Date: Thu, 8 Apr 93 05:00:17 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #431 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 8 Apr 93 Volume 16 : Issue 431 Today's Topics: DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test (questions?) FAQs Griffin / Office of Exploration: RIP Hypothetical planet inside of mercury's orbit (was Vulcan....) Ideas of Value or ?? Ego stroking! Inflateble Space Station! was blow up space station. Mining Deuterium(sp) on Venus? MIR NASA "Wraps" Plans, absence therof space food sticks The Area Rule Waaaaaaaaaaah! Nick's criticizing again! What if the USSR had reached the Moon first? What Minerals are Cheaper on Mars? than earth? Who is T.L. Burch? Why use AC at 20kHz for SSF Power? 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, 7 Apr 1993 12:21:22 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test (questions?) Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993Apr6.162723.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >Quyanna for correcting me without insulting me (flames and such). >Okay so the DC-X is to land vertically (reasons explains) maybe use the >Russian Way (parachutes) or something similar.. I know its nice to have powered >flight all the way down, but.. Or maybe a system in ways liek the Osprey (no >not with propellors), but have someform of manuvering jets or ?? (or do I show >my ignorance once again? I am learning.. Need to find a article on DC-X and >read more.. I am at the library..)) >Use the parachutes to slow your decent down (from the rear) and then to bring >you around to verical and then loose them (parachutes can be recovered very >easy).. >Other odd question where will the DC-X take off from and land at? Edwards or >??White Sands?? Near Fort IRwin/Goldstone...??? >Just being a busy body.. Parachute deployment systems are heavy and require (yet another) break in the heat shielding. If the chute fails to deploy you have pranged the vehicle. At least with engines if one doesn't light you have some others. In addition, a landing with chutes can be rough, drag the vehicle, etc. All in all, I think I'd rather come down on engines, given the choice. As far as using some other sort of engine (manuevering jets, et al) for landing, the extra weight of the other kind of engine is a net lose, as well as being yet another critical system that requires servicing. You have to tote the rocket engines and their fuel along anyway; it only makes sense to use them to land as well as take off. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 08:29:59 GMT From: The Master Subject: FAQs Newsgroups: sci.space freed@nss.org (Bev Freed) writes: >I was wondering if the FAQ files could be posted quarterly rather than monthly. Every 28-30 days, I get this bloated feeling. > Here here. Either that, or there should be a "pointer" article to look in news.answers. THAT is where the FAQ's should go in this day and age. cameron. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 13:06:10 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Griffin / Office of Exploration: RIP Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: >Any comments on the absorbtion of the Office of Exploration into the >Office of Space Sciences and the reassignment of Griffin to the "Chief >Engineer" position? Is this just a meaningless administrative >shuffle, or does this bode ill for SEI? It's a shame all right but there is a silver lining. Griffin, like his boss, is an old SDIO guy. I suspect he will have Goldin's ear and may now be in a better position to influence things. He wasn't being productive in his underfunded office anyway. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------70 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 13:18:19 GMT From: "John S. Neff" Subject: Hypothetical planet inside of mercury's orbit (was Vulcan....) Newsgroups: sci.space In article wallacen@CS.ColoState.EDU (nathan wallace) writes: >From: wallacen@CS.ColoState.EDU (nathan wallace) >Subject: Hypothetical planet inside of mercury's orbit (was Vulcan....) >Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1993 01:08:44 GMT >(Note to those who read my earlier postings and had line overflow: sorry! >I have fixed my parameters and hopefully won't repeat this!) > >Could someone take a moment to address the question of how close to >the sun a planet could get before it either burned away in the atmosphere >of the sun or was melted by solar radiation? I presume Mercury is not in >the closest possible orbit, by the way. > >Thanx! >--- >C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/ >C/ Nathan F. Wallace C/C/ "Reality Is" C/ >C/ e-mail: wallacen@cs.colostate.edu C/C/ ancient Alphaean proverb C/ >C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/ > > > The temperature at the subsolar point (i.e. sun at zenith) of a planet or minor planet depends on the albedo, and heliocentic distance for a body with no atmosphere and a well insulated surface layer. T = [ (L/(4 pi r^(2))*(1 - A)/s]^(1/4) Where T is the absolute subsolar temperature, A is the Bond albedo, s is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and r is the heliocentic distance. If you assume A = 0.5 you can calculate T as a function of r and compare the value of T to the melting points of various minerals. The situation for a comet is very complex because the comet is kept cool by the vaporization of ice and the dust coma reduces the incident solar flux. Sun grazing comets have been observed to come very close to the sun, but in some cases they are not seen after perihelion passage. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 93 10:48:48 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Ideas of Value or ?? Ego stroking! Newsgroups: sci.space Quick question to all.. Am I being a contributing member of this newsgroup community? Are my ideas expressed adding to the conquest of space or just drivel of a earther.. Just curious, mostly for my own human ego.. Email me is better.. Just wondering if my ideas were considered basically good ideas or the ideas of a crazy crank.. == Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked Home on my Modem in Nome, Alaska (We are having fun watching Russia next door). PS: Can anyone tell me about the nuclear explosion in the old SU (Russia?) and what the winds are and such.. Since we in Nome are in the general prevaling(sp) winds from Russia/Siberia.. Am I now irradiated?? again?? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 10:29:18 GMT From: nsmca@ACAD3.ALASKA.EDU Subject: Inflateble Space Station! was blow up space station. Newsgroups: sci.space In article , kkobayas@husc8.harvard.edu (Ken Kobayashi) writes: > > > The concept of inflatable space structures always reminds me of a scene > in Allan Steele's "Orbital Decay" where an inflatable part of the space > station gets hit by a spacecraft and rips apart. Is this a real concern? > Could inflatable structures be more dangerous than rigid ones? > > > -- > Ken Kobayashi > kkobayas@husc.harvard.edu | "There is no final frontier." - IBM ad === Not really more dangerous since the only part that is inflated is in the start of the project.. Once the part is inflated, it is filled with a material that hardens (not sure what to use) after being probably spun around for even coverage of the ballon.. Once the inner surface hardens it is as rigid as normal rigid material, just easier to shape into any shape you want and easier to transport since all material is deflated or in solid (containorized?) form.. Such as a polymer or some other form.. Truelly inflated structures, such as the proposed (or is it actual) emergency pods are more dangerous than rigid, but they are not ment to be used much anyway.. What I propose is similar to how Truck tires at many dumps are done.. Take a tire (infalted) and inject some form of polymer, then inject a curing agent, spin the tire around for a good covering/even distrobution and let dry.. Its good for places where there is alot of scrap metal and pointed objects.. If anyone needs a better idea of what I am thinking of, please email me so I can try to uncofuse you.. I have not quite got the concept down, Im taking a idea I saw I think "Popular Science" for doing energy efficient houses and applying it to space... Cut a hole in the side of the "bubble" and installa docking/contruction (attaching) ring to join the bubbles together.. == Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 10:44:12 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Mining Deuterium(sp) on Venus? Newsgroups: sci.space Other odd question or thought.. If Venus has alot of Deuterium(sp) (isetope of Hydrogen) is it worth our while and energy to go there to "mine" it?? And if we mine is, what can we use it for? Space Ships to Mars and beyond? or Would Jupiter be better?? I know I have heard mention that Deuterium(sp) is good for nuclear reactions in some ways.. And good to be used in a Star Ship to another solar system.. == Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 93 13:14:21 +0100 From: meszena@ludens.elte.hu Subject: MIR Newsgroups: sci.space Does anybody have information about MIR? What kind of modules does it have? How does it compare to the current (?) version of SSF? What are the kosmonauts doing up there? Thanks: Geza Geza Meszena Deparment of Atomic Physics Eotvos University, Budapest MESZENA@LUDENS.ELTE.HU ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 13:27:51 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: NASA "Wraps" Newsgroups: sci.space In article <6APR199317080334@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov> dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock) writes: >Allen Sherzer & Tim Kyger write: > "Another problem is what are called 'wraps' (or sometimes > the 'center tax'). When work for a large program like > Freedom or Shuttle is performed at a NASA center, the > center skims off a portion which goes into what amounts > to a slush fund... >My dear friends, your mixing fact and fiction here. Not according to the sources we spoke with at the Reston Program Office. They claim that the current design can be built for less than $2B a year and operated for less than $1 billion per year (including the cost of the WP 2 bailout). You might also read the anonymous editorial in the March 22 issue of Space News. BTW, this is the first anonymous editorial they have ever published. >A couple >of weeks ago, when I first read this in your posting, I >talked with one of the cost experts here in Space Station... I frankly find the concept of a cost expert working Freedom oxymoronic. >First off, yes, the concept of 'center tax', or 'wrap' does >exist. If I recall the numbers correctly, the total 'tax' >for the SSF program for this fiscal year is around $40 Million. I'm sure that is what it says on paper. Reality however, is another matter. For example, The Engineering Directorate has about 8,000 NASA people and contracotrs working for it. Their only approved project at the moment is Freedom. Yet only a third of those people actually work on Freedom. Who is paying for those people and why aren't they working on what they are chartered to work on? Any cursory examination will show that NASA is wasting billions on Freedom while center managers use it as a cover to fund their pet projects. >I should note that your estimate of the tax rate at 1/3 could >be close to the actual rate. The tax is only charged on funds >that are spent at the center Then where is the money coming from? You mean all those JCS engineers are working for free? >At WP-4, we call these funds we spend in-house supporting >development funds (as they are supporting the development >work done by Rocketdyne). Looks like your center manager supports Freedom. At other centers it's a different story. At JSC for example, Shuttle is bigger so funds are used to support it. >Most of the tax, however, goes to fund the 'general' >services at the Center, like the library, the >central computer services division, the Contractor >who removes the snow, etc. Sorry, that is the overhead charge, not the center tax. I have no problems with reasonable overhead and we specifically didn't include it. Nither does Reston. BTW, universities do the same thing. They however, have a wrap of 10% to 15% (again, this is over and above any overhead charge). Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------70 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 12:36:24 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Plans, absence therof Newsgroups: sci.space In <1pg59o$9ae@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >In article <1993Mar31.181956.1705@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >>>Charles Divine, _you_ are proof of his statement. You've used your >>>position and resources at NASA for at least the last two years to >>>lobby for SSF et. al. via "NSS alerts". A clear conflict of interest, >>>but you are far too deeply buried in a corrupt system to even recognize >>>it. >> >>One assumes that Nick also considers it a conflict of interest when >>politicians use the resources of their positions to 'lobby' citizens >>and groups? Or perhaps he considers it a conflict of interest that >>folks from JPL keep us updated on what is going on there, since >>everyone knows that one of the best ways of 'lobbying' for funds is to >>point out all the neat things that are currently going on? >> >>I'm afraid my opinion of Nick continues to be confirmed. >Oh God. Here I am. Sticking up for szabo again. Not that I agree >with a lot of his stuff, but you are grossly over-simplifying his >position. Not hard to do. It's a grossly simple position. ;-) >NASA employees, like other federal workers are prohibited under the Hatch >act from engaging in Political campaigns on any level. Speaking of grossly overly-simplifying, I *think* you just did. I assume that this would also apply to military personnel (as government employees)? If the rules are the same, you have misstated the situation. In the military, my only restrictions on egnaging in political campaigns were that I couldn't use government property to do it, I couldn't represent myself as representing the opinion of the service, I couldn't do it on government property, and I couldn't do it in uniform. I suspect that the rules for NASA personnel are similar and that there is no absolute prohibition about engaging in political campaigns. >They are also >prohibited from taking remuneration from outside sources, although a recent >appellate court ruling has confused things. The prohibition has never been all that absolute, otherwise people wouldn't be able to moonlight (which you are allowed to do). >I would say that being >paid by an organization that lobbies for Space would be questionable. Perhaps, but then again, perhaps not. I would only consider this questionable if the organization was lobbying for things that would directly affect the NASA employee and over which he or she had some sort of cognizance or control. >Now congress-critters are different matters. They are subject to the cruelest >standard of all. the voter. We can vote them out and do often for >highly ir-rational reasons. Federal workers like judges hold great tenure >and thus are bound by different standards. >Now as for engaging in PRish activities or responding to requests for infor >mation is part of their charter to educate the public. I am sure >Mary or one of the other NASA employees, Ron, Peter, can cite the exact >agency guidelines on what is and isn't acceptable use of Government time >or Equipment. >I have always welcomed a free-form debate from NASA employees and their >contractors, provided it remains within the constraints elucidated >above. > While Nick may be off-base on his statements about Devine in particular, >he does have a general point, which you seem not to recognize fred. I "seem not to recognize" his "general point" because he was making a specific accusation against a specific person rather than a general point. Where I come from, that's called potential libel. Fortunately for Nick, those laws *also* work somewhat differently with a government employee or official than they do with a private citizen. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: 07 Apr 93 04:50:55 GMT From: Steve Hastings Subject: space food sticks Newsgroups: sci.space In article jelson@rcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (John Elson) writes: >Has anyone ever heard of a food product called "Space Food Sticks?" These were chewy sticks, sort of like Tootsie Rolls but softer and allegedly better for you. They came in assorted flavors. I liked chocolate, and I kind of liked the peanut butter. I think there were three flavors; the third might have been vanilla. And might not. I believe they were sold by Pillsbury; I have a mental picture of a little blue logo on the box, and I believe that is what the Pillsbury logo looks like. I could be wrong. I don't think these are still available. However, if you want a cool, no crumbs, self-contained near-perfect food, consider the training foods developed for bicycling. The original ones are called PowerBars, but there are also PurePower Bars (different product by a different manufacturer), Performance Bars, etc. My favorite is the PurePower Bars; they are tied with PowerBars for top nutrition, but much superior in taste. PurePower Bars ought to go to orbit with astronauts. Really. One bar plus some water will keep you going for an hour of heavy exercise (such as bicycle racing), and they digest almost completely. One wouldn't like to live continuously on them but it might even be possible. Maybe the DC folks will use these: off-the-shelf food technology. -- Steve "I don't speak for Microsoft" Hastings ===^=== ::::: uunet!microsoft!steveha steveha@microsoft.com ` \\==| ------------------------------ Date: 07 Apr 93 00:27 PDT From: tom@igc.apc.org Subject: The Area Rule Newsgroups: sci.space fluid becomes incompressible as you approch Mach Zero. as you approach Mach One shock waves start to form; transonic or critical yes, constant cross section (wings plus body) is optimal; so between wing leading and trailing edges the body cross section must decrease. the guy that discovered the area rule, i think was named witham. check book on compressible flow. it could have been r.t.jones. tom ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 13:27:04 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Waaaaaaaaaaah! Nick's criticizing again! Newsgroups: sci.space In szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: >mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >>(i.e., [Nick] doesn't >>simply justify why things like an asteroid survey would be good, he >>blames and flames about space stations and lunar bases, instead. >Never make any criticisms that might shine a negative light >on anything, _never_ criticize. Only sell, sell. What a load >of crap. Criticize all you want WHEN YOU HAVE VALID CRITICISMS, Nick, but simply calling anyone who disagrees with you 'Luddite' or 'Star Trek Groupie' or any of a number of other things is hardly criticism (except on the most basic ad hominem level), is it? >This goes back to the accountability issue, BTW. Nobody >is responsible for anything, because it's against this truly bizarre >but convenient form of etiquette to criticize anything no matter how >bad it is. If NASA squanders $50 billion to build a Shuttle that costs >over an order of magnitude more per kg than originally promised, I >dare not criticize it. If you want to criticize the STS, by all means do so. However, what you typically do is once again not 'criticism' because it ignores where the problems are! Why did we wind up with the Shuttle that we did, Nick? What decisions were made that led to the problems? Do you ever address any of that? Of COURSE not. That kind of actually constructive debate is beneath you, so you just rant on about 'Astronaut Groupies'. Now *THAT* is sure constructive criticism. >If SSF goes from promised $8 billion to >projected $100 billion or more, and back to the design board again, >I dare not criticize it. Hell, I dare not even point out the facts of >the matter, in which harsh critique is inherent. Same problem you have with the STS. Do you ever say what went wrong or criticize the points of the process that got us here? No, you talk about "people who got their idea on space exploration from Colyers" and rant and rave about how we should be doing what you want, but you never bring out any *VALID* critiques of the problems in the current program. You just make personal attacks on anyone who wants anything other than The One True Szabo Space Plan (tm). >And never, ever >try to compare these projects against alternative strategies for >space development. Gosh, that might be embarassing, and we don't >want to hurt anybody's feelings, do we? It might make somebody >think, change somebody's mind, *shudder*! Once again, YOU DON'T DO THIS, Nick. You don't 'try to compare'; you just bash and rave and rant against anything but what you want and against anyone who doesn't support it and hate, as you do, all those who want to do other things. >What's quite interesting is that about 3/4 of my own original >posts are quite positive: recent examples include "The Commercial >View", "Nanotech & Space", "Microchemical Reactors...", "Safety >of Flyby and Aerobraking of Large Payloads", "Ice Rockets", >"Rocket Clones", etc. However, responses are vastly more likely >if I say something negative, even in passing in an otherwise quite >positive post, and that gets turned into protracted flame-fests like >this one. Folks like Fred McCall thrive on flaming and putting down >other people's ideas, even (especially?) if they have little >understanding of them ("The One True Szabo Plan"); they don't know how to >handle something positive or original. (When's the last time Fred's >posted an original idea? I've never seen a one -- just pathetic whining >every time he perceives some insult against some project he is enamoured >of). And here we go again. I don't agree with the Great And Powerful Nick Szabo (just ignore that man behind the curtain) and so I am to be attacked. Well, jam it, Jocko. You don't even have the slightest idea of what 'projects' I am 'enamoured of'; I just decline to support the Nick Szabo School of Personal Assault as Policy Direction, so that makes me a nice target. >>I see him flame anyone or anything who disagrees with The >>One True Szabo Plan; >This is a doozie. I've outlined and promoted quite a wide variety >of scenarios, and explored some criteria for determining their >value. I've explicitly rejected fixed timelines and universal >goals or "shared visions" that everybody is supposed to be forced >to follow. For our eternal edification, I welcome Fred McCall to >explicitly outline for us the "One True Szabo Plan". :-) Anything that DOESN'T involve actually putting PEOPLE in space. Probes, robot mining, etc., and people 'later sometime, when it's feasible'. Of course, we first have to wait for all this robot mining, surveying, etc. to become feasible. Maybe in a few hundred years, hey Nick? Mostly of late, the Szabo Plan seems to be "anything that will send money to JPL". >>I see him attacking people, calling them "lazy >>bastard" because they had the temerity to disagree with the Almight >>Nick; >Nope. I stated this about a true bozo posting from NASA calling me & >Tom "misinformed" without supplying any information himself. At NASA >you'd think he'd have a ton of info at his fingertips with which >to "inform" us. Calling him lazy was just a factual observation; >sorry you don't like hearing the truth. Not the context you did it in, Nick. It was more a "you're wasting my tax dollars spending time in on the net disagreeing with me and pointing out how misinformed my flames against you are -- get back to work you lazy bastard." In other words, it was another case of Nick Szabo flaming someone just because they didn't recognize the immaculate wisdom of The One True Szabo Space Plan. >>I see him questioning peoples ethics, again because they had the >>temerity to disagree with Lord God Szabo. >What specific example do you have in mind? The only recent one >I can think of is a clear case of corruption, and had nothing >to do with his disagreeing with any of my posts, in fact I >was responding to a thread I was previously uninvolved in. >If being ethical makes one "Lord God", we are in big trouble >indeed. Ah, a 'clear case of corruption'. Have you filed charges? Have you retained a lawyer for the potential libel suit, now that you have alluded to actual criminal wrongdoing? Or are you just, as usual, running your flaming mouth because someone disagrees with your Plan? >>blah blah blah obnoxious fool yack yack yack woof woof woof Nice editing job. Nothing like making sure context remains intact, hey Nick? >It's too bad that giving negative feedback, pointing out >important but uncomfortable facts, and having a little fun in >the process makes one an "obnoxious fool". It's too bad that >one can post a bevy of original, diverse ideas and have them >lumped together as a "One True Plan" -- without even one >intelligent comment about the specific suggestions. I wonder if this >attitude is common, is it any wonder that so many space projects are >out of control? How can we fix something if we can't even point >out where it's gone wrong? That's why I question your Plan, Nick. You can't point out where anything has gone wrong. You just flame and post abuse about anyone who could possibly be stupid enough to disagree with you. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 93 04:03:41 GMT From: David Bofinger Subject: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first? Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,sci.space jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes: > [The Soviet Union] could have beaten us if either: > * Their rocket hadn't blown up on the pad thus setting them back, Didn't they lose their top rocket scientist in a car crash or something? > I think that the military value of a lunar base would outweigh > the value of going to Mars (at least in the short run). What military value is this? All I can think of is a reduction in the cost of building an orbital facility, which might have an SDI system on it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ David Bofinger AARNet: dxb105@phys.anu.edu.au Snail: Dept. of Theoretical Physics, RSPhysSE, ANU, ACT, 2601 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 10:40:31 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: What Minerals are Cheaper on Mars? than earth? Newsgroups: sci.space Idea or thought.. What materials would a commerical company need or want to get from Mars? All I can think of is maybe some high risk, high cost materials that normally can not be found in great quantities or have already been mined out (at least easily accesible mined out).. What could mars offer to a commercial company to exploit the minerals on Mars?? Just things.. Can anybody give me an answer or ideas?? Just running this commercialisation of space thru my mind.. A small company concortium might make it work, with some backing of a few large companies who don't want to get thier feat dirty, but want to be able to access the minerals and such later if needs (basically let someone elsse take the fall), also with some nice governmental perks (tax incentives, exemption from EPA or NIH(sp) restrictions and such, and a few others..) A consortium of smaller companies if run right could exploit mars if they had a reason to go.. What minerals are there on MArs that would make it cheaper to go to Mars to get them, versus mining/smelting and processing them here?? Michael Adams NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 93 10:52:21 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Who is T.L. Burch? Newsgroups: sci.space Does anyone know a T.L. Burch?? and if you do, what can you tell me about him?? Just curious... I know he is an Oceanographer and such.. But I was hoping to find a more specific newgroup to ask the question, just not found one yet.. == Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked PS: so please ignore if you don't want to respond.. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 12:41:39 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Why use AC at 20kHz for SSF Power? Newsgroups: sci.space In <1pgdbl$3dc@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >But I don't think >we are ever going to see SSF. >And it will be due to management failure. And I won't even argue with you. In point of fact, I think SSF has been managed horribly (which I alluded to before). I simply disagree with a lot of your specific accusations about things. >| >|I don't have to misrepresent your position, nor did I. No one should >|ever actually *use* anything until it's a catalog item -- except it >|ain't gonna become a catalog item until after it's in widespread use. >| >Actually, most things become catalog items, after some reasonable >engineering developement program. Something i've never seen >SSF engage in. Well, that turns out not to be the case. In any case, your lack of knowledge ("I've never seen") is more a ringing condemnation of your lack of knowledge than of their lack of engineering development. >>>You just can't believe that someone wwants to see proven trackrecord >>>before commiting a 40Billion dollar program. >> >>Nice to be told what I "can't believe". And here all this time I >>thought that *I* would be the one to tell people that. You don't get >>a 'proven trackrecord' until it's in widespread use, Pat. Except it >>can never go into widespread use because it must have a 'proven >>trackrecord' before anyone should use it for anything. >> >I guess the X-15 doesn't count for proving technology? Well, you just lost me, Pat. This comment is supposed to be germane to something that was said before it? >>Where do chickens come from, Pat? >> >The other side of the road. >>[Really? Where'd you get the egg?] >> >My refrigerator. But does the light *really* go off when the door is closed? -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 431 ------------------------------