack of evolutionary design. Had they picked crude working COTS products, to spec the initial design, then seen what problems were had, and from there driven new technology developement, I would have had more assurance the program would succeed. Had they said, early on. "We are going to spend N billion on this Program, and N/10 will go to Advanced R&D. If we get lucky, and the R&D turns out, we hope to Deliver a station that Does Thus and So. If it turns out unlucky, WE will still have station that does This and So". instead, it seemed like spending money was never a problem and Risk was never a problem. Consequently, the station cost data kept rising from 8 Billion to $40 billion with the scale falling all the time. At this point in time we seem to have as a proposal most likely a couple of cans stuck to the SHuttle. Hardly what anyone envisioned. As a Top NASA official said "We are not paid to do things badly" yet that seems to be the result of the station management. If we need to build a space laboratory, then we should build a lab. If we need to do experiments on building a lab, then we should do that. Instead we seem to be trying to do both at once. a highly risky approach, and that has failed IMO. pat ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 20:09:19 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: Luddites in space Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >As i see it, the problem with most economists is that they don't understnad >real life. THey can talk about M1, and M3 all day and not >undersatand beans about the motivating forces of a shopkeeper >or a assembly plant worker. Good sense, experience and a knowledge >of how things work are woefully lacking in econ majors. >pat Also, they tend to ignore (or have ignored for them by their professors) certian economists due to political bias. I've met people with economics degrees from good private colleges (at least, everyone _thinks_ they're good) who don't even know about Hayek's application of information theory to economics. Of course, over in computer sciences, the chance of their knowing about Hayek goes _up_ (regardless of said CS person's political beliefs) because they aren't stupid or blind enough to ignore his application of _their_ field (information theory) to his field (economics). Of course, a lot of the way political bias creeps in is to not discredit or argue with those different from you, but to ignore them completely, so that the students think the two alternatives are what the professor thinks and what the hardline communists and the republicans both think (after all, they're both "conservatives" and on the "far right") (aren't these little labels wonderful in getting people to believe lies?). I'm just venting off steam that someone could spend (or have spent on their behalf, via loans etc.) $ 56,000.00 on a degree in economics while losing four years of their life, and still not know who F.A. Hayek was. It does have some marginal connectedness to the original discussion on sci.space of "credentialism" but doesn't really belong there (although neither does the credentialism argument, I'm beginning to think). For interrupting the discussion of mankind's rapid and boundles expansion in the high frontier, I apologize. Anyone know when the next space shuttle abort oops, launch is supposed to be? -- Phil Fraering |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff. pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 23:33:35 GMT From: Bruce Dunn Subject: Metric conversion sheet request!! Newsgroups: sci.space > gawne@stsci.edu writes: > For mass its a bit trickier, since in the SI mass is expressed > explicitly as kilograms while in our English system we speak of > pounds which are really a unit of force related to the gravity field. > > But having said that, at sea level a 1 kg mass weighs about 2.2 pounds. > If you want to do the detailed conversions see that Physics book. SI neatly separates the concepts of "mass", "force" and "weight" which have gotten horribly tangled up in the US system. "Weight" is what bathroom spring scales measure, and is essentially the force needed to hold something from falling. This force is different on the earth and the moon, and is zero in earth orbit. Thus "weight" is not only a property of an object, but of where it is. "Weight" is thus horribly inconvenient in calculating things like rocket acceleration, where you need to use the invariant "mass" of something, which does not depend on where the object is, and the "force" of a rocket engine which is the push that it gives, regardless of where the object is. People working in the US system have thus had to invent two different "pounds", the "pound force" and the "pound mass". Pushing on a 1 pound mass object with a 1 pound force spring produces an acceleration of 1 Earth gravity, or about 32 ft/s^2. SI uses a distinct unit of force called a newton. Pushing on a 1 kilogram mass with a force of 1 newton produces an acceleration of 1 m/s^2. Pressure (ie chamber pressure of a rocket) or stress (stress in the wall of a pressure vessel) in the US is measured in pounds force per square inch (psi). The metric equivalent is 1 newton per square meter. This unit is used so often it is given a special name, the "pascal". 1 newton is not very much force, and 1 square meter is a large area, so a pascal is very small. Pressures are thus conveniently given in kilopascals and megapascals. For practical purposes, using 3 significant figures, here are some relationships: 1 pound mass = 0.454 kilogram 1 kilogram = 2.20 pound mass 1 metric ton = 1000 kilograms (1 cubic meter of water) = 2200 pounds mass = 1.1 US short tons = 1.0 US long tons 1 pound force = 4.45 newtons 1 newton = 0.225 pounds force 1 kilonewton = 225 pounds force 1 meganewton = 225,000 pounds force 1 kilopascal = 0.145 psi 1 psi = 6.89 kilopascals 1000 psi = 6.89 megapascals 1 megapascal = 145 psi 1 megapascal = 0.145 kilopsi 1 atmosphere = 101 kilopascals An SSME (space shuttle main engine) thus has a mass of 2130 kilograms (approximately 6740 pounds mass), a thrust of 2130 kilonewtons (479,000 pounds force) and a chamber pressure of 20.7 megapascals (3000 pounds force per square inch). If you put an SSME on a spring scale on the earth, it will weigh 6740 pounds force (it will require an upwards spring force of 6740 pounds force to generate the 32 ft/s^2 which keeps it from falling). It will at the same time have a mass of 6740 pounds mass. If you put it into low earth orbit, it will have a weight of 0 pounds force, but still have a mass of 6740 pounds mass. The same engine will weigh 2130 x 9.8 = 20,874 newtons on earth (this many newtons are needed to give 2130 kilograms an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2, which is the earth's surface gravity). It will at the same time have a mass of 2130 kilograms. In orbit, it will have a weight of zero and a mass of 2130 kilograms. -- Bruce Dunn Vancouver, Canada Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 17:14:21 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Mexican Space Program? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1phv2n$ija@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: > >Judging from the policies of the last three administrations >We are in the business of exporting jobs with US government funds. There's more than a grain of truth to that. For example, there's a 15% tax break to companies exporting raw logs from the Pacific Northwest to Japanese furniture factories. That may deprive some US millworkers of jobs, though arguably the Japanese could get their raw materials elsewhere. But, like other agricultural subsidies, it's designed to increase export opportunities for US producers, and thus creates jobs in growing and harvesting operations. More serious examples of government policies causing jobs to be exported are the minimum wage laws, the tax code, and environmental regulation. By making US labor uncompetitively expensive on the world market, they have the effect of forcing jobs overseas. The electronics assembly industry has moved wholesale off shore for these reasons. Recently, a 125 year old broom making operation in Kentucky closed it's doors and moved operations to Mexico after the minimum wage was raised yet again. Almost all US lead recycling operations have relocated to the Far East due to environmental regulations. The US has been exporting jobs as a matter of public policy since the Johnson Administration, all in the name of the public good of course. Unfortunately it doesn't do the public good to substitute welfare for work, and a squeaky clean environment is only marginally useful to a homeless person. The deindustrialization of America has left many of us trying to sell hamburgers to each other in the "post-industrial service economy" instead of building wealth by producing goods. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 1993 13:02:54 -0500 From: Pat Subject: nuclear waste Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr2.150038.2521@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: |>>This system would produce enough energy to drive the accelerator, |>>perhaps with some left over. A very high power (100's of MW CW or |>>quasi CW), very sharp proton beam would be required, but this appears |>>achievable using a linear accelerator. The biggest question mark |>>would be the lead target chemistry and the on-line processing of all |>>the elements being incinerated. |> ABill, Is the IPNS still running at Argonne? Would this run the process? granted any heat recovery could only go for steam production, but they need plenty of that over there. It uses a uranium target, but it would work just fine,assuming it's still in one piece, otherwise, it's in the junkyard. pat ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 17:18:08 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: nuclear waste Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr2.181817.3058@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >In pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes: >>Finally: of the umteen or so nations that have "the bomb" none >>have gotten their fissionables from processing the waste >>from an off-the-shelf commercial nuclear power plant. >>They always use some ort of "research reactor." > >This is certainly *easier*, but it's not the only way. The point is, however, that in our zeal to control the *hard* way to make bombs, we are overlooking the fact that it's the easy road that nations take. Thus our insistence on suppressing reprocessing is a futile course that suppresses a useful commercial process while not having any material effect on the *real* methods of proliferation. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 1993 22:35:20 GMT From: Andy Carol Subject: Prefab Space Station? Newsgroups: sci.space Since one of the largest expenses of Freedom will be the many trips required to get the pieces up, and the many EVAs required to put the whole thing together, why do they not consider a lesson from SkyLab? Build a prefab station module similar to a shuttle in size and design except it will never return to Earth and will not be manned at launch. Because it is never going to land, it does not need wings, landing gear, most avionics etc. It will be, in effect, a module with 3 large shuttle engines mounted under it which will only get one use. It would also need OMS engines etc. The 'one-launch' idea may also allow savings with structure design. A shuttle could be used to ferry the crew up. Emergency return would still be difficult (like with Freedom), maybe we could 'buy' a Russion vehicle. Under a nose-shroud (aerodynamics at launch) there could be a docking ring, designed to mate with an interconnect module carried up in a shuttle cargo bay. We could add a new section every few years. They would mass too much for a shuttle arm to move them, they would use remote control thrusters to dock with each other. There is also a benefit that the entire mass of a shuttle and cargo is available to the station at launch for its consumables, labs, etc. Normally the mass of the shuttle itself is in a sense 'wasted' on the many launches required for Freedom. I'm sure that a from scratch design would be expensive, but how many re-designs does Freedom need? It's going to cost a fortune, and I think we are underestimating the difficulty in EVAs being used to actually build it. Never mind the safety issue, with the dozens of launchs and risky EVAs. Oh well. --- Andrew carol@edfua0.ctis.af.mil or carol@elmendorf-ac2sman.af.mil ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 1993 19:23 CST From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: Space Research Spin Off Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr2.213917.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes... >In article <1pgei3$56i@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >> In article stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson) writes: >>>Anyone have any earlier examples of space research spin offs? >> >> I'd imagine there was some correlation between galileo's studies >> of the planets with the age of enlightenment. Tycho helped a lot on that. >> > >Question is can someone give me 10 examples of direct NASA/Space related >research that helped humanity in general? It will be interesting to see.. I'll start out with an easy one. According to Space Fax Daily the launch of GPS 19 last week (along with the SEDS tether mission) marks the completion of the Global positioning system. This system, with 23 satellites active and three spares now gives accurate positioning to persons with the right reciever anwhere on the earth. Space Fax Daily reports that the market for GPS products will be above 6 billion dollars per year by 1996. This ain't bad for a nice spin off is it? Oh by the way GPS recievers along with a small 1 watt transmitter will guarantee that no one will ever have to worry about being lost again. As an added benefit, the cost of search and rescure will be renamed simply rescue due to because of the receivers. IF that means nothing to you, remember the cost of searching for the skiiers a few weeks ago during the snow storm in Colorado. This will save millions and millions of dollars and will save many many lives. It is mind boggling that people even ask this question today, seeing how the satellite revolution is here and doing more and more everyday to help mankind. Also remember that GPS came from the Military budget. Please flame at will Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 16:45:36 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Terraforming Venus: can it be done "cheaply"? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr2.214221.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: > >Interesting, why not then add Phosphorus to the atmosphere as a "seed" >element.. Elemental phosphorus burns on contact with oxygen. Living things absorb it from phosphates in a water solution. Since there's no water either, you're back to square one. >I like the idea of a venus terraform.. But what would the eco-phreaks say?? >They have a cow if you try anything like it on earth.. And for once I'd agree with them. Planetary engineering is too immature to be entrusted with the one known viable biosphere. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 19:00:26 GMT From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie Subject: UFO: meteor or Secret US AURORA aircraft? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro We need some help to clear up a UFO problem. As I reported recently, two mag -1 (+/-1) orange lights were seen travelling parallel to one another across Ireland on Wed. March 31 0:10UT leaving trail behind for 3 to 4 minutes. Newspapers made it a front page UFO story. We think it was man made space debris re-entering. The BBC's Ireland correspondent seems convinced it was something like the AURORA secret military craft, probably in trouble, crossing the country. It all hinges on facts about re-entering debris: The object was travelling slower than a normal meteor but faster than a man made satellite, consistent with it being a satellite much closer to the observer as it would be in the upper atmosphere burning up. QUESTIONS: A meteoroid the size of a pea would give a mag -1 meteor, wouldn't it? So what size of object in low earth orbit would produce the observed mag -1 object? What about the trail lasting so long? Even Shuttle External Fuel Tank is only supposed to leave a trail for 90 sec? -Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from: Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland. (WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better?) 6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail). ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address). Newslines (48p/36p per min): 0891-88-1950 (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 20:22:31 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: What happened to "space philosopher" Earl Hubbard? Newsgroups: sci.space higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: >In article , rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes: >> Back in the late sixties I read numerous articles by Earl Hubbard, >> who promoted a philosophy that exhalted space exploration, and >> gave it a high moral value. What has become of him? >Hmm... where did you read his articles? >There was a lady named Barbara Marx Hubbard involved in "Project >Harvest Moon," which attempted to launch a final Apollo lunar landing >under private auspices. Later she turned up on the stationery of the >L5 Society (board of governors, perhaps?) I think she was an heiress >to the Marx toy company fortune. >You can learn more about her pro-space enterprises in *The Spaceflight >Revolution* by William Sims Bainbridge. >I wonder if she is related to Earl Hubbard? I don't remember, but I think she's dead now. Scrounging around in very marginal neural connections, I think she was married to Earl Hubbard, and took over trying to push space after he died ~1970. I wish I could remember more, but I lost the book I remember reading all this in. -- Phil Fraering |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff. pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 417 ------------------------------