01-Oct-81 0402 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #1 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 1 Today's Topics: Administrivia Down to the wire with Halley - M. Mitchell Waldrop article in SCIENCE Sen. Proxmire Soviets reenter the manned space business A second reverberating gamma ray burst discovered Where are They?? Anybody out there?? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Sep 1981 1229-PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: Administrivia To: space at MIT-MC In case you were wondering what the reason for the change from volume one to volume two was, it is the occasion of the fiscal new year. Happy New Year! In an effort to dampen the excitement of the start of the new fiscal year, the perversity of nature (AKA Murphy's Laws) have conspired to cause many people (mostly on MC, I think) to miss the last digest of volume one. This is issue 204. So if you missed V1 #204 let me know and I will mail you a copy. In case you don't keep close track of the issue numbers this digest contained an unusually large number of messages mostly about Life in the Universe. Also a message from Dietz comparing 1micro-arc-second to the angle subtended by an atom held at arms length (wow). Anyway if you missed this one let me know. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 1981 1212-PDT From: Bob Amsler Subject: Down to the wire with Halley - M. Mitchell Waldrop article in SCIENCE To: space at MIT-MC Down to the Wire with Halley (SCIENCE 2 October 1981, V.214,No.4516 p.35) (by M.Mitchell Waldrop) Given the air of fiscal austerity in Washington these days the odds of the Regan Administration's financing a $300 million spacecraft to fly by Halley's comet look slimmer than ever. But until the Administration actually says "No," the space science community is going all out to win approval for the mission. The answer will have to come within the next few weeks. At Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, planning and design work for the mission is well along, but the schedule is very tight, says project manager Raymond L. Heacock. If the spacecraft is to meet the comet in 1986, it must be launched in the summer of 1985, which means that JPL must start letting contracts no later than next January. This in turn, will be possible only if the Halley mission is included as a new start in NASA's fiscal year 1983 budget, which is being drawn up now. Laurence Soderblom of the U.S. Geologic Survey, chairman of NASA's Space Science Advisory Committee, voices a widespread frustration in the space science community: "It's absolutely insidious, crazy, tragic that we ever got ourselves into a position where we can't do a Halley mission." But in fact, a big part of the problem is that NASA headquarters has never really pushed for Halley. With the space science budget being squeezed every year by the immense cost of the space shuttle, agency officials have been more concerned about preserving such high priority missions as the Galileo orbiter/probe mission to Jupiter and the Venus Orbiting Imaging Radar. Proponents of a Halley mission counter that the comet represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity: no other young, active comet has an orbit that is predictable enough for planning a mission. These are the kind of comets that are thought to retain pristine material from the formation of the solar system, and whose dynamics are most interesting. Proponents have also stressed national prestige. The European Space Agency is going to Halley with its "Giotto" spacecraft. The Japanese are going. The Russians are going. So why aren't we going? Besides, they say, the United States has a big lead in navigation and imaging technology. Its close-ups of the comet, the best by far, would give the country a public relations coup on a par with the Voyager missions. (In fact, without such images most people will probably be disappointed in Halley. On this trip its most spectacular displays will occur on the far side of the sun from the earth.) During the recent Voyager 2 encounter with Saturn, JPL director Bruce C. Murray forcefully argued the case for Halley to presidential advisor Edwin Meese and NASA administrator James M. Beggs. Not surprisingly, Meese and Beggs have remained noncommittal, pending submission of NASA's budget proposal. But presidential science advisor George A. Keyworth is interested in the mission, and has asked NASA to prepare a list of options for how it might be done. The space agency's reply is expected to include the following: * JPL's $300 million "baseline" mission. During the 60-day "observatory phase" before encounter the spacecraft would monitor the comet's development with some 3000 long-distance images. During the 3-hour "encounter phase" it would attempt to image the kilometer-sized nucleus. It would also perform in situ measurements of the comet's composition and its particle and field environment. * A somewhat less expensive imaging/sample-return mission. This version is attractive, says Jeffrey D. Rosendhal, deputy head of NASA's Office of Space Science, because it would compliment the other three missions. It would retain the observatory and encounter phase imaging, which is unique, while dropping the in situ experiments that duplicate those planned for ESA's Giotto. The dramatic idea of a sample return came up only last June, very late in the game, says Rosendhal. The spacecraft would capture a few milligrams of comet material on what is esentially a sticky surface, then proceed on a trajectory that would carry it back to earth some 5 years later. Unfortunately, he adds, the sample-return technology is new, poorly understood, and risky. * A swing by Halley with the Galileo spacecraft as the latter heads toward Jupiter. This is the least attractive option, says Rosendhal. It would mean sending Galileo on a long, slow loop around the sun, with a several-year delay in its arrival at Jupiter. Only long-distance imaging would be possible, and from a bad angle at that. But if the Administration cancels development of the high-thrust Centaur booster, which is required to get Galileo to Jupiter on a more rapid trajectory, this version of the Halley mission might be a way of salvaging something. On the other hand, doing Galileo in this way would add another $300 million to its cost--not far below the $445 million price tag for Centaur, and almost exactly the price of the baseline Halley mission. -- M.Mitchell Waldrop. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 1981 19:22:41-PDT From: chico!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin To: chico!duke!unc!space@Berkeley Subject: Sen. Proxmire That great champion of fiscal responsibility, Sen. Proxmire, made a 16-hour speech that cost -- in lighting, printing, etc. -- $64,000. The ostensible purpose of the speech was to prevent a needed increase in the national debt limit -- which is going to pass anyway. Proxmire is the person primarily response for the demise of SETI. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 1981 1350-PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: Soviets reenter the manned space business To: space at MIT-MC n536 0237 30 Sep 81 BC-SPACE-09-30 EDITORS: The following is from the London Telegraph and is for use only in the United States and Canada. By Adrian Berry Daily Telegraph, London (Field News Service) LONDON - Four months after announcing the end of all manned space flights until further notice, the Soviet Union has reversed its position and started preparing for new flights. The earlier decision to halt manned space missions was taken almost immediately after Easter's maiden flight of the American space shuttle, which the Russians claim is a military threat to them. Tuesday's announcement, reported in Pravda, that the space flight control center near Moscow is being re-equipped, suggests that the Russians appear to have recovered from their initial panic. They are likely soon to launch a new manned mission toward the Salyut 6 space station, which Wednesday begins a fifth year in orbit, having circled the Earth more than 25,000 times. Salyut 6, originally designed for a working life of only 18 months, has been visited by 16 crews, including eight non-Russian cosmonauts from Soviet-bloc countries. The space station will be kept in orbit ''as long as the designers require,'' the newspaper said Tuesday. Planners envisaged further space stations, some of them equipped with powerful telescopes for probing deeper into the universe. And others are likely to have on board instruments of espionage which will probe more deeply into Western defenses. END nyt-09-30-81 0538edt *************** ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 1981 1355-PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: A second reverberating gamma ray burst discovered To: space at MIT-MC n009 0707 30 Sep 81 BC-GAMMA By WALTER SULLIVAN c. 1981 N.Y. Times News Service NEW YORK - Examination of a backlog of recordings made in earth orbit four years ago by the first High Energy Astronomy Observatory has revealed a burst of gamma rays indicating a catastrophic event far out in space, though how far and in what direction remain unknown. The burst was followed by a half minute of 4.2-second reverberations, suggesting its probable association with a superdense neutron star rotating at that rate. Only one other such reverberating gamma ray burst has been recorded, on March 5, 1979. The newly discovered event was detected on Oct. 29, 1977. The 1979 burst was detected by nine spacecraft scattered around the solar system. By comparing precise arrival times of the burst at each of them, it was possible to determine that it came from the direction of the Large Magellanic Cloud, a small galaxy of stars about 200,000 light years away, not far from the outer fringes of the Milky Way. If the source was that far away, within seconds it must have emitted as much energy as all the stars of the Milky Way combined. Many astronomers believe the source was a neutron star within that star cloud. A neutron star is formed when a large star exhausts its nuclear fuel, cools and collapses into an object of extremely small size, high density and rapid rotation. The newly recognized event was recorded by X-ray detectors placed on the orbiting observatory by the Naval Research Laboratory under the direction of Dr. Herbert Friedman. The detectors were able to record the burst because, while it was primarily in gamma rays, it overlapped the X-ray spectrum. The rays were too weak for recording by other spacecraft. Hence the direction of the source has not been determined. The suddenness and violence of the 1979 event were difficult to explain. As noted last week by Friedman, it soared to full power in only 12-hundredths of a second. In the next three minutes it tapered off, reverberating at an eight-second rate. One suggested explanation was that a comet fell on a neutron star rotating every eight seconds. Another was that an asteroid fell on the star. About 60,000 miles out, the asteroid would have begun to disintegrate under the influence of the neutron star's extreme gravity, stretching into a long trail of debris. This debris would have encircled and fallen on the star, approaching the speed of light and, in one-billionth of a second, becoming heated to two billion degrees Fahrenheit. This could have generated the sharp pulse of gamma rays. The newly found, but earlier, burst, Friedman said, does not fit this model. The two-second time required for the pulse to reach full power was not compatible with an almost instantaneous impact. One possibility, he added, might be that material that had accumulated in orbit around the star fell on it when perturbed in some manner. Another explanation would be sudden contraction or some other form of extremely massive transformation within the star. nyt-09-30-81 1008edt *************** ota - I should note that I went to a talk given by Edward Teller on this subject and he suggested that the March 5, 1979 event was a neutron star / asteroid (or planet) collision. Note, however, that such a "collision" would be more aptly described as a neutron star puncturing the planet(esimal) and the planet very shortly afterwards exploding. ------------------------------ Date: 1 October 1981 00:14 edt From: Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics Subject: Where are They?? To: space at MIT-AI Suppose every civilization has its share of Proxmires. In fact, suppose that evolution tends to create Proxmires. Then most of not all civilizations would not be exploring for the same reason we are not. They're Proxmired down. Gad, what a horrible thought. Paul ------------------------------ Date: 1 October 1981 06:02-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Anybody out there?? To: TAW at SU-AI cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Proxmire's reason for canceling SETI is idiotic. Of course we don't expect meaningful duplex communication with a civilization 1000 light-years away (thus 2000-year turnaround time for each communication interchange). But that isn't the main goal of SETI, it's finding out if there is anybody out there in the first place! Getting that info would be VERY IMPORTANT!! (It's hard to imagine anything more important.) Maybe he has good reasons for canceling SETI, but the infeasibility of meaningful duplex communication isn't one of them. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 02-Oct-81 0401 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #2 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 2 Today's Topics: Remove me from list Against the Halley Probe Better than the dinosaurs Down to the wire with Halley - M. Mitchell Waldrop article in SCIENCE Proxmire ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 October 1981 1359-EDT (Thursday) From: Gregg.Podnar at CMU-10A To: space-enthusiasts at mit-mc Subject: Remove me from list Message-Id: <01Oct81 135909 GP0E@CMU-10A> Please remove me from the direct mailing list of the Space Digest as my time and disk allocation are too full to read them often or store them long enough to read them. Thanks very much but I'll have to catch up on the bb from elsewhere. Keep 'em flying, Gregg ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 1981 1417-PDT From: DIETZ at USC-ECL Subject: Against the Halley Probe To: space at MIT-MC Granted, it would be nice to send a probe to Halley's comet. Granted, Halley's comet only visits once every 76 years. But, is this probe a good idea? I'd say NO. What we need includes: o Lunar polar orbiter (to look for ice at the moon's poles, among other things). o Asteroid rendevous (preferably with an apollo asteroid) o A space station in low earth orbit Every dollar spent on the halley probe is a dollar not spent on these vital efforts. Admittedly, they are not as sexy as a halley probe - but consider that the sexiest program of them all, the apollo program, set our space program back ten years. It won't be long (if it hasn't happened already) before people start thinking about space probes as they did about apollo - a useless waste of taxpayer's dollars. Our limited funds should be spent to enhance our future space effort, not for the immediate gratification of nifty but less immediately useful missions. And the national prestige argument is just plain silly. I'm sure that spending $300 million on foreign aid would boost the world's opinion of the US a lot more. Any rebuttals? ------- ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 1981 16:51:08-PDT From: decvax!yale-comix!bj at Berkeley To: decvax!ucbvax!space-enthusiasts@Berkeley Subject: Better than the dinosaurs Cc: decvax!ucbvax!space@Berkeley In yesterdays space digest, DIETZ at USC-ECL said: Intelligence implies incredible adaptibility - so we are in much better shape than the dinosaurs. That may be true, but although we may not be able to wipe out humanity, we can come close. The dinosaurs died, but only after about a hundred million years. We are now in a situation where most of humanity could be wiped out in a day. Just think what our intelligence will enable us to destroy a hundred years from now. B.J. ------------------------------ Date: 2 October 1981 01:48-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Down to the wire with Halley - M. Mitchell Waldrop article in SCIENCE To: AMSLER at SRI-AI cc: "REPLY-TO:" at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC I hate to say it, but Halley is dead given the budget cuts. Dead, dead, dead. Which is no fun, but the NASA people on top do put LEO base as a top priority. I have to confess that if one MUST choose, they have made right choice. Not that I like the choices, but at 20% interest rates... ------------------------------ Date: 2 October 1981 02:59 edt From: Tavares.Multics at MIT-Multics Subject: Proxmire To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Message of 1 October 1981 07:02 edt from Ted Anderson "Proxmired down" is a low pun. However, I like the innocent one in the original message that mentioned "Proxmia Centauri". I propose we christen that a "Galilean Slip". ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 03-Oct-81 0402 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #3 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 3 Today's Topics: Total Nuclear War => Global Extinction? Against the Halley Probe New Shuttle director named ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Oct 1981 17:59:27-PDT From: jef at LBL-UNIX (Jef Poskanzer [rtsg]) To: SPACE at MC Subject: Total Nuclear War => Global Extinction? This is getting a little off the subject of this list, but that is nothing new... A one megaton nuclear blast releases 4.2E22 ergs. The asteroid impact that formed the Manicouagan Astrobleme released approximately 7E29 ergs, or about 10 million megatons, which is far more than a total nuclear war would release. Manicouagan happened on the order of 100 million years ago, so it obviously didn't cause global extinction. Therefore, to a first approximation, total nuclear war will not cause global extinction, on this planet or any other. Now, whether it would cause the permanent end of human or alien civilization is another question. There is no known data on this subject, so I think we will have to do an experiment... --- Jef [For those of you who don't keep close track of these things, and were wondering, Manicouagan appears to be in Quebec about 150 miles north of the St. Lawrence. -ota] [I would like to urge people not to start discussing total nuclear war on this mailing list. ARMS-D at MIT-MC is a mailing list devoted to discussing, among other things, nuclear weapons and their effects and is probably a more appropriate forum. Send mail to ARMS-D-REQUEST@MC for inquiries about this list. Ted Anderson] ------------------------------ Date: 2 October 1981 23:08 edt From: Tavares.Multics at MIT-Multics Subject: Against the Halley Probe To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Message of 2 October 1981 07:01 edt from Ted Anderson Pardon my ignorance. What is so important about whether or not there is ice at the Moon's poles? All you basic-science folks, don't get on me. I mean, given a choice between the ice in Halley's comet and the ice on the Moon, why is the latter so much more important? ------------------------------ Date: 03 Oct 1981 0154-PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: New Shuttle director named To: space at MIT-MC n084 1850 02 Oct 81 AM-SHUTTLE By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD c. 1981 N.Y. Times News Service NEW YORK - An Air Force general was named Friday to head the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's shuttle project. He is Maj. Gen. James A. Abrahamson, a former test pilot and manager of the F-16 fighter development program. . . . . Abrahamson, a deputy chief of staff at the Air Force Systems Command, at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, is to become associate administrator in charge of the Office of Space Transportation Systems in November. He succeeds John F. Yardley, who resigned the post in May to become president of McDonnell Astronautics Co. in St. Louis. Abrahamson's primary responsibility will be the completion of the troubled space shuttle's tests and its transition to full operations. In announcing the appointment, James M. Beggs, the space agency administrator, said, ''General Abrahamson's close acquaintance with the shuttle and his excellent program management record make him uniquely qualified to head shuttle development.'' In 1979, when technical and cost problems were besetting the shuttle development, Abrahamson was brought in by the space agency as a member of a five-person board to assess the program's management and recommend changes. Before that the 48-year-old general was a test pilot and an astronaut with the Air Force's Manned Orbiting Laboratory program in the 1960s. The appointment of an Air Force general to the post, however, is expected to raise questions about the possibly growing military influence over the shuttle program. At least one-third of the shuttle's flights are expected to have military missions. Pentagon support of the program is generally credited with having saved it from cancellation in the 1970s. nyt-10-02-81 2151edt *************** . . . . . Abrahamson, a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a combat pilot in Vietnam, was the spacecraft project officer for the Vela nuclear detection satellite program in the early 1960s. The instrumented satellites were designed as orbiting watchdogs to police adherence to the 1963 nuclear test ban treaty, which forbids nuclear testing in the atmosphere or outer space. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 1981 0300-PDT From: Stuart McLure Cracraft To: space at MIT-MC !n534 0206 03 Oct 81 BC-SPACE-3takes-10-03 By Albert Sehlstedt Jr. (c) 1981 The Baltimore Sun (Field News Service) WASHINGTON - Let's not repeat the Ming Dynasty's mistake, Congress was advised during a recent hearing on the future of the space program. The Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) may seem far removed from space shuttles, Saturn's rings, balanced budgets or Social Security payments, but testimony at a congressional hearing touched upon a potential parallel between the American present and the Chinese past. Some 500 years ago, the House subcommittee on space sciences and applications was told, China's Ming Dynasty abruptly restricted the operations of its superb maritime fleet that had tapped the wealth of the Indian and Pacific Oceans. ''Within a century, China was being picked apart by Europeans, who found a backward, ignorant nation that was already fragmenting into petty principalities,'' a witness testified. So much for history. Is the United States, beset by a host of domestic and foreign problems, ready to eliminate the space program, which has shrunk to less than 1 percent of the total national budget? ''I don't want this history to repeat itself, and the hearings are one effort toward rejuvenating our nation's space effort,'' said Rep. Ronnie G. Flippo (D-Ala.), citing China's mistake in a statement that set the tone for the three days of testimony on America's future in space. Flippo, who was chairman of the sessions, may have diminished his position as an unbiased observer with that partisan view, but his panel's hearings did provide Congress with a reasoned commentary on the virtues of the space program which, as a consequence of equally reasoned decisions in the future, may shrink even further in the 1980s. Missing from the witness list was a well-known critic of the space program, Sen. William Proxmire (D-Wis.), who has cut from the national budget a program to search for radio signals from space that would be indicative of intelligent life beyond this solar system. Also missing was George A. Keyworth II, who is on the record as saying that future space policy will demand ''perceptive judgments.'' Dr. Keyworth's views are pertinent because he is the president's science adviser. The adviser, expressing his views in a prepared speech in June, was not denigrating the space program and, indeed, commented that the initial success of the space shuttle in its April flight had ''stimulated the administration to embark on an interagency review of questions involving its operational future, plus a number of other vital matters concerning the direction of our space program.'' However, Dr. Keyworth's comments hardly conveyed the enthusiasm expressed by many of the witnesses who testified before the House panel and who spoke of such things as ''virtually unlimited future possibilities in space.'' Much of the congressional testimony, from an historian, a futurist, a banker, businessmen and scientists, followed the line that the space program not only would pay for itself in benefits to mankind, but would excite the minds of today's youth - the engineers and scientists of the 21st century - and bring that generation the lasting gratitude of history. ''Although we might quarrel with one another about the program's benefits, our descendants will look back upon our times and our generation with respect and awe,'' said Melvin Kranzberg, professor of history at the Georgia Institute of Technology. ''For future generations men will recall with fascination and admiration their 20th century ancestors who possessed the will, the courage and the means to make the giant leap into extraterrestrial adventures,'' Dr. Kranzberg said. While good reviews in history books may not enthrall citizens who need food stamps and day-care centers, the immediate benefits of the space program were cited as a persuasive argument by other witnesses. Not the least of those benefits are food, water and minerals to support an expanding world population that is expected to double by 2015. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has been developing for years spacecraft instruments designed to detect such resources as mineral deposits, large schools of fish at sea, and fresh water that could help people of the poorer nations. In the field of medicine, Dr. Donlin M. Long, chairman of the department of neurological surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, said his work has benefited from advances in the space program. As an example, Dr. Long mentioned an intercranial pressure monitor that can be implanted in the human skull through a minor operation to record the critical changes in pressure that follow serious head injuries. Another witness, Marvin J. Cetron, conceded that the space program will not pay for itself in the short run, but he was more optimistic about the future, meaning the next century. ''It will not pay for itself, let alone yield a profit,'' said Cetron, who is president of Forecasting International, Ltd., of Arlington, Va. ''Therefore,'' he continued, ''the principal reasons for continuing the space program in the short run will be defense, prestige and knowledge, with emphasis on the first. (MORE) nyt-10-03-81 0507edt ********** !n535 0217 03 Oct 81 BC-SPACE-1stadd-10-03 X X X ON THE FIRST. ''Military uses will continue to predominate, although in certain instances prestige may become very important, such as a possible visit by Halley's Comet when it reappears in 1986.'' (Many space enthusiasts have decried the United States' failure to launch a spacecraft for a close look at the comet, particularly in light of the fact that other nations, including the Soviet Union, are thinking in those terms.) Cetron's reference to prestige is no small matter in space exploration, just as a fleet of jet airliners is a cherished asset of some small nations who, it has been argued, could spend their money more humanely on agriculture or water purification. As another witness pointed out, this nation's decision to land men on the moon was based, to a large extent, on the fact that the Soviet Union had reaped unimagined propaganda value from its ''firsts'' in space, such as orbiting the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, and putting the first man in space. Looking 20 years ahead, Cetron saw the space program becoming self-supporting and bringing ''significant benefits to the civilian economy.'' Even more optimistic was David Hannah, Jr., leader of a Houston company, Space Services, Inc., that hopes to launch its own rocket next year, despite the initial failure of an engine in a ground test last month. ''In my opinion,'' Hannah told the House committee, ''now is the time for the private sector to take advantage of the tremendous accomplishment of NASA by efficiently and responsibly developing the resources of space for the benefit of society. ''Government has fulfilled its responsibility to open the new frontier, and it is now incumbent upon Space Services and all the companies which will follow to make the frontier accessible for industrialization and commercialization,'' he said. A step in this direction has been taken by one of the giants of the industry, Boeing Aerospace Company, which has signed an agreement with a European corporation to market and launch low-cost satellites. The satellites can be used for scientific experiments, and for communications and agricultural surveys of the Earth, Boeing has said. Japan, an acknowledged whiz at building automobiles and TV sets, also is looking for ''space bucks,'' Hannah said. He quoted an article from Japan Times which stated that Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry ''has begun taking steps to transform Japan's space program from a loosely organized network of research projects into an industry. ''Space,'' the article continued, ''will be a $4.5 billion industry for Japanese manufacturers by the mid-1990s, comparable in size to today's radio and television manufacturing industry.'' An American banker was of similar mind. ''The movement to space will require great investment, but the payoffs will return many times the outlay in ways both numerous and unforeseen,'' said Hank E. Koehn, a vice president of Security Pacific National Bank of Los Angeles. In this connection, Koehn reminded the House panel that the study of chlorine reactions in the atmosphere of Venus led to the discovery that fluorocarbons were capable of deteriorating the protective ozone layer in Earth's upper atmosphere. ''Space does not represent an area of endeavor that should be undertaken only after the problems here on Earth are solved - it may well be the solution to those problems,'' Koehn testified. He told the Flippo committee that ''a new alliance of government and business is now required for the new world of space, one that is more commercially oriented in the granting of proprietary rights, for example, or clearly the Soviets, Japanese and Europeans will leave us behind.'' It was Koehn who made the historical reference to the Chinese navy in the Ming dynasty, then added: ''This is clearly one past we must not allow to become prologue to our own future.'' John D. Young, professor of public management at American University here, spoke about the future of the space program in a political context. ''Very few political leaders, regardless of party or other convictions, will want to clearly stake themselves out for a specific future space program that costs much more than the current one, if that much,'' he said. (NASA's budget for the current fiscal year is $5.5 billion.) ''There is no effective constituency for such a future program when you come face-to-face with such trade-offs as changes in Social Security, further reductions in student assistance for middle-class families and similar federal programs,'' Dr. Young said. ''The general tendency of the American electorate is to support many things, such as the space program, until it comes to trade-offs where the individual sees his or her self-interest at risk.'' Banking and politics aside, another committee witness spoke of bringing the space program to Main Street by establishing ''neighborhood space centers'' in cities and towns. These retail establishments would be financed with the sales of pictures, books, slides and other space paraphernalia to acquaint the public with some of the things beyond the atmosphere they breathe. (MORE) nyt-10-03-81 0518edt ********** !n536 0220 03 Oct 81 BC-SPACE-2ndadd-10-03 X X X ATMOSPHERE THEY BREATHE. ''These space centers would be similar to ... 7-Eleven stores where, readily available on the street corners and in the shopping centers, are all the glories of the space program,'' said Stan Kent, president of a group of space buffs called Delta Vee, Inc. Kent, an aeronautical engineer and graduate of Stanford University, said one such neighborhood store already has opened in Los Gatos, Calif., and plans are under way for similar centers - ''a sort of McDonald's in space'' - in other communities. ''Plain and simply,'' he said of his organization, ''we want to increase the speed with which we explore space.'' He explained to the congressmen that the name of his corporation, Delta Vee, is taken from the technical shorthand of space scientists and engineers. The Greek letter delta, and the Roman letter ''v,'' when written together, denote a change in velocity. Kent said his nonprofit company represents 15,000 people who make small contributions to support space projects. He brought to the hearing 2,000 letters ''representing a sample of our constituency.'' He spread the letters out on the witness table in front of him, commenting that the mail convinced him that ''the public desperately wants to be a part of the space program.'' It was apparent that Kent's group was, indeed, ready for a change in velocity of the space program. END nyt-10-03-81 0521edt ********** ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 04-Oct-81 0402 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #4 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 4 Today's Topics: What's all this fuss about water on moon? - An answer. Address of Los Gatos Space Store? Proxmire extinction?! Why we need water from the moon Against the Halley Probe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 October 1981 07:46-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: What's all this fuss about water on moon? - An answer. To: SPACE at MIT-MC Here's why it's so important to find ice on the moon. The moon has plenty of Oxygen, Silicon, Aluminum, Titanium, and lots of other things we need to build space-stations of enormous size, support life in these stations, and build large solar-energy collectors. Two problems. There's hardly any Hydrogen or Carbon in moonrocks near the equator (where the astronauts landed), both of which are essential to producing food in space. It would be a real pain if we had to send all the Carbon and Hydrogen from Earth. We suspect there's lots of carbon in carbonaceous-chondrite asteroids. Thus the remaining major problem is finding Hydrogen. Even if we found Hydrogen on Halley's comet this time around, we wouldn't be able to harvest it until 76 years later. So in the meantime we'd have to bring it from Earth or Jupiter, both very expensive. But if we find water in the cold places on the moon where it has remained for 4.5 billion years due to extreme cold and moderate gravity, we can extract the Hydrogen. ------------------------------ Date: 3 October 1981 08:06-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Address of Los Gatos Space Store? To: SPACE at MIT-MC Does anybody know the address&phone, or even the name (I can call directory assistance if I have the name), of the neighborhood space store in Los Gatos? I might like to take good old public transit down there some afternoon and look the place over, maybe buy some Voyager pictures. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 1981 0727-PDT From: BART at CIT-20 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Subject: Proxmire The one I like best is the epithet uttered by an Air Force general, "A Proxmire on you!" -Bart Locanthi ------------------------------ Date: 3 Oct 1981 12:28:49-EDT From: cjh at CCA-UNIX (Chip Hitchcock) To: jef at lbl-unix Subject: extinction?! Cc: space at mit-mc Calculations concerning the formation of an astrobleme are irrelevant to questions of nuclear destruction, since it has long been a truism that 10 1-megaton bombs will produce far more widespread "useful" destruction than 1 10-megaton bomb (the bigger a bomb is, the more of its energy is spent just burning a big hole in the ground). Further, most material I've seen about astroblemes suggests that their formation was not accompanied by the release of vast amounts of high-flying radioactives. With regard to this, isn't there anyone out there with some hard numbers about the probability (given a major nuclear war) of an ON THE BEACH scenario? It is a common idea in SF (or was in the 50's and 60's) that we are on the brink of nuclear destruction precisely because we developed so much faster than the average. The problem is that this presupposes something unique in our genetic or environmental makeup; without something to compare against, this is a useless supposition. Fredric Brown, by contrast, suggested that there is only a small window during which a civilization can survive before collapsing into decadence, and that we are immortal precisely because of the regenerating effect of a total nuclear and [supernuclear] war (this being the 7th in a line of civilizations that includes Mu and Atlantis); this is horrifying but thoroughly improbable. Figures in a recent ASIMOV'S indicate that even a "Bussard ramjet" would make, at most, about .17 c (?), but this ups the time to colonize the galaxy to a million years or more at the hazard of substantial radiation exposure; how much common ground and goal would remain after this period? Finally, there is the chance that this prospect would daunt any race and that a "hyperdrive" just can't be made on anything greater than a subatomic scale, which would make a project like SETI all the more important (cf Spinrad's recent SONGS FROM THE STARS---incredibly obnoxious except for that one good idea). ------------------------------ From: MINSKY@MIT-AI Date: 10/03/81 13:05:36 Subject: Why we need water from the moon MINSKY@MIT-AI 10/03/81 13:05:36 To: TAVERES.MULTICS at MIT-AI, space at MIT-MC CC: MINSKY at MIT-AI Water on the moon could be important for practical lunar industry, because there is virtually no hydrogen in the lunar surface, while virtually all our chemical processes and rocket fuels depend on hydrogen. If there is condensed water near the surface of the lunar poles (the only places that never gets hot) then exploitation of lunar materials becomes much more plausible. Also, a polar, rotary-slingshot launching system should be explored, because it might be magnitudes simpler than magnetic guns. The worst thing about the moon is lack of carbon in the surface material, which would exclude organic synthesis in large quantities. This is annoying, for example, becausevirtually all plastics and adhesives currently in use on Earth involve carbon. Many chemists believe that with sufficient motivation, inorganic plastics and adhesives could be developed. I believe that with hard-landed teleoperator technology, perhaps with a small permanent moon base of a hundred tons or so and a handful of people, a lunar industry could be established at interestingly small costs, e.g., under 100B, including facilities for launching materials back to earth orbit. If there is water, then the launched material could include packages of rocket fuel that could be used inexpensively to get the stuff into earth orbit. There are proposals to use aluminum and oxygen, both plentiful on the moon, for rocket fuel, but obviously hydrogen is much lighter. Can provide references if any interest. ------------------------------ Date: 3 October 1981 13:36-EDT From: Hans P. Moravec To: SPACE at MIT-MC Re lunar icepockets - this will be one of a dozen responses but ... I think we should find ice on the moon so that when I go to live near there I can take long showers and not have to squeeze my oxygen out of rocks ... Actually I don't mind about the oxygen ------------------------------ Date: 4 October 1981 05:16-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle To: McLure at SRI-AI cc: "REPLY-TO:" at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE ON THE MING DYNASTY Navy and the State decision to cancel the Navy and allow Europeans to dominate (the Ming Navy met Vasco De Gama at Madagascar...) was by Arthur Kantrowitx. Kantrowitz, now professor of physics at Dartmouth, was formerly chief scientist at Avco Everett. Dr. Kantrowitz is the newly-elected Chairman of the Board of the L-5 Society. ------------------------------ Date: 4 October 1981 05:49-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Against the Halley Probe To: DIETZ at USC-ECL cc: "REPLY-TO:" at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC Unfortunately, given scarce resources to allocate, I have to agree that Halley is not a mission NASA should pay for. I am not as convinced that putting one in the Soviet eyeball isn't worthwhile; but that should be paid for by Dept of State, or the National Security Council, not by NASA. In my judgment (as stated in the Council Report; ((Citizen's Council on National Space Policy, report available at $4.50 postpaid from L-5 Society 1060 E Elm Tucson AZ 85719) NASA primary function should be to develop new national capabilities; missions must be secondary to technology acquisition. Lunar Polar mission is important because if there is water ice at the Lunar poles, there is a real chance that a lunar polar base could be made self-sufficient in a surprisingly short time; and wouldn't be so very expensive since colonists do not expect to return to Earth (and thus need not take lots of fuel etc with them; can be supported by hard landed capsules.) There are plans for power stations at lunar poles; stations which can supply power to industrial satellites in earth orbit; there are even plans for beaming power from the Moon to Earth, although I am not convinced by this one. Still, it is not so expensive to put a colony on the Moon as one might think; and the power availability there is pretty high, with large surface areas, and lots of stuff to work with (including possibility of turning regolith into fairly good low-grade colar collectors by automated machinery.) I do fear the Halley is dead anyway. The latest budget cuts diud NOT hit NASA with 12% for fy 82, but they are severe enough that Halley -- and very likely Galileo -- are gone. NASA Dep Admin Hans Mark uts his priorities at (1) getting Shuttle fully operational, and (2) getting a permanent US manned presence in space. To do that he's got to cooperate with the deep pockets, = military, which is an obvious reason for Abrahamson taking over shuttle. There's only one deep pocket in Washington now, and that's over at te five-sided funny farm. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 05-Oct-81 0401 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #5 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 5 Today's Topics: Re: What should we pay for ? Conservation and mining rights on the moon ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Oct 1981 (Sunday) 1446-EDT From: DREIFU at WHARTON-10 (Henry Dreifus) Subject: Re: What should we pay for ? To: pourne at MIT-MC, space at MIT-MC Jerry, For once we agree. That is unusual. There are a few things I would like to mention. We should spend more money/effort on: o Basic Research -- Rocket technology, re-entry technology (I seriously don't believe bathroom tiles are the answer), course/navigation technology, fabrication and industrial technology, and so forth. o Long range space research. X-Ray orbital studies and the like. o Psyiological research, understanding more in the effects of extended space, research into true artifical gravity. I forsee in my lifetime a long space mission. Hank ------------------------------ Date: 4 October 1981 18:53-EDT From: Landon M. Dyer Subject: Conservation and mining rights on the moon To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC Just what will rabid enviromentalists and lawyers think of strip-mines on the moon? All that precious polar water-ice [if there is any] being gobbled up by a huge corporation (the US govt.) for fuel. Gee, isn't it an irreplacable natural resouce? More to the point; are there any UN rulings governing the claiming or mining of substances in space? Are you allowed to mine for things with (/real/ clean) nuclear bombs, or do you have to ship up more mundane heavy mining equipment? Also, who has the rights to anything discovered? (I would suspect that the moon's surface can be treated (in a legal sense) much in the same way that the ocean floor is currently being handled. Can anyone verify or correct me on this?) -Landon- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 06-Oct-81 0402 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #6 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 6 Today's Topics: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #5 Avoiding war, avoiding running out of oil, into space now! Summary of immediate priorities Re: SPACE Digest V2 #5 Conservation and mining rights on the moon Letter writing campaigns ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Oct 1981 11:39:33-PDT From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin To: ZEMON@MIT-MC, duke!decvax!ucbvax!space@Berkeley Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #5 Cc: POURNE@MIT-MC There is a draft treaty on lunar rights, etc., that is (I think) signed but not ratified by the U.S. A strong opposition to the treaty has grown up, claiming that provisions declaring it to be "the common heritage of all mankind" would discourage private enterprise, since there'd be no guarantee of profits. Jerry Pournelle wrote a column on it in Analog several months ago (guess which side he's on...); I'm sure he can provide the reference more easily than I can. My own opinion after reading his column was that the language was fairly vague, and not likely to be a problem. Then again, I do have views on collective responsibilities, etc., that I'm *sure* he doesn't agree with.... ------------------------------ From: REM@MIT-AI (Sent by ___052@MIT-AI) Date: 10/05/81 20:08:53 Subject: Avoiding war, avoiding running out of oil, into space now! REM@MIT-AI (Sent by ___052@MIT-AI) 10/05/81 20:08:53 Re: Avoiding war, avoiding running out of oil, into space now! To: ARMS-D at MIT-AI, SPACE at MIT-AI Re needing oil to get into space: There's a critical window now when we have developed the technology to bootstrap ourselves into space, and we haven't yet exhausted the oil that made the industrial revolution possible. Once we get into space, have industry there to convert solar radiation into usable energy and convert moonrocks and asteroids into materials and fuels, we will be able to get along without oil. There's such a vast amount of energy and fuel out there in space that we could have robots out there manufacture foam-steel (iron from metallic asteroids) filled with hydrogen gas (hydrogen from water from lunar poles and/or asteroids/comets) and just drop it to Earth to be used here, or beam microwaves down and decompose seawater here. With vast surplusses of energy, there are amazing things that can be done. They don't even have to be efficient in terms of energy, because after all we're right now wasting 99.99997% of energy from the sun, so even if we get only 1% efficiency in our actual process we're doing several orders of magnitude better than we're doing currently by just letting it go to waste. The critical thing is bootstrapping, we have to use processes that don't require much from Earth, that get themselves bigger and bigger as they produce materials to be incorporated into their own selves. -- Now here's the rub. If we have a nuclear war or we spend the next 30 years "conserving" instead of developing space energy and manufacturing, we'll no longer have all this nice Petrolium, and it'll be harder to make rocket ships and other things to get the whole process started. If we wait too long, we may never again be able to get to space, and we'll stagnate here on Earth until we get wiped out. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Oct 1981 19:04:02-PDT From: jef at LBL-UNIX (Jef Poskanzer [rtsg]) To: SPACE at MC Apologies to all for my recent seemingly off-the-wall message about nuclear war and global extinction. As Ted guessed, it was supposed to go to ARMS-D. Blush, pound head on keyboard, tear hair, etc... --- Jef (I hope I got this one right.) ------------------------------ Date: 5 October 1981 22:36-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Sender: ___155 at MIT-MC Subject: Summary of immediate priorities To: SPACE at MIT-MC Here's what seems to me to be the concensus on what's important in space: (1) Space Transport System (shuttle), to get people and equipment into low Earth orbit -- Although the 5th orbiter would be nice, at the present the project has enough money and just has to work out the technical problems. (2) LEO (Low Earth Orbit station, also known as space operations center), a place to house personnel and experiments BETWEEN shuttle flights -- I think this is funded but we have to keep it funded, not let it get cut. (Was it cut last week? I don't know.) (3) Lunar-polar-orbiter, survey polar regions for water ice, needed to get hydrogen for use in life-support, fuels, and manufacturing processes -- No funding presently, we urgently need funding for this!! (4) Asteroid-carbon-assey, land on various asteroids and assey the material to see how much carbon they contain, needed for life-support and many many industrial materials used in manufacturing (glue, lubricant, steel, fuels) -- No funding presently, we urgently need funding for this!! Once the above have all been accomplished, assuming the asseys show enough hydrogen and carbon for our needs, we can then proceed to build colonies on one of the polar regions on the moon, to process by remote control from Earth or LEO the lunar rock and water-ice, and we can seriously plan towards bringing an asteroid into Earth orbit to mine it for carbon and metals. Of less practical use, but of immense scientific value, are Galileo (probe Jupiter's atmosphere and survey the moons; funded but in danger of being cut), Halley (take pictures and analyze chemical content of Halley's comet; not funded, probably already too late to get funding, sigh), Solar polar mission (half-funded, sigh), Large Space Telescope (funded last I heard). Did I leave out anything important? Errata? Oh yes, almost forgot, SEPS (Solar Electric Propulsion System), useful for long space trips but not urgent presently. ------------------------------ Date: 6 October 1981 04:22-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #5 To: chico!duke!unc!smb at UCB-C70 cc: ZEMON at MIT-MC, POURNE at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC, duke!decvax!ucbvax!space at UCB-C70 Re the Moon Treaty: regardless of one's views on "collective responsibility" (whatever that means--does it mean no one is responsible since we all are?) vague language which becomes, under our Constitution, "supreme law of the land" is an invitation for lawyers to become wealthy while whatever the treaty concerned languishes. This is as true of the Moon Treaty as anything else. However, the subject is a dead letter. the Reagin Administration has no intention of submittiing that mess to the Senate (and for that matter, both Republican and Democrat leaders on the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate have declared the Treaty not to be in the best interests of the USA.) ------------------------------ Date: 6 October 1981 04:39-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Conservation and mining rights on the moon To: ZEMON at MIT-MC cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC SOME environmentalists have alrady spoken: it is sacrilege (and a violation of the rights of American Indians who worship the Moon) to mar its surface, including strip mining. I wish I were kidding. Observation: enough lunar material to build a dozen space solar power stations would be dug by a single bulldozer, and the "blemish" could not be seen from Earth with the best telescopes available. ah. well. ------------------------------ Date: 6 October 1981 05:34-EDT From: Steve Kudlak Subject: Letter writing campaigns To: SPACE at MIT-MC L-5 wants to do another letter writing campaign to try to stop budget cuts(or reverse??) being applied to NASA. They recommend writing to V.P. Bush at the following address: Vice President Bush Space Policy Council Executive Office Building Washington, D.C. 20501 (**Please include thisin space digest if it is not a duplication of previous message**) Have fun Sends Steve ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 07-Oct-81 0402 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #7 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 7 Today's Topics: Energy in Space SPACE Digest V2 #6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Oct 1981 0815-PDT From: DIETZ at USC-ECL Subject: Energy in Space To: space at MIT-MC It seems to be gosple that "space is filled with free unlimited energy". Is it free? Compare the cost of a (say) 50KW diesel motor/generator and a similar soloar powered unit in space. I think the capital costs for the space power unit are going to be at least an order of magnitude higher. "But we save all that oil!" Yes, we save oil, but with all the extra money we spent on the solar unit we probably could have extracted more oil than we saved. Advocates of SPS ignore the fact that it is far too capital intensive. And what is our biggest economic problem today? Lack of capital - it's all being consumed (that's wwhy interest rates are so high). Solve this problem, and the 'energy crisis' evaporates (without SPS). ------- ------------------------------ Date: 7 October 1981 04:51-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #6 To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC Attempt to undigestify gives bad digest format. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 08-Oct-81 0402 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #8 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 8 Today's Topics: Energy in Space Energy in Space Energy in Space Letter writing campaigns Bussard ramjet speed limit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Oct 1981 17:30:47 EDT (Wednesday) From: Mike Lease Subject: Energy in Space To: Dietz at USC-ECL, SPACE at MIT-MC Cc: mlease at BBNP Reply to: MLEASE at BBN-UNIX The problem with fossil fuels is that they are in limited supply, not that there is a temporary shortage of them. I agree that the cost of an SPS system would be steeper than the cost of a "50KW diesel motor/generator"; but the SPS may well be usable a century from now, whereas the fuel for the generator will in all probability have been used up by then. Of course, I am not taking into account wear and tear on the SPS -- anyone have any guesstimates on that issue? Anyway, what we need to do is begin searching for renewable sources of energy while we still have non-renewable ones left to enable us to do so, and SPS is one of the sources we should investigate. Mike Lease ------------------------------ Date: 8 October 1981 00:19-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Energy in Space To: DIETZ at USC-ECL cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I agree. If we try to simply build an SPS now from Earth materials, and assemble it in space, it'll be too expensive (capital intensive). We have to first establish industry in space, so we can process lunar and asteroid/comet materials, and build an SPS when that industry is sufficiently well along that building an SPS becomes cost-effective. Meanwhile, after we establish industry, but before we can afford SPS, we can do energy-intensive materials production (aluminum mostly) in space and send the finished product to Earth. There's so much titanium in moonrocks that maybe we'll also extract titanium and send it to Earth, in fact that might be cost-effective before aluminum is, simply because the Earth-price of titanium is so much higher. I suspect it's fairly easy to run simple aluminum and titanium extraction by remote control, moreso than running SPS-manufacturing/assembling devices. Summary: (1) Assays of lunar-polar and asteroid for hydrogen&carbon (2) Lunar-polar remote-control water extraction (3) Lunar-polar remote-control aluminum&titanium-extraction (4) Catching an asteroid and r-c extracting carbon&iron ... I hopw we get funding for (1) soon. ------------------------------ Date: 8 October 1981 01:21-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Energy in Space To: DIETZ at USC-ECL cc: SPACE at MIT-MC 1. Space solar power systems may or may not be economical for delivery of power to Earth; but they seem very useful for delivery of power IN SPACE. Industrial, experimental, and, yes, military systems in space will need power; someone will get it and use it; it matters little whether they speak Japanese, Swahili, Russian, or American, except possibly to US citizens. From my viewpoint it is easier to learn to get along with US than to learn Russian. 2. 90% of the resources available to mankind are not on Earth. Someone will get them. If not us, who? If not now, when? 3. We kill some 50,000 people a year with burining oil and coal. Nuclear, I grant you, appears to be far safer and healthier, but it is also politicially and economically impossible. True, it is economically impossible for diabolical reasons: those who hate it do things which run up the costs and then say it is uneconomical, the moral equivalent of those who cut off a person's legs and then castigate him for not making a living; but it is still economically impossible. What, then shall we use? Shall we drain America first? We ship $50 billion a year off to foreign lands for oil each year (perhaps more; I use the lowest figure I have ever heard); the whole SPS project is only $100 billion, ALL OF WHICH IS SPENT IN THE US, and which is very likely to return us a very great deal in fallout technological benefits; which I have not heard that investment in security forces for Saudi Royalty does for us. ------------------------------ Date: 8 October 1981 01:47-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Letter writing campaigns To: FFM at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Bush is more than 50% probable chance to be President within 10 years; he is known to favor space; he gets little mail. JEP ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 1981 00:28:19-PDT From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley Subject: Bussard ramjet speed limit Since I haven't seen anybody else demolish the myth about the 0.17c speed limit on Bussard ramjets, here goes. The article in Asimov's was not the first recognition of the problem; contrary to what was said in the article, this problem has been known for years, but has not been trumpeted out loud because there is a straightforward fix. It is reasonably obvious to anyone who does a real analysis of the Bussard ramjet instead of relying on analogy from "ordinary" jets. (In the following, all velocities etc. are with respect to the ship.) The purported speed limit works as follows: thrust from the expulsion of fusion-engine exhaust is counterbalanced by intake drag from fast-moving incoming fuel hitting the ramscoop field, so net momentum transfer to the gas stream works out to be zero. With some simplifying assumptions, the speed limit equals the engine exhaust velocity; it is easy to set an upper bound on this based on the reactions involved. The mistake is to assume that the kinetic energy of the incoming fuel is necessarily converted to heat or some other useless form. WRONG! Suppose instead we decelerate the incoming protons against an electric field. The momentum IS transferred, but the energy is stored as potential energy. We use that stored energy to further accelerate the outgoing exhaust by letting the protons fall down the other side of the same electric-field potential hill. Other variations are possible, but the principle remains the same: use the kinetic energy rather than wasting it. There is still some momentum transfer, because the same amount of kinetic energy does not mean the same amount of momentum at different velocities. The exhaust acceleration is less effective at producing momentum because it is applied to already fast-moving material. But this is a lesser effect; barring losses, there is always a nonzero net momentum transfer to the gas stream (unless relativity introduces some subtle complication at extreme velocities; not my specialty). Of course there WILL be losses, and integrating this with a ramscoop may be a lot of fun, but those are problems of technology, not fundamental physics. In any event, the ramscoop is the EASY part of a Bussard ramjet, by current thinking: the HARD part is getting a decent reaction rate out of a fusion reaction burning ordinary hydrogen. Building a ramscoop is a formidable engineering problem, but a fast proton-proton reactor involves nasty difficulties of fundamental physics. It may be necessary to go to an internal energy source, either ordinary fusion (the "ram-augmented rocket" scheme) or antimatter. The latter is the more interesting: antimatter-heated rockets have rather (!) high performance themselves, and adding "free" reaction mass makes it even better. To sum up: the near-c Bussard ramjet is not impossible, it's just complicated, difficult, and not quite the way it was visualized. Henry Spencer ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 09-Oct-81 0402 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #9 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 9 Today's Topics: Energy & SPS Finite energy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Oct 1981 1132-PDT From: DIETZ at USC-ECL Subject: Energy & SPS To: space at MIT-MC Another problem with SPS is the incredibly long lead time. This is the same problem with nuclear plants also (although some of the dealy may be caused by the anti-techs and government regulations). Freeman Dyson has pointed out that the best engineering projects are those with a lead time of less than 5 years, because after you pass this point the problems begin changing faster than the solutions. Also, it becomes very difficult to correct mistakes (like using scaled up SUBMARINE reactors (!) for nuclear plants). This is the crux of the matter. Who is going to invest in SPS when it is (admit it) so risky? There's a good chance that some other inexpensive energy source (dirt cheap solar cells, fusion, bacteria that make gasoline) will be developed before it's even off the ground. J.P. suggests using solar power in military missions. Wouldn't a solar powered military satellite be very vulnerable to attack? Finally, I had the impression that it's hard to use lot of power in space because of problems in disappating waste heat (only radiation, no convection). Is this correct? It wouldn't be a problem with a SPS (the thing is large enough to cool easily) but might be a problem with, say, refining metals in large quantities. Here's a question for the physically minded: how long does a 1 kg. spherical piece of molten aluminum take to cool to a reasonable temperature? 1000 kg.? ------- ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 1981 23:02:53-PDT From: E.jeffc at Berkeley To: v:space@mit-mc Subject: Finite energy Actually, what is all this talk about limited energy anyway? Ok, we'll run out of oil soon, and nuclear power has been made uneconomical by the lunatics in our society, but what about fusion energy??????? I say we should develope that as fast as possible. It is superior to SPS anyway for very good reasons. First, it will not be as capital intensive. Second, it permits much higher energy densities to be realized. The problem with solar power in any form is that it is deluted. Sure, you can collect as much energy as you want with a large enough collector, but the density of that energy is rather low compared to that provided by a fusion reaction. In order to run our every increasingly technological society, we will not only need more energy, but in higher densities as well. This would be true even in a space environment. A spaceship of the future will obviously have a fusion drive, if possible, and a large space station, or city if you want, will need simply too much energy to be feasibly supplied by a solar collector. I believe that solar power is good for running a eco-system, and transitor radios, and very little else. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 10-Oct-81 0402 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #10 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 10 Today's Topics: Vague wording of Lunar treaty Costs of SPS vs. fusion Budget cutting Soviet space effort Catch-22 Energy & SPS Finite energy SPS vs. Nuclear Power comet => sun Energy & SPS Bussard ramjet speed limit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 October 1981 11:20-EDT From: Stephen C. Hill Subject: Vague wording of Lunar treaty To: decvax!duke!unc!smb at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE-LOVERS at MIT-MC, POURNE at MIT-MC, ZEMON at MIT-MC I have to deal with lawyers every day. One of the things that I have learned is that the more vague a contract (law, treaty, etc.) is written, there is a direct correlation with the difficulty in servicing it. (God, what horrible construction!!) Vague is only good in policy statements, NOT in contracts, etc. Steve ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 1981 1034-CDT From: Clyde Hoover Subject: Costs of SPS vs. fusion To: space at MIT-MC An SPS would be VERY expensive, but don't fool yourself about fusion (if/when achieved) being cheap. It is not unrealistic to expect the early fusion power systems to be on a par of cost-effectiveness and complexity of the early fission power reactors, at a much higher capitialzation cost than equivilant fission power. Eventually, fusion may well become cheap, but for a long-term investment, an SPS should more effective. (For one thing, the raw material for an SPS is continually provided without cost of money or delta-vee to get it into space). ------- ------------------------------ Date: 09 Oct 1981 0955-PDT From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Budget cutting To: space at MIT-MC I hear from some of the local L-5 people that Ronnie has seen fit to subject NASA to the following plan of budget amputation: FY82: 6% additional cut (as opposed to the 12% cut that was scheduled) FY83: a $1 billion dollar cut FY84: *another* $1 billion dollar cut leaving NASA with an FY84 budget of about $3.5 billion. This implies cancellation of Galileo and dropping the option on the fourth orbiter. It may even imply turning off Voyager 2 and missing the Uranus flyby. Another interesting fact that appeared on a local PBS show a few days ago (I don't remember the name but it was on KQED and had Ben Bova, Eric Burgess, and Charles Petit (science writer for one of the local San Francisco papers, and who made the following comments)). Apparently the NASA folk have taken to displaying pictures of the planned four Shuttle orbiters with the middle two (Challenger and Atlantis, I think) painted with Air Force insignia. And remember, we stand an all too good chance of losing the fourth (the other NASA) orbiter. I am not reflexively opposed to the military presense in space, but I am not particularly happy about it, either. But a PURELY military presense in space is intolerable. And they are the only ones that Ronnie isn't cutting. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Oct 1981 1141-PDT Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3 Subject: Soviet space effort From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) To: space at MIT-AI Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3] 9-Oct-81 11:41:31.WMARTIN> I have just finished a rather interesting history of the Russian man-in-space effort by James Oberg, RED STAR IN ORBIT. Recent Space discussions mentioning Soviet efforts lead me to think that this subject is topical and this book is a worthwhile source of information. I recommend it. Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 09 Oct 1981 1611-PDT From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Catch-22 To: space at MIT-MC a062 0522 09 Oct 81 PM-Space Pavilion,420 Proxmire Says Space Agency Acted Improperly By JAMES H. RUBIN Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The space agency improperly solicited $5 million from aerospace companies to set up a pavilion at the 1982 World's Fair in Knoxville, Tenn., Sen. William Proxmire charged today. Proxmire said James Beggs, head of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, ''overstepped his mandate'' in seeking to ''promote industry participation in a commercial venture.'' He said Beggs' actions appear to be ''a serious breach of the arms-length relations which should exist between the federal government and the firms with which it does business.'' In a letter to Proxmire, D-Wis., Beggs replied that NASA was acting as ''a neutral broker'' in plans for the space pavilion. Beggs acknowledged that he hosted two meetings for the aerospace industry, inviting 40 major companies to his office last month to discuss their sponsorship of the pavilion. But he denied that he solicited any money. ''It was very clearly stated that while NASA supported the (pavilion) concept in principle, it would take no part in solicitation of support by individual companies or in suggesting the level of support,'' Beggs said. Aerospace Daily, which disclosed Beggs' role in its Oct. 1 issue, reported that the companies were urged to contribute specific amounts to the pavilion. It was recommended, for example, that Rockwell International pay $1 million, IBM $750,000 and Grumman Aerospace Corp. $400,000, the magazine said. The trade publication quoted company officials anonymously as saying they felt the government's role was coercive and ill-advised. A spokesman for Rockwell said he would not comment because the officials familiar with the pavilion plans were not available. A spokeswoman for IBM, who requested her name not be used, said the company did not feel any undue pressure but has not decided if it will take part in the fair. Bob Harwood, a spokesman for Grumman, said ''we don't feel there was undue pressure from the government. We have been contacted frequently by the fair.'' He said that Grumman may contribute to the pavilion but ''nowhere near'' the figure the fair managers suggested. Beggs said that, ''At no time was NASA consulted about the amount nor are we aware today of the amount proposed to each company.'' The telegram inviting the companies to the meeting in Beggs' office said the firms should take part in the fair because it ''offers us an unusually good and very timely opportunity to tell the American public a positive story about the potential of space.'' In response to a question from Proxmire, Beggs said that the only cost to taxpayers from the meetings was $512 for the telegrams inviting the companies. ap-ny-10-09 0810EDT *************** ------------------------------ Date: 9 October 1981 19:43-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Energy & SPS To: DIETZ at USC-ECL cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Getting rid of heat in space manufacturing? No problem. We assume you're mining various raw materials from the moon and other places and using them to make useful materials. The moon has a lot of oxygen. Probably a great surplus for most manufacturing operations. So you simply pump oxygen around the place you want to cool and then dump the hot oxygen into space. Of course, for things that don't want to be exposed to oxygen, you use the same trick that nuclear power plants (which don't want to be exposed to ocean saltwater) use, you use the oxygen (a la seawater) to cool some working fluid that is in closed cycle, and use this working fluid to cool your actual workstuff. Discarding oxygen into space is probably cheaper than building giant cooling fins and recirculating the oxygen thru the fins. (Needed, an engineer to validate or refute my claim.) ------------------------------ Date: 9 October 1981 20:01-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Finite energy To: E.jeffc at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC You apparently don't understand how SPS works. We build giant solar colectors miles across, either to reflect solar energy to a central boiler or other conversion unit, or to collect and convert in situ such as by solar cells. In either case, all this energy is channeled to a single location, where it is beamed to where it is needed. It's irrelevant that the original radiant energy is disperse. After SPS collects it, it's concentrated and can be used for all sorts of energy-intensive tasks, providing these tasks sit in space without moving a lot relative to the SPS. For things that move, such as spaceships, we have to add another step, converting the raw materials and the SPS energy into some type of fuel. Why doesn't this same idea work on Earth? Because the Earth is very small. An object 10 miles wide and 10 miles long sitting on the Earth collecting sunlight, isn't environmentally acceptable. If you put it in the saraha desert, you have to protect it against sandblasting, and also figure out a way to deliver the energy to the USA or other industrial places, you can't beam it by microwave because it isn't line-of-sight. But in space, where it's 225,000 miles to the moon and 93,000,000 miles to the sun, there's immense empty space in which to station these solar-collecting stations without getting in anybody's way. Also the liquid fuel you make for shapeships doesn't have to be lifted up from Earth before it can be used, because it's already in space if you make it there. (Also the atmosphere blocks most of solar energy, so SPS in space is more efficient. But that's only a factor of about 2 so I saved that argument for last. We're talking about a factor of 3 thousand million even if we ignore that factor of 2.) ------------------------------ Date: 10 Oct 1981 00:21:25-PDT From: menlo70!hao!woods at Berkeley To: menlo70!ucbvax!space@Berkeley Subject: SPS vs. Nuclear Power There are 2 problems with those people who think that nuclear power can solve our energy needs (well, 3 actually). They are: 1) They label their opponents "radicals" or "lunatics", instead of what we are, which is just ordinary people whose philosophy happens to be different. We have what we consider just and valid reasons for opposing nuclear power, just as you have what you consider valid reasons for supporting it. 2) They forget that nuclear power depends on uranium and other nuclear fuels, which have the same problem as petroleum, i.e. they are a finite resource. What are we going to do when we run out of uranium in 200 years? Nuclear power can at best, postpone the finite resource problem a few years, but will NOT solve it. We MUST develop renewable energy resources like solar power, and extend our supply of finite resources through programs like space research for energy development. 3) There still is not an acceptable solution to the waste problem, and it has not been shown (at least not to my satisfaction) that there won't be a catastrophic accident someday. Look what almost happened at 3-mile island. I suppose there will have to be a major accident before those who have invested heavily in nuclear power (including the US government) will recognize the danger. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Oct 1981 0102-PDT From: Stuart McLure Cracraft Subject: comet => sun To: space at MIT-MC !a016 2352 09 Oct 81 PM-Sun-Comet Collision,250 Comet Reported to Have Collided with Sun WASHINGTON (AP) - A comet collided violently with the sun two years ago, spraying debris over millions of miles of the solar system, the Naval Research Laboratory reports. The event, recorded by satellite instruments, is the first positive evidence of a celestial body colliding with the sun, Dr. Donald J. Michels, an NRL scientist, disclosed Friday. It also marks the first time a comet has been discovered by a satellite. Michels said the collision, which occurred Aug. 30, 1979, was recorded in a Naval Research Laboratory experiment SOLWIND, operating aboard a Defense Department payload. Because of delays in release of spacecraft data for analysis, the event was not discovered until recently. Michels said the comet passed through SOLWIND's field of vision as it streaked toward the sun and quickly disintegrated as it encountered the blazing solar heat. ''We estimate that when the comet hit the sun, the energy released was about one thousand times the energy used in the U.S. during an entire year,'' Michels said. He said NRL researchers believe the comet may have come from a group of comets dubbed ''sun-grazers'' whose orbital paths skim close to the sun. He said about eight sun-grazers have been spotted by ground observatories in the last 300 years, but that many more may have escaped detection because of the difficulty of spotting them against the bright solar background. ''For example, the comet detected by SOLWIND was not sighted from the ground, even though its tail was brighter than Venus,'' Michels said. ap-ny-10-10 0236EDT ********** ------- ------------------------------ Date: 10 October 1981 05:59-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Energy & SPS To: DIETZ at USC-ECL cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Sigh. (1) ) Military systems are not necessarily intended to be useful after a war starts. Detection and warning are useful functions. ANYTHING in space is vulnerable to a sophisticated attack. So is anything on the ground. (2) In space you have only radiation, but you have an infinite radiation reservoir that is effectively VERY cold. It takes clever design to make use of it, but it can be done. (3) OF COURSE SPS is risky, and few that I know advocate a full program to build it. However, SPS remains a refutation to the doomsters; it may be expensive, but it pretty well has to work; and what's expensive? It would cost considerably less than is spent on booze. If the alternative is the collapse of civilization as claimed by MIT's Forester models and the Meadows reports based on those models, then SPS is a fairly low-risk low-cost system (given the alternative). But in fact SPS advocates want about $30 million (million, not billion_) to study the concept and develp needed technologies; most sps technologies will be useful in just about all phases of space activity. (4) Arthur Clarke called me today from Sri Lanka. To the point is his dictum of a long time ago. "If mankind is to survive, then, except for a very brief moment in our history, the word 'ship' will mean 'space ship.'" ------------------------------ Date: 10 October 1981 06:29-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Bussard ramjet speed limit To: decvax!utzoo!henry at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Quite a number of things turn out to be less simple and a bit harder than we thought. Still, we have to try. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 11-Oct-81 0402 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #11 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 11 Today's Topics: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #10 A hot time at L-5 tonight?? Bussard Ramjet designs that exceed the speed limit A number of points Long flame on SPS and fusion Budget cutting SPS capital intensiveness ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Oct 1981 1304-EDT From: Bob Kristoff Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #10 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Your message of 10-Oct-81 0702-EDT What is SPS (please) Bob Kristoff ------- ------------------------------ Date: 10 Oct 1981 1502-PDT From: Tom Wadlow Subject: A hot time at L-5 tonight?? To: space at MIT-MC I read somewhere of a scheme to lose waste heat in space without dumping massive quantities of material (hot oxygen, for example). The idea was to use the heat to warm up a reserve of powder, obtained from the Moon. You then pump this powder in a stream across a strech of open space, catching it on the other side and recovering the material but not the heat. Since the individual particles can radiate fairly quickly, if you design the stream and catcher properly, you should be able to lose quite a bit of heat, but not too much powder. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Oct 1981 1352-EDT From: KING at RUTGERS Subject: Bussard Ramjet designs that exceed the speed limit To: space at MIT-MC cc: king at RUTGERS The limits on the speed of a Bussard ramjet assume that the kinetic energy (in the ship's reference frame) of the Hydrogen cannot be recovered. This might be accomplished, as was mentioned before, by extracting energy from the stream electromagnetically. The obvious way of doing this is to give the ship a strong positive charge. Another way of solving this problem is to not slow the plasma down so much. It seems to me that it might be possible to have a long, thin reaction volume. The plasma would enter the leading end of this volume, compressed by the ship's fields and slowed only modestly; it would then react within a long, thin cylinder surrounding the ship (the reaction volume would be a magnetic field in any reasonably ramship, anyway; having the reaction take place outside the ship does not introduce any additional constraint) and the heated, expanding gas would push against the trailing portion of the ship's field and would (in the ship's frame) gain its initial velocity and more. This is satisfactory for a Bussard ramscoop and (possibly) not for an Earth-atmosphere ramjet because the reaction "vessel" in the former case would be non-material and there would be no viscous energy loss. Besides, I seem to remember that Nasa wanted to build a hypersonic ramjet once, without slowing the air much, and they expected it to work. The main reason the reaction has to happen fast is that (1) reaction time <= reaction "chaimber" capacity * plasma encounter rate If the chaimber is larger than the ship and can be made even larger as the ship speeds up, perhaps the reaction could happen at a more modest rate. While any given ship's coils (or supply of monopoles or whatever) would give THAT ship a fixed speed limit, given any speed limit we could provide a design for a ship that could meet that limit. Another point that should be noted is that, even if we stop the fuel in the ship's reference frame, and convert the fuel's kinetic energy into "useless" heat, this heat would be far from useless. Exhaust velocities of .17c are based on the temperature that can be reached by a fusion reaction assuming that the fuel starts at "room temperature" (e. g. 10e8 Kelvin). If the fusion reaction is thought of as adding a certain amount of energy to each particle, then it would set the particles going at .17c for room temperature hydrogen. If the hydrogen enters the reaction with the particles moving at .17c, they would come to be moving at .23c (.17*sqrt(2)), which yields an exhaust velocity of .23c. This results in net thrust, although less than a ramship just starting out (.001c) would get. Eventually a temperature would be reached at which the fusion reaction doesn't proceed, but I imagine that that's a high temperature indeed. (Any reaction's equilibrium point shifts tords the endothermic direction as the temperature rises.) To put it differently, the thermal efficiency of the rocket would be nearly perfect because of the high hot temperature, so most of the kinetic energy that gets converted to heat will be recovered. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 10 Oct 1981 1443-PDT Sender: BILLW at SRI-KL Subject: A number of points From: William "Chops" Westfield To: space-enthusiast at MC Cc: billw Message-ID: <[SRI-KL]10-Oct-81 14:43:14.BILLW> Redistributed-To: space-enthusiasts at MC Redistributed-By: BILLW at SRI-KL Redistributed-Date: 10 Oct 1981 Excuse my possibly igorant rambling, but: 1) Budget cuts The budget has to be cut. I may not agree with exactyl what and where Reagen is cutting the budget, but at least he is doing SOMETHING. Why isnt NASA receiving funding from private industry, if space is going to be so profitable ? 2) Capital intensivity. I suspect that if we don't, it is the Japenese that will, as they have show in the past that they are willing to make big investments in things that arent likely to pay off for a LONG time. Russia, et al, is probably as bad as we are in that respect. 3) Sun shriking ? I heard on the radio that the sun is currently shrinking at a rate of about 5 miles per year. This ties in with a comment someone made a LONG time ago about neutrino experiments indicating that the sun was "off" at the moment. Any comments ? BillW ------------------------------ Date: 10 Oct 1981 19:04:07-PDT From: E.jeffc at Berkeley To: v:space@mit-mc Subject: Long flame on SPS and fusion I would like to apologize in advance for what has turned out to be a long flame on SPS, with more than a lit- tle philosophy mixed in. Why philosophy? Because there lies my principle objections against the SPS. REM correctly pointed out that I had forgotten how the SPS worked, but my mistaken notion of how the SPS worked was not the sole rea- son why I'm against it. I shall offer a two-pronged attack on the SPS - one material and the other philosophical. Before I start with the flame proper, I feel a need to justify attacking the SPS on philosophical grounds. It seems absurd to me that I must do so, but such is the world today. The world has come to believe that the machine, and more recently the computer, is a valid metaphor for describ- ing how people work. This is pure nonsense, as man created the machine, and surely the creator is something more than the created! And yet the world today goes ahead and makes its most important decisions as if it were nothing more than a giant machine or computer. The seemingly inescapable des- truction the world is heading towards is the price we are paying for such beliefs, for machine logic is capable only of reacting to its entropy-plagued environment, instead of rectifying the situation through creative thought, as a human being would do. Space represents more to me than military superiority, profits beyond end, or a chance to move heavy industry off this planet and into space. These are reasons that a com- puter might use, to justify the expense of going into space. To a human being they can be but secondary concerns. The reason why we must go into space is the same reason why this country of ours grew from sea to shining sea: it is the des- tiny of man to rule over nature. If that seems no longer possible, it is only because we have abdicated that which made it possible, in favor of cold machine logic. No doubt this sounds corny, and that is why the world is in such a mess; it most certainly would \not/ have been corny a cen- tury ago, when manifest destiny ruled the hearts and minds of this land. Now on to the philosophical attack against the SPS: the philosophy behind the SPS is morally bankrupt. The SPS would have us live off the table scraps of the Universe, like some parasite, instead of feasting on the meal itself - fusion power. The SPS is in accord with the philosophy of living in harmony with nature, as the SPS would have us take only that which nature, of her own free will, provides. Whether you run to the hills to commune with nature, or go into space with the latest technology to commune with her, the philosophy is the same. A snail darter may have to live in harmony in nature - it does not have a choice - but man does not have to, as he can \control/ nature. No one has ever reached his full potential by living off that which is freely provided him, and it is for this reason man must con- trol nature, and not to live in "harmony" with it. Unfortunately, many readers would not consider a philo- sophical attack a valid one, either out of principle, or because they hold opposing philosophical views. And so I will come back down to Earth, or at least low Earth orbit, and try once again to give practical reasons as to why the SPS is not feasible in the near future. We do not have the resources to build a SPS. It's that simple. Someone remarked that if all the money spent on booze in one year were to be spent on a SPS, we could afford to build one. That's misleading. The fallacy of that remark is that it assumes that the \amount/ of money spent is more important than \what/ it is spent on. If the President were to go on television, and beg that all citizens donate their booze money for one year to the cause of building an SPS, and if by some miracle the people actu- ally did it, and if the money were to be spent on the con- struction of a SPS, what would the result be? Aside from a devastated booze industry, the result would be massive hyperinflation and no SPS. Why? Because there isn't enough industrial capacity in this country to handle both the nor- mal demands of the economy (which it can't handle even now) AND the demands of building a SPS. The SPS is too capital intensive! Before one can be built, our economy has to be revitalized and greatly expanded - but to do so will require the removal of some of the bottlenecks restraining it, such as high interest rates and expensive energy. Fusion power can be developed and put into commercial use long before the first SPS could possibly be built, assuming that it can be built without straining the economy past its breaking point. Fusion is not that far away. Congress last year passed the Magnetic Fusion Energy Act of 1980, 100 to 0 in the Senate, and only 7 Nay's in the House. It mandates a commercial fusion power plant before the year 2000, and an experimental one before 1990. It authorizes half a billion dollars a year to be spent on fusion research, to be adjusted anually to account for inflation. David Stockman has not been able to seriously cut funding, although he has tried to remove all funding, undoubtably because Congress approved it so strongly. With fusion power as an integral part of our economy, we would have the resources to build a SPS, but by then, we wouldn't need to! ------------------------------ Date: 10 October 1981 22:37-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Budget cutting To: TAW at SU-AI cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Turning off the Voyager before it completes its misson would be CRETINOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Everybody who hasn't done so yet, write to V.P. Bush, as mentionned previously. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Oct 1981 23:07:59-PDT From: ihnss!mhtsa!harpo!chico!esquire!ima!yale-co!galloway at Berkeley To: ima!esquire!chico!harpo!mhtsa!ihnss!ucbvax!space@Berkeley -------- Subject: SPS capital intensiveness Say WHAT?! Hate to tell you this, but oil is not a renewable resource, at least not in the foreseeable future. There are problems with SPS, but i don't think bringing interest rates down is going to help the energy crisis. Getting renewable sources of energy will Tom Galloway @ Yale ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 12-Oct-81 0404 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #12 Date: 12 Oct 1981 0403-PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #12 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 12 Today's Topics: A Glossary SPACE Digest V2 #11 Rebuttal to SPS flame What about NASA Rebuttal to E.jeffc on SPS SPS and Fusion A hot time at L-5 tonight?? Long flame on SPS and fusion Costs of SPS vs. fusion Finite energy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Oct 1981 1644-PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: A Glossary To: space at MIT-MC I was quite surprised to see the message from Bob Kristoff asking what SPS stood for. I guess I should know better than to assume everyone knows the Jargon. To help remedy this problem which I suspect is far from exceptional, I will put together a Glossary/Index to help new people on the list get up to speed. To get me started, I would appreciate it if anyone on the list who has been confused about the terminology send me (OTA@SAIL) a message listing the stuff you are/were confused about. I will send out another message anouncing the glossary's existance when it does. Ted Anderson PS. I would also like to commend the readership for not flooding the general distribution list with dozens of nearly identical replys to this question. There has been quite enough traffic on this lists as it is. ------------------------------ Date: 11 October 1981 09:23-EDT From: Steve Kudlak Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #11 To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Why doesn't NASA get private funding if it's going to be so popular? Because private industry will not fund long-range projects even if they are near- certainties. Our executives who make these decisions are paid primarily on the bonus system, which means they are paid according to how well the profit picture looks this year, not ten, twenty, or thirty years from now. They therefore try to maximize short-term profits, sometimes at the expense of long- term ones. Corporate presidents may not even be alive that far in the future, and they almost certainly won't work for the same firm. Chief executives change companies at an ever increasing rate, and it's quite high already. Thus they may not want to spend their short time in power making things come out well for those who will succeed them. Witness all the old machines in our factories. The other factor is that space may never profit existing companies. It may only profit socialised nations (who can afford to put up the capital) or only new companies sprung into existence specifically to work in space. No one knows what form the government will take in space, who will govern, how the profits will be distributed, etc., and few companies want to risk that by funding "pie-in-the-sky" research today. In the discovery of the new world, remember, Columbus had to get funding from Queen Isabella because no one could risk their hard-earned cash for such a wild proposal. And for the first few years it looked like they were right--all they got for quite a few years were reports of failed colonies, sickness, freezing winters, starvation, etc. And existing firms never did make the bulk of the profit off the New World, new companies and governments did instead. Yet I doubt that the world--even just Europe--would have been better off if the New World had never been developed. Incidently, can you name any project one could expect to take more than about 20 years to complete which has EVER been funded privately? (I don't mean ones of the variety which were projected to take 5 years and came in behind-time, but ones which were originally expected to take that long.) If not, how can you expect them to start now, with such high interest rates, economic hard times, and threats from the U.N. about making space "the common heritage of mankind"? ------------------------------ Date: 11 October 1981 11:16-EDT From: Steve Kudlak Subject: Rebuttal to SPS flame To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I support building the SPS, for two reasons: Philisophical and practical. I know philisophical arguments can (and frequently do!) go on forever, but I should present at least one alternative view to the "scraps-of-the-universe" theory. The use of machines (currently semiconducting computers, since that is the smartest machine we have to work with at the moment) as metaphores for human thought goes way back. This does NOT suggest that machines are BETTER than men. All it means is that people always look for analogies, models, and simplifications of many things, their own behavior included. Even our best AI programs are incapable of drawing analogies in any real way (and I am beginning to think that's what the biggest difficulty will be in making an "intelligent" machine). Anyway, the very idea that computers could come up with solutions to such complicated questions involving morality, ethics, philosiphy, and, further, that those solutions would be somehow different from those a human being might give, reminds me of the "golden age" of pulp science fiction (little green priestesses worshipping a computer, which makes all their decisions and tries to scare off intruders--who promptly pull the plug on this "evil", "dehumanizing" machine! Such stories may have done more to discourage home computers than all IBM horror stories combined.) Philisophically, I don't see why one source of power isn't as good as another, given that they are both clean and sufficient for our needs. If we can meet our needs by a souce of energy that doesn't require large amounts of waste, why not do it? We have more than enough energy coming our way now; why not use it instead of constructing wasteful, enefficient generators using up water (or some other source of hydrogen) for something we already have? The first commandment of the universe is Thou Shalt Not Waste, but it is not as limiting as it may sound: It does not mean "limit your growth to Earth," nor "Make do with less," nor even "Stop expanding." It DOES mean that when you have two ways of achieving some end you should use the one that requires the least impact on the rest of the universe. Earth's is the only biosphere we've got, let's not further destroy it by generating our power there and polluting it (while fusion is better this way than other sources, it isn't perfect--in thermal pollution, for example) when we can do just as well (if not better--lower maintenance, less down-time) with solar power satellites? I don't see any difference between using fusion power generated at a safe distance (about 93 million miles) and recollected than using power generated here except that we will have to contain it here, dispose of the radioactive peices (The housing and containment machines will cause some radiation, although not any directly from the fusion reaction--a tiny fraction of that from fission reactions) here, get the hydrogen from here (electrolyzing it from water is an incredible inefficient process--even after the water is purified, not easy on a huge scale anyway), and risk terrorist attacks here (a generating station is a prime target anyway, but with plasma that hot in it a well-placed bomb could kill many people more than a standard (hydroelectric, say) plant). I have seen nothing to indicate that large-scale building of fusion plants would be cheaper than SPSs. Granted, my information on fusion is about a year behind the latest, but I think I would have heard any very major developments (e.g. reaching engineering viability). SPSs suffer most now from lack of any research funds (due to its image as a wild project). Fusion has been heavily researched for decades (always "just around the corner," too), and has been given the sanction of government and industry, while SPSs sat in a corner, researched only by crazy graduate students and their crazy professors. Only very recently has the idea been popular enough to admit belief in public, let alone endorse; yet it is gaining popularity now. Certainly SPSs are a high capital project, but so is any proposal big enough to allow near-total energy independence. The argument that we should go all-out to build fusion plants doesn't hold water if you then argue that we should not go all-out to build SPSs because the economy can't stand it. I think the economy can support such a large industrial effort, and will benifit more from SPS development than from fusion development. The opening of space will mean all sorts of new products which can be produced only in zero gravity, similar to the wealth of new products arising from the invention of the vacuum pump. This is even aside from the spinoffs that happen constantly already from space research, now ranging from 3 or 4 to 10 times (depending on whether you ask a program fan or foe) that which is invested in it. And most of it is unclassified, unlike fusion with its military applications. The economy is suffering not from a lack of industrial resources--steel mills and such--but from a lack of the demand for them. That's why existing mills are closing, why high unemployment rates, the decline of the industrial sector. Reagan may be doing the right thing in cutting the budget, but he is most decidedly doing the wrong things in cutting taxes before spending is firmly reduced, increasing defense at the greatest rate since Vietnam (and that was in wartime!), and cutting research money for research and education. We need the education and research for making better new products and cheaper ways of doing things, we do not need research into weapons which will become classified and unusable by the private sector anyway; nor do we need government to risk not balancing the budget by so drastically cutting taxes. We should go onward and upward, and the way there is not by way of backward and downward, but up into space. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Oct 1981 (Sunday) 1214-EDT From: DREIFU at WHARTON-10 (Henry Dreifus) Subject: What about NASA To: space at MIT-MC Might I humbly ask the following: Why does'nt NASA stay out of space and allow private industry to go-after space? o NASA allows more government control at the very begining of our space program and will always have a purpose in future space exploration. o The purpose of NASA is now becoming outdated. I liken it somewhat to the instantiation of the ARPA net by ARPA, and now we see many commercial networks upspringing. o The future should look something like this: DoD and military space missions will be handled separately, probably a little bit of NASA helping (tracking/technical people . . .) Strictly commercial flights/missions will be handled mostly by private companies ready to jump in; ROCKWELL intn'l, Boeing Corp, TRW and perhaps MD. NASA will be a government AGENCY handling cross coordination, paperwork and 'slot' space. Research experiments in the future I have a feeling will piggyback Dod/military or fly inside commercial subsystems. The point I contend is that NASA will never go away, they will be playing a useful and basic role in the entire 'game'. Henry Dreifus ------------------------------ Date: 11 October 1981 12:38-EDT From: Marvin Minsky To: MINSKY at MIT-AI, space at MIT-MC, E.jeffc at UCB-C70 Subject: Rebuttal to E.jeffc on SPS :mail E.jeffc@Berkeley, minsky, space@mit-mc Your arguments are weak: This is pure nonsense, as man created the machine, and surely the creator is something more than the created! Why "surely"? That's a good way to prove a man can shovel more than a bulldozer! To a human being they can be but secondary concerns. The reason why we must go into space is the same reason why this country of ours grew from sea to shining sea: it is the des- tiny of man to rule over nature. The destiny of man, if anything, is the destiny of intelligence -- perhaps to rule but perhaps more to know. The SPS would have us live off the table scraps of the Universe, like some parasite, instead of feasting on the meal itself - fusion power. SPS IS fusion power, an energy collector near a fusion reactor called the sun. It would be nice to have small, local fusion reactors, but they appear to be at least many years away, with no good reason to think that they can be made to produce power as cheaply as SPS. See below. We do not have the resources to build a SPS. --- The SPS is too capital intensive! --- Fusion power can be developed and put into commercial use long before the first SPS could possibly be built, assuming that it can be built without straining the economy past its breaking point. Fusion power is a mere gamble, as noted above. We simply don't know how to build a fusion reactor yet, so we can't know how much it will cost! As for SPS costs, the design will change over the next years -- if the subject is studied. I believe that the launch costs will be trivial, once the earthmen let themselves study the feasibility of launching heavy loads into space using ballistic nuclear launch methods, from deep holes in the ground. (Lunar materials, also proposed for this, would take longer to develop, I think, but perhaps worth it for exploration technology reasons.) So, the "capital costs" of such projects have been overestimated because of assuming that the stuff be launched by chemical (!) rockets. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Oct 1981 2231-PDT From: Jim McGrath Subject: SPS and Fusion To: space at MIT-MC CC: e.jeffc at UCB-C70 (Actually, this discussion might be more appropiate to ENERGY) I found your message interesting. You correctly point out that throwing money at SPS will not, in itself, create SPSs (although money is a perrequsite for such construction). But you then go and ruin your point by essentially saying that if we threw enough money at fusion then we would have power plants by the year 2000 (afterall, Congress just mandated that we do so). I pride myself a bit on an understanding of the current state of physics research, and I was lead to believe that they is no fundamental scientific reason to believe that it is POSSIBLE to use fusion as a power plant resource. Am I wrong on this? And if so, can you cite any recent experimental results on this matter? I would like to believe fusion is practical, but need some facts. SPS IS practical, in the sense that only engineering and economics, not fundamental scientific principles, seen to hinder us. In a technical sense I believe SPS could be a reality FAR earlier than fusion. The engineering challenges would seem to be greater, as are the economic challenges, but I do not believe this is clear either. All the proposals for fusion reactors I have seen (all assuming the critical densities could be obtained under existing experimental reactor designs) are EXTREMELY capital intensive, and it appears that far less hard engineering studies have been done on the design of fusion reactors than on SPS (once again, since we are not sure what a fusion reactor will look like, while we pretty much know what a SPS will look like if we can build it). Does anyone have harder facts on this matter? I would like to have reasonable fusion power plants, but they seem to me to be more unlikely than SPS is, given our current science and technology. And unless we know HOW to build them, disscussions of economics seem a little bit pointless. Jim ------------------------------ Date: 12 October 1981 04:19-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: A hot time at L-5 tonight?? To: TAW at S1-A cc: SPACE at MIT-MC The paper was in the third conference on radiation in space, held at Ames a year or so ago. I thnk I summarized it in a column once. If you pitch and catch in the right geometry the total force changin the orbit of the system is nil. Pretty nifty. The concept of using hot ddust streeams as radiators is just one ofthe possibilities studied. ------------------------------ Date: 12 October 1981 04:36-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Long flame on SPS and fusion To: E.jeffc at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I confess I have not read all your flame. The reason is that you have put forth an assumption at the beginning that is certainly open to challenge. Why is SPS and solar energy the "table scraps" while fusion is the meal itself? I grant you that fusion is useful (if we get it working;); but it is not the end of all. Fusion does produce radioactive wastes. Not as many as fission, and the fission waste problem is a non-problem, technically, although hardly that politically. There are other disadvatntages to fusion. it's big, and may not at all be what you want in orbit. SPS as as power source for Earth may never happen. It is a string to our bow; a means of powering a civilization although we've been told that there is no such source of power. But for space itself, SPS seems to be a fairly good way to get the power needed. At any rate, most SPS enthusiasts have asked for no more than $30 million a year -- about what Health and Human Services spends in five minutes -- for technology development studies. The technology would be useful in almost ANY space exploitation. As to your defense of the right to make a philosophical attack, none was needed; I presume many of us would like to believe that we are part of something larger than any one of us, and that there are things which are, plainly speaking, worth while. I'll try to read the rest of your piece later. I regret the typos in my above; I get absolutely no feedback from the net, the TIP I must use lately seems to play through a VERY noisy line. sigh. [I confess, there were so many typos, I went through and corrected most of them. I occasionally do this to mail. I hope no one objects. -ota] ------------------------------ Date: 12 October 1981 04:43-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Costs of SPS vs. fusion To: CC.CLYDE at UTEXAS-20 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Given lunar bases, it's conceivable that SPS would be "free" in the sense that almost nothing need go from Earth to anywhere. Use of lunar resources through lunar colonists produces NEW wealth, not redistribution of something already around. It takes a bit of capital to get that going, but not all that much (trivial compared to, say, the liquor budget); and the result is pretty impressive. Fusion can be good stuff, but the capital costs won't be cheap, and I will bet large sums that the anti-nuke crowd will NOT allow fusion plants to be built economically. After all, they claim that fission is not economic (and given their actions, it ain't)... Stalin once said that there was no subway in the world except that in Moscow. He had been to Paris. Hannah Arendt interptreted it to mean that the totalitarian believes that given the power, he can make any statement true by putting anything contradictory down the memory hole... ------------------------------ Date: 12 October 1981 04:53-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Finite energy To: REM at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, E.jeffc at UCB-C70 SPS can be used to power space ships. One uses a laser to beam energy to the ship. The ship now uses any one of several high ISP drive concepts; it need not carry th epower source along, and thus can get much better thrust/weight ratios. The laser power shipis probably the way we will explore/mine asteroids. The more one looks at it the better it looks. It can also be used to aid light-sail vessels. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 13-Oct-81 0404 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #13 Date: 13 Oct 1981 0403-PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #13 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 13 Today's Topics: space heat sinks Budget cutting - yer message regarding same SPS continued SPS vs. Nuclear Power SPS & Fusion Hot stuff on Saturn? Budget Cuts SPS Flamage SPACE Digest V2 #10 Possibility of fusion Long flame on SPS and fusion / Reason for space, beyond profit&military Long flame on SPS and fusion ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Oct 1981 0911-EDT From: KING at RUTGERS Subject: space heat sinks To: space at MIT-MC cc: king at RUTGERS At one time I was thinking about the idea of using a thrown stream of powder as a heat sink. I observed that the powder has to fly through a vacuum. Since I find it difficult to imagine a method whereby the powder could go back and forth between vacuum and fluid, I suspect that it would have to spend its entire circuit in vacuum. This means several things: 1) A solid would have to be chosen that was very resistant to vacuum cementing. 2) Some way has to be found to pump a powder. In industrial applications, this is a real pain. Nobody is considering coal-powder pipelines, for example, even though the water usage is a major objection to coal-slurry pipelines. Sawdust is pelletized at considerable expense before it is used in a burner, in part because it will not flow through a hopper. The problems are worse in a vacuum and weightlessness, because any pump that proposes to work by having the powder enter some chamber from which it is later ejected will find that the powder will not enter the chamber on its own accord. It has to be pushed into the chamber, and I suspect that powder, in vacuum, in weightlessness, under pressure, is truly wicked stuff. 3) How do we heat the powder? Powder of any sort is a fine insulator, and with vacuum between the particles I suspect it's even better. I suspect that we will find that the area inside our heat exchanger has to be equal to the area that would have been necessary if we had had a solid heat exchanger in the first place, because each unit of area can only radiate (conduction and convection very minor) as much heat into a powder "touching" its surface as it could have into space. While there is some conduction into the heat exchanger's powder, there would be a lot less radiation because the powder would not be at 2.3 degrees Kelvin, the effective temperature of space away from the Sun. I therefore propose that the powder be replaced by a liquid. This liquid would have to have an extremely low vapor presure, but there are a number of liquids already designed for vacuum use. Think of a large object the shape of an opened tuna fish can with a little bit of the top left as a lip around the edge. If this rotates around its axis, any liquid will collect on the inside of the curved side. If we put a pump on the inside of the side, and connect the pump through a rotary joint in the "bottom" to the rest of the system, we can pump the liquid through the heat exchanger. The heated liquid then goes through a showerhead, through space, and is aimed at the bottom of the tuna can. Centrifugal force brings it back to the pump. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 12 October 1981 12:36-EDT From: Oded Anoaf Feingold Subject: Budget cutting - yer message regarding same To: TAW at SU-AI cc: SPACE at MIT-MC This short flame in response to many complaints regarding budget cuts on NASA and space-related science: Go learn Japanese, Russian, French, German and some other European languages, probably in that order. Then you can get together with the people who MIGHT do the right thing by space development. After all, they can copy our technology all they want until they surpass us, and sidestep the most obvious pitfalls simply by watching us dismantle our own selves. That also goes for energy resource development - like SPS. As (I think) Jerry Pournelle once said, space exploitation is going to happen whether the developers speak English, Russian, Swahili .... In this field as in most others, I think we have lost our perspective and sold our birthright to the military and the knee-jerk budget-cutters. I also think that people tend to get the government they deserve, and the American national mood is too concerned with fighting for a bigger piece of the smaller pie to see beyond its own nose. Hence I believe our slide down from scientific and technical leadership isn't about to stop, rather to accelerate. So I have tried to cauterize my emotions toward our space program (and general scientific establishment), and hope that others will learn from our mistakes. Too bad - it looked pretty hopeful some years ago. Gloomily yours, Oded ------------------------------ Date: 11 Oct 1981 18:14:38-PDT From: CSVAX.tuttle at Berkeley To: minsky@mit-ai, CSVAX.space@Berkeley Subject: SPS continued Cc: e.jeffc@Berkeley Due to network problems here in Berkeley, I am forced to mail this from another machine to avoid excessive delay. I am really "E.jeffc". Can a bulldozer create a man? or even another bulldozer? That is what I mean by man being something more than what he creates. Yes, a bulldozer can do more work than a man with a shovel, but it was man who created the concept of a bulldozer for a purpose - to allow him to do more work. That is the sole purpose for the existance of the bulldozer. Man does not operate under such constraints. Anyway, as this is a space digest, I might as well get on with the main point of this letter. I wasn't even considering how the materials for the SPS got into space, the simple volume of material required is in itself too capital expensive. As for the statement that SPS is fusion power - that's nonsense! If we could turn the sun on and off, control its brightness, create a new sun when the current dies, and all sort of other things, then I might believe that SPS was nothing more than a part in a fusion reactor. That, however, is not the case. We have abso- lutely no control over the sun, and therefore the SPS puts nature in control over us, instead of the other way around. Earlier today, I have come up with another very real problem concerning the SPS. I have not seen it mentioned ealier, which shocks me as it makes the SPS unworkable, unless someone has come up with a solution to it. The prob- lem is this: the SPS acts precisely as a solar sail. As light is collected by the SPS, it transfers momentum to it. A solar sail is twice as efficient in this as it reflects the light instead of absorbing it, and so it gets twice as much thrust as the SPS would generate. This thrust would knock the SPS out of geosynchronous orbit, if not out of Earth orbit. I have done some calculations: At our distance from the sun, the energy-density of light is 7.2E+5 ergs per square centimeter. Assuming a SPS with a cross-sectional density of 1 gram per square centime- ter (a very high figure I would presume), the acceleration that results is 2.4E-5 cm/sec**2. This is not trivial, as it amounts to about 2 centimeters per day of velocity. In one year, the cumulative displacement will be 1.33 kilome- ters. The lighter the structure, the greater this displace- ment. Therefore, the less capital intensive the SPS is made, by using less material, the more unworkable it becomes! It will take both mass and energy, especially energy, to keep the SPS in its desired orbit. I'm sure that \someone/ must have thought of this problem, as it's very obvious. The surface area of the SPS is not important in this calculation, as the increase in area is proportional to both its mass and its energy absorbing capacities. ------------------------------ Date: 12 October 1981 05:03-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: SPS vs. Nuclear Power To: menlo70!hao!woods at UCB-C70 cc: menlo70!ucbvax!space at UCB-C70 Be fair. We will not run out of uranium if we go to breeders. You may say -- I may even agree -- that the breeder is a system whose time has passed; but it does take care of the uranium problem for longer than any 200 years. Second, the nuclear waste problem really is a non-problem. The stuff is NOT dangerous for millions and millions of years. After about 600 years, it is no more radioactive than the ore that spawned it; and after that the total amount of radioactivity is actually reduced from what would have happened if it had never been mined. (Natural uranium really is radioactive and all its products including radons and radon daughters really do get into he system, wehter we mine them or not.) Take the wastes, solidify them to glass, and put them in the Mojave under a concrete superdome; that's not a really good way to do it, but they are recoverable there, you can guard them, and they are isolated from the environment. Put an armored desert regiment there to protect them (the troops have to be staioned somewhere...) Yet for all of it, I agree with your long run conclusion. We have to learn to use space and space resources, and space power systems are really likely to be more useful over the long haul than nuclear. The proliferation control problem and like that are real (although again be fair; nobody has yet used a power reactor to make bombs.) So: go to space and we don't need nuclear power; which satisfies both of us. But do be fair. I concede that there are legitimate concerns about nuclear power, but one oought to take the trouble to get the basic story right; physics is physics, and political views don't seem to change the universe's laws. ------------------------------ Date: 12 October 1981 14:35-EDT From: Marvin Minsky To: MINSKY at MIT-AI, e.jeffc at UCB-C70, csvax.space at UCB-C70 cc: space at MIT-MC Hmmm. You should seek the cure for suspected bugs shortly after finding them. If the SPS were to suffer a net orbital retardation this would indeed be a pain. But the momentum is opposite in the two halves of each day, so the net effect is of a very small order. It could probably be corrected by adjusting the absorbtion on the boiler for a few minutes per year, but I haven't done the calculation. As for the relation of tools to their creators, that's a matter of opinion and you can continue to think one can't make a machine smarter, etc., than oneself, but there's no known reason to suppose that. Even if we didn't know how, we could simulate an evolution -- and perhaps one that would compress millions of years into tens or ones. Your argument about who is in control of the sun seems frivolous, re whether its a source of fusion energy or a "reactor" or whatever. Like saying that hydroelectric isn't fair because we don't turn rivers off. Finally, what calculation says that the SPS materials budget is large compared to, e.g., the mythical fusion plants? ------------------------------ Date: 12 October 1981 04:27-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle (1) Budget cuts and private enterprise. Until there is some guarnatee of access to space, and security of investment (not surety of payoff, but security against arbitrary siezure or destruction of investment) it's going to be hard to find high rollers inteerested in putting the money. Shrinking sun: I guess I was first to circulate that story, based on the lack of neutrinos found in the homestake Mine experiment. The shrink rate sounds VERY much like the rate calculated to put out what the Sun does indeed put out; or did I slip a decomal point there? Worrisome anyway... ------------------------------ Date: 12 October 1981 05:18-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Nor, by the way, am I any enemy of fusion reseearch; see any of my published writings. Nor do I necessarily thnk SPS will replace or be better than fusion. But we don't have fusion, and we don't have SPS; and we are constantly told that the world is running out of energy. And: we have got to do something about productivity or the social security system will do more than collapse, it will fall with a mighty reverberation... ------------------------------ Date: 12 Oct 1981 1335-PDT From: DIETZ at USC-ECL Subject: SPS & Fusion To: space at MIT-MC cc: jpm at SU-AI, pourne at MIT-MC In fact, fusion HAS been making great gains recently. Fusion physicists have just about cracked the problems of instabilities in plasmas, and are 99% sure that a scaled up tokamak will pass break-even (on D-T). They are already building these machines (at Princeton). They will generate enough neutrons so that after the machine is pulsed 10 times you won't be able to service it directly (too much induced radioactivity). And there is a possibility that tokamaks can be made to 'ignite' and fuse without any continuous energy input (from neutral beams and other heaters), although physicists disagree on this one. The big advantage that fusion has, as I see it, is that there are many more ways to build a fusion reactor than there are to build a fission reactor (or an SPS). Some, like tokamaks, almost certainly will work, but may not be economical. Others, like inertial confinement, looked good initially but turned out to be real losers. And there are plently of schemes being kicked around today that may lead to small, easy-to-build power plants (the power companies want a small reactor that you can build for just a few $100M). For example: the so called 'plasma focus' idea: the reactor is quite small and has *NO* magnets. It has just two coaxial electrodes that you send a pulse of 1E5 amps at 1E6 volts (about) through. The resulting arcs wrap themselves up into a knot of plasma where fusion takes place (this mechanism is similar to what happens in a solar flare, by the way). The induced radiation in fusion reactors is a problem, especially in big complicated reactors like tokamaks (the problem exacerbated if we use neutral beams to heat the plasma - the neutral beam machine also gets hit by the neutrons). However, eventually fusion reactors will use clean fuel cycles like deuterium/helium3 and hydrogen/boron, which produce no neutrons (the energy comes off in the form of charged particles). However, SPS is not pollution free. Manufacturing a structure as big as an SPS will almost certainly result in large numbers of small particles being released in earth orbit. When one of these particles hits a sattelite at high speed, more particles are produced. The particles stay in orbit for years, until light pressure and air drag pull them down. An SPS would present such a large target area that the particles would multiply rapidly. This same argument can be used against space industry (at least the heavy kind). Note that this is *not* a hypothetical problem - already plans are on the boards for armoring sattelites (and not just military ones). ------------------------------ Date: 12 October 1981 1630-EDT (Monday) From: David.Anderson at CMU-10A To: space at mit-mc Subject: Hot stuff on Saturn? Message-Id: <12Oct81 163035 DA80@CMU-10A> Has anyone seen more information on what sounds like a fascinating discovery by Voyager about Saturn? a002 2122 09 Oct 81 PM-News Digest, AP PMs News Digest Saturday, Oct. 10, 1981 SATURN SURPRISE: Hottest Story Yet On Voyager II BALTIMORE - The hottest show in the solar system is nowhere near the sun, a researcher says, outlining still another big surprise from Saturn based on data brought in by the mechanical sight and touch of Voyager II. The ringed planet has a region that is 100,000 times hotter than the surface of the sun. Slug PM-Hot Zone, new material, 490 words, should stand. ap-ny-10-10 0006EDT ********** --dave ------------------------------ Date: 12 October, 1958 EDT From: Adam Buchsbaum Subject: Budget Cuts As I see it, we have three choices: 1) We can spend money searching for intelligent life in outer space, a very nice prospect, especially if we find some. We can't be the only ones ``out there''! 2) We can spend money searching for intelligent life in Washington, which will probably take up more funds than SETI to be successful! 3) We can put even more money into building weapons. Of course, we do have to be able to destroy the world more times than the Russians! If you look at those three, I think you might find number 1 to be the most pleasing. Adam Buchsbaum ------------------------------ Date: 13 October 1981 01:55 edt From: Tavares.Multics at MIT-Multics Subject: SPS Flamage To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Message of 12 October 1981 07:03 edt from Ted Anderson Somebody (names scroll by fast, folks) made the dogmatic statement that SPS was a lot safer than fusion. Once upon a time, there were popular horror stories about SPS beams frying passing birds; out-of-whack SPS transmitters spraying microwaves far afield from their targets, etc. (Interestingly enough, we all remember the "sticky" Voyager camera mount that failed to respond to ground command and pointed in the wrong direction for several days. Would You Buy A Projector Mount from These Folks?) I'm no expert; I have no axe to grind. Can somebody comment on these horror stories and tell me why I shouldn't be worried about flakeouts in a satellite beaming a power source that can stop invalids' pacemakers under the BEST of operating conditions? ------------------------------ From: DLW@MIT-AI Date: 10/13/81 04:08:02 Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #10 DLW@MIT-AI 10/13/81 04:08:02 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #10 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC CC: RWG at MIT-AI In reply to the recent letter about problems with nuclear power: (1) Some anti-nuclear people (like you) have what you consider just reasons for discouraging use of nuclear power, but many anti-nuclear people are, in fact, radical, and, sadly, some are even lunatics. Indeed, not all people opposed to nuclear power should be so labelled--far from it--but don't lose sight of the fact that the anti-nuclear "movement" is currently extremely marginal, being populated by at least as many fear brokers and tear jerkers as legitamate critics, and it is guilty of spreading a great deal of misinformation. (2) What happens when the uranium runs out in 200 years? By then, our strenuous research activities (I hope) into solar, fusion, geothermal, and other promising energy sources will have matured into functioning and cheap supplies of energy. Until then, the world needs all the energy it can get, and fission reactors must be part of the interim solution. (3) Indeed, it has not been "shown" that there will not be any major accidents. It has also not been "shown" that passenger airplanes will never crash. Sometimes they do. I take them anyway. I feel that even though there are occasional accidents, the level of risk is quite acceptable in exchange for the benefit that I get. In fact, I take my life in my hands every day when I drive my car, an activity that I consider relatively dangerous. Nuclear power is so safe that I don't feel any worry about the danger of accidents at all. Now, it took me a lot of reading and study to come to this conclusion, and I cannot possibly try to reproduce all of the arguments supporting my claim. However, the easiest way to make the point is as follows. If you look into the mechanisms behind nuclear reactors and their failure modes, you will find something that is not surprising: accidents come in a whole range of sizes, and the ones that cause no harm are much more common than the ones that cause harm; the ones that kill a few people are much more common than the ones that kill many people, which are much more common than the real major disasters that many of the anti-nuke folk spend so much time discussing. How many of the "a few people were killed" kind of accidents can you think of? In "the greatest nuclear disaster of all time", at Three Mile Island, how many casualties to you recall? ------------------------------ From: DLW@MIT-AI Date: 10/13/81 04:23:47 Subject: Possibility of fusion DLW@MIT-AI 10/13/81 04:23:47 Re: Possibility of fusion To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Huh? You say you have heard no scientific evidence that it is POSSIBLE to use fusion as a power source in power plants? Whatever does that mean? What wopuld it mean for there to be evidence that it is "possible"? Surely fusion reactions release a great deal of energy; surely we can create fusion reactions in our backyard (Nevada, anyway); surely it is CONCIEVABLE that we might be able to control them and tap their energy; many different plans for doing so exist and a whole lot of physicists are working hard on them and have given them a lot of thought; do you seriously demand that more evidence is needed that it might be "possible"? It seems clear at this point that it is a question of engineering and cost effectiveness, and that the "possibility" has been made clear. ------------------------------ Date: 13 October 1981 04:34-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Long flame on SPS and fusion / Reason for space, beyond profit&military To: E.jeffc at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I too want to get into space both to survive forever (with 99% of our population in space, a nuclear war on Earth will be a pinprick in the body-human), and to dominate the universe (explore the Milky-Way, then the whole Virgo supercluster), controlling vast resources for our pleasure (build a computer capable of playing a perfect game of Go, catalog all other lifeforms in space, find out for sure if the heat-death will get us like current theories predict). But we can't do that yet, we can't even establish a colony for 1000 people in space. We have to bootstrap ourselves to that state. As I see it, we have to establish a permanent manned space station in low earth orbit, then we have to develop industry in space for manufacturing space-colony stuff, and then we need to build a space colony and a solar power station to supply it with energy. Finally when that is all done, we can send those 1000 people to space. The way the budget-slashing is going this year, we'll be lucky if we get even the first step done before 1990. ------------------------------ Date: 13 October 1981 04:56-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Long flame on SPS and fusion To: E.jeffc at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC If the President went on TV and asked us to donate booze or pizza money to building an SPS out of Earth materials using the shuttle for putting it all up there, he'd be a fool. But if he asked us to donate that money for building a low-earth-orbit station and for surveying the moon and asteroids and comets using unmanned vehicles, and if a couple years hence all that was accomplished and he asked us to donate next years booze or pizza money for building a remote-controlled moonrock-processing station and for sending up manufacturing equipment for converting those materials into large space stations and factories in space, maybe he'd be on the right track. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 14-Oct-81 0403 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #14 Date: 14 Oct 1981 0402-PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #14 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 14 Today's Topics: character booze money Drawbacks of SPS, hazards of fission use Enigmatic letter from NASA and budget cuts subduing Mother Nature Bigotry in Space booze money space heat sinks SPS Flamage Budget cutting - yer message regarding same; an idea SPS continued SPS continued / solar-sail side-effect SPS & Fusion ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Oct 1981 12:02:42-EDT From: cjh at CCA-UNIX (Chip Hitchcock) To: space at mit-mc Subject: character Cc: dlw at mit-ai The faults you find in opponents of nuclear power are no more common than similar faults in the active proponents of nuclear power---and the proponents usually have more money with which to push their views. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 1981 12:08:00-EDT From: cjh at CCA-UNIX (Chip Hitchcock) To: space at mit-ai Subject: booze money Cc: pourne at mit-mc I am curious about any sources indicating that 5% of our GNP ($100 billion out of $2 trillion) is spent on booze. Possibly you mean that that much could be raised over a large number of years---but this is not at all clear from what you have said. In fact, I have seen claims that taxes amount to up to 80% of the retail price of liquor, and the last time I looked, BATF (the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) was not collecting any huge amount of revenue (my memory oscillates between $7 and $15 billion for everything put together). ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 1981 1315-EDT From: Gene Hastings Subject: Drawbacks of SPS, hazards of fission use To: space at MIT-MC Something which bothers me is the (apparent?) vulnerability of SPS. Isn't it far too easy for an unfriendly power (political or corporate) to knock it out? Would that mean that the stations would have to be hardened and equipped with anti-missiles? Suppose that such defenses are needed: what is the likelihood that they would be scrubbed because of oversight, ignorance, or political necessity (you are putting missiles on satellite? And you say it's ONLY for defense? Hah! Imperialist pig! etc.). A concern that I have not been able to answer is the not uncommon fear that although fission may be capable of being run safely, as long as there are ordinary people running it, it won't be. Consider the apparent attitude of many utilities that a fission plant is just another kind of boiler, and needs no more thought than those used in the past. (Yes it can be argued that because of ash and other hazards, not even the traditional boilers can be run as thoughtlessly.) I don't have a great deal of faith in the safety of such an operation unless everybody in it, from the everyday joes at the bottom, through the middle managers who used to be everyday joes, up to the movers and shakers are both educated in what is necessary, and motivated to do it. I don't see where either the education or motivation are coming from. Gene Hastings ------- ------------------------------ From: BRUC@MIT-ML Date: 10/13/81 13:44:38 Subject: Enigmatic letter from NASA and budget cuts BRUC@MIT-ML 10/13/81 13:44:38 Re: Enigmatic letter from NASA and budget cuts To: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC My wife and I sent a letter to President Reagan in support of NASA back in March. We received a reply from James W. McCulla, Chief, Public Services, Public Affairs Division, NASA dated October 1. The letter read as follows: Your letter to President Reagan has been referred to this office, and we are please to respond accordingly. Thanks for your combined effort supporting a strong, well-funded space program. Look for a decided move in the space funding picture during the next several months. They also enclosed a copy of Spinoff 81, a description of NASA spinoffs. It must have cost them a few dollars to print and send that to me. I presume the decided move is some new project ( Space Operations Center perhaps). I can't imagine they'd send a letter like that if the "decided move" is a 6% budget cut. The latest round of budget cuts were proposed before Oct. 1. Does anyone know what's \really/ going on? Bob Bruccoleri ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 1981 1516-CDT From: Jonathan Slocum Subject: subduing Mother Nature To: space at MIT-MC Until we're ready and able to create fusion materials ex nihilo, we can surely dispense with these useless arguments re: fusion vs. SPS from the philosophical standpoint of "taking" vs. "accepting". I see no principled difference between harvesting radiant energy and harvesting deuterium from the oceans: in either case, we're stuck with whatever Mother Nature has made available to us. In any case, arguments such as these will not have the slightest effect on whatever choice we (or anyone else) make. Barring any universally recognized moral issues (on a level with wholesale human sacrifice), the issue will be resolved on the usual engineering and cost-benefit basis, with an unfortunate amount of pure politicking thrown in to boot. And I really doubt we have enough data now to determine the better solution w.r.t. making energy available here on earth. As to using it in space, the answer is presumably more clear? (Of course, there is plenty of hydrogen available in the atmospheres of the gas giants and some of their moons...) ------- ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 1981 1443-PDT From: Paul Dietz Subject: Bigotry in Space To: space at MIT-MC What?! The japanese or the europeans or ...gasp.. all those people who speak SWAHILI might build bright, shiny SPS's before we do?! What a truly horrifying scenario! The next thing you know one of them will marry your daughter. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 14 October 1981 03:42-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: booze money To: cjh at CCA-UNIX cc: POURNE at MIT-MC, space at MIT-AI I have never said that 5% of GNP is spent on liquor. Why should I? Snce SPS requires something like $80 billion for the first one, and about $10 for each additional copy (assuming that it is done from the ground and not done the Criswell way with lunar base) then some $10 billion a year will do the job handily. I am absolutely certain that more than that is spent annually on liquor. Nor do I advocate prohibition and confiscation of money that might have been spent on liquor. If, however, the alternative is cutting liquor consumption in half or letting civilization collapse for want of pollution-free energy... ------------------------------ Date: 14 October 1981 03:51-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: space heat sinks To: KING at RUTGERS cc: SPACE at MIT-MC thrown powders including discussion of many technical problems can be found in the proceeedings of the third conference on radiation in space, published by the Ames research labs. The conclusion was that this is one method of getting rid of waste heat. There are said to be others. ------------------------------ Date: 14 October 1981 04:11-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: SPS Flamage To: Tavares.Multics at MIT-MULTICS cc: "TO:" at MIT-MC, SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC Sigh. Does NO ONE read anything before making up their minds? The standard SPS design uses power received on Earth and sent back up to the satellite as the source power for colimation of the micro-wave beam. (The beam is about twice the energy density of sunlight under the reference plan; certainly no more than four to six times it under ANY plan.) If the beam wanders, the power is no received; if not received it cannot be retransmitted; if not retransmitted, the colimator is unpowered; if no colimator, no beam, and the power is simply dispersed. Microwaves are not the only way to get pwoer to Earth. And for that matter, power in space is worth having even if none is ever sent to earth. ------------------------------ Date: 14 October 1981 04:30-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Budget cutting - yer message regarding same; an idea To: OAF at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, TAW at SU-AI If the voters and Congress don't want to invest in space... Rather than give up without a fight and all move to Japan... Maybe we can tell Exxon and ITT and Xerox some of the wonderful things possible in space, and how cheap the initial experiments can be, and they can pressure Congress to PERMIT these companies to finance the 4th and 5th shuttle-orbiter and then rent space to other (smaller) companies to whom we also tell these revelations. Congress will "benefit" because they can cut that part of the space budget and spend it elsewhere (Halley, Galileo, LEO) to get us all of their backs. Exxon et al will profit, if they also get Congress to PERMIT these other companies to develop and implement proprietary industrial processes using rented shuttle space. I'm not sure this will work. Just a sketch of an idea to bounce around and fill in the details. ------------------------------ Date: 14 October 1981 04:40-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: SPS continued To: CSVAX.tuttle at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I don't see how the volume of materials for an SPS is a capital investment. Capital means MONEY, not dirt. If we build a cheap device on the moon (say $1,000,000 for device and rocket to move it from LEO to moon) that automatically under remote control mines ton after ton of lunar dirt and throws it into space, an after a few years there's enough of it in space to build an SPS, where's the capital investment? Answer, except for the cost of the original moon-mining device, and the personnel salaries to remote-control it, there is no capital investment. Nuclear fusion, on the other hand, requires investments of billions of dollars. SPS just takes a teensy capital investment and a few years to give it time to do the mining and fabricating. ------------------------------ Date: 14 October 1981 04:54-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: SPS continued / solar-sail side-effect To: CSVAX.tuttle at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, minsky at MIT-AI, e.jeffc at UCB-C70 Your calculation of the change of momentum caused by solar sail effect in SPS ignores the fact that half the time the SPS is going toward the sun and half the time away so the net momentum over time is zero. Of course it perturbs it slightly into a funny shaped orbit and you have to compensate, but it certainly doesn't build up momentum monotonically over time. This effect can actually be used to benefit. Station the SPS over the North or South pole, instead of in geosync orbit, and somewhat "behind" the Earth with respect to the incoming light. If the SPS collector can be angled so that the light that isn't absorbed is mostly reflected down toward the dark side of the Earth, the delta-Vee of the sunlight can be directed toward the center of the Earth, an thus the reaction force pushing the SPS will be directly upward from Earth, so it just levitates there, doesn't have to orbit. This makes design of the SPS easier since it doesn't have to dynamically rotate its collector with respect to its microwave beam as the assembly moves around the Earth. ------------------------------ Date: 14 October 1981 05:32-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: SPS & Fusion To: DIETZ at USC-ECL cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, POURNE at MIT-MC, jpm at SU-AI Let me take this opportunity to quibble strongly on your claim that there are many ways to build a fusion reactor but only one way to harness solar energy in space (build an SPS as you say), and that somehow that means fusion is more cost-effective. First, who cares? It only takes one way. If all the fusion methods fail, and the one obvious SPS way works fine, then SPS is ahead of fusion. The count of methods that "might" work but don't is irrelevant. But actually you have it backwards. There are only two ways to make fusion work on Earth: 1: You confine some fusable fuel (protons and/or deuterons and/or trits) at high enough temperature and pressure for long enough time that a bunch of the particles fuse and release energy you can collect. (That's similar to the way the Sun, and tokamaks, do it.) 2: You introduce a shock wave in some material so that along the shock front particles are thrown together and fuse. (That's similar to the way stars form in spiral arms of galaxies and how gunpowder works.) Can you think of any other way? There are more ways to make an SPS: 1: You spread photo-voltaic cells across a large area and feed the electricity into a collector grid. 2: You spread reflectors across a large area, concentrate the light onto a small bunch of high-temperature photo-voltaic cells. 3: You reflect the light as in 2 but use it to boil some fluid and drive a heat engine (steam turbine etc.). 4: You spread a lot of small reflectors and teensy boilers cross a large area and feed the electricity into a collector grid. 5: You reflect the sunlight directly on some process, such as high-temperature materials refining or weather modification, instead of making electicity as an intermediary. 6: You use the momentum-transfer of sunlight to directly drive some motion device (like solar sails, but mounted on a rotary shaft as in those little toys that ran the wrong way when first invented), and then use the motion to direcly run industrial processes and/or drive a generator. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 15-Oct-81 0703 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #15 Date: 15 Oct 1981 0402-PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #15 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 15 Today's Topics: SPS vs. Fusion - A response to REM capital for SPS Re: booze money Budget cutting SPS and radiation pressure SPS continued "When the Sun goes, we all go"? Booze Budget ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Oct 1981 1158-PDT From: Paul Dietz Subject: SPS vs. Fusion - A response to REM To: space at MIT-MC REM misses the point when we says that there are many ways to build an SPS. What I was doing was this: look at the potential points of vulnerability in each concept. With solar sattelites, the big problem is not technical feasibility. The big problem is that any low cost SPS is going to require asteriodal or lunar material. We don't really know how hard it is to build a full scale lunar materials processing plant. We have no experience in extraterrestrial industry. We have never built a factory that works in zero g or in a vacuum. We have never built a factory that uses extraterrestrial materials. This is not to say that we shouldn't build such factories. What I am saying is that we have no idea how hard it is, or how much it will cost, or what the hidden snags are. I suspect that the only way to find out is to go up and do it. And this is very expensive. With fusion, the problem is not building the plants after we're sure they work. The problem is designing the plant in the first place. The problems in fusion designs tend not to be common to all designs. Many that are common have already been addressed in other types of power plants. And for those who argue that the japanese or the russians will develope SPS first: compare how much they are spending on fusion research to how much they're spending on SPS research. The japanese are spending large amounts of money on the tokamak idea. Their feeling is that they better get a new energy source on line damn quick, before the oil gets expensive. So, to reiterate, SPS's all share a common problem that may make them uneconomical, or, may make them require too much start-up capital. The whole SPS idea can be killed by a single bullet. Fusion does not share this problem. The problems that fusion does have seem much more amenable to quick technical solution. We will get SPS if and when we get lunar or asteroidal materials - not the other way around. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 14 Oct 1981 10:34:29-EDT From: cjh at CCA-UNIX (Chip Hitchcock) To: space at mit-mc Subject: capital for SPS Cc: rem at mit-mc $1 million to establish a Lunar catapult? Dream on!$ And if it just throws dirt, how will the dirt be sorted out into worthwhile metals? (That's probably safer to do on the moon than in zero-G; the latest I've heard, the "traveling bucket" design has been dropped, and capsules of refined material (with enough magnetic metal to respond to the electric catapult) are what would be flung.) ------------------------------ Date: 14 Oct 1981 10:01:07-EDT From: cjh at CCA-UNIX (Chip Hitchcock) To: POURNE at MIT-MC Subject: Re: booze money Cc: space at MIT-AI In response to your message of Wed Oct 14 03:46:08 1981: Any suggestions as to how we bell that particular cat? ------------------------------ Date: 14 Oct 1981 0959-PDT From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Budget cutting To: space at MIT-MC Several space advocacy groups, including the L-5 Society, are attempting to approach Congress with proposals designed to reduce government red tape involving spaceflight. The attitude of: ''Well, if you don't intend to go, at least don't make it so bloody hard for us to go.'' is a much more productive one than another popular outlook: ''You are all assholes for not going.'' The World Space Foundation has a proposal for an ''Earthport'', duty free spaceport and industrial park that is being designed with some of these problems in mind. What is really needed is some production-line engineering to bring down the cost of space travel. Jerry Pournelle mentioned recently that a standard Shuttle pressure suit costs 14 megabucks. Clearly a spacesuit is not as complex as the piece of a jet fighter that 14 megabucks will buy. A Shuttle has about the same number of parts as a 747. But a Shuttle is built by large numbers of highly trained craftsmen, each being a separate work unlike any other shuttle. A 747 is built on an assembly line, turned out by the dozens, and is reliable as hell (especially compared to a Shuttle). If humanity's move into space reaches its third generation, we can expect to see those ticket to LEO base get a lot cheaper. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Oct 1981 01:37:27-PDT From: E.jeffc at Berkeley To: v.space@Berkeley, u:minsky@mit-ai Subject: SPS and radiation pressure While plausable, I'm not wholly satisfied that the problem has been explained away. You were considering a two-body problem with the Earth and the SPS as the bodies. However, the Sun must also be taken into account, for the SPS is also in orbit about the Sun, and all of the momentum from radition pressure will be wholly directed to pushing the SPS away from the Sun. Unfortunately, I can't determine from thinking alone whether this revives the problem or not. What is needed is a computer simulation which will take all these factors into account. Does anybody know of one? or does someone know how to do such a simulation? I imagine that the moon would have to be taken into account also. Anyway, even if the SPS is not blown away from the Earth, it will still get knocked out of geosyncronous orbit, and I would hate to see a high power energy beam wandering about the countryside. ------------------------------ Date: 14 October 1981 03:59-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: SPS continued To: CSVAX.tuttle at UCB-C70 cc: "TO:" at MIT-MC, minsky at MIT-AI, CSVAX.space at UCB-C70, e.jeffc at UCB-C70 You have pleaded for the validity of philosophical arguments, and your prayer has been answered; but that doen't make bad philosophy valid. Nor does re-inventing the wheel. I can well believe you are "shocked" to discover that SPS might act as a solar sail, but I assure you others have thought of it as well; and long ago. As to the sheer volume of material, per kilowatt SPS takes up about 1% of the mass of a dam to deliver the same power. (Actually a 3-metere slice of the 1270 metere Grand Coulee Dam would if put up as an SPS deliver the same power, some 9 gigawatts.) If the sheer volume of material for SPS will bankrupt us then we are bankrupted; for the entire US power plant must be replaced over the next thirty years wqhether we have growth or not; power plants don't last a lot longer than thirty years. And SPS is the SMALLEST system that would do that job. It is expensive because the people to build it are expensive; but of course the money is not "spent in space", there being no one there to cash checks... ------------------------------ Date: 14 October 1981 18:48-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: "When the Sun goes, we all go"? To: CSVAX.upstill at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Forwarding info: From: CSVAX.upstill at Berkeley From menlo70!hao!woods Tue Oct 13 17:45:03 1981 To: menlo70!ucbvax!upstill GREG (ucbvax!menlo70!hao!woods) I certainly hope not!!! If this species has any desire to survive, and any intelligence, it won't carefully arrange that when the Sun dies we'll all kill ourselves. Within 100 years, unless we do something stupid like have a nuclear war or like declare it illegal to go into space, we'll have an awful lot of our population (more than a thousand, probably more than a million, possibly more than 1E9) living in space colonies. Within another 100 years we'll have colonies orbiting not just the Earth/Moon system but freely orbiting the Sun. We'll also have some probes out to other nearby stars such as Alpha Centauri, Epsilon Eridani, Tau Ceti, Barnards Star. Within 1000 years we'll have colonies living around some of these other stars. Within 10,000 years we'll have populated all the major stars in our local part of the galaxy. Within 100,000 years we will have filled the whole Milky Way galaxy, not stuffed full, more like the pioneers of North America have now "filled" the whole continent, "from sea to shining sea", plenty of living space, just no major areas remaining that are untouched by man. Within 10,000,000 years (less if we can exceed 0.1 c) we'll have populated the Andromeda galaxy (M31) too. Within 500,000,000 years we'll have accomplished my goal of conquering the "final frontier", the whole Virgo supercluster of galaxies. Then in about 5,000,000,000 years, when the Sun burns itself out, the people living on Earth and in colonies around the Sun will have to move to some other star or perish. (Those who colonized faster-burning stars like Sirius will have to move much much sooner. I'd worry about them not the people of Earth/Sol.) ------------------------------ From: MINSKY@MIT-AI Date: 10/15/81 00:15:12 Subject: Booze Budget MINSKY@MIT-AI 10/15/81 00:15:12 Re: Booze Budget To: SPACE at MIT-AI Of course, if one were to consider the cost of booze, in illness and automobile accident and injury -- the latter might come to the order of 50,000 deaths and crippling injuries which at a cost of, say, 500,000 each -- adds a few real, non-taxable costs. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 21-Oct-81 2154 OTA Forwarded: SPACE Digest V2 #16 Date: 20 Oct 1981 0403-PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #16 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 16 Today's Topics: Administrivia SPS vs. Fusion - A response to REM / counterresponse Selling SPS as a weapon SPS as weapon Radiation pressure and and how it applies to SPS Addendum to my previous message about radiation pressure Drawbacks of SPS, hazards of fission use Begg talk at Hahvahd ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Oct 1981 2255-PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: Administrivia To: space at MIT-MC The distribution of the SPACE Digest has changed venue. It is now being run from site "S1-A". The only change you should notice is that this system does not allow anonymous FTP so send mail to SPACE-REQUEST@MC to request back issues or whatever. -Ted Anderson P.S. Naturally, if I elect to take a vacation for a few days, you can count on the space digest automatic distribution system screwing up as soon as I leave. So tonight we have four days submissions for the price of one. -ota ------------------------------ Date: 16 October 1981 10:31-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: SPS vs. Fusion - A response to REM / counterresponse To: DIETZ at USC-ECL cc: SPACE at MIT-MC One quibble. As far as we know there's no single "bullet" that can kill fusion. But there just might be, we don't know. Maybe like the second law of thermodynamics (negentropy can't be increased), there's another basic law of physics that says you can't confine fusable fuel long enough to make it fuse continuously unless you use a gravitational well to do it. If so, the only way to use fusion energy is to explode bombs (unless you have a black hole or a star handy). -- This is just idle speculation. Don't take it too seriously. Otherwise: you have some good points. My answer, let's hurry and get funding to start space industry. The sooner we get started, the sooner we'll know what is practical and what isn't. However, I quibble a little with your problems. You don't need to have the factory run in a vacuum. If necessary, you can run most of it inside a chamber containing a nitrogen atmosphere. Gravity can be simulated by rotation. I also have confidence that moon materials can be electrolyzed into individual elements if necessary, at which point you have the same elements to be found on Earth and thus no new problems not already encountered here. Does anybody know if anybody has actually tried processing some of those moonrocks brought back by Apollo? Or are they so valuable nobody wants to damage them? ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 1981 1530-CDT From: Jon Webb Subject: Selling SPS as a weapon To: space at MIT-MC cc: cs.webb at UTEXAS-20 (I sent a couple related messages on this subject to ARMS-D) Who's got the bucks? Well, it sure ain't the Department of Energy or NASA, who might build SPS as a energy or space system. And the energy industry here has way too many sure things they can do will all their money to build a risky, expensive thing like SPS. So we need a new source of funding for SPS. What does the US need? Energy? You've got to be crazy. When was the last time we had a gasoline crisis? It's been years. And there is very little support for the space effort nowadays. What the US needs is POWER. Not energy, but political power. SPS provides a unique source of that power. With a concentrated SPS beam (say, 4-6 times regular sunlight) we can destroy crops. We can evaporate rain clouds. In short, we can really screw up a third-world country we don't like. For example, suppose we wanted to punish Khadaffy for his recent inflammatory statements. Zappo! And a lot of heat can mess up an industrialized country, too, but consider what a microwave beam could do. Microwaves are suspected of causing bad things like cancer, cataracts, and heart attacks at extremely low densities. There would be all kinds of nasty uses for a powerful microwave beam that could be projected from orbit. Finally, SPS (as a weapon) provides a literally visibly symbol of US power. You could see it at night. It would be up there, over our heads. Think of a huge hand, holding a magnifying glass 22,400 miles above our heads. On the wrist is tattooed "U.S.A." And think of the command-and-control you can do from there. I can think of no better place for a general (or even, maybe, for our president) than in orbit. Plus, in peacetime, the thing can be used as an energy source. Jon ------------------------------ Date: 16 October 1981 22:08-EDT From: Gene Salamin Subject: SPS as weapon To: SPACE at MIT-MC Well, if an SPS is constructed with the intent of maybe using it as a weapon, then it will be designed so its phased array transmitter does not require a pilot beam when in weapon mode. ------------------------------ From: FONER@MIT-AI Date: 10/16/81 23:16:07 Subject: Radiation pressure and and how it applies to SPS FONER@MIT-AI 10/16/81 23:16:07 Re: Radiation pressure and and how it applies to SPS To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC This is a subject that was covered in some depth about a year ago on this very list. While I do not remember exact figures, and do not want to go through the required calculations to find out again, they exist in archives somewhere. The basic ideas are as follows: you get a particular amount of radiation pressure from the sun. This is not much... maybe a thrust of a few (500?) newtons (this is the same force as applied to about a 50 kilogram weight in 1 G for nonphysics fans). Not much. (Note I assume a "typical" collector area of some tens of kilometers squared.) You also get thrust from the beam pressure as well. An initial calculation showed this to be on the order of maybe 5000 newtons, but that was later changed to about 20 newtons (40?). Something like that. Very little thrust, and very easy to compensate for. Could someone with more time and a higher-speed connection to MC see if he or she can find the relevant letters in the archives? I'm pretty sure they were just about a year ago. Have fun. ------------------------------ From: FONER@MIT-AI Date: 10/16/81 23:18:04 Subject: Addendum to my previous message about radiation pressure FONER@MIT-AI 10/16/81 23:18:04 Re: Addendum to my previous message about radiation pressure To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC It occurs to me that the subject may also have been germane to the Energy@MIT-MC list. It's quite possible that I'm confused, and that the old messages on SPS radiation pressure were sent to that list and not this one. Anybody wanna search that archive, too? Ciao. ------------------------------ Date: 19 October 1981 01:48-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Drawbacks of SPS, hazards of fission use To: HASTINGS at CMU-20C cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Re vulnerabilities: are supertankers safe from enemy action? Even anonymous enemy action? Surely it is easier to knowck ouot an oil field or the Alaska pipeline than to knock out an SPS. But yes, they are somewhat vulnerable. Re fission and operators, I'm willing to give up fission if we can have space power systems; what will happen, though, is that SPS is now opposed in the name of fusion; but when fusion will actually work and put kw into the system, they'll have lots of reasons why it shouldn't be used either. The anti-Amerika Krowd isn't so much opposed to any particular technology unless it would WORK... ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 1981 2220-EDT From: J. Noel Chiappa Subject: Begg talk at Hahvahd To: space at MIT-MC cc: JNC at MIT-XX, mph at MIT-XX, ludwig at MIT-XX, wayne at MIT-XX I just got back from a talk that he gave at Hahvahd to the Astro society there. My general impression of the man is that he is not a 'politician', honest to a fault, seriously interested and committed to space, and enough of a realist to deal with running a major government agency. In short, I am impressed. His talk was not too interesting, but the questions/answers afterward were a gold mine. The only interesting thing in his talk was that he gave prominent mention to the LEO station as a major goal after SpaceTel, Galileo and VOIR. He was also interested in remote operated moon mining stuff in the medium (10 year) range. Sounds familiar! As to the questions: he made a strong commitment to keeping the Deep Space network running, and to continuing with the Voyager on to Uranus and Neptune. He feels that there is growing commitment to space among the general population and in Washington as its role as a technological ground breaker is appreciated more (there was an undertone of competitive nationalism against Japan/Europe in this). He feels that the big policy statement from the OSTP will be a long time coming and not be very forceful when it does. His most important operational commitments is getting the shuttle operational and economic (he had two less important ones, the second of which was laying long-range plans, but the other has faded from memory - it might have been keeping appropriations from further cuts). He is encouraging to commercial commitments, and hopes to see them grow. He is very interested in getting new starts out of Congress in the two year time frame. He thinks that NASA has not been hit much harder than other agencies, and in fact thinks it has come out fairly well. He made the point that the budget has been dropping continuously for many years, and the relative importance of space science within the NASA budget has stayed constant, but that the overall cuts have affected it. He feels that the Europeans, although very mad over Solar/Polar, are still very interested in continued cooperation. That's all I can dredge out of my (and several others') memories. He seemed quite optimistic, and I guess I do too, after hearing him. Noel ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 21-Oct-81 2154 OTA Forwarded: SPACE Digest V2 #17 Date: 21 Oct 1981 0402-PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #17 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 17 Today's Topics: Carbonless plastics Peaceful Uses of Rocks Cosmos Radiation pressure SPS vs. Fusion - A response to REM / counterresponse Begg talk at Hahvahd ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Oct 1981 1124-PDT Sender: BILLW at SRI-KL Subject: Carbonless plastics From: William "Chops" Westfield To: space at MC Cc: billw Message-ID: <[SRI-KL]20-Oct-81 11:24:02.BILLW> Aren't the silicones all carbonless ? (basically polymerized sand, I think...) Furthermore dont silicones offer all sorts of advantages over most other plastics in harsh envirenments ? (Things like ability to withstand high temperature extremes, lack of vloitile to boil off, and so on ?) Bill W ------------------------------ Date: 20 Oct 1981 1409-PDT From: Paul Dietz Subject: Peaceful Uses of Rocks To: space at MIT-MC cc: ota at S1-A, jef at LBL-UNIX There has been a discussion on ARMS-D about the military potential of the SPS. It was pointed out that if you can build an SPS you can also drop large masses onto your enemy. Dropped from infinity, 1 ton of rock = 60 tons of TNT, so a 4 meter spherical asteroid yields 60 KT (thanks to OTA for these figures). There have been proposals for using nuclear explosives for peaceful purposes (digging canals and such). These efforts were scuttled by the test ban treaty. Using asteroids we can get around the problem of radioactive fallout, not to mention the savings in fissile material. This illustrates that there is an additional energy source in space: gravitational potential energy. Is there an easy controlled way of extracting this energy? ------- ------------------------------ Date: 20 Oct 1981 16:51:11-PDT From: vax135!hocsb!dcs at Berkeley FROM: d.c.smith TO: vax135!ucbvax!space@Berkeley DATE: 10/20/81, 12:38 PM SUBJECT: Cosmos Can anyone tell me if Carl Sagan's series "Cosmos" can be purchased on videotape? ------------------------------ Date: 20 October 1981 22:58-EDT From: Gene Salamin Subject: Radiation pressure To: SPACE at MIT-MC For a beam of light, the radiation pressure P (in Newtons/meter^2) is given by U/c, where U is the intensity (in Watts/meter^2) and c = 3.0e8 meters/second is the speed of light. Taking the intensity as 1 kW/m^2, the pressure is 3.3e-6 N/m^2. This ignores the pressure of solar wind. The radiation beamed down by an SPS produces a recoil, but since only 10% or so of the incident solar energy gets into the beam, the recoil force is only 10% of the incident force. ------------------------------ Date: 21 October 1981 03:53-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: SPS vs. Fusion - A response to REM / counterresponse To: REM at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, DIETZ at USC-ECL MOONROCKS CAN BE SIMULATED TO ANY DEGREE OF SIMILARITY YOU WANT, AND IN VERY LARGE QUANTITIES; PROCESSING HAS BEEN DONE ON SIMULACRA ------------------------------ Date: 21 October 1981 04:04-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Begg talk at Hahvahd To: JNC at MIT-XX cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, mph at MIT-XX, ludwig at MIT-XX, wayne at MIT-XX I TTO AM and have been impressed with Beggs, and with his Deputy Hans Mark. When Beggs made his first public appearance as Administrator at an AIAA convention, I overheard someone in the audience say "Jeez, we got a philosopher for an administrator..." As to public acceptance of space, it's mostly that they are finally becoming AWARE of public activities and public interest; washington doesn't listen to the nation, but it does read its mail. The L-5 campaigns have been very effective. Note also that in a few short years the idea of lunar mines in this century hs become an acceptable goal. Please excuse the horrid typing. I get NO feedback on this loop in the net; the lines are very flakey, and will be for a while until I can get a new 1200 baud system and operate on a different TIP. Thanks for puttin up with the noise. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 23-Oct-81 0403 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #18 Date: 23 Oct 1981 0402-PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #18 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 18 Today's Topics: Administrivia carbonless plastics Deviousness for deviousness' sake ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Oct 1981 1633-PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: Administrivia To: space at MIT-MC For reasons far too twisted to describe here, some of you saw the first message of this digest in yesterdays digest. Todays digest has the same issue number as yesterday's abortive one did. That is because only a few people got yesterdays digest and its contents are been reproduced here for completeness. Basically yesterday shouldn't have happened. Ted Anderson ------------------------------ From: CARLF@MIT-AI Date: 10/21/81 11:49:46 Subject: carbonless plastics CARLF@MIT-AI 10/21/81 11:49:46 Re: carbonless plastics To: SPACE at MIT-MC The polymerized sand you ask about is glass. The silicones consist of a backbone of alternating Si and O, with two hydrocarbon side groups coming off of each Si. CH3 is a typical side group. They can indeed stand high temperatures, up to several hundred degrees centigrade. Silicones can indeed be made with a very low fraction of volatile component; grease used in vacuum systems is silicone. Silicone is also reasonably invulnerable to ultraviolet. The problem with it is that it isn't very strong stuff. I've never heard of anything more solid than rubber being made from silicone. What prompts you to this query about carbonless plastics? If you really want to know, I can tell you quite a bit. -- Carl ------------------------------ Date: 22 Oct 1981 1539-EDT From: J. Noel Chiappa Subject: Deviousness for deviousness' sake To: space at MIT-MC cc: JNC at MIT-XX Perhaps my mind has fallen into the affliction noted above, but I had an interesting thought. In agencies that the current administration doesn't like (e.g. EPA and the Justice Dept anti-trust people) they have appointed people who are whole-heartedly dismantling the agencies' programs. Perhaps the fact that they have appointed someone as forceful as Beggs indicates closet sympathies for NASA? Maybe we can look to increased support in the future. Noel ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 24-Oct-81 0404 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #19 Date: 24 Oct 1981 0402-PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #19 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 19 Today's Topics: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Oct 1981 1321-PDT From: Stuart McLure Cracraft To: space at MIT-MC !a081 0758 23 Oct 81 BC-The Space Age I, Adv 28,990 $Adv 28 For Release Wed Oct 28 and thereafter For use in connection with the space shuttle Space Age I: Space Spinoffs. By HOWARD BENEDICT AP Aerospace Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The nation's space age is nearly a quarter century - and $125 billion - old. What return has there been from that investment? Plenty. From its breathtaking beginning, space technology quickly mushroomed from a Cold War prestige contest into an ever-growing multi-billion-dollar market for hardware and services. It has spurred several new industries, and, in the process, hundreds of thousands of jobs and skilled people. The technology of Apollo and other programs - computers, electronics, metals - has found its way into medicine, communications, transportation, industrial processes, public safety, construction, home appliances, recreation and food products. Americans, 73 of them, have logged a total of more than 2 1/2 years in space, and they have walked on the moon. Unmanned marvels have landed on Mars, penetrated the clouds of Venus, dashed through the rings of Saturn and are probing the outer reaches of the solar system. Military strategies have changed dramatically, and there has been vast enrichment of scientific knowledge. Space exploration has revolutionized many things, ''but it has not, so far, revolutionized our lives,'' says Alex Roland, a historian with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ''To date, the space age has had a less profound impact than the atomic age that preceded it,'' he said. ''If tomorrow a green elephant steps in front of the Viking lander on Mars, or if orbiting solar installations take up some of the energy burden of the 21st century, then perhaps the present era may one day be viewed as revolutionary.'' Nevertheless, Roland said, the legacy from space has been substantial, and in the last decade the benefits have showered down on almost every nation. Space spinoffs are too numerous to list here, but the story of Echo is a good example of how this research filters into the commercial world. Echo was America's first experimental communications satellite, a large balloon, 100 feet in diameter. In developing Echo, NASA needed a special material for the balloon's skin. It had to be highly reflective to ''bounce'' radio signals and it had to be lightweight and extremely thin so it could be folded into a beachball-sized container for delivery to orbit, where it would automatically inflate. The material selected was mylar polyester coated with a reflective layer of thin aluminum particles so fine that Echo's skin had a thickness about half that of the cellophane on a cigarette package. This process of coating the polyester with a super-fine mist of vacuum-vaporized aluminum was called metallization - and Echo became the catalyst that transformed a small-scale operation into a flourishing industry. Echo's requirements triggered extensive research and development of metallization techniques for many space uses, mostly to insulate spacecraft, manned and unmanned, from heat and radiation. The research resulted in a still-growing line of commercial metallized products - insulated outdoor garments, packaging materials for frozen foods, wall coverings, aircraft covers, bedwarmers, window shades, labels, candy wrappers, reflective blankets and photographic reflectors. Of all the promises of the early space era, the communications satellite is the most fully realized. In 1963, private stockholders and companies like AT&T, ITT and GTE joined to form Comsat, the Communications Satellite Corporation. A year later, Intelsat, the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization, was created, with Comsat as a major partner. Intelsat has grown from 19 to 106 member nations, with more than 200 ground stations around d3 e. Private firms and foreign governments also have commissioned launches of their own communications satellites, which are drawing the world closer together. Telephones and television sets are sprouting where they've never been seen before - from the Arctic Circle to remote jungle islands. Hundreds of millions of people can simultaneously watch live a single event, such as the Olympics, a royal wedding or men walking on the moon. Innovative companies are merging computer and satellite technologies to transmit financial, medical and other data across continents and oceans in seconds, significantly altering the way the world does business. For about $15,000 anyone can purchase the equipment needed to receive pictures and data from a fleet of U.S. weather satellites - and more than 800 users spread over every nation have made the investment. While the goal of accurate two-week weather forecasts is still years away, these orbiting weather eyes have greatly improved short-range predictions and they have saved countless lives by warning of approaching hurricanes and other storms and of flood threats from rains and melting snow. The next likely candidates for commerical operation are America's Earth resources satellites, whose sensors and pictures are used as an aid to oil and mineral exploration, crop forecasting, forest inventories, and choosing where to build new factories to avoid geologic faults. They guide boats to good fishing, environmentalists to pollution sources and prospectors to uranium deposits. NASA sells the pictures to anyone who wants them at a nominal price, and $6 million worth were sold to non-government users last year, with the biggest customers being mineral and petroleum companies. The images, for example, are presently being used by U.S. companies searching for oil in China. The government and Congress are looking into how to transfer this technology into the private sector. Medicine also has benefitted greatly from space technology. Pacemakers and other implantable heart aids are spinoffs from miniaturized space circuitry. So are fast, accurate diagnostic machines for many diseases. Because of small sensors developed to monitor astronauts' physical condition in space, a single nurse seated at a console can remotely check the conditions of several hospital patients simultaneously. And an emergency ward can get vital information such as pulse and heart rate from a hospital-bound ambulance because of space-developed monitoring equipment squeezed into a kit the size of a briefcase. Miniaturized space electronics also produced digital watches and pocket calculators and made the United States the world leader in computers. End Adv ap-ny-10-23 1054EST ********** !a082 0807 23 Oct 81 BC-The Space Age II, Adv 28,460 $Adv 28 For Release Wed Oct 28 and thereafter For use in connection with the space shuttle Space Age II: Updating the History of the Universe With Laserphotos By HOWARD BENEDICT AP Aerospace Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Dr. James A. Van Allen was on a Navy icebreaker bound for Antarctica to study cosmic rays when Russia launched Sputnik 1 in 1957. He received a cable urging him to hurry home to prepare instruments for an American orbital attempt. He could not return immmediately, but wired instructions on how to hook up a cosmic ray geiger counter he had devised. On Jan. 31, 1958, America's first artificial satellite, Explorer 1, rocketed into orbit. Van Allen, a State University of Iowa physicist, was astounded by the first data radioed to Earth: a record of high radiation counts alternating with periods of long silence. He got the same results from Explorer 3, launched three months later. He concluded the geiger counters were not broken, nor were they silent for lack of radiation. At times, they simply were being bombarded with such high doses they could not register it. Surrounding the Earth, Van Allen announced, is a huge band of high-energy radiation composed of particles trapped in our planet's magnetic field. This Van Allen Belt stretched from about 400 to more than 40,000 miles into space, extending the boundary of the atmosphere influencing Earth. The discovery stunned the scientific world, which generally believed the Earth's upper air merged into the density of interplanetary gas at an altitude of about 600 miles. The findings also created a revolution in the space sciences by demonstrating the ability of satellites to gather information from above the distorting influence of the lower levels of the atmosphere. For centuries, telescopes were the main data-collecting tools on the universe. But they were limited because of the atmospheric blanket which makes viewing space akin to looking at a fish through 35 feet of water. Scientists began devising ever-more-sophisticated instruments, and investigations by hundreds of satellites have drawn this basic picture on interplanetary space between the Earth and its sun: Great flare eruptions on the seething surface of the sun send huge tongues of radiation, the solar wind, streaming through space at speeds of more than 1 million miles an hour. The Earth's magnetic field acts like a protective umbrella, trapping the radiation particles and forming the Van Allen belt. Without this protection, life as we know it on Earth could not survive. During periods of heavy flare activity on the sun, great amounts of radiation are dumped into the Van Allen belt, causing magnetic storms, disturbing radio communications and influencing weather. Particles flowing through magnetic field openings at the North and South Poles cause auroral displays like the fabled Northern Lights. End Adv ap-ny-10-23 1103EST ********** !a088 0841 23 Oct 81 BC-The Space Age IV, Adv 28,930 $Adv 28 For Release Wed Oct 28 and thereafter For use in connection with the space shuttle Space Age IV: The Military, Seizing the High Ground By HOWARD BENEDICT AP Aerospace Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - American space reconnaissance photos are already so good that they can tell whether a soldier has shaved - from more than 100 miles up. That's today. What about the future? Laser battle stations armed with ''death rays' and protected by dart-like spaceships. Orbiting command posts directing ground, sea and air forces. Killer satellites stalking the skies. The United States and the Soviet Union have these capabilities under way or on the drawing boards. Should an all-out arms race occur in this decade, these space-age military concepts could transform global military strategies. The reflyable space shuttle gives the United States an edge - for now. The Soviets - with nothing similar - have denounced the shuttle as a weapon system in disguise, claiming its sole purpose is to help America dominate the Earth. They don't mention that the Soviet Union itself possesses the only operational space weapon system - a satellite killer capable of blowing U.S. payloads out of the sky. Pentagon officials say that in the last decade the Soviets have invested about twice as much money as the United State in military research and development, creating a growing risk of technological surprise. American observers say that that 75 percent of the more than 100 satellites the Soviets launch each year have military assignments and that their active Salyut space station project is aimed primarily at perfecting a manned military capability in orbit. The military will fly nearly 100 shuttle missions in the next decade. But the Pentagon says these so-called ''blue shuttle'' missions are defensive in nature, using man to more efficiently and cheaply do the jobs now being done by expendable rockets - principally placing military payloads in orbit, with the added dimension of being able to service them periodically. More ap-ny-10-23 1138EST ********** !a090 0859 23 Oct 81 BC-The Space Age IV, Adv 28, 1st Add, a088,620 WASHINGTON: them periodically. On the more exotic and ominous side, the shuttle within a few years will be a testbed for laser beam weapons that could, if perfected, attack hostile satellites and destroy enemy missiles as they rise above the atmosphere. And shuttles could ferry up men and equipment for the construction of those battle stations if they become necessary. From the very beginning of the space age, the military leaders of the United States and the Soviet Unoin saw the benefits of using this new ''high ground.'' The first military satellite was America's Discoverer 1, launched in 1959, to take photographs and return the film to Earth in a capsule that was snared over the Pacific by an Air Force plane. Technology has taken great strides since then, and now the security of both nations is increasingly dependent upon orbiting satellites. U.S. and Soviet payloads dispatch military messages around the world; send navigation signals to ships, planes, submarines and troops in the field; are alert to warn instantly of a missile attack, and spy on each other and other nations with high-resolution cameras. U.S. space cameras for months have taken special notice of Soviet troop movements in and around Afghanistan and Poland. President Johnson once said that the reconnaissance photos were worth many times the entire U.S. investment in all space technology. And last year, President Carter said: ''Photo reconnaissance satellites have become an important stabilizing factor in world affairs in the monitoring of arms agreements.'' There is growing concern at the Pentagon because the Soviets have introduced a new destabilizing element with their development of a killer satellite: a satellite that can track down its orbiting target, maneuver near it, and explode, destroying both. Pentagon observers say the hunter satellite is capable of striking targets out to 600 miles, which makes America's navigation and reconnaissance satellites vulnerable. Communications and missile-warning satellites are stationed 22,300 miles up, but within a few years they too may come within range of advanced killers or laser beams. The United States has sought for more than two years to negotiate a ban on killer satellites, but talks with the Soviets have been unsuccessful. So, the Defense Department is developing its own satellite destroyer, to be operational in about two years. Defense planners also are considering several methods for protecting military payloads from ambush. Included are satellites hardened against radiation damage, and others that could evade an attacker, eject decoys to confuse it, or fire a laser blast at it. They believe the Soviets have an edge in laser weaponry, and some experts estimate that the Soviet Union could orbit a system of small laser battle stations by 1986 - three to four years before the United States would have that capability. A laser beam weapon would generate a ray that travels in a straight, intense, single wave path. It could, at high power, cut through thick steel. Several shuttle flights are earmarked to prove out laser weapon technology. Another, more potent, space weapon being researched by both nations is the charged-particle beam, believed to be several years away. In such a beam, streams of highly-concentrated, high-velociy sub-atomic particles would strike with such enormous energy that they would burn or melt their targets. The shuttle will carry its first military payloads next year, and by 1985 the Air Force plans to make heavy use of at least two of the five shuttles. The military is building its own shuttle launch base at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., and a secure control center at Peterson Air Force Base, Colo. Until these are ready, the ''blue shuttles'' will take off from the space agency's facility at Cape Canaveral, Fla. End Adv for Release Wed Oct 28 and thereafter ap-ny-10-23 1155EST ********** ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 28-Oct-81 0403 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #20 Date: 28 Oct 1981 0402-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #20 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 20 Today's Topics: ICs and the space program ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Oct 1981 11:46:39-PST From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin To: decvax!duke!unc!space@Berkeley Subject: ICs and the space program I have often seen the claim that today's VLSI chips can be directly linked to the space program's need for miniaturization. Is this true? Can anyone on this list name specific developments, products, etc., that would establish this link? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 29-Oct-81 0403 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #21 Date: 29 Oct 1981 0402-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #21 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 21 Today's Topics: Re: IC's and the space program Re: SPACE Digest V2 #20 ERRATA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Oct 1981 11:13:56-EST From: cjh at CCA-UNIX (Chip Hitchcock) To: space at mit-mc Subject: Re: IC's and the space program Certainly there was a greater need for miniaturization in our space program, since there was less time and money available to develop the grossly powerful boosters the Russians were using (it's something of a truism that in the "space race" the Russians went for brute power while we went for compactness). Consider that the first Russian satellite weighed something over 100 pounds while the first American satellites were in the 5-10 pound class but certainly did more than 5-10% as much work. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Oct 1981 1205-PST From: Terry C. Savage Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #20 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: TCS at USC-ECL In-Reply-To: Your message of 28-Oct-81 0402-PST VLSI TECHNOLOGY HAS BEEN ENCOURAGED IN A GENERAL WAY BY THE SPACE PROGRAM, BUT THE LINKAGE IS NOT REALLY DIRECT. THE MAIN MOTIVATION FOR THE IMPROVEMENT IN SEMICONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGY HAS BEEN FOR EARTH BASED COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS, SUCH AS LARGE, FAST COMPUTERS. SEMICONDUCTOR PROCESSING IS VERY CAPITAL INTENSIVE, AND THE SMALL VOLUME ENTAILED IN MOST SPACE APPLICATIONS IS INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE CAPITAL EXPENSE. THE CURRENT PUSH FOR EXPANDING SEMICONDUCTOR CAPABILITIES COMES PRIMARILY FROM THE MILITARY'S VHSIC PROGRAM, WHICH WILL HAVE SPACE APPLICATIONS BUT IS NOT DRIVEN BY SPACE. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Oct 1981 2221-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: ERRATA To: space at MIT-MC I was called to my attention (by only one person) that my figures for dropping rocks on the earth were in error. In particular they were high by a factor of 4.18 (the number of joules in a calorie). I forgot that a tonne of HE is a billion calories not a billion Joules. The calculation is straight forward: The potential well of the earth is about 11 km/s. Thus the kinetic energy is .5*11000^2 Joules/Kg = 6e7; a tonne is 1000 kg so we have, 6e10 J/Tonne; now divide by 4e9 J/Tonne for HE and we get: 15 Tonnes of energy per tonne of mass. Sorry to foul it up in the first place. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 30-Oct-81 0402 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #22 Date: 30 Oct 1981 0402-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #22 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 22 Today's Topics: Editorial in Science of October 30. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Oct 1981 1239-EST From: MPH at MIT-XX Subject: Editorial in Science of October 30. To: space at mc There is an interesting (and in this group, controversial) editorial in the October 30 issue of Science. The gist of the editorial is that NASA should cease devoting so much of its limited resources to Shuttle development, and spend more on scientific projects, such as planetary exploration. The author draws an analogy between the Shuttle and the Concorde, both of which are characterized as technically feasible, but economically "20 to 50 years" ahead of their times. ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 31-Oct-81 0402 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #23 Date: 31 Oct 1981 0402-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #23 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 23 Today's Topics: Who has a Space archive? OCT 30 SCIENCE EDITORIAL ICs and the space program Editorial in Science of October 30. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 October 1981 12:49 est From: Tavares.Multics at MIT-Multics Subject: Who has a Space archive? To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Message of 29 October 1981 07:02 est from Ted Anderson Does anyone on MIT-Multics keep an archive of space mail? If not, is there a publicly-accessible archive elsewhere? I've been keeping an archive, but I'm sure it would be more cost-effective just to learn where to find someone else's. [Actually, people have asked this sort of question before. I am not aware of a single copy of the SPACE archive other than the one I maintain here. If there are others I would appreciate hearing about it so that I could maintain a list of hosts where archives are kept. Thanks, Ted Anderson] ------------------------------ Date: 30 Oct 1981 1241-PST From: Terry C. Savage Subject: OCT 30 SCIENCE EDITORIAL To: SPACE at MIT-MC cc: tcs at USC-ECL, KATZ at USC-ISIF, PAINE at USC-ECL IN THEORY IT MIGHT BE NICE TO SEPERATE THE SPACE PROGRAM INTO COMMERCIAL, MILITARY, AND SCIENCE/RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS, BUT THE BIG LOSER IN THAT KIND OF SETUP WOULD BE THE SCIENCE. EVEN THOUGH I (AND PROBABLY MOST PEOPLE ON THIS LIST) FEEL THERE IS SOME VALUE TO THE PLANETARY PROGRAM, IT PROBABLY COULDN'T STAND ON IT'S OWN IN THE BATTLE FOR FUNDS. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Oct 1981 14:35:19-PST From: A.exp at Berkeley This editorial about restricting NASA Shuttle use is poorly reasoned. Historically, the time of maximum manned activity in space has been the same time during which the scientific exploration of space has had its most new starts. The funding mechanism works this way, and there is no hope of changing it. Specifically on the Shuttle, the military is using 50% of its capacity, and if NASA drops out of this program it would be 100%, with the result that NASA lost the achievement of a decade of work. This argument is at least 15 years old, and usually given when impending cutbacks force professional space scientists to begin looking sideways for more funding instead of directly addressing the source of their funds. The indirect result is that a pipeline which has been threatened by constriction actually gets constricted. (An argument based on if we don't hang together we'll hang separately.) Besides, we aren't just hauling businessmen on 3 hour trips. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Oct 1981 12:02:52-PST From: decvax!duke!unc!POURNE@MIT-MC at Berkeley Via: duke!decvax!ucbvax Date: 29 October 1981 03:07-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: ICs and the space program To: decvax!duke!unc!smb at UCB-C70 cc: decvax!duke!unc!space at UCB-C70 try sabre ------------------------------ Date: 31 October 1981 05:28-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Editorial in Science of October 30. To: MPH at MIT-XX cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I haven't read the editorial, but I generally agree with your summary, NASA should go ahead with the first 2 or 3 shuttles, but let industry pay for the other 2 or 3 if industry really wants to use them. NASA should spend its money, beyond the first 2 or 3, on more urgent things like LEO, Lunar-Polar, Asteroid, lunar-telepresence, mass-driver, ... and more scientifically-interesting things like Galileo and a Saturn/Dione/Titan orbiter/radar ... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 01-Nov-81 1604 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #24 Date: 01 Nov 1981 0403-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #24 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 24 Today's Topics: Dial-a-Shuttle ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 31 Oct 1981 17:00:09-PST From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin To: decvax!duke!unc!space@Berkeley Subject: Dial-a-Shuttle Anyone have the number for it? [Yeah, its 213-922-4636 -ota] ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 02-Nov-81 0403 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #25 Date: 02 Nov 1981 0403-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #25 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 25 Today's Topics: Missing digest. shuttle ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Nov 1981 2139-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: Missing digest. To: space at MIT-MC Due to hardware problems the digest of the day before yesterday, issue #23 was not sent correctly. Some people received it twice, some not at all, perhaps a few people got it exactly once. I you didn't receive the digest #23, dated Oct 31, let me know and I will forward you a copy. -Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 1 Nov 1981 2139-PST From: Stuart McLure Cracraft Subject: shuttle To: space at MIT-MC !n105 2035 01 Nov 81 BC-FLIGHT-2takes-11-02 By Russ Robinson (c) 1981 The Baltimore Sun (Field News Service) KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Fla. - It will take 607 people to launch the Space Shuttle on its second flight Wednesday, but within 10 years, NASA hopes to reduce that number to three people. Only when the shuttle program can operate like a modern day airline will it be economically feasible and open up space to the average man, officials say. Once space flight is routine, NASA planners forsee hotels in space, orbiting cities where workers will manufacture goods that can only be produced in a weightless environment, giant power plants that convert unfiltered sunlight into electricity and ultimately, mining on the moon. By the 1990s, NASA hopes to be making a minimum of 40 flights a year. To do that, the shuttle will have to pay for itself, said Andrew Pickett, manager of advanced planning and technology at the space center. ''NASA has toyed with the idea of turning the shuttle over to a private corporation which would operate it in a quasi-commericial manner, much like an airline,'' Pickett said. Several aerospace firms are interested enough in the idea to conduct feasibility studies on it, he said. If the shuttle does develop into a space age airline, it could open space up to the ''average'' man, Pickett said. Although he refused to name it, Pickett said that currently a major hotel firm is examining plans for vacations in space. NASA has had a private consultant look into the idea and a report issued by the space agency indicates that a 100-room ''space hotel'' could be feasible bythe year 2000. The consultant estimated that a round trip aboard the shuttle and a few days in the hotel would cost about $5,000 in today's currency. A study group from NASA's Ames Research Center and Stanford University took the concept a step further. The group drew up plans for a 10,000-person space city placed between the earth and the moon. Their report indicates that the city might be b r9k)moon. The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics said in its study of both concepts that space colonies could be self-supporting. ''It's almost certain that studies on plants will lead to being able to culture plants for space colonies and that these plants will be able to use human waste products to generate food and oxygen,'' the AIAA said in a recent report. The report sees the city workers operating materials processing plants, producing metals, drugs and chemical solutions that would be possible only in the weightless environment and vacuum of space. The colonies could be powered by giant solar panels that convert sunlight into electricity. A giant sunlight conversion unit - perhaps miles wide-circling the earth could provide pollutant free electricity in the future, engineers believe. Once the orbiting station had converted the sunshine to electricity, it would be beamed to earth as microwaves, engineers said. The space shuttle makes such a plant possible because the shuttle can make repeated trips into orbit to carry the parts necessary to assemble the orbiting power station. But the first step is to make spaceflight much more simp5e tis. NE&S S SP 1/8ACF IS STILL IN 5/8VELOPMENTAL STAGES, SAID Alfred M. Carey, director of launch operations for Rockwell International, chief contractor for the shuttle. MORE nyt-11-01-81 2335est ********** !n106 2041 01 Nov 81 BC-FLIGHT-1stadd-11-02 x x x for the shuttle. Theoretically, he said, the shuttle could be launched with just 45 technicians in the space center firing room. To launch an Apollo mission to the moon, it took 450 workers, checking various systems and monitoring computer programs. ''It took 84 hours to count down a Saturn 5 mission to the moon,'' Carey said. ''Once the shuttle is completely operational, the final countdown should take two hours. ''The amazing thing is that the shuttle is 10 times more complex than the Apollo or Saturn vehicles,'' he said. In the moon program, the Apollo was the capsule in which the astronaut rode and the Saturn 5 was the rocket that put them in space. ''Ultimately, we want a guy to be able to launch himself'' (in the shuttle), Carey said. ''Eventually you can eliminate the whole countdown.'' The secret is computers, he said. It was a problem with the computers that temporarily delayed the Shuttle's maiden voyage in April. Five computers aboard the Shuttle control almost all the craft's functions, said Gary Coen, a flight director at Johnson Space Center. The computers at the Kennedy site and Johnson Space Center are basically for monitoring the craft, he said. Once technicians and engineers are sure that the computers and programs aboard the shuttle are reliable, the ground monitoring won't be necessary, he said. NASA envisions shuttle pilots becoming the equivalent of space airline pilots. When the system is complete, the astronaut should be able to climb aboard his ship on the launch pad, run through a computer check of his systems, get takeoff clearance from a space air traffic controller, push the button and be on the way. At Johnson Space Center in Houston, a flight controller will be monitoring the takeoff, but he might be monitoring several other shuttle flights at the same time, Coen said. Hence the three people need to make the flight: the pilot, the space air traffic controller and the flight controller. NASA officials admit it all sounds pretty far-fetched. But Kennedy Space Center Director Richard Smith pointed out that although Wednesday's launch is only the shuttle's second test flight, there are already customers for Shuttle flights through 1986. Most of the launches have been reserved by communications satellite companies, but about 30 percent of them are for the U.S. Air Force. And remember too, Smith said, the Wright Brothers never dreamed in 1903 that aviation would advance to the point that in 1981 there would be an air traffic controllers strike. END nyt-11-01-81 2341est ********** ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 03-Nov-81 1511 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #26 Date: 03 Nov 1981 0403-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #26 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 26 Today's Topics: Re: Dial-a-Shuttle shuttle news ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 02 Nov 1981 1022-PST From: Tom Wadlow To: space at MIT-MC a241 1508 31 Oct 81 AM-Shuttle-Satellite,340 Air Force Launches Secret Satellite By HARRY F. ROSENTHAL Associated Press Writer CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - A launch pad technician isolated in the cockpit of Columbia felt the 18th-story space shuttle tremble Saturday, heard an ominous rumble and feared he was riding an errant space ship into orbit. Pulse racing, he dove for Columbia's escape hatch. Then he saw the cause of the noise - an Air Force rocket that was hurling a secret satellite into orbit. In the understatement of a Rockwell International spokesman, the man was ''extremely relieved.'' The noise from the 4:22 a.m. launch awakened many residents of the area and prompted some to ask if the space shuttle had made an early exit. No one was more interested than the man - an employee of Rockwell - who was working alone in the closed-off cockpit of the shuttle which is being readied for launch next Wednesday. Alone in the Columbia cockpit 180 feet above the launch pad, all he could tell was that the shuttle was shaking. When the sound of the Titan 3C rocket reached him, he thought the shuttle's two booster rockets had ignited. Rockwell spokesman Dick Barton reported that the workman, whom he would not name, made a beeline for the escape hatch. Then he saw the orbit-bound Air Force rocket. The Air Force hadn't announced the shot in advance, and reported only that a Titan 3C space launch vehicle had been fired successfully. National Aeronautics and Space Administration spokesman Hugh Harris said several reporters here to cover the shuttle launch called NASA's information office to ask if somehow the shuttle had blasted off early. The Air Force for years hasn't made advance announcements on military satellite launchings here. They mainly involve missile warning, communications and navigation satellites. Most reconnaissance satellites are launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. ap-ny-10-31 1805EST *************** ------------------------------ Date: 02 Nov 1981 1435-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: Re: Dial-a-Shuttle To: space at MIT-MC 02-Nov-81 0628 chico!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley Re: Dial-a-Shuttle Date: 2 Nov 1981 06:17:59-PST From: chico!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin To: OTA@S1-A Subject: Re: Dial-a-Shuttle That's not what I meant. There's going to be a 900 number one can call to listen in on ground-spacecraft communications. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Nov 1981 at 1328-PST From: Andrew Knutsen To: space at MC Subject: shuttle news Sender: knutsen at SRI-UNIX There is shuttle news available in SHUT.NS[1,ALK] at SAIL. This file is deleted every evening at 10pm PST. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 04-Nov-81 0403 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #27 Date: 04 Nov 1981 0402-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #27 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 27 Today's Topics: Shuttle tiles, camera Correction ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 November 1981 21:58-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Shuttle tiles, camera To: SPACE at MIT-MC This flight of the Columbia we won't have to worry about the tiles like we did the first flight. There's a camera on the boom that maneuvers payloads into position, and it can simply maneuver itself around to look at the underside of the shuttle with the camera. Thus EVA is needed only if a problem is actually found, not to just take a close look at potential problems. (Recall, last flight in April, the only pictures of the underside of the shuttle were from a secret ground- based military spy camera, which I would think would be inferior to on-site inspection by the boom camera.) ------------------------------ Date: 3 Nov 1981 2254-PST From: Imsss at SUMEX-AIM Subject: Correction To: SPACE at MIT-MC (This is actually REM -- MIT-* and SU-AI are all down.) Correction, the pictures of underside of shuttle in April were from a secret spy satellite, not a ground-based camera. ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 05-Nov-81 1002 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #28 Date: 05 Nov 1981 0402-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #28 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 28 Today's Topics: TV coverage of Shuttle SPACE Digest V2 #27 shuttle news Missing Digest ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 November 1981 0152-PST (Wednesday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: TV coverage of Shuttle To: SPACE at AI By the way, for future reference, the best television coverage of shuttle activities, BY FAR, is by Turner's CABLE NEWS NETWORK. They began continuous coverage at around 10PM PST Tuesday evening, with two commentators and a reasonable NASA technical person. They also have this nice habit of SHUTTING UP when interesting things are going on -- frequently they hook you into the main information feed announcements for minutes at a time... normally the commercial TV networks only hook in for "special" announcements, not the continuous feed for the press. If you have access to CNN, punt the networks and stick with Ted Turner on this one. (Very few commercials, too!) --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 4 November 1981 11:18-EST From: Christopher C. Stacy Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #27 To: REM at SU-AI cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Actually, a camera to look at the tiles would not be too useful for the problem which was encountered in the previous flight. The reason the tiles came off last time was structural damage done to the shuttle body by a powerful shock wave. This happened during trhe shuttle's ascent. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Nov 1981 1442-EST From: S. W. Galley Subject: shuttle news To: Knutsen at SRI-UNIX cc: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Your message of 3-Nov-81 0703-EST Very nice, but is there a more permanent collection on-line anywhere? ------- ------------------------------ Date: 5 November 1981 01:21 est From: Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics Subject: Missing Digest To: Space at MIT-MC I'm one of the people who didn't get #23. Please resend this. Paul ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 06-Nov-81 0404 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #29 Date: 06 Nov 1981 0402-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #29 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 29 Today's Topics: Shuttle technology Clipping Service - Pick your Future in the Second Space Race "America to the Moon" Occluding a star to see a planet ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Nov 1981 1248-CST From: Clyde Hoover Subject: Shuttle technology To: space at MIT-MC These primitive Earthlings.... forgetting that the oil needs to be changed every 200,000 miles! NEVER believe the mileage claims from manufacturers - they all want you to believe you can get to Alpha Centauri using 10% less antimatter if you use their hyperdrive lubricant! ------- ------------------------------ Date: 6 November 1981 02:21 est From: Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics Subject: Clipping Service - Pick your Future in the Second Space Race To: Space at MIT-MC [This is an excerpt from the lead article in the November 1981 issue of Reason, a conservative political magazine. The issue discusses the issues of private space operations. This article is written by James C. Bennett] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ... Consider two scenarios. Both start in the present and diverge from decisions that are only slightly different in their initial reasonableness but are very different in their long-term consequences. Although both scenarios are projections, they are not fantasy -- the actors, issues, and possibilities all have some basis in what has happened to date. Which one will be reality and which one will remain fiction? Flourish... =========== In 1983 the Reagan administration wins a congressional vote on its plan to "privatize" NASA's Space Transportation System by 1987. United Airlines and Boeing announce a joint venture to form United Spacelines. They state their willingness to assume responsibility for many of NASA's existing commercial space contracts and obligations and to operated selected NASA facilities for profit. A few years later, MATCO, a consortium of Fortune-500 manufacturing firms, contracts with the newly formed United Spacelines Corporation to purchase three shuttle external tanks, on orbit. United Spacelines has created a lucrative market for such tanks by deciding to lift them all the way to orbit rather than throwing them away as earlier NASA Shuttle launches had. MATCO announces it will use the external tanks as structures for a commercial, manned orbital research facility, intended to begin operations in 1988. In 1990, with the space station ready for business, MATCO announces that the contract to transport personnel has been awarded to United Spacelines, as expected. However, it surprises many by awarding the contract to transport bulk cargo to a "dark horse" company, Space Truck, Inc. "Space Truck quoted us a lower price, and we think they can do the job," explains a MATCO executive. In 1993, an independant contractor leasing space from MATCO at one of its orbital stations uses a zero-gravity, containerless processing technique to develop a significant advance in semiconductor technology. She sells her invention to a leading semiconductor firm ... and retires for life at the age of 27. Subsequently, National Telecom, the second-largest US telecommunications company, announces that its next communication satellites will be launched by Inter-Spatial Transport, Inc.'s "Heavy Lift" rocket. Representatives of Nippon Rocket, the other major contender, admit that ISTI's new cost-saving innovations have left them "surprised ... and working hard to catch up." By the year 2000, Space Truck-Boeing Corporation unveils its newest model space launcher, promoting it as, "not just another breakthrough in reliable low-cost space transportation, but \the/ breakthrough." At the significantly lower cost of transport to orbit, solar power satellites will finaly become profitable mechanisms for producing energy to suit Earth's needs. "Looking back," says an STB spokesman, "it's a good thing this industry has been lean and competitive for so many years. Otherwise space travel would still be an expensive luxury, not an everyday occurrence." An enchanting vision! But just assume that the first decision had been made a little differently... ... or flounder? ================ In 1983, the Reagan administration agrees to grant NASA regulatory authority over space operations, including private activities. "They \are/ the space experts," says one administration spokesman. At NASA, a high-level official promises that private firms will not be treated as rivals, but as allies in the opening of the space frontier. A few years later, backers of Space Truck, Inc., announce that they can no longer support their attempt to start a private launch service. "After waiting three years to get certification for our vehicle, approval is still not even in sight. We can't afford to wait any longer." With the bankruptcy of Space Truck, serious efforts by private American firms to enter the space transportation business cease. In 1987, federal budget cutters force NASA to shelve its space operations center project "because it is an immense burden on American taxpayers." Components already orbited are turned over to the Air Force for use at its restricted surveillance space station. A few years later, a European-Japanese joint venture in semiconductor production announces its discovery of a remarkable technical advance at its research space station. In 1995, in a major policy speach in San Jose, California, the president announces that no new follow-on to the Space Shuttle will be funded. "In hard times like these, we just cannot afford luxuries like advanced space transportation systems. Our first priority must be taking care of our unemployment problems in seriously depressed areas such as Detriot, and, of course, Sunnyvale." The turn of the century passes quietly in America. An American historian reads a paper at the annual meeting of the American Economic Association. His topic: "Private American Space Companies: Could They Ever Have Successfully Competed with State-Financed Corporations of Europe and Japan?" His talk is almost as well received as the previous one, "Lessons from Lysander Spooner's Attempt to Compete with the US Post Office." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [The entire article is too long to transcribe. Those interested in the topic should be able to find the issue without too much trouble. I intend to transcribe one of the sidebars, but that will have to wait until another day. Paul ] ------------------------------ Date: 6 November 1981 02:27-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: "America to the Moon" To: SPACE at MIT-MC There's a rather nice series on PBS currently called "America to the Moon". Each half-hour episode is a review of one of the Apollo missions. Last week was Apollo 11 (Neil Armstrong: "One small leap for a man, one giant leap for mankind") and tonite was Apollo 12 (landing within 600 feet of a Surveyor, "That was one big step for me, even if it was a small one for Neil" ). They have the highlights of footage from launch to splashdown, plus overview explaining what the main mission was and what good info was obtained. For example, this time they told how Apollo 11 had found its maria to be 3.8 E9 years old while Apollo 12 landing in just about the newest maris found it to be 3.2 E9 years old, thus indicating that all major activity on the Moon stopped about 3 E9 years ago, so that what we find there is a record of bombardment for 3 E9 years not erased by geologic upheavals and climate like on Earth. Here in SF bay area it's on KQED (9) Thursday 22:30 PST. ------------------------------ Date: 6 November 1981 02:54-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Occluding a star to see a planet To: SPACE at MIT-MC In the COSMOS episode about Ionian experiments and Pythagorean dogma, Carl Sagan suggests one spaceship holding up a disk to block out thelight of a star while another spacecraft looks aside the disk to see if a planet is visible. I think this would be a wonderful experiment to do for nearby stars such as Sirius and Barnard's star. How soon will this experiment be feasible? 5 years?? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 08-Nov-81 0405 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #30 Date: 08 Nov 1981 0402-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #30 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 30 Today's Topics: Administrivia Bibliography on Space Colonization ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Nov 1981 22:31-PST To: SPACE-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC From: The Moderator Subject: Administrivia I have been having a lot of trouble getting SPACE Digests out recently. I get the feeling I am in a golf course that is 85% sand traps and all I have is a driver! It looks like substantial numbers of people did not get digest #26 or #28. Handling the requests for #23 was a major pain in the ass. So rather than have people send me 35 requests for assorted back issues, I will just send out a redundant copy too all hosts which I suspect were left out. But I think I will wait to for the hardware problems that have been at the root of the problem to clear up first. Thanks for putting up with this difficulty. Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 1981 20:19:38-PST From: A.exp at Berkeley Subject: Bibliography on Space Colonization The following is a short bibliography on space colonization, which is timely because of the upcoming Shuttle launch. Selected Bibliography Non-Technical Works ``Colonies in Space.'' Time, June 3, 1974, p. 51.A brief summary of the facts. ``Colonies in Space.'' Ron Chernow. The Smithsonian, February 1976, pp. 62-69. An interesting speculative article describing the quality of life in a space colony. The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space. Gerard K. O'Neill. 1977. The landmark book on the colonization of space, by the principal worker in the field. Phi Beta Kappa Award for Science Book of the Year. Builds a strong case for why space should be colonized. Hardbound 288pp., $8.00 from: [I have seen a version of this in William Morrow and Co., Inc. paper back for 2.95 or so. I Wilmer Warehouse don't have the ref tho. -ota] 6 Henderson Dr. West Caldwell, NJ 07006 Colonies in Space. T. A. Heppenheimer. 1977. Less cautious in tone than O'Neill's book, this volume develops the methods by which space will be colonized. A lively, well-illustrated work. Hardbound 224pp., $12.95 from: Paperbound 321pp., $2.50 from: Stackpole Books Warner Books Cameron and Kelker Streets Warner Paperback Library P. O. Box 1831 75 Rockefeller Plaza Harrisburg, PA 17105 New York, NY 10019 Spaceships of the Mind. Nigel Calder. 1978. This beautifully illustrated volume is the result of a BBC television series broadcast in 1978. It is an overview of space exploration, as well as of the specifics of space colonization, from the present concepts to those of the far future. Hardbound 144pp., $14.95 from: Paperbound 144pp., $6.95 from: The Viking Press Penguin Books, Inc. 625 Madison Avenue 625 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 New York, NY 10022 Doomsday Has Been Cancelled. J. Peter Vajk. 1978. An in-depth evaluation of the basis for movement into space marks this work. It reviews benefits to the Earth and changes in the state of so- ciety which will result from the utilization of space. Paperbound 238pp., $7.95 from: Peace Press, Inc. 3828 Willat Avenue Culver City, CA 90230 The L-5 News. The publication of the L-5 Society, an interna- tional organization actively advocating space development. The L-5 Society also has available many reprints; a listing may be obtained on request. Subscriptions to The L-5 News: $12/year from: The L-5 Society 1060 E. Elm Tucson, AZ 85719 Technical Works ``The Colonization of Space.'' G. K. O'Neill. Physics Today. September 1974, pp. 32-40. A survey of the basic order-of- magnitude results which first indicated the feasibility of space colonization. ``The Low-Profile Road to Space Industrialization.'' G. K. O'Neill. Astronautics and Aeronautics, March 1978, pp.24-32. Updated results on optimization of space industrialization, from the 1976 and 1977 NASA Ames Summer Studies on space settlement. Space Settlements-A Design Study (NASA SP-413). R. D. Johnson and C. Holbrow, eds. 1977. A summary of the 1975 Summer Study on the Settlement of Space at the NASA Ames research center. Though lacking in some conceptual advances which reduce the cost of space industrialization by an order of magnitude (see biblio- graphic entries below and immediately preceding), it does provide an excellent introduction to the technical requirements of space colonies. 185pp., $5.00 postpaid from: Superintendent of Documents U. S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC 20402 Specify stock no. 033-000-00669-1. Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics v. 57: Space-based Manufacturing from Nonterrestrial Materials. G. K. O'Neill and B. T. O'Leary, eds. 1977. Contains papers from the 1976 NASA Ames/OAST Summer Study on concepts required to initiate large- scale manufacturing in space, using materials found in space. Also presented were papers taking a systems-analysis approach to space industrialization concepts. Was subject to peer review. 177pp., $23.00 from: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Technical Information Service 750 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 Space Resources and Space Settlement (NASA SP-428). G. K. O'Neill and J. Billingham, eds. 1979. Summarizes 1977 NASA Ames summer study on space development. Technical results on regen- erative life-support systems, utilization of lunar resources, and electromagnetic mass-drivers, among other topics. Subject to peer review. 288 pp., $6.50 from: Superintendent of Documents U. S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC 20402 Specify stock no. 033-000-00765-5 ``Habitat and Logistic Support Requirements for the Initiation of a Space Manufacturing Enterprise.'' J. P. Vajk, G. H. Engel, J. A. Shettler, in Space Resources and Space Settlement. 1979. pp. 61-83. Details of a step-by-step approach to setting up manufac- turing facilities in space, using only the Space Shuttle. Demon- strates that construction of solar power satellites could begin only seven years after the first launch of equipment from Earth. Launch could begin in 1985. ``Mass Driver Up-Date.'' H. Kolm. The L-5 News. September 1980, pp. 10-12. Details on electromagnetic-driven launchers now being studied by a team at MIT and Princeton, designed to launch cylindrical projectiles from the Earth, at $1.00 to $20.00 per pound. The projectiles are accelerated to Earth orbit velocity or beyond in wells in the Earth, then launched through the atmo- sphere, where they lose only 3% mass to ablation. Space Colonization-An Annotated Bibliography. Michael E. Marot- ta. 1980. Includes an introductory essay. More than 100 en- tries, both technical and non-technical. 31pp., $4.00 from: Loompanics Unlimited P. O. Box 264 Mason, MI 48854 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 11-Nov-81 0308 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #31 Date: 11 Nov 1981 0307-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #31 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 31 Today's Topics: Yet another scenario ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Nov 1981 12:26:22-PST From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin To: decvax!duke!unc!space@Berkeley Subject: Yet another scenario Consider the following scenario: NASA decides to turn shuttle operations over to a private firm, McDouglas Aircraft, even though the bids are unexpectedly high. The program limps along for two years, getting a fair amount of foregin business, but with McDouglas constantly asking for even more money. They claim to be developing an even better booster with engines made by another company. The engines are delayed, and the resulting losses drives McDouglas to bankruptcy. They appeal for government loan guarantees, citing the importance of the shuttle to the country. During Congressional hearings, it turns out that they won the original contract by engaging in bid-rigging, and most of their foreign business came from paying off government officials. In the meantime, a private firm is testing a new competitive fuel technology; unfortunately, there is a malfunction and an explosion. The town they're located in is severely damaged, and several residents are killed by the fumes. McDouglas's other competitor has developed a reasonable booster, but most of their funding has come from Libya. The effect of all these problems is a tremendous public outcry, resulting in a halt to most space-related projects in the U.S. Unlikely? I submit it's no more unlikely than the previous scenarios, and every incident I've mentioned is drawn directly from something that has happened in the aerospace industry recently. Let's move the rest of this discussion to POLI-SCI where it belongs. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 12-Nov-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #32 Date: 12 Nov 1981 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #32 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 32 Today's Topics: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #31 Television coverage of the Shuttle Columbia Television coverage of the Shuttle Columbia ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Nov 1981 12:49:57-PST From: A.exp at Berkeley The following summary of NASA Shuttle charges is based on internal figures as of October 1981. Until 1986, the use of a full Space Shuttle bay, including launch costs, for one day, will be about $40 million, plus or minus 5 million. Additional days are extra. Beginning in 1986, NASA will charge $52 million for this service, with the true cost now estimated at $62 million. (All figures are in 1986 dollars, which are 2.7x greater than 1975 dollars.) This table shows costs for the Shuttle version of a mission compared to what it could have cost if NASA had built a new expendable vehicle called the ELV. It is probably good until a year or two after 1986. Mission Class Vehicle Cost (million$) Delta Shuttle 26 ELV 38 Atlas-Centaur Shuttle 71 (or 42 if Shuttle optimized for this mission class) ELV 69 Titan Shuttle 150 (includes use of IUS) ELV 164 (if 4 launched per year) ELV 230 (if 2 launched per year) Note that the ELV would always have been cheaper for Titan class missions. Also, the Ariane can launch payloads that the Shuttle needs the IUS for. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 1981 1742-PST From: Alan R. Katz Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #31 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: KATZ at USC-ISIF In-Reply-To: Your message of 11-Nov-81 0307-PST What??? Whether or not the Shuttle will be run by a private company doesn't belong in SPACE but in POLI-SCI?? I missed something. Alan ------- ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 1981 0036-EST From: ELF at MIT-DMS (Eric L. Flanzbaum) Reply-to: ELF at MIT-DMS To: Space at MIT-MC Subject: Television coverage of the Shuttle Columbia Message-id: <[MIT-DMS].215213> Just for the record ... While watching Television tonight (11/11) (channel 4) during a staion break the following was said: "Your station to watch for the coverage of the Space Shuttle Columbia . . . . . . . whenever that may be" ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 1981 0036-EST From: ELF at MIT-DMS (Eric L. Flanzbaum) Reply-to: ELF at MIT-DMS To: Space at MIT-MC Subject: Television coverage of the Shuttle Columbia Message-id: <[MIT-DMS].215213> Notes: Oh yes, just following the station break was a news-cast about the delay in the shuttle launch. Message: Just for the record ... While watching Television tonight (11/11) (channel 4) during a staion break the following was said: "Your station to watch for the coverage of the Space Shuttle Columbia . . . . . . . whenever that may be" ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 13-Nov-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #33 Date: 13 Nov 1981 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #33 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 33 Today's Topics: Clipping Service - Alternative presents in Aviation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 November 1981 21:54 est From: Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics Subject: Clipping Service - Alternative presents in Aviation To: Space at MIT-AI, Poli-Sci at MIT-AI [This item is an excerpt from the November 1981 issue of Reason, a conservative political journal. It is a sidebar to an article on goverment vs. private means of developing industry in space. Poli-Sci is getting a copy because the recent discussion has been on govermental vs. private means of doing all sorts of things. This item may be considered a fantasy. Then again...] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Imagine... Dawn is breaking over the plains of Kansas, a glorious spring morning in 1982. The rising sun gilds a few clouds in an otherwise clear sky. In a backyard behind an old, weatherbeaten Midwestern farmhouse is an incongruous scene: a cluster of modern trailers, with cables running in all directions, and a large crowd of doers and onlookers, engineers, reporters, and cameramen. One of the network reporters is conducting an interview with an older man, clearly by dress and demeanor a Senior Official. Reporter Intro: Good morning, Americans. We are here in Owl's Eye, Kansas, to witness another chapter in the forward march of science and technology, the controversial and long-awaited "next step" in America's costly and exciting conquest of the air. Today, finally, if all goes well, we will see the National Air Administration's controversial Sky Shuttle aircraft perform its first applications mission as part of NAA's "Skydust" program, in which the mammoth aircraft will swoop down over the fields of farmer Ed Shultz and spray them with pesticides. With us today is NAA's deputy director, Buzz Wingnut, who will be answering some of the tough questions which have come up about NAA and the Sky Shuttle. Buzz, what are the chances of success of today's mission? Official: Well, Jules, all the indications are good. The weather is right, the aircraft, aside from a few minor problems, is in good condition, and the crew is in excellent spirits. It sure looks like we have a "go". Reporter: What about the rotor problems? Everybody knows that the rotors have been giving you trouble ever since the start of the Sky Shuttle program. Critics have charged that there is still a serious chance they'll fall off. Official: I can assure you that the rotors will not fall off this time. The rotor problem has definately been solved. Reporter: Some critics have questioned the whole idea of having a set of rotors on an airplane, saying that the idea of an aircraft that can take off vertically \and/ fly 10,000 miles at supersonic speeds is unnecessarily complicated. Could these missions be better performed by separate aircraft? Official: Jules, this kind of talk puts our entire technology development system in question. I might point out that each of those requirements you mentioned, as well as others -- such as the ability to land on both land and water, the ability to perform aerobatic maneuvers, and the ability to fly at treetop level -- were inputted to NAA by responsible sectors of the government. There is no doubt that each of these capabilities is needed by the nation's aviation-using sector. As for the idea of developing a separate aircraft for passenger, cargo, defense, and scientific purposes, such talk is the height of irresponsibility. What with the cost overruns and time delays which were unavoidably encountered by the Sky Shuttle program, there is no chance of getting Congress to appropriate funds for development of a new aircraft in this decade. Reporter: Buzz, Senator Buttermore has been highly critical of both the Sky Shuttle program in general and the Skydust experimental program in particular. He has said, and I quote, "The Skydust program has been an enormous boondoggle from the beginning. It is mearly an excuse by the NAA administrators to find new 'needs' for their services. Ask any farmer -- the idea of spraying chemicals on crops from the air as a part of day-to-day agriculture is inherently absurd. Both as a Senator and a taxpayer, I say, 'Not a penny for this nutty fantasy!'" How do you respond to that, Buzz? Official: Well, all I can say is that I am glad Queen Isabella didn't take this attitude toward Christopher Columbus. "Crop-dusting", as our boys like to call it, is an extremely promising technique, and one which today's demonstration will prove technologically feasible. The Sky Shuttle will reduce the cost of aerial application from $500,000 per acre to only $100,000 per acre. I can confidently predict that, given Congress's continued support of development funding, hundreds, maybe even thousands, of American farmers will enjoy the benefits of "crop-dusting" by the year 2000. Reporter: There have been some voices, so far a distinct minority, who have called for private operation of the aircraft program in this country, saying that private operators could do the job more efficiently. Could you say a few words on that, Buzz? Official: Well, Jules, it's hardly worth my time to answer that one, don't you think? The Sky Shuttle has cost nearly $100 billion dollars to develop. Where could a private firm raise that kind of capital? We at NAA have always valued the contributions of private industry -- we feel that the free-enterprise qualities of our contractors demonstrate exactly the kind of government-industry partnership it takes to maintain America's leadership in high technology. But romantic notions of competing "airlines" operating passenger and freight operations across the continent as if they were railroads -- that belongs in the 19th century. Aviation in America has been in sound hands ever since Congress suppressed dangerous cranks like the Wright brothers and created the predecessors of the NAA to give American wings, and let us pray to God it remains that way, Jules. I'm going to have to cut this short. The count-down is entering the final stage. Reporter: Well, thank you, Buzz and Godspeed. It's a great day to be an American. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Just as a trivia item: the current cost for crop-dusting is under $10/acre, plus cost of chemicals. ] ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 1981 12:35:21-PST From: E.jeffc at Berkeley To: v.space@Berkeley The reason why the discussion on private ownership of the space shuttle should be moved to poli-sci is because of the raging Libertarian battle that is going on there, and some references to space have already been made there. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 14-Nov-81 0302 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #34 Date: 14 Nov 1981 0301-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #34 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 34 Today's Topics: Privitization of space private vs. public in SPACE Digest ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Nov 1981 1003-CST From: Clyde Hoover Subject: Privitization of space To: space at MIT-MC The discussion about private business getting into the space business in a serious way DOES belong here, because it falls into the scope of SPACE digest (I feel), and there hasn't been much traffic on this list recently anyway (things need to be livened up around here). To wit: While opening space to non-governmental use has potential dangers, (one can see cost-cutting on safety hardware for a priviate shuttle, leading to a launch pad explosion or reentry burnup), leaving it exclusivly in the hands of the government (especially the military) makes it a political hostage. Let me advance another scenario that can happen if the bureaucratic hold on space is not broken: 1983 - Furthur budget cuts for NASA cause cancellation of fourth Shuttle orbiter. Funds for completion of Discovery (the third orbiter) are in doubt. The Air Force steps in and pays for the third and fourth orbiters. Congress readily approves this "national defense" expenditure. 1984 - Increased doubts about Shuttle availability and reliability (due to trimmed operational funds) lead potential customers to use expendable vechiles instead (Ariadane for example), cutting income from cargo loads. 1985 - The Congress wonders why the Shuttle is in such red ink and declares "The taxpayers of America cannot afford to subsidize this money-losing boondoggle". NASA gives some under-booked shuttle flights to the Air Force. 1987 - Shuttle use has fully replaced expendable rockets for the military. Since the military is continually launching new spy satellites, plus testing particle-beam weapons, Vandenberg AFB is keeping busy while Cape Canerveral is winding down. 1988 - The Shuttle is declared "too vital for national defense to be used for other things", since the military now leans heavily on it (and they have the bucks to do so), so NASA is reduced to buying cargo bay space from the Air Force to do science. I admit for this pessimistic scenario to take place, a lot of things have to go wrong in the next year or two. I neither expect nor desire these things to happen. However, if space remains, as it is now, exclusively in the hands of the government, this CAN happen, and there will be no failsafe against it. A solution is to open up space to private speculation (with proper licensing and [gasp] regulations). In the interim, the money for the R&D must continue to flow from the taxpayers to build the basic technology for space industrialization (the Shuttle). Alright, folks.... let's see those brickbats fly! ------- ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 1981 10:25:22-PST From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin Location: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill To: decvax!duke!unc!space@Berkeley Subject: private vs. public in SPACE Digest The reason I originally objected to this appearing in space is that it's not a question about the space program, it's about the free market vs. government ownership, and the author just happened to pick the space program as an example. No new facts about the space program or NASA were presented, just the standard arguments. Even if we weren't discussing this very topic on POLI-SCI -- and we are -- that would still be a more appropriate forum. The subset of the discussion belonging here is that pertaining to specific examples, such as the two or three private firms building rockets (including one American firm -- their first test was about as successful as the early Vanguard tests). --Steve ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 17-Nov-81 0302 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #35 Date: 17 Nov 1981 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #35 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 35 Today's Topics: Let the Truth be known.... Another poll News coverage of shuttle flight ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Nov 1981 1032-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Let the Truth be known.... To: space at MIT-MC I heard a fellow from the Flat Earth Society on the radio this morning, talking about the second shuttle flight. He claims the following: - Columbia was launched, alright, but landed in the ocean, and was recovered shortly after launch. - It could not have orbited the Earth, (which is, of course, flat) and thus those spectacular pictures from the on-board cameras were produced (as were all the other space pictures) in a special effects studio. - Columbia was dried off, and flown to the Mojave desert, where it was dropped from the 747 (he believes in them, I guess) and glided to a landing at Edwards. - The money spent on the space program is all going to Florida, which we know is the headquarters for quite a bit of drug traffic and organized crime. This is, of course, being subsidized by NASA, since it cannot possibly have used that money to build space vehicles. Having now been told the Truth, I trust that all the readers of SPACE Digest will cancel their subscriptions and devote their energies toward the important things that can be done here on Earth, such as repealing the Laws of Physics, and making Pi equal to 3.00000..... ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 1981 1212-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: Another poll To: space at MIT-MC a266 1857 13 Nov 81 AM-Poll Facts,530 With AM-Space Poll NEW YORK (AP) - Telephone interviews with 1,598 adults across the country Oct. 25-26 were the basis for the Associated Press-NBC News poll on the U.S. space program. Telephone numbers were selected for the survey in such a way as to give every household a roughly equal chance of being chosen. The sample was drawn in order to reflect accurately the makeup of the country by region and by city size. A procedure was used to give a proper balance of men and women in the sample. As with all sample surveys, the results of AP-NBC News polls can vary from the opinion of all Americans because of chance variations in the sample. For a poll based on about 1,600 interviews, the results are subject to an error margin of 3 percentage points either way because of chance variations. That is, if one could have talked this past week to all Americans with telephones, there is only 1 chance in 20 that the findings would vary by more than 3 percentage points. Of course, the results could differ from other polls for a number of reasons. Differences in the exact wording of questions, differences in when the interviews were conducted and different methods of interviewing could also cause variations. Here are some of the questions and the results from the AP-NBC News poll: 1. Do you think the space shuttle program is a good investment for this country, or don't you think so? Yes - 60 percent. No - 30 percent. Not sure - 10 percent. 2. Should the emphasis of the U.S. space program be primarily on national defense or on scientific exploration? Defense - 43 percent. Science - 40 percent. Both - 9 percent. Not sure - 8 percent. 3. Do you think the United States should keep its space program separate from other countries, or should the U.S. engage in joint space ventures with other nations? Would you favor a joint space program between the United States and the Soviet Union? Separate - 46 percent. With U.S.S.R. - 32 percent. With other countries, but not U.S.S.R. - 15 percent. Not sure - 7 percent. 4. Do you think people from Earth will eventually colonize the moon or other planets, or don't you think so? Yes - 42 percent. No - 49 percent. Not sure - 9 percent. ap-ny-11-13 2155EST *************** ------------------------------ Date: 16 November 1981 15:23-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Sender: ___103 at MIT-MC Subject: News coverage of shuttle flight To: SPACE at MIT-MC According to the noon news today on channel 5 (KPIX), the landing of the shuttle was deliberately made more difficult the second time to test it more fully. I recall they were going to land cross-wind, but changed their mind because the wind was too strong and landed into the wind just like the first time. They let the computer fly the ship during some of the descent, and they tested the full range of aerodynamic handling during re-entry, but I don't recall anything about the landing that was actually made more difficult than the first time. Is there anything I missed? Or did KPIX get sloppy and refer to the re-entry as if it were the landing? Or did KPIX forget the cross-wind landing had been cancelled? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 18-Nov-81 0304 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #36 Date: 18 Nov 1981 0303-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #36 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 36 Today's Topics: What they did during shuttle reentry ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Nov 1981 0702-PST From: Paul Dietz Subject: What they did during shuttle reentry To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC, rem at MIT-MC cc: DIETZ at USC-ECL In-Reply-To: Your message of 17-Nov-81 0302-PST They were planning to perturb the shuttle during the hypersonic part of its reentry to test its stability. The landing was great! (Kind of cold and dusty, though). ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 19-Nov-81 0304 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #37 Date: 19 Nov 1981 0303-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #37 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 37 Today's Topics: where the discussion belongs Private Enterprise (er.. I mean Columbia) STS-2 landing maneuvers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Nov 1981 04:51:36-PST From: decvax!pur-ee!davy at Berkeley To: decvax!ucbvax!space@Berkeley Subject: where the discussion belongs Cc: decvax!pur-ee!davy@Berkeley, decvax!pur-ee!gugel@Berkeley Well, here's my two cents worth: I would have to disagree with Steve (smb), and say that this discussion about the shuttle belongs HERE, not in POLI-SCI. While it is true that this discussion pertains to free enterprise -vs- the gov- ernment, I think there'smore to it than that: For example, how would space travel, colonization, exploration, etc. be affected differently if private enterprise were to take over (or compete against) the govm'ts current (future) program? I submit the following "suppose" about the future: Let's assume that it's a few years from now, and there have been some "colonies" set up in space. Just for fun, let's say there are two on the moon, one on each side; and three space stations. The space stations can be whatever you want, say big power-supply things, food-supplies, etc. We're going to need some method of getting from here to there: if we work at a space station, we have to go from "home" to "work"; if we have relatives, we have to get from one side of the moon to the other, and every once in a while it might be nice to visit good old Earth. As far as from one side of the moon to the other goes, I guess we could set up "Amtrack II" (ugh), but that just won't work for getting down here from up there. That leaves the shuttle as the only really practical method (because it is re-usable, mostly) of transportation. Now, who should supply this shuttle service? The government, or private enterprise? Well, look at the benefits/drawbacks: If the government runs the program, what do we get? Well, service-men and government employess could probably get reduced-fares, along with scientists having "easy" routes to send their stuff into space. Also, the military has easy access to it, thus enabling them to deploy their MX missiles, etc. at will. As you may have noticed, I haven't mentioned the every-day John Q. Public type of traveller yet. Where does his "deal" come in? In my opinion, it probably doesn't come in at all. Now, if free-enterprise takes over (or at least jumps in), then what do we get? Eventually, there will probably be quite a bit of competition, with "no frills" flights (you have to carry on your own space suit or something), reduced rates, more departures, travel packages (see Disneycrater -- three days, two nights -- $600,000). John Q. Public would be benefiting more from what his government "discovered" if his government didn't run the program. >From reading POLI-SCI (I don't usually), it doesn't seem to me that this is the same sort of discussion, although perhaps there are certain aspects of it that relate to POLI-SCI. Hopefully, we'll keep the discussion here, as I think that it could become a very interesting topic, once people start taking it a little further toward what COULD happen, rather than what it looks like now. --Dave Curry (decvax!pur-ee!davy) ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 1981 0939-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Private Enterprise (er.. I mean Columbia) To: space at MIT-MC a059 0445 18 Nov 81 PM-Shuttle Buy,480 Private Investors Trying To Buy Space Shuttle PRINCETON, N.J. (AP) - A group of private investors has approached the Reagan administration to propose buying a space shuttle in what would mark the beginning of major private-sector involvement in the nation's space program, one person involved in the venture says. Officials at the Space Transportation Co. of Princeton, N.J., want to buy a shuttle similar to the Columbia and rent it out to an operator - either the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or a private entity, the Dallas Morning News reported today. ''Essentially, there are a lot of people paying a lot of money for satellites to do what a shuttle can do cheaper,'' said William H. Sword Jr., who with his father is part of a Princeton investment firm organizing the planned venture. ''We think private business will be able to handle all that future business more efficiently than the government,'' the younger Sword told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from his home in Cranbury, N.J. today. ''Personally, I have for a long, long time felt that private commitment of funds for space is the key to the success of the U.S. space program,'' the Dallas newspaper quoted Dr. Klaus Heiss as saying. He is guiding the company's effort to purchase a shuttle. The firm recently presented its proposal to the administration's science adviser, George Keyworth, who heads a federal study on long-range space policy, the News said. ''We think now, particularly in the current budget environment, that private financing is a key symbol, and in fact, more than a symbol, of space policy in the 1980s,'' said Heiss, who directed economic studies from 1969 to 1971 leading to 5he original shuttle program. The shuttle purchase ''is feasible and we want to seriously, quietly and diligently pursue whether ... the administration and the aerospace community and the financial community can be persuaded that indeed that is a viable option,'' he added. Government officials would not comment on the proposal, other than to say discussions did take place between the company and members of the government's office of science and techonology policy. ''It is a somewhat revolutionary idea,'' Heiss said. ''There are many skeptics within the government and the aerospace community.'' The Columbia, which completed a second mission Saturday, and four other orbiters originally were planned by NASA. The Columbia is the only finished orbiter, but NASA has contracts for three more, the last scheduled for delivery in September 1984. The Space Transportation Co. wants to buy the fifth shuttle, the newspaper said. A consultant with the Space Transportation Co. said the firm has a minimum of $200 million in an escrow account, but Heiss would not confirm or deny that. The Columbia cost more than $500 million. ''There's no doubt they can raise every nickel required,'' said Gilbert Keyes, an official with Boeing Aerospace Co., who is familiar with the firm's effort. ap-ny-11-18 0746EST *************** ------------------------------ Date: 18 November, 1981 -- 1749 EST From: Adam Buchsbaum In-reply-to: Robert Elton Mass Subject: STS-2 landing maneuvers The Columbia did indeed undergo some maneuvers once in the atmosphere. These included some turns and banks and other maneuvers designed to test the handling of the shuttle, hopefully to lead to a good landing routine in bad weather. The cross wind landing was aborted because the winds got to be too strong, and NASA had to settle for another head wind landing. The computer handled most of the maneuvers (if not all) until just before landing. This was decided after the ship entered the atmosphere and relayed to the astronauts through the statement, "You are go for autoland." ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 20-Nov-81 0304 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #38 Date: 20 Nov 1981 0303-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #38 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 38 Today's Topics: space and free enterprise The fictitious NAA and its Sky Shuttle Bibliography on Space Colonization ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Nov 1981 11:44:15-EST From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: space at mit-mc Subject: space and free enterprise The faith some people have in the free enterprise system (as it might be applied to space) is truly touching. I don't see the slightest likelihood of the current shuttle design ever being efficient enough to support the kind of traveling that [davy] describes, although I'd be happy to be proved wrong. Note that everyone who is currently and seriously involved in private attempts to space is talking about satellites (which, thanks to VLSI, have a very high performance/weight ratio compared to the average human (outside of \very/ special talents)) rather than people. Would anyone care to speculate on what the cost/person would be to LEO if the shuttle were outfitted in a maximum-seating capacity (after all, the Sunday supplements have all been instructed to say it's about the size of a DC-9) and how much it would cost to make this happen in the first place? ------------------------------ Date: 19 Nov 1981 23:04:09-PST From: E.jeffc at Berkeley To: v.space@Berkeley Subject: The fictitious NAA and its Sky Shuttle The NAA and its Sky Shuttle, obviously a reference to NASA and the Space Shuttle, is not a valid analogy. The reason is simple: it is very easy to build a scale model of a bridge out of balsa wood, but you must use a qualitatively different material when building the real thing. In case you didn't follow that, I'll rephrase it: scale is very important. There is a very real difference in scale between the fictic- tious Sky Shuttle, an airplane, and the Space Shuttle, a space ship. An airplane is such a simple device, in its most primitive form, that one can be built single-handedly with the resources available to a single person. Thus, the Wright brothers were able to pioneer in the field without any financial backing. The Space Shuttle, on the other hand, is one of the most complex machines ever built by man to date (even if it will look hopelessly primi- tive some day in the future). The moral of the Sky Shuttle scenario is that space travel would be better developed by tinkers working in their backyards, or, more realistically, by major corporations. However, the simple fact is that the Space Shuttle is too complex a machine to be /developed/ by any corporation existing today. NO company has the financial resources to plunge billions of dollars into something that will take decades to pay itself off. I am willing to concede, however, that once space travel has been FIRMLY ESTABLISHED, private enterprise will be running the space ships under the equivalent of the airlines' air traffic control system, and I do support NASA's plan to eventually sell its shuttles. ------------------------------ Date: 20 November 1981 05:15-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Bibliography on Space Colonization To: A.exp at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC There is one other book on space colonies and uses of space left out of the bibliography. A Step Farther Out by (ahem) J. E. Pournelle Ace Books is still in print and does say a few things on the subject. Also, the report of the Citizens Advisory Council on National Space Policy is available at $5.00 from the L-5 Society, 1620 E Elm, Tucson AZ 85719; it contains a whack of a lot of conclusions and data on a space plan for the US (produced at a meeting in spring of 1981 attended by some 50 top space people; written up by a bunch of science fiction writers working with people like Thomas Paine and David Crisswell.. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 21-Nov-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #39 Date: 21 Nov 1981 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #39 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 39 Today's Topics: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #38 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Nov 1981 1308-CST From: Kim Korner Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #38 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Your message of 20-Nov-81 0503-CST Does anyone have any information about the return path/schedule of the shuttle? When last heard, it was supposed to pass through Austin. -Kim Korner ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 24-Nov-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #40 Date: 24 Nov 1981 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #40 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 40 Today's Topics: STS-1 -- "The Bug Heard 'Round the World" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Nov 1981 01:24:40-PST From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin To: decvax!duke!unc!space@Berkeley Subject: STS-1 -- "The Bug Heard 'Round the World" There's a very interesting article on just what delayed the launch of STS-1 in the October 1981 issue of SOFTWARE ENGINEERING NOTES. It's written by John R. Garman, the deputy chief of the Spacecraft Software Division at the Johnson Space Center. I won't try to summarize the article -- it's fairly complex, and describes how the 4 identically- programmed computers and the backup computer with different software co-exist. But the origin of the bug is interesting. The problem was caused when a time delay in an initialization subroutine was changed to avoid problems during system reconfigurations; this affected the system's idea of what the time of day was, and hence caused affected scheduling of certain asynchronous processes. (Because all 4 computers must have *identical* ideas of what time it is, they use the operating system's timer queue; hence, any use of the timer before the other initialization code ran could cause trouble. The real TOD clock is used only during cold-starts of the first computer.) The nature of this change was such that there was only a 1 in 67 chance of a failure. "No 'mapping' analyzer built today could have found that linkage. Testing might have. But the window wasn't opened until late in the test program (relative to this code), and even then, *most* simulations didn't go through the expense of initializing 'from scratch'. And even where they did, it would have to have been in a lab with a reasonably accurate model of the telemetry system *plus* a simulation or test involving both PASS [Primary Avionics Software System] *and* BFS [Backup Flight Control System], and it would still be fighting the low probability. Even then, the temptation would be to try again....and never be able to repeat it; and never be sure it wasn't a 'funny' in the lab set-up.... or a similar problem fixed by another software change. That, in fact, apparently did happen in one of the labs....about 4 months prior to the flight.. "And then, on *the* day that the first GPC [General Purpose Computer] was turned on, 30 hours before scheduled launch, we hit the problem......" ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 25-Nov-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #41 Date: 25 Nov 1981 0303-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #41 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 41 Today's Topics: Solar Sails ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Nov 1981 20:43:31-PST From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin To: decvax!duke!unc!space@Berkeley Subject: Solar Sails The November 21 issue of "Science News" has a fairly long (by its standards) article on solar sails. According to the article, the Mariner 3 and 4 spacecraft were designed to use solar vanes to help with attitude control; unfortunately, neither probe worked right. But light pressure was used to roll-stabilize the Mariner 10 in 1974 when problems with the attitude-control system threatened to exhaust its supply of steering gas. Without "solar-sailing mode", it probably could not have completed its Mercury flybys. The World Space Foundation is designing and building prototype solar sails; they hope to get a free launch on an Ariane or some other vehicle, much as the OSCAR satellites have been launched. The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics even purchased a shuttle "Getaway Special" for a sail, but NASA ruled it didn't qualify, apparently because the specials could not be used to deploy structures outside the shuttle. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 26-Nov-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #42 Date: 26 Nov 1981 0303-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #42 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 42 Today's Topics: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #40 COST OF SHUTTLE FLIGHTS Please add me to the Mailing list ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Nov 1981 11:45:49-PST From: decvax!duke!unc!bch at Berkeley To: decvax!duke!unc!space@Berkeley Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #40 Murphy lives! ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 1981 1238-PST From: Terry C. Savage Subject: COST OF SHUTTLE FLIGHTS To: SPACE at MIT-MC cc: tcs at USC-ECL The most recent number I have heard for the marginal cost of a shuttle flight is $50M, but I don't think this includes an adequate allowance for the ground support. To round up for inflation, and to be generally conservative, assume that the actual marginal cost to a private user would be about $80M. I have seen first cut designs for a passenger module for the shuttle that would pack about 60 people in like sardines. In addition to being technically doubtful, that kind of arrangement would significantly reduce the market for some kinds of travel (vacation in particular). If you allow a reasonable amount of room for support equipment, a bar, and the like, a passenger capacity of 20 is probably believable, which would yield a per person cost of #$2M. This, of course, doesn't take into account the purchase of the passenger module, much less it's development cost. I guess my vacation in space will just have to wait a few years. TCS ------------------------------ From: DIGEX@MIT-AI Date: 11/26/81 00:22:16 Subject: Please add me to the Mailing list DIGEX@MIT-AI 11/26/81 00:22:16 Re: Please add me to the Mailing list To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC CC: DIGEX at MIT-AI Please add me to the mailing list. Thanks, Doug ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 28-Nov-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #43 Date: 28 Nov 1981 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #43 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 43 Today's Topics: COST OF SHUTTLE FLIGHTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 November 1981 03:57-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: COST OF SHUTTLE FLIGHTS To: TCS at USC-ECL cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Well, the purpose of the L-5 Society is to dissolve itself at an annual meeting held aboard a space colony. Maybe just now it would cost 2 - 4 x 10e6 bucks for a shuttle flight vacation, but give it time. I intend to attend that annual meeting of L-5... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 29-Nov-81 0329 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #44 Date: 29 Nov 1981 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #44 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 44 Today's Topics: "The Space Shuttle" vs "The Air Shuttle" Does anyone out there really care? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Nov 1981 1055-PST Sender: LEAVITT at USC-ISI Subject: "The Space Shuttle" vs "The Air Shuttle" From: Mike Leavitt To: space at MC Message-ID: <[USC-ISI]28-Nov-81 10:55:09.LEAVITT> I suspect some of the people who have denied the relevance of the parody have missed a part of its point. The issue is that when you have spent as much time, person-years, and money as NASA has on our space program, you begin to think that that is the only way it might have been done. Nobody denies the complexity of our current space vehicles and launch systems. You must go beyond asserting that complexity to respond to the parody. Could it have been done more expeditiously, cheaply, and simply (and perhaps less safely) if profit and glory was the objective, rather than national supremacy, military utility, and the job security of thousands of engineers? I don't know the asnwer, although I have my suspicions. But one needs to go beyond the status quo to answer the issues raised in the parody. Mike ------------------------------ Mail-from: ARPANET site MIT-MC rcvd at 28-Nov-81 0513-EST Date: 28 November 1981 05:12-EST From: J. Noel Chiappa Subject: Does anyone out there really care? To: space at SU-AI cc: JNC at MIT-MC Remailed-date: 28 Nov 1981 1707-EST Remailed-from: J. Noel Chiappa Remailed-to: space at MIT-MC I saw the following item in an AP digest: UNDATED - Video games, models of the space shuttle Columbia and cold-weather wear were among the hot-selling items as the traditional Yuletide shopping rush began. and it set me to thinking. My first reactions were "Wow, maybe now there are more people interested in space, maybe we can get a little more funding. Even better, the kids are getting into it now, and that's a good sign for the future." Then I realized something: the US has had a space program for almost 25 years. The people who were young enough to be 'space kids' (up to, say, 14 years old when it started) should be a major part of the population by now, but clearly they aren't all as into it as we are. My recollections of my childhood aren't as voluminous as I might wish; I know I was really into space in 1961, but what about all the other kids from back then? Were then into it then? Are they into it now? I've seen only the sketchiest figures on public support for the space program, but I seem to remember about 15% thought we were spending too much, and about the same thought we ought to spend a lot more. I'd be interested in seeing more detailed numbers, especially by age, etc. I could go on for a long time on a related train of things (which would probably over-flow onto other lists) but I'll stop. We oughta set up a sub-list for intensive flaming... Noel ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 30-Nov-81 0304 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #45 Date: 30 Nov 1981 0303-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #45 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 45 Today's Topics: Re: Does anyone out there really care? Re: SPACE Digest V2 #44 Does anybody out there really care? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Nov 1981 13:31:46-PST From: alice!sjb at Berkeley To: ucbvax!space@Berkeley Subject: Re: Does anyone out there really care? In-reply-to: JNC at MIT-XX I really care! You mentioned what's happening to kids nowadays. Well, I'm 15 and VERY into the space program. I think that we should be pumping more money into it, instead of cutting back almost every aspect of it to fund the STS program. Unfortunately, when I talk about it to some of my friends in school, I find that they really don't care -- whereas I have pictures on my wall of the launches and landings of Columbia, I find that most of them didn't even watch it on the evening news (let alone live)! I'd like to say something other than that, but, unfortunately, I can't. Adam Buchsbaum ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 81 15:42-PDT From: mclure at SRI-UNIX To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #44 Hello, I've been getting multiple copies of the SPACE digests now for quite some time. Can we cure this? ------------------------------ Date: 29 November 1981 20:38 est From: Tavares.Multics at MIT-Multics Subject: Does anybody out there really care? To: JNC at MIT-MC, Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Message of 29 November 1981 06:02 est from Ted Anderson I can supply one modest data line in this area. Back when we were landing on the moon, membership in the National Association of Rocketry (a space modeling society) was around 3700-- its highest point. "Model Rocketry" magazine was selling in hundreds of hobby shops and, later, newsstands. Our national meet drew 300+ competitors. In the intervening years, our membership dropped. At its lowest point it was barely 1500. "Model Rocketry" tubed. National Meets did well to draw 100, counting spectators at times. Since the Shuttle hit in 1Q81, we've been busy taking advantage of the upswing. Our membership is now around 2500. National Meets are drawing around 150 (things are more expensive these days, of course). We again have a spacemodeling magazine back on hobby shop racks and it's selling well. And things still have a pleasant first derivative. All I've done is confirm thet interest in space, especially among the young (the modal age of spacemodelers in the US is 14), follows successes in the space program. Is it something the youngsters keep as they grow up? I think so. Didn't you? The problem may be that while "space kids" may be old enough to be Governor of California, they're not old enough to be running the Federal Government. Those "space kids" who aren't in government may be apathetic, but-- hey, it's the '80's-- you can't expect all of them to be space activists. At least they have warm fuzzies about space as opposed to being "if God meant man to fly" types. Anyway, when pollsters run those "do you think space deserves the funding" polls, who DO you think is out there answering "yes"? Things are NOT dim! ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 01-Dec-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #46 Date: 01 Dec 1981 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #46 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 46 Today's Topics: SPACE Digest V2 #44 long-term gigabucks ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: HAROLD@MIT-ML Date: 11/30/81 11:23:26 Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #44 HAROLD@MIT-ML 11/30/81 11:23:26 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #44 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC I also seem to be getting two copies of the space digest. This seems to be a new bug as I was only getting one up to now. Harold Goldberger ------------------------------ Date: 30 Nov 1981 22:18:23-PST From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley Subject: long-term gigabucks "...NO company has the financial resources to plunge billions of dollars into something that will take decades to pay itself off." Nonsense! Still worse: ignorance! Boeing put over one billion dollars of ITS OWN MONEY (not borrowed!) into the development of the 747 and its production line. It is a verifiable fact that it took roughly a decade for this investment to start paying off (747 #400 was figured to be the break-even point). Nor was this a one-time fluke; they have recently done the same thing again, on a still bigger and costlier scale (several billion this time), with the 757 and 767. Again, most of the money was not even borrowed; it was $2-3 billion cash in hand! Anyone want to bet the payback time will be any shorter? Boeing may not be QUITE in the do-it-yourself-space-shuttle league, but they clearly are not far away from it. Boeing, incidentally, has expressed interest in buying the STS from NASA if/when NASA decides to get out of the space-trucking business. And if that example isn't good enough, most public-utility financing is by private companies, and multibillion-dollar investments with payoff times measured in decades are routine business there. Some of the projects, like the James Bay hydroelectric project, are already well up in the tens-of-billions bracket: that's Project-Apollo size. Henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 02-Dec-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #47 Date: 02 Dec 1981 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #47 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 47 Today's Topics: Re: big projects Re: Who really cares? The Air and Space Museum ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Dec 1981 10:33:01-EST From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: space-enthusiasts at mit-mc Subject: Re: big projects Come on now! The 747 is completely non-analogous to any space project; it was a substantial improvement over the aging 707 and as such was expected to sell like hotcakes (which it did; 400 airplanes of that size corresponds to a shitload of seatmiles). In addition, several successive administrations in this country have shown no willingness to let badly-managed defense contractors go under (although their solicitousness is directed more to Lockheed than to Boeing). As for utilities, remember that they are the provable sound (if low-paying) investment; in all your cases there is a demonstrated track record for payoffs on money put into development. Comparing this with the space shuttle is ridiculous. On this subject, it occurs to me that relatively few people have realistically considered the social design necessary for any wealth-from-space scheme shown. Traditionally, a colony exports raw materials and imports finished goods. Given the gravity well this could be marginally feasible. But, given the kind of people getting into space, how long would this be acceptable? What happens when they realize they have the knowhow to do most of the high-tech assembly themselves (try to visualize suing a colony for patent violations)? (This already has analogies in history---New England was a great milling area for over a century after the revolution because an impatient apprentice memorized the plans for all the machinery at a British mill.) Some of the best apolitical visualizations of this scenario (EARTHLIGHT, THE STARS MY DESTINATION) have ended in war. Any bets? ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 1981 20:29:35-PST From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin In-Reply-To: Your article of Sun Nov 29 03:21:34 1981 To: decvax!duke!unc!space@Berkeley Subject: Re: Who really cares? My own impression is that the Powers in our beloved government underestimate the public interest in the space program. The National Air and Space Museum is the largest tourist attraction in Washington, which shows a considerable degree of interest in *something*. Maybe it's just the inherent spectacularity of the exhibits, and maybe it's just that the information is well-presented, but I suspect there's more to it. ------------------------------ Date: 02 Dec 1981 0144-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: The Air and Space Museum To: space at MIT-MC The last and only time I was there was several years ago and I had occasion to talk to the guy at the door counting people as they entered. He claimed that it was the biggest tourist attraction in the world. The attendence count beating out even such greats as Disneyland. I don't remember if that was total count of people for all time or a per year figure. Also he could have been completely wrong. Still... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 03-Dec-81 0308 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #48 Date: 03 Dec 1981 0308-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #48 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 48 Today's Topics: The National Air and Space Museum Does anyone really care Aviation Week excerpts Oops ... forgot one Attendence at the Air and Space Museum ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 02 Dec 1981 1004-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: The National Air and Space Museum To: space at MIT-MC The interest in the National Air and Space Museum is not a matter of contrast. It is surrounded by the rest of the Smithsonian and the rest of Washington, all of which are pretty spectacular, themselves. I asked the people at one of the information booths at NASM not too long ago about the crowds. She didn't know why they came but the NASM bookstore/souvenir shop does more business than most of the other Smithsonian trinket shops. Biggest sellers are books on aviation/spaceflight and models of the same. So perhaps the interest lies in the subject matter, not simply the matter of presentation. I understand that this was Kennedy Space Center's biggest year for tourism. The number has been steadily growing, though. Not just because of the recent launches. A somewhat less cheerful note: In my conversation with the lady at the NASM Info desk, I mentioned that it was sad that Reagan might be cutting back the NASA budget. She said, ''Well, that's OK, we have a lot of problems to solve here on Earth before we can afford to do that sort of stuff again.'' Sigh. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 1981 08:29:42-PST From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin Location: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill To: decvax!duke!unc!space@Berkeley Subject: Does anyone really care I keep a "B.C." cartoon taped to my refrigerator door: "Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity!" "Why is that?" "It eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals... and lets us get straight to the business of hate, debauchery, and self- annihilation." ------------------------------ Date: 02 Dec 1981 1438-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Aviation Week excerpts To: space at MIT-MC From the November 30, 1981 issue of AWST ''Soviet Union's new antisatellite battle station in low earth orbit is escalating its capability for space warfare. The antisatellite system is equipped with clusters of interceptor vehicles that could destroy US spacecraft and has been identified as Cosmos 1,267, which has been docked to Salyut 6 since June 19, ostensibly as a test of enlarging the Salyut station's capabilities.'' . . . ''The Defense Dept. is concerned that future operational spacecraft like Cosmos 1,267 will be launched into geosynchronous orbit to threaten US communications and missle early warning spacecraft.'' . . . ''Docking of this antisatellite weapon platform with Salyut 6 means the USSR would be able to use a manned Salyut to direct antisatellite attacks against US spacecraft or to protect Soviet satellites against a US retaliatory attack. US officials said the data on the new killer satellite system, which first appeared in an intelligence report Sept. 17, are now "very hard from a variety of sources and methods; harder than anything we've seen in a long time."'' ================ There is also an article describing NASA efforts to initiate the first phase of transferring the Shuttle ground processing to private industry. ================ Official Doubts Space Station Need ''A top Reagan Administration space policy official has told Johnson Space Center personnel he foresees no need to establish a goal of manned performance in space or the establishment of a space operations center as the next National Aeronautics and Space Administration project following the Shuttle program.'' The article (which is too long to type) goes on to report that Victor H. Reis, assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, says that the US space goal should be exploitation of the existing shuttle system, not a SOC. ''Although Reis' views do not necessarily rule out Reagan Administration support for a large new space goal, they cloud the future on whether NASA will be able to pursue advanced development of such systems under the Reagan Administration.'' ''Reis wants to stimulate the military space activity and military uses of the space shuttle. He foresees more autonomous military space shuttle operations than are currently possible with the NASA/Defense Dept. cooperative program.'' ================ Conceptual Design for a Mars Polar Orbiter will be conducted by RCA NASA has given RCA Astro-Electronics $20K to research a MPO to look for water and CO2 on Mars. Very useful stuff it you want to spend some time on Mars. ================ There is also lots of stuff on STS-2 and a marvelous section on computer graphics (CAD/CAM, Flight Simulators, Heads-Up Displays, etc) ------------------------------ Date: 02 Dec 1981 1445-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Oops ... forgot one To: space at MIT-MC Also from Aviation Week USAF Undersecretary Edward C. Aldridge wants to transfer the Shuttle to a different management structure once it is operational. He foresees a ''space command'' for defense space operations. ''Aldridge said the US must possess the ability to deny the use of space to the Soviets when their systems threaten US interests.'' He also advocates expanding the fleet of orbiters, and the initiation of a study of ''a Block 2 shuttle'' with more payload, volume and orbit capabilities. ------------------------------ From: BRUC@MIT-ML Date: 12/02/81 18:44:20 Subject: Attendence at the Air and Space Museum BRUC@MIT-ML 12/02/81 18:44:20 Re: Attendence at the Air and Space Museum To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Does anyone know real numbers for this along with attendence at other tourist attractions? Such facts would be nice to include in letters to the powers that be. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 04-Dec-81 0304 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #49 Date: 04 Dec 1981 0303-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #49 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 49 Today's Topics: Air & Space Museum new Soviet rocket? Re: big projects / do everything yourself? long-term gigabucks ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Dec 1981 0930-EST From: PDL at MIT-DMS (P. David Lebling) To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Subject: Air & Space Museum Message-id: <[MIT-DMS].216913> I've been to the Air & Space Museum twice in recent years, but also visited other parts of the Smithsonian the same day. The crowds at A&S are easily double and possibly as much as ten times the crowds at the other Smithsonian sub-museums. For example, the Hirschorn Gallery was nearly deserted both times. The Natural History building probably comes closest to A&S in attendence, but is quite obviously much lower. What this says about public interest in space I can't say, though. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Dec 1981 1636-PST From: Stuart McLure Cracraft From: Tom Wadlow Subject: new Soviet rocket? To: space at MIT-MC n055 1357 03 Dec 81 BC-ROCKET (Newhouse 009) By PATRICK YOUNG Newhouse News Service WASHINGTON - The Soviet Union has resumed trying to build a giant rocket powerful enough to put a space station in orbit around the moon or send cosmonauts to Mars, U.S. space experts say. The rocket is believed to be designed to produce a thrust of 12 million to 14 million pounds, almost double the 7.6 million pound thrust of the Saturn 5 rocket that launched U.S. astronauts to the moon. Estimates place the rocket's payload capacity at up to seven times that of the U.S. space shuttle. The Soviet Union began developing a giant rocket in the early 1960s, but suspended work in 1974 after apparently suffering three launch failures and other problems, according to Charles P. Vick, an expert on the Soviet space program. One of the failures reportedly involved an explosion that killed a number of people. U.S. intelligence sources and spy satellites have confirmed the Russians are again working on a big booster. Non-government analysts of the Soviet program say reports from inside Russia and earth-resource-satellite photos from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration also confirm the effort. ''The question is whether this is a new system or an attempt to rebuild the old one,'' says James Oberg, a long-time observer of Soviet space activities who authored the recent book, ''Red Star in Orbit.'' The Defense Department publicly acknowledged the Soviet work on the giant rocket for the first time late in September. A few terse lines toward the end of a Defense report titled ''Soviet Military Power'' said the rocket was designed to launch payloads ''six to seven times the launch weight capability of the space shuttle.'' The shuttle is designed for a maximum cargo of 65,000 pounds, which would mean the new Soviet booster could launch up to 455,000 pounds. ''The new booster will be capable of putting very large permanently manned space stations into orbit,'' the report said. ''The Soviet goal of having continuously manned space stations may support both defensive and offensive weapons in space with man in the space station for target selection, repairs and adjustments and positive command and control.'' The Pentagon refuses to discuss the rocket beyond that brief statement. The Soviets have made no announcement of the rocket and have been more secretive about their plans than usual. ''They don't ever want to talk about launch vehicles,'' says a NASA official who deals with Soviet space experts. ''We don't try to find out, and they don't bring it up.'' Bits of information have leaked out, in specialized and technical Russian publications and from European space scientists with contacts inside the Soviet Union. With this information and his studies of unclassified satellite photos, Vick has been able to sketch a picture of the Soviet project. Recent photos reveal ''a tremendous amount of construction'' at the Baykonur launch site east of the Aral Sea that is apparently related to the rocket project, Vick says. This includes a 3 1/2-mile airstrip and - ''if I'm interpreting the pictures correctly'' - three and possibly four large buildings for constructing and supporting space stations. Vick, who follows the Soviet space program as a contributor to an international space encyclopedia, believes the rocket is essentially the same one the Russians worked on for a decade, which in the United States is often called Type G. ''It's the very powerful, brute-force launch vehicle talked about by the CIA years ago,'' he says. ''I would expect a test flight in 1982, and possible operations in 1983 or '84, but this thing has failed three times and I wouldn't take bets.'' Oberg says the Russians may be looking ahead to orbiting a space station around the moon and to interplanetary flights. ''I wouldn't be surprised in 10 years to see a manned fly-by of Mars as a demonstration - just out and back,'' Oberg says. ''That is still a long ways from a landing. A landing would be a gigantic effort, but this rocket would have the capability.'' Both Vick and Oberg challenge the Pentagon's estimate of the rocket's load capacity as too high. ''Based on my technical analysis, there is no way from its size that that vehicle could have that capability,'' Vick says. He suggests a maximum capacity of 356,000 pounds. Vick says the Type G booster is a three-stage rocket 307 feet tall, which can also be fired as a smaller two-stage version. Its first-stage engines, which Vick estimates number around 20, burn liquid oxygen and kerosene. Early flights of the Type G went awry, Vick says. The first failed in 1969 just after firing and ''apparently collapsed back on the launch platform and obliterated everything.'' A 1971 shot ripped apart at about 40,000 feet and a 1972 test apparently exploded 26 miles up. BJ END YOUNG nyt-12-03-81 1656est ********** ------- ------------------------------ Date: 4 December 1981 02:10-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: big projects / do everything yourself? To: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC Initially any space colony will depend on Earth for virtually all its life support and joys of life (gadgets to play with and cultural productions such as movies). Even if some people in space start making things for themselves, the variety of things they will want will greatly exceed the variety of things they can make themselves until they have a population of a billion or so, which won't be for a long time, perhaps a century. After all, Sunnyvale (near San Jose, CA) has a lot of experts, but do they make everything themselves? No, they buy just about everything from stores that are part of chains that have nationwide or worldwide. They specialize in a small number of products (a few thousand major items, mostly electronics and food-canning), and import everything else they need. The same is true of just about every other medium-sized city, even those which are moderately isolated. So don't except any space colony of a mere million people to cut itself off totally from trade with Earth unless Earth has a nuclear war. I expect a space colony will specialize in: Bulk energy and energy-intensive raw materials (Aluminum, Titanium, pure Silicon for electronics); Zero-gee sci-fi movie special effects; Ball bearings and other things best made in space, including vaccines. Astronomical observations; and import just about everything else it needs/wants from Earth. ------------------------------ Date: 4 December 1981 02:34-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: long-term gigabucks To: decvax!utzoo!henry at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Hmmm, add Boeing to my list of big companies that ought to be asked if they want to buy an orbiter (Exxon, Xerox, ITT, ...) as soon as we get Congress to permit it (after NASA finishes getting the bugs worked out of the design sometime next year). Now for the investment question. Indeed it appears billion-dollar investments aren't common but have been done a few times by Boeing and a few other giant companies. So let's concentrate on the differences between the 747 and the shuttle, let's try to find anything about the shuttle that would discourage the investment by the same company that invested in the 747. If the differences aren't big, well maybe the private-shuttle idea will work. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 05-Dec-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #50 Date: 05 Dec 1981 0303-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #50 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 50 Today's Topics: Re: big projects / do everything yourself? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Dec 1981 11:45:01-EST From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: REM at MIT-MC Subject: Re: big projects / do everything yourself? Cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC In response to your message of Fri Dec 4 07:53:17 1981: I don't see this as realistic given the costs of getting mass into even LEO. As long as this umbilical cord is uncut space colonists will be a very select, privileged, \and/ \constricted/ group of people, rather like present-day European constitutional monarchs----how does that fit in with the dreams of your average L-5'er (or your average Ghenghis Khan liberal, to use a metaphor favored by participants in this digest)? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 06-Dec-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #51 Date: 06 Dec 1981 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #51 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 51 Today's Topics: Request for references on Project Orion ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 05 Dec 1981 2140-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: Request for references on Project Orion To: space at MIT-MC MSG: ORION1 1 LEVIN@MIT-MC 12/05/81 16:25:45 Re: Project Orion A recent rerun of Cosmos extolled the virtues of Project Orion. I am interested in finding more information about its performance, design and failings. I would appreciate any pointers to review articles or government reports. Replies to Levin@MC ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 07-Dec-81 0302 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #52 Date: 07 Dec 1981 0301-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #52 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 52 Today's Topics: Big computer is watching you.. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Dec 1981 0611-EST From: J. Noel Chiappa Subject: Big computer is watching you.. To: space at MIT-MC cc: JNC at MIT-XX Just out of interest, I wonder if this digest goes to people at any of the NASA sites on the net, and if so how high up into NASA the readership goes? (Before you state the obvious next step, remember that random mailing lists are officially a no-no, et cetera, ad infinitum (or perhaps that should be ad astra on this list!).) ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 08-Dec-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #53 Date: 08 Dec 1981 0303-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #53 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 53 Today's Topics: Re: Re: big projects / do everything yourself? Orion ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Dec 1981 10:04 PST From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Re: big projects / do everything yourself? In-reply-to: csin!cjh's message of 4 Dec 1981 11:45:01-EST To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Lynn.es The costs of getting mass into even LEO is strictly a result of having to carry chemical fuel with you during launch. The cost of say electrical energy to launch into orbit is pennies per pound, if you don't carry the fuel with you that you are burning. Once we harness high energy fuels (nuclear) or learn to beam up the launch energy, space colonists may be no more select and privileged than automobile drivers. /Don Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 7 Dec 1981 1556-EST From: JoSH Subject: Orion To: space at MIT-AI A description of the Orion project is given in Freeman Dyson's excellent "Disturbing the Universe." --JoSH ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 09-Dec-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #54 Date: 09 Dec 1981 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #54 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 54 Today's Topics: Arthur Kantrowitz talk at Harvard getting there (high power) Galileo cut ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BRUC@MIT-ML Date: 12/08/81 12:27:28 Subject: Arthur Kantrowitz talk at Harvard BRUC@MIT-ML 12/08/81 12:27:28 Re: Arthur Kantrowitz talk at Harvard To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Last night, Arthur Kantrowitz gave a talk at Harvard titled, "What is Holding Back the Utilitization of Outer Space?". He made a number of provocative statements that should prove interesting to those (such as myself) who hadn't heard them before. He opened his talk by looking at societal environment for space utilization. In the thirties, Bernal, a physicist, foresaw huge numbers of people living in spheres in space colonies. At the time, getting into orbit was the problem. Now, we can get into orbit, but the future for space is cloudly (much to all our chagrin). NASA and the politics behind its expenditures provide a partial explanation of what's happening. In his view, the goal of making space reasonably accessible was secondary to goal of pumping money and high technology into the states which held Lyndon Johnson's allegiance, particularly Texas. Second, he implied that the pursuit of safety in the Apollo program may have been excessive. He pointed out that the only men who were killed died in a safety exercise rather than in space. He then considered the financial and energetic barriers to getting into low earth orbit. If you calculate the kinetic energy of one pound at orbital velocity 100 miles up, you get an energy value of 4.5 kwh/lb (25 cents!!). The shuttle will cost in the high hundreds of dollars per pound. Amortizing the development cost ($10 billion) of the shuttle will take on the order of 1000 flights because the savings in cost is only a couple of hundred dollars per pound. What is wrong with the shuttle, then? First, it has wings. If an orbiter had a more compact shape, the reentry would not be such a problem. It would land by parachute and the final impact would be dissipated by some sort of crushable material. Such a design would not preclude reusability of most of the hardware. Why does it have wings? Politics. Only the aerospace companies would get a contract to build it. The shuttle keeps NASA in business these days; without it, they'd be a shell. What are better ways? He suggested three. All of these are "railways to space" as he put it. Without such a system, space will never be well utilized. 1) The big dumb booster. A very large booster that could be built with standard metals (he suggested the Chicago Bridge and Iron Works as prime contractor). He didn't give many details on it. 2) Mass driver to orbital speeds on earth. He suggested that a properly designed projectile (telegraph poles) would not have drag high enough to keep it from orbit. The work he described was done by Cohen (spelling?). 3) Laser launching system. He worked on this at Avco Everett. You use a laser to heat a gas to whatever temperature you require and shoot it out the back. Presumably, the laser would be on the ground shooting at the capsule going into orbit (See J. Pournelle's High Justice for a good sf story based on this idea.) You'd need about a gigawatt of power to launch one ton into orbit. A fair amount of research was done on this concept. Dr. Kantrowitz demonstrated a small version of this system to von Braun. His reaction was one of interest, but he asked that it not be publicized as the enemies of the shuttle would then have a weapon to kill the shuttle off without having something better to replace it. But what will really make people go into space? Pressures from society. The threat of nuclear war, limits to growth. He suggested that if pessimistic and optimistic visionaries would talk to each other rather than past each other, space is the obvious solution to many of our problems. After the talk, there was some discussion. One of the interesting points he made was that the space based, laser ballistic defense system looked very good to him. He was upset at Tsipis for his article in the December Scientific American because he left out possibilities that destroy the arguments he presented in the article. In particular, the power for such a system could also come from the ground via a mirror in higher orbit, or a larger nuclear power plant. He felt that such a large station could be easily shielded from the attack of another such large station (by mass), yet it would still be effective against missiles which have a thin shell. I found the talk fascinating. In particular, I was struck by the idea that the laser launching system could probably be developed at roughly the same cost as the shuttle. We blew it with the shuttle in a sense. For the same price we could have been putting pounds into orbit for at least a tenth the cost we'll be paying for the next decade. Bob Bruccoleri ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 1981 12:30:50-EST From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: getting there (high power) Cc: space at mit-mc Do you really believe that nuclear or electric power will be feasible for earth launches any time in the forseeable future? Most of the schemas I've seen for [electric] (e.g., ion-powered) rockets talk about low levels of continuous thrust, suitable for interplanetary travel. Note that you still have to have reaction mass from somewhere (although I suppose you could get as much as 20 miles up using ambient air as a reaction mass, which would help). I'm willing to look at long shots to get into space, but not to plan on miracles when proejcting what space will be like. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Dec 1981 0014-EST From: J. Noel Chiappa Subject: Galileo cut To: space at MIT-MC cc: JNC at MIT-XX 'Galileo Juptier orbiter/probe and 50% of NASA's aeronautics program have been cut from the agency's Fiscal 1983 budget by the OMB. The $300 million already invested in Galileo would be lost as well as about 1,200 jobs at the JPL. the move would end U.S. planetary exploration, a concept the White House supports. Aeronautics cuts would have a long term impact on national aeronautical capability, especially in competing with other world markets, and NASA administrator Beggs is expected to appeal directly to Reagan. White House OSTP, headed by presidential science advisor George Keyworth, has taken a position that the U.S. planetary program should be halted because of what the staff believes is limited 'show-biz' results compared with other scientific investigations.' There's more, specifically an article about the the House/Senate conference on the NASA budget, in which the legislature seemed pretty pro-NASA. The had money for a continuing option on two spacecraft for the ISPM, Galileo, aero research, orbiting infrared telescope, and (if I read this right) some for a fifth orbiter. An attempt to add Halley's lost. How many B-1's does it take to suppport a civilian U.S. space program? (Hint: same number as average administration member's IQ.) ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 10-Dec-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #55 Date: 10 Dec 1981 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #55 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 55 Today's Topics: Shuttling off the mortal coil Galileo article Canadian Governement ups Space Funding Laser Launch Systems ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Dec 1981 1121-CST From: Clyde Hoover Subject: Shuttling off the mortal coil To: space at MIT-MC As concerns having 'blown' it by building the Shuttle, I remind the audience that the Shuttle, although full of innovations and new hardware, is based in mid-70's space technology, which IS reliable AND proven (unlike esoteric methods such as laser launching and mass drivers). It is obvious that chemical rockets are not going to be sufficent in the long run for getting places. HOWEVER, that is exactly what we are stuck with for the time being. Of course, the esoteric methods could probably be made to work if a gigabuck or two were poured into them, but there is always the problem of "What if it doesn't work on the scale we need it to?" With current technology, we KNOW it will work on the scale involved (up to the scale of the Saturn V). While undoubtedly politics were involved with the Shuttle winging its way back to earth, that is ALSO based on known, proven aerodynamic technology. Also, an aerodynamic return vechile has more flexibility on landing site selection than the falling-rock Mercury/Vostok/Gemini/Vokshod/Apollo/Soyuz genre. Face it, there are LOTS of things that COULD have been done. But if you were going to attack the problem of reusable (cheap) space transportation, with ~2 gigabucks of taxpayers money, (and all the political bullshit attached thereto) would you adopt untried technology for its base? No one wants their head on a pole because of a wrong decision, not scientist or engineer or Congressman. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 9 Dec 1981 1452-EST From: J. Noel Chiappa Subject: Galileo article To: space at MIT-MC cc: JNC at MIT-XX Was from this week's AW&ST. Sorry, gang.... ------- ------------------------------ Date: 9 Dec 1981 20:05:55-PST From: decvax!watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley To: decvax!ucbvax!space@Berkeley Subject: Canadian Governement ups Space Funding The Canadian space program may not be large, but at least it is growing. The Toronto Globe and Mail this morning said that Canadian Space Program funding will increase by 38% next year. This means over $100 million more (1 dollar = 84 cents US) for various programs. A large amount will go into L-Sat's sollar array, in cooperation with the ESA. The Minister said that Government support for space development will be maintained "considerably ahead of the inflation rate". Details will be given later today on M-Sat, which will be for mobile communication, providing instant links for vehicles. Potential sales of the system are expected to be in the billions world-wide. Space radar for tracing weather is also getting more. Total Canadian spending on space will now be raised to the $500 million level. A fair portion of the money will go to Spar Aerospace, the company that built the space shuttle arm. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Dec 1981 0155-PST From: Jim McGrath Subject: Laser Launch Systems To: space at MIT-MC, info-laser at MIT-AI In regard to the recent message appearing in the SPACE digest concerning the possibility of using lasers, stationed on the ground, to supply the power to launch payloads into earth orbit by heating the reaction mass in a chamber at the bottom of the "rocket" and using the expanding gasses to propell the payload. I have always been interested in these systems as a potentially good replacement for rocket power. However, I have some technical questions (which eventually translate to economic questions). 1) What payload capacity are we talking about? This depends upon the answers to several other questions, but it is an important bottom line factor. In the short run we want high capacity in order to reduce assembly costs of components in orbit. 2) What power levels can the lasers maintain? Remember, those levels have to be maintained until orbit is acheived. A series of lasers firing in sequence could be used instead of a single laser, but that increases capital costs. 3) How many lasers are needed per launch? What is the turnaround time between launches? What is the cost of each laser? 4) What is the cost of the energy used per launch (or more simply, how much energy do you need)? With reasonable figures for these parameters, some figuring can be done. Till then we are simply wasting air. Any laser experts out there? Jim ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 11-Dec-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #56 Date: 11 Dec 1981 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #56 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 56 Today's Topics: Shuttle's wings Shuttle's and laser launching system laser launching systems Meteor showers Penthouse, please.. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 December 1981 1040-EST (Thursday) From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30) To: space at mit-mc Subject: Shuttle's wings Message-Id: <10Dec81 104051 DS30@CMU-10A> The shuttle's wings are as big as they are because the Air Force won the argument with NASA. The AF wanted the ability to fly up to 1,000 miles cross-range on reentry. This is needed in the event that a shuttle launched into a polar orbit from Vandenberg has to come down after one orbit. ------------------------------ From: BRUC@MIT-ML Date: 12/10/81 11:12:09 Subject: Shuttle's and laser launching system BRUC@MIT-ML 12/10/81 11:12:09 Re: Shuttle's and laser launching system To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC First, the research on the laser launching system was done by Avco Everett Research Labs. I've asked them for a report, and if and when I get it, I will report some of its results here. Next, I don't know too many technical details of the system, but Dr. Kantrowitz did mention a few. The system they were designing would have put a one ton capsule into orbit (at 10 g's). It would have required a one gigawatt (average power input) laser. Currently, the unclassified record is two megawatts (probably average power output). In any event, getting something that big would require many lasers operating in parallel. The cost of operating the system is that of the power plus whatever maintenence. At 10 g, orbit is achieved in about 90 seconds, so the system requires 25000 kwh per ton in orbit. At 10 cents/kwh, that's $2500. As far the politics of developing the shuttle went, NASA's decision to go with the shuttle at the time was OK. Laser technology was nowhere near the levels it's at now. Mass drivers would have plausible. Ditto for the big dump booster idea. It's understandable why they didn't pursue any more esoteric system, but that doesn't make it any less of a shame. Avco isn't working on the laser launch system anymore, and they should be. The research should still be happening, but the threat it poses to the shuttle via the powerful critics of the shuttle is still signifigant. I suppose that once the shuttle is operational and in heavy demand, we can really start pursuing all these launch systems energetically. But then, there probably won't be any money for research on advanced designs (OMB is trying to cut all such research from NASA's budget.) ------------------------------ Date: 10 Dec 1981 1158-CST From: Jonathan Slocum Subject: laser launching systems To: space at MIT-MC It occurs to me that a laser launching system can be considered to be just another use of a high-power laser weapon, in that the operational characteristics are essentially identical. Rather than melting the skin of the vehicle, of course, one hopes to heat/vaporize some substance that exhausts at a high velocity. But there are some very serious problems with this approach. To quote from the most recent issue of High Technology (v. 1, no. 2, Nov/Dec 1981, pp. 79-80): As the evidence indicates, there's no consensus of opinion on the feasibility of laser weapons. The technological issues are complex and far from settled, and they present a major challenge for scientists and engineers. Building a large enough laser, while by no means a trivial task, is probably the easiest step; even such pessimists as Tsipis [MIT] and Callaham [CMU] concede that high laser powers appear to be attainable. The most serious problems arise in reliably directing high powers onto a small enough area of a distant, moving target for a long enough time to do lethal damage. The atmosphere presents a complex set of problems. Although it looks transparent, the atmosphere isn't transparent enough for high-energy lasers. Even clear air absorbs a tiny fraction of the light going through it, and any absorption at all can be a serious source of trouble when trying to transmit millions of watts of light. That slight absorption is enough to heat the air a little, and as the air is heated it expands, reducing its density. As density decreases, the refractive index of the air in the beam path decreases, in effect making the air into a negative lens, spreading out the beam -- an effect called "thermal blooming." Atmospheric turbulence and a variety of other effects can also make laser beams wander off their targets. The next paragraph goes on about focussing problems (insuring sufficient energy presence/density at the target) which arise even in space. A recent Sci. Am. article dwells on the focussing/tracking issues, which are a source of some controversy. But the big, perhaps insurmountable problem for earth launches would appear to be atmospheric distortion. Unless the atmosphere is darn-near 100% transparent at some wavelength for which we can induce a substance to lase at extraordinary power levels, or we can find a way to make and sustain large tubular holes in the air, it ain't-a-gonna-work! ------------------------------ Date: 9 Dec 1981 2039-EST From: G.RONNIE at MIT-EECS at MIT-AI Subject: Meteor showers To: ota at S1-A Has there been some kind of meteor shower going on in the past 3 or 4 weeks? I ask because during this time I have seen an excess of meteors shooting across the sky. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Dec 1981 18:51 PST From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Penthouse, please.. To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Wedekind.es I think it was OMNI where I saw the space elevator idea; they would run on cables which are anchored on the equator and extend somewhat past the geosynchronous orbit (22,000 miles?), where there is a big weight tied at the end to keep them stretched tight. If I remembered that much right, a few picky technical problems come to mind. The first is that it requires very strong cables - able to support at least 3,000 miles of their sea level weight by my calculations. I don't remember if the OMNI article was presented as speculative science or out-and-out fiction; does the idea seem ridiculous now, ridiculous for the near future, or just forevermore ridiculous? Jerry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 12-Dec-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #57 Date: 12 Dec 1981 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #57 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 57 Today's Topics: Space Elevator space elevators Launching Laser Costs Atmospheric distortion and high power lasers cost of power for laser launch Penthouse please Laser launches from the Moon or in Orbit Penthouse, Yes Sir! Penthouse, P.S. Strong cables ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Dec 1981 05:55:28-PST From: CSVAX.wildbill at Berkeley To: space-enthusiasts@MIT-MC Subject: Space Elevator The concept has been around for quite some time. I first remember encountering it about 10 years ago, at which time a friend and I did a calculation about how big it would have to be to support its own weight. As I recall, using steel as the material (as we did in our test case) requires that the cable be several times as big around as the earth at its widest point in order to be 1 inch around at sea level. There are obviously some problems here. Arthur C. Clarke did an excellent treatment of this idea a few years back in his novel \\The Fountains of Paradise//. He avoided the problem by inventing a super-strong material with just the right properties for building such a device to keep the story going. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Dec 1981 1106-CST From: Clyde Hoover Subject: space elevators To: space at MIT-MC The idea of elevators into space is not new, I recall seeing it mentioned in a Sunday-suppliment magazine in the mid-60s. For a more proper treatment (rather than OMNI), read Arthur C. Clarke's "The Fountains of Paradise". ------- ------------------------------ Date: 11 Dec 1981 0954-PST From: Paul Dietz Subject: Launching Laser Costs To: space at MIT-MC That figure of $2500 per ton for th energy to launch a payload with a laser is probably low, because a gigawatt laser will consume a lot more than 1 gigawatt of power. Don't forget R&D costs, either. To solve the turbulence problem we can put the laser on top of a mountain, just like a telescope. In this respect the launcher has an advantage over a laser weapon, because the weapon has to be able to work anywhere. A good choice for a launch site would be one of the Hawaiian shield volcanoes - there is very little turbulence there. ------- ------------------------------ From: BRUC@MIT-ML Date: 12/11/81 14:48:54 Subject: Atmospheric distortion and high power lasers BRUC@MIT-ML 12/11/81 14:48:54 Re: Atmospheric distortion and high power lasers To: space at MIT-MC If a laser pulse is sufficiently short, the air molecules won't have time to move in order to affect the index of refraction. Atmospheric distortion really wouldn't be a problem. Absorption is a problem with visble wavelength light under certain weather conditions. Building it in the desert would be a good solution. ------------------------------ Date: 11 December 1981 15:08 cst From: VaughanW at HI-Multics (Bill Vaughan) Subject: cost of power for laser launch Sender: VaughanW.REFLECS at HI-Multics To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC You can't assume that big lasers are plugged into somebody's power line, and therefore you can't use $/KWH that are based on such an assumption. Here's one way to do it, if you *insist* on using electrical rather than chemical energy: Compute the size of a 1GWatt power plant. Figure out what it costs to build it. Assume some realistic interest rate. (No fair using 3 or 4 percent.) Add the costs to the cost of your laser. I hope you also used a realistic interest rate for the laser. I think you will find that your fuel costs are negligible by comparison with your interest costs. Maybe you can get some of your costs back by agreeing to sell power to people who don't mind losing it for some time either side of a launch. Seriously, peaking power is much more costly than baseline load, and you are talking about a gigawatt of peaking power. ------------------------------ Date: 11 December 1981 18:02 est From: Tavares.Multics at MIT-Multics Subject: Penthouse please To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Message of 11 December 1981 06:02 est from Ted Anderson The idea isn't exactly new. Arthur Clarke wrote a medium-sized novel around this idea several years ago. More technology from the man who invented the value of the geosynchronous orbit-- perhaps the NEXT big value of the geosynchronous orbit?! ------------------------------ Date: 11 Dec 1981 1452-PST From: Bob Amsler Subject: Laser launches from the Moon or in Orbit To: space at MIT-AI If atmospheric dissipation of laser's is the major problem to their successful use then wouldn't it be logical to propose them as a means of propulsion in space and from the moon, with the shuttle as the Earth-bound vehicle. Is the shuttle's design economical for OTHER than trips through the atmosphere?, i.e. would we be likely to use the shuttle for orbiting the moon or landing on it. Does No Air = No Shuttle for space travel? ------- ------------------------------ Date: 11 December 1981 2234-EST (Friday) From: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A (R110HM60) To: space at MIT-MC, Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Penthouse, Yes Sir! CC: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A Cables for travel to earth orbit are hardly more far out than chemical rockets or cannon. They become practical when bulk materials exhibiting one tenth the laboratory strength/weight ratios of single crystals become available. The best materials these days are Graphite composites and the synthetic Kevlar, both of which have about six times the strength/weight of steel. Another factor of six improvement would do it, well within the measured, not to mention theoretical, limits for normal matter. Chemical rockets have the same problem - only the most energetic fuels will do. The shuttle's main engines operate within a factor of two of theoretical limits. The anchored cable you mention is the simplest, but also most expensive, of a whole class of cable based schemes. In principal you can build a cable to synch orbit (22,000 mi above surface) and beyond out of any material. The secret is to taper it so that the cross section at each level is just large enough to support the weight of the cable below. The cable starts thin on the ground, gets fatter as you go up, is thickest at synchronous altitude, and thins down again farther out. The problem is that the ultimate taper (ratio of cross section at synch height to that at ground) is exponential in the strength to weight ratio of the material. Using steel you would need a taper of about 10^40. Kevlar or graphite brings it down to about 10^7 (almost reasonable), and with another factor of six it becomes 10 and merely a large engineering project. (The mass ratio of a rocket that can leave earth is similarly sensitive to the specific energy of the fuel.) There are at least two novels centering on this concept - Arthur Clarke's "The Fountains of Paradise" and Charles Sheffield's "The Web Between the Worlds". A very simple variant of the idea which is practical today is to have long cables spinning in orbit. A long tapered Kevlar cable orbiting the sun at the same distance as earth and spinning about its own axis could, on each half rotation, boost a payload massing about one hundredth of the cable's mass from a Venus/Earth minimum energy trajectory to one that takes it to Mars. The cable would lose orbital velocity in this maneuver, but would get it back when an equivalent mass used it to get back from Mars to Venus. Such inertial energy storage could make the energy cost of solar system commuting practically zero! The maneuver involves docking with the end of the cable, hanging on for about a half turn and letting go, with your velocity vector much changed. The docking with the end of the cable could be made as slow and low g as desired, because a cable with a given delta v capability can be built either short and fast spinning, for high turnover but tricky docking, or arbitrarily long and thin and slow. The mass remains unchanged as you excercise this tradeoff. So in conclusion, another factor of five to ten improvement in high strength materials will make the space elevator concept in all its variants not only practical but practically humdrum. Ten to twenty years at the outside in my estimate, but I suppose it would not be conservative to count on it. (And we're all conservative, right?) ------------------------------ Date: 11 December 1981 2237-EST (Friday) From: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A (R110HM60) To: space at MIT-MC, Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Penthouse, P.S. CC: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A Further reading available through this net address. ------------------------------ From: FONER@MIT-AI Date: 12/12/81 01:16:34 Subject: Strong cables FONER@MIT-AI 12/12/81 01:16:34 Re: Strong cables To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC I got a report about a year ago from DuPont on their interesting material called Kevlar, which is some five times stronger than steel for its weight and has some other interesting properties to boot. They mentioned the "skyhook" idea, but commented that even though Kevlar was strong, it wasn't \that/ strong. They did, however, include some useful engineernig data on Kevlar (of course!) and on the skyhook idea (which was nice of them). I'll dig the report out tomorrow and send any useful parts to the list. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 13-Dec-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #58 Date: 13 Dec 1981 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #58 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 58 Today's Topics: Ultimate limits Space Elevator cost of power for laser launch Penthouse please Penthouse, Yes Sir! Strong cables Space Elevator ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FONER@MIT-AI Date: 12/12/81 22:42:02 Subject: Ultimate limits To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC I know this is a little off the subject, but as long as somebody brought it up... what ARE the ultimate limits on matter? How is the maximum theoretical strength of matter computed, and what is it? What, for that matter, is the maximum strength of single crystals, theoretical or measured? Again, what's the theoretical limit on fuel power to mass, and how is it arrived at? Any such experts out there? Thanx. ------------------------------ Date: 13 December 1981 04:42-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Space Elevator To: CSVAX.wildbill at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC Dr. Charles Sheffield, then President of AAS, did a bit on space cables out of Kevlar +; better, really, than Clarke's, and written at about the same time. HPM (Hans Moravec) has done some good analyses of space cables also; as have Minsky and Lowell Wood. ------------------------------ Date: 13 December 1981 04:48-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: cost of power for laser launch To: VaughanW at HI-MULTICS cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC At then current interest rates I worked out the whole cost of building nuclear power plants in Baja Calif (thus avoiding the permit problems of building them in USA); bribing officials there; providing security; building transmission lines to the US power grid; building lasers; and setting up a launch system. The power is to be sold to the US when not used to launch spacecraft. Admittedly it is fiction, but for a multi-billion buck investment Hansen Enterprises (in my stories) got a very handsome return on investment, this in a time of economic stagnation in the US. See the book "HIGH JUSTICE" Pocket, about 1979 for details. (I make about .20 on each copy sold, so all y'all go buy one and make me rich.) JEP ------------------------------ Date: 13 December 1981 04:49-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Penthouse please To: Tavares.Multics at MIT-MULTICS cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC Incidentally, the Sheffield novel is called THE WEB BETWEEN THE WORLDS. It is perhaps not as dramatic as Clarke's (or maybe it is); it is certainly more technically detailed. It involves building a beanstalk. ------------------------------ Date: 13 December 1981 04:54-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Penthouse, Yes Sir! To: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC Except that it's "in principle" not "in principal" I can't think of much to disagree with. Eventually we have to escape from the rocket equation. Why not begin working on it now? ------------------------------ Date: 13 December 1981 04:57-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Strong cables To: FONER at MIT-AI cc: SPACE at MIT-MC One night out at Pajaro Dunes when we had nothing to do, Minsky and I (mostly Minsky) worked out the strengths and mass of cables to use a "King David" sling (centrifugal) to throw stuff off the Moon. Lo!, it's easily within the strength of Kevlar. You have to build a steel structure to give the mess rigidity, but the actual tension is held by a Kevlar cable; thus if you send up a lunar colony, Kevlar is a fairly important requirement of what to take with you. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Dec 1981 03:11:06-PST From: menlo70!sytek!zehntel!berry at Berkeley To: sytek!menlo70!ucbvax!space@Berkeley Subject: Space Elevator The space elevator was the subject of quite a bit of recent writing, not the least of which was the novel "The Fountains of Paradise" by Arthur C. Clark. At about the same time that this book was published, another author/scientist published another novel on the same subject. An extract from the novel, and an article desciribing the system in more mathematical detail than is possible in a novel appeared in Destinies, a paperback magazine (bookazine? magazook?) formerly published by Ace. I am afraid I can remember neither the date of the issue, nor the author's name, because my copy is still in one of the boxes piled in what will soon (Klono willing) be my library. Perhaps Dr. Pournelle can supply us the name/dates?? -Berry Kercheval ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 14-Dec-81 0304 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #59 Date: 14 Dec 1981 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #59 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 59 Today's Topics: Costs of laser launch facilities hammering the dinosaurs Beam weapons, comments from Access to Energy Ultimate strengths ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Dec 1981 0916-PST Sender: LEAVITT at USC-ISI Subject: Costs of laser launch facilities From: Mike Leavitt To: VaughnW at HI-MULTICS Cc: SPACE at MC Message-ID: <[USC-ISI]13-Dec-81 09:16:59.LEAVITT> Actually, you must worry about interest costs in building these big facilities only if you are a "public" utility or a government. Utilities finance captial projects through bonds much more often than through new stock issues, and everything new that the government funds must be considered to be funded from the proceeds of a loan at the going short-term T-bill rate. If, instead, you are an entrepreneur, you have the option of substituting equity growth for interest as the inducement to get new capital. This is the way most new enterprises get their capital if they can avoid the venture capitalists for long enough. Mike ------------------------------ Date: 13 December 1981 12:49-EST From: Ron L. Levin To: SPACE at MIT-MC Thank you for all the replies about project Orion. These are listed in MC:USERS5;LEVIN ORION. Two people mentioned McPhee and his book "On the Curve of Binding Energy." The consensus is that it probably works, and that it may be possible to reach 10% of the speed of light in a year. A model with "equivalent" TNT explosives was tried. The advantage of Project Orion over other nuclear powered systems, is the rapidity with which nuclear fuel can be consumed. The project was terminated with the nuclear test ban treaty. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Dec 1981 1648-PST From: Stuart McLure Cracraft Subject: hammering the dinosaurs To: space at MIT-MC !a266 1741 12 Dec 81 AM-Dinosaur Deaths,480 Theory Blames Dust, Darkness for End of Dinosaurs By ROBERT LOCKE AP Science Writer SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - For perhaps two months, the Earth was wrapped in a cloud of dust so thick that the sun was obscured and temperatures over land everywhere fell below zero. Within six months, according to the new verion of a 2-year-old theory, the landscape was littered with carcasses. Species after species became extinct. Plants stopped growing and dinosaurs couldn't find enough food and died. The idea that a giant asteroid or comet, crashing to Earth and kicking up huge clouds of dust 65 million years ago, ended the 140-million-year reign of the dinosaurs was described at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union by atmospheric scientist Owen B. Toon. Toon, of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Ames Research Center at Mountain View, Calif., said theories of the end of the dinosaurs continue to stir considerable interest. ''It's one of the longest-standing mysteries in science,'' he said in an interview Friday. ''If it could happen to them, it could happen to us. They were the kings of the earth.'' The extinction of the giant reptiles launched the age of mammals, which survived, Toon theorizes, because they were small enough to burrow underground for warmth ''and could probably stumble across enough food,'' including dead dinosaurs. ''All the mammals were mostly mice and little things like that and that's how we survived ... But if you're a big guy like a dinosaur, you've got to find an awful lot of food,'' Toon said. ''Plus, you can imagine how dangerous it would be for a dinosaur to stumble around in the dark.'' He said cold and the inability to find food probably killed off any creature that weighed more than 75 pounds. The idea of a dust-producing collision was proposed in 1980 by a team of scientists led by Walter Alvarez of the University of California's Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. They based the theory on geologic evidence that, about 65 million years ago, a thin layer of debris was deposited around the Earth. The concentration of certain metals in this layer is much different from that found in the Earth's crust, but about right for an asteroid. The group concluded that a meteorite, perhaps 8 miles across, caused a dust cloud that darkened the Earth for several years. Toon, with colleagues at Ames, R&D Associates of Marina del Rey, the University of Colorado and Informatics, Inc., of Palo Alto, used computer simulations designed to study volcanic ash and the atmospheres of other planets to better determine the effects of such a collision. The team presents a different picture, with shorter but more dramatic impacts. ''The duration was less than six months and possibly less than three months,'' Toon said. The crash, possibly in the ocean, would have had 10 million times the energy of the Mount St. Helens volcanic explosion last year, he said. ap-ny-12-12 2041EST ********** ------- ------------------------------ Date: 14 December 1981 02:06-EST From: Gene Salamin Subject: Beam weapons, comments from Access to Energy To: SPACE at MIT-MC, ARMS-D at MIT-MC The December 1981 issue of Access to Energy deals with beam weapons. It may or may not turn out to be practical, but you don't know until you try. The following is a quote from AtE. Only two years ago one could find articles explaining why atmospheric absorption would preclude particle beams. These forecasts (as near as we can tell from the open literature) have proved wrong; not because any physical laws have been broken, but for lack of experience with an energy threshold where other factors come into play. There have been such cases where just a little experimental physics, or the lack of it, considerably affected warfare. The secret invention of radar was not only decisive in the Battle of Britain (the entire tiny RAF fighter force always intercepted the Luftwaffe squadrons wherever they chose to approach), but it also revealed to the British that very short radio waves will propagate well beyond the horizon, rudely overruling contemporary physics and engineering textbooks. Again, no physical laws were broken, but the texts had failed to take account of a tiny, but decisive (refractive) effect of the atmosphere. The British used this effect in 1941 to bomb Berlin at night, through clouds, for unknown to the Germans, Berlin (and Western Europe) was covered by a navigational net spun from signals emitted by radio beacons in Britain. They were received on board British aircraft by the grandfather of today's electronic navigation, the "G-box", tuned to the then stunningly high frequency of 50 MHz (the band of today's commercial TV channels). The G-boxes had a detonator to destroy their most secret ingredients on impact, but it failed to explode on one of the planes shot down, and the Germans appointed a commission to top experts to investigate the puzzle. "We couldn't make head or tail of it", one of its members told this writer some years after the war. "But we unanimously concluded that it was something for training purposes only, because it was easy enough to determine the frequency to which the receiver was tuned, and we all 'knew' that such short waves could not possibly propagate beyond the transmitter's horizon." ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 1981 0217-EST From: HPM at CMU-20C Subject: Ultimate strengths To: foner at MIT-AI, space at MIT-MC cc: hm60 at CMU-10A Actually there are several "ultimate" limits. I was talking about normal, earth surface, conditions where all the interaction between atoms happens amongst the outer electrons. The characteristic energies are a few electron volts per atom. These few evs are the inter-atomic glue in materials, and what is liberated in energetic reactions. If you messed with the inner electrons, that would jump to tens of ev, nuclear energies are in the millions of ev, and total conversion of mass to energy gets you billions to tens of billions of ev per atom. With normal chemistry and materials science you get to tap only the one or two evs, the rest of the atom is essentially dead weight. As it happens, it takes tens of ev to lift even light atoms out of earths potential well, and this is what makes high mass ratios in rockets and cables or towers necessary: It takes the energy of tens of atoms to get just one to escape. It much easier on the moon, where a few ev per atom suffices, and much harder on the bigger planets. It takes hundred of ev to get an atom off jupiter, and a simple chemical rocket would have to have an astronomical mass ratio (but nuclear could work). Back to earth-normal: the ultimate strength of normal substances can be calculated by looking at the in-lattice bond strength between adjacent atoms, and dividing by the atom's mass. A real chunk of matter would achieve this strength only if all the atoms in it were so bonded in the direction of the stress, and if the stress were perfectly uniformly distributed over all the bonds. Normal engineering materials blow it on both counts. Grain boundaries and other lattice defects create both some inferior bonds, and cause stress to be concentrated unevenly. The overstressed regions break long before the rest of the material reaches its limits, but then the load is passed to what's left, and it all breaks. Perfect single crystals with smooth surfaces can exhibit nearly the theoretical strengths, however, and a lot of this is retained in bulk materials when single crystals are bonded together in a soft matrix (often metal) which distributes the stress among them pretty evenly. A nice intuitive way to express the strength to weight ratio of a material is called "characteristic length". It is the length of material fashioned into a constant cross-section rope that can just support itself when hung from one end in a uniform one earth gravity field. (The formula is tensile-strength/(density*1g)). Graphite, with its strong covalent carbon-carbon bonds is the best actually existing material. Its theoretical characteristic length is several thousand km. A metastable metallic version of hydrogen that can exist at room temperature might be quite a bit better because hydrogen has much less dead weight, but its existence is only conjectured. Later editions of the CRC handbook have a NASA originated table labelled "Mechanical and Physical Properties of Whiskers". The indicated whiskers are actual laboratory grown, millimeter length, single crystal rods of various substances, whose strength and density can be measured. The measured properties give the following characteristic lengths: Graphite whiskers 961 km Al2O3 whiskers 527 km Iron whiskers 162 km Si3N4 whiskers 455 km SiC whiskers 704 km Si whiskers 337 km These numbers are about 1/5 to 1/10 of the theoretical limits for the substances. By comparison we have todays engineering materials: Bulk aluminum 10 km Bulk iron 11 km Bulk steel 40 km Nylon 88 km Fiberglass 98 km Kevlar 195 km As stated in my previous message, a strength five times that of Kevlar would make earth elevator cables of varoius varieties possible. This means a characteristic length of about 1000 km; a bulk material with the graphite whisker strength above would do fine. ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 15-Dec-81 0304 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #60 Date: 15 Dec 1981 0303-PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #60 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 60 Today's Topics: Laser launch systems Sub Orbital Launch Skyhook Stability Linear accelerators as launchers. interest rates & launching lasers specific thrust of materials Cables in space the Gap interest rates & launching lasers Elevators, fuel Ultimate limits Shuttle's wings Shuttle's and laser launching system laser launching systems ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Dec 1981 0724-PST From: Jim McGrath Subject: Laser launch systems To: space at MIT-MC Although there does seem to be some similar points between laser weapons and a launch system, the launch system is far more practical. Certain advantages are as follows: 1) Launch from a high elevation. This decreases fuel costs but, more importantly, decreases the amount of atmosphere you have to punch through. 2) Launch in good, calm, weather. You can take your time when launching, just as shipmasters of old did. Keep a shuttle in reserve for an all weather transport. 3) Use several lasers (which can be time-shared between different payloads) for launching. This reduces the need for a continous beam from a single laser. 4) Use different pathways for the laser beams. If the beams are firing in burst mode, then this reduces the effects of blooming considerably. 5) Use a nuclear power plant, selling excess power to the electric grid. This is actually a far more cost effective idea than most of the comments so far indicate. For instance, launch only during the night - that way the power demand curve is evened out, and little extra costs are incurred. Use the day for repairs. It also gives you fantastic night launchings if you can see the beam! The ideal site would be in southern US or Mexico, hooked into a large power grid, at a high elevation and with clear, calm weather at night. Any suggestions from folks down thataway? Jim PS Note that while I am more confident that the system would work, I am still not totally convinced. Any document out there with hard, crunchy, numbers? ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 1981 0725-PST From: Jim McGrath Subject: Sub Orbital Launch To: space at MIT-MC An interesting article appeared in ANALOG magazine a year or so ago on sub orbital launching. Throw something up into the air at relatively low speed. In near space it encounters a linear accelerator which transfers momentum from itself to the payload, placing it in orbit. The accelerator itself stays in orbit either via ion drive, solar sails, or momentum transfer from incoming payloads to earth. Couple this with a laser launch system and you have a more effective combination. We could do it in a 10-15 year time frame (it all depends on how big you want the facility). Will we have a beanstalk by then? Probably not due to the greater materials (in technology and volume) requirements of the latter - you will need an accelerator in order to develope space sufficiently in order to let you get anywhere with skyhooks. Jim ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 1981 0734-PST From: Jim McGrath Subject: Skyhook Stability To: space at MIT-MC There appear to be large technical problems with skyhook stability due to two factors. First, the skyhook is vertically unstable. That is, small displacements will not tend to be corrected. I do not believe there is a similar horizontial stability problem, but there is another difficulty due to the fact that a skyhook is a very long and thin structure, with the primary strength criteria for construction being compression, not shear. If the structure suffers a horizontial shock, then the energy will be transmitted as a wave throughout the structure, potentially causing a lot of damage. First, are my fears grounded? Second, can we get materials that have both compression and shear characteristics we want? Finally, can we use feedback in order to dampen some of these problems (remember that the speed of light is a serious limitation here). Jim ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 1981 0741-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: Linear accelerators as launchers. To: space at MIT-MC CC: jpm at SU-AI The real problem faced by any linear accelerator used in a orbital launch system is that all practical lengths lead to rather large accelerations. This is due to the fact that for a given length (l) and required final velocity (v) the average acceleration is v^2/2/l. Plugging in some sample numbers we have low earth orbital speed of 8 km/s, and say our accelerator is 10 km long. This gives an acceleration of 320g. This is unacceptably high for people and other relatively fragile cargo. Note that the laser scheme mentioned recently had and acceleration of 10g for 90 seconds. This gives a length of 400 km. This still causes soem problems but you don't have to build a track thats 400 km long. Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 14 December 1981 1144-cst From: Bill Vaughan Subject: interest rates & launching lasers To: POURNE at MC, Leavitt at USC-ISI Cc: SPACE at MC, VaughanW Whether you set the generator up in Baja or Utah is probably immaterial. The fact remains that the utility buying your excess power is going to have to accept a 100% reduction whenever you want to launch a spacecraft. That means you are not selling that utility any base load; you are selling peaking power - so the customer will only buy it when it is needed, not the rest of the time. Your power plant will actually be producing salable power less than 25% of the time. This will reduce return on investment substantially. As far as equity taking the place of interest: this is true only to the extent you can convince investors that their equity will increase at a rate greater than the interest rate. (By the way, those investors are precisely the venture capitalists that Leavitt advocates avoiding. ?? ) It is true that the American investor is a perennial sucker, but will they go for this? Maybe - if you can produce a convincing (and nonfraudulent) prospectus. Anyway, my only point was that financing costs would be greater than fuel costs. I still think that's true. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 1981 1452-CST From: Jonathan Slocum Subject: specific thrust of materials To: space at MIT-MC What Hans neglected to explicate in his reply concerned how one determines what theoretical thrust is. The basic information is partly there already, but some dummies like me might not be able to piece it together. I shall not pretend to be as facile as he is with the numbers (or the physics) but here is a sketch of the limitations. Thrust is determined by the velocity and mass of the combustion products; velocity is determined by (combustion) temperature as well as the molecular weight of the exhaust products. Therefore, the higher the temperature, the higher the thrust (in chemical reactions, of course, the mass is constant). With each fuel/oxidant combination, one can determine the temperature at which the combustion products decompose (e.g., water -> hydrogen + oxygen at around 3,000K as I recall) in an endothermic reaction -- which reduces temperature, hence exhaust velocity. As it turns out, hydrogen is the best possible chemical fuel; as an expert would put it, it has the highest possible "specific thrust" (probably has something to do with its binding energy, resulting from chemical reactions within the innermost electronic shell, which Hans was talking about). Therefore, a hydrogen-burning engine operating at 3,000K is as good as you can possibly get in principle; the Shuttle engines approach this limit, thus we are near the theoretical limit w.r.t. chemical engines. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 1981 13:43 PST From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Cables in space To: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A (R110HM60), space at MIT-MC cc: Wedekind.es Thanks for a clear explanation of some of the technical issues re space cables. To reiterate, the figure I gave in my original question for the minimum characteristic length (~3k mi) of any potential cable material is all wet, because it assumed no tapering. I was next going to bring up coriolis forces on the cargo and atmospheric turbulence but first I better get ejukated.. please tell me what references you have besides the Clarke and Sheffield books. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 1981 1623-PST From: Stuart McLure Cracraft Subject: the Gap To: space at MIT-MC cc: dist at SRI-UNIX !n067 1530 14 Dec 81 BC-G(Newhouse 006) By PATRICK YOUNG Newhouse News Service WASHINGTON - Four astronomers think they have found a great cosmic hole largely devoid of galaxies in a place so far from Earth that light takes more than 360 million years to bridge the gulf. The gap itself isn't what has surprised their fellow scientists. It's the size that has astronomers, cosmologists and astrophysicists puzzled. ''Since we see large clusters of galaxies, one would expect to see gaps,'' says David Schramm of the University of Chicago. The area is some 300 million light-years - roughly 18 quadrillion miles - in diameter and 180 million light-years deep. (A light-year is the distance light travels in a year, or about 5.9 trillion miles.) A gap that big doesn't fit easily into current thinking. ''Existing theories of the distribution of matter in the universe can't quite explain the discovery,'' says John Huckra of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Mass. ''There is still some doubt whether it is real.'' But if the gap is real - and new work suggests it is - it should provide a deeper understanding of how galaxies formed some 1.5 billion years after the birth of the universe. It may even shed some new light on the Big Bang itself, that gigantic explosion believed to have begun the universe we know some 10 billion to 20 billion years ago. The universe is populated by galaxies, which tend to cluster together. These galaxy clusters also tend to be grouped into what are called superclusters. In between are vast regions of space containing little matter. ''We would like to know how galaxies and galaxy clusters formed,'' says Robert Kirshner of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, a member of the team that discovered the gap. ''At the beginning, we think, everything was homogeneous with matter evenly distributed. Somehow we have to account for how the structure of the universe formed. If we understand how this structure grew from early times to present, we could infer what happened at the beginning.'' Until now, the largest known gap was about 60 million light-years across. The new gap appears five times larger, and it takes up far more space than the largest known supercluster of galaxies. The new hole was discovered by Kirshner, Augustus Oemler Jr. of Yale University, Paul L. Schechter of the Kitt Peak National Observatory in Arizona, and Stephen A. Shectman of the Mt. Wilson and Las Campanas Observatories in Pasadena, Calif. The four, using telescopes at Kitt Peak, the Smithsonian's Whipple Observatory in Arizona and Mt. Palomar in California, were conducting a survey to determine the distance of galaxies far from Earth. They were able to observe galaxies up to 40,000 times fainter than the naked eye can see. The hole was inferred from three samples of galaxies that formed a triangle in the area of the constellation Bootes. In each sample, the gap began about 360 million light-years away and continued outward to 540 million light-years. Preliminary results from more than 100 areas studied within that triangle has since supported the gap's existence. Viewed from Earth, the patch of sky appears small. ''If you hold a garbage can lid up at arm's length, it's that big a piece of the sky,'' Kirshner says. But because the region is so far away, the hole actually represents about 1 percent of the observable universe. Thousands of galaxies should be found there. Yet the four astronomers find 10 times fewer than expected. ''To have found a population density of less than three times average would have been a rare find,'' Schechter says. ''But finding that the density is about 10 times less than the average is exceedingly hard to understand.'' The gap intrigues scientists trying to fathom the birth and evolution of the universe, for it goes to some basic issues in cosmology. Although matter does clump in galaxies and galaxy clusters, overall the material of the universe is evenly distributed. ''Two of the most fundamental questions in cosmology today are: Why, on the large scale, is the universe so smooth; and why, on the small scale, is it so bumpy,'' Schramm says. Kirshner and his colleagues continue to investigate whether matter might exist in the gap in some form other than normal galaxies. Two unlikely possibilities are as great clouds of gas or as unusually tiny, faint galaxies, making the gap a ''place where all the galaxies are pygmies.'' ''That in itself would be surprising,'' Kirshner says. BJ END YOUNG nyt-12-14-81 1831est ********** ------- ------------------------------ Date: 15 December 1981 03:55-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: interest rates & launching lasers To: VaughanW at HI-MULTICS cc: POURNE at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC, VAUGHANW at MIT-MC, Leavitt at USC-ISI It seems clear to me that one could launch on off-hours, or otherwise schedule to the convenience of customers for power. I see no reason at all why clever scheduling cannot manage to sell a lot of power and simultaneously get a lot of stuff into orbit. Example: an electric furnace steel plant, given the low cost of labor in certain areas, plus a break on power, might well forgoe the third shift, leaving one shift for launch and two for selling power to a steel plant; or, if I can assure you I'll deliver your power during the hours of 8Am to 8PM, you're likely to buy; and I'll have 12 for launching. I fail to understand why we must have a rigidly scheduled system. Unless, as Alex points out, we can't launch at night because you can't see where you're going... ------------------------------ Date: 15 December 1981 0410-EST (Tuesday) From: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A (R110HM60) To: space at MIT-MC Subject: Elevators, fuel CC: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A Re skyhook stability - The anchored kind is VERY stable vertically - after it is constructed the bottom end is anchored to the ground, and the top end (as much as 70,000 miles beyond synchronous orbit) is ballasted with a counterweight which tries to escape centrifugally, and puts the entire cable at design tension. When a payload travels on the part of the cable below synch orbit, its weight (decreasing as the payload rides up into lower g, higher centrifugal heights) merely removes some of the load on the anchor - the cable above the load feels no change in the forces on it, the cable below the payload has its bias stress temporarily lessened. Coriolis forces are also no problem - they just cause the cable to lean a tiny bit. Careful payload scheduling can minimize the long term induced sway. The cable is so thin for its length that payloads simply thrusting up and down on it cause no material shear forces to speak of - just a little local bowing. Unlike a weight on a taught catenary, the anchored skyhook is a constant tension system. Resonances are another issue; Pearson's first two papers in the reference list below conclude that all serious oscillations can be easily avoided. Some ascent/descent speeds excite resonances, but if you accelerate through those speeds quickly, the vibrations don't have time to build up. Re hydrogen/oxygen as the best chemical fuel - actually hydrogen/fluorine is a little better. The HF reaction product is heaver than the H2O of the shuttle's engines, but the greater reaction energy more than makes up for it. Of course both the fuel and the exhaust vapor are very unpleasant to man and machine - and the reaction is very hot. Still its one of the major fuels used in high power chemical lasers. The very highest specific impulse from a chemical reaction undoubtedly comes from the recombination of atomic hydrogen. H + H -> H2 both liberates a lot of energy and has a very light, thus high velocity for the energy, reaction product. Storing the monatomic hydrogen until it's needed represents a still unsolved packaging problem, however. Possibly the hypothetical metastable metallic hydrogen is an answer to this problem too. Here are the elevator references requested: Y. Artsutanov, V Kosmos na Elektrovoze (To the Cosmos by Funicular Railway), Komsomolskaya Pravda, July 31, 1960 (contents described in Lvov, Science 158, p 946, November 17, 1967). J.D. Isaacs, A.C. Vine, H. Bradner, G.E. Bachus, Satellite Elongation into a True "Sky-Hook", Science 151 p 682, February 11, 1966 and 152, p 800, May 6, 1966. Y. Artsutanov, (The Cosmic Wheel), Znanije-Sile (Knowledge is Power) No. 7 p 25, 1969. J. Pearson, The Orbital Tower: A Spacecraft Launcher Using the Earth's Rotational Energy, Acta Astronautica 2, p 785, September/October 1975. J. Pearson, Using The Orbital Tower to Launch Earth Escape Payloads Daily, 27'th IAF Congress, Anaheim, Ca., October 1976. AIAA paper IAF 76-123. J. Pearson, Anchored Lunar Satellites for Cis-Lunar Transportation and Communication, European Conference on Space Settlements and Space Industries, London, England, September 20, 1977. in Journal of the Astronautical Sciences. H.P. Moravec, A Non-Synchronous Orbital Skyhook, 23rd AIAA Meeting, The Industrialization of Space, San Francisco, Ca., October 18-20, 1977, also Journal of the Astronautical Sciences 25, October-December, 1977. J. Pearson, Lunar Anchored Satellite Test, AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Conference, Palo Alto, Ca., August 7-9, 1978, AIAA paper 78-1427. H.P. Moravec, Skyhook!, L5 News, August 1978. H.P. Moravec, Cable Cars in the Sky, in The Endless Frontier, Vol. 1, Jerry Pournelle, ed., Grosset & Dunlap, Ace books, November 1979, pp. 301-322. R.L. Forward and H.P. Moravec, High Wire Act, Omni, Omni publications international, New York, July 1981, pp. 44-47. ------------------------------ Date: 15 December 1981 04:56-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Ultimate limits To: FONER at MIT-AI cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC Ultimat limits to matter: 42 Reference: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy... ------------------------------ Date: 15 December 1981 05:05-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Shuttle's wings To: David.Smith at CMU-10A cc: SPACE at MIT-MC But can't they always land on Easter Island...?? ------------------------------ Date: 15 December 1981 05:10-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Shuttle's and laser launching system To: BRUC at MIT-ML cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Art Kantrowitz is the new Chairman of the L-5 Society and will be writing on laser launch systems for the L-5 News. (Subscribe by sending $20 to L-5 1060 E Elm Tucson AZ 85719) (I don't get paid nothing nohow for L-5 News) NASA has a decision to make: operate stuff, or develop advanced technology? There's a conflict. Worth thinking about. ------------------------------ Date: 15 December 1981 05:11-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: laser launching systems To: LRC.SLOCUM at UTEXAS-20 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC After all, there are people who believe the Earth is flat; znd I expect that gunpowder weapons were "controversial" for a long time, especially amongst experienced pikemen./ You want to be your life on Tsipis, go ahead. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 16-Dec-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #61 Date: 16 Dec 1981 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #61 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 61 Today's Topics: Re: Linear accelerators as launchers. Skyhooks Planetary Science in extremis A few more comments on skyhooks multiple-laser launching systems Spaceports Elevators into Space Momentum ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Dec 1981 0855-PST From: Jim McGrath Subject: Re: Linear accelerators as launchers. To: ota at S1-A cc: space at MIT-MC My original message only assumed that accelerators be used as the "second stage", ie you get them up to suborbital speed and then accelerate them to orbital velocity. I did a short linear search of my library, but could not find the article. Any pointers from out there? I think the correct equation to use here is 2*A*L = Vf^2 - Vi^2 (Vf = final velocity, Vi = initial velocity). Then if we keep a= 100m/s^2 (10g), then we have for a final velociy of 8km/s (a couple of hundred miles up), then we have L Vi 1 km 7.93 km/sec 10 km 7.87 km/sec 50 km 7.32 km/sec 80 km 6.93 km/sec 125 km 6.24 km/sec 200 km 4.89 km/sec If we let A = 100g, then we get 1 km 7.87 km/sec 5 km 7.32 km/sec 10 km 6.63 km/sec 20 km 4.89 km/sec So we would need on the order of tens of thousands rings in order to accelerate from about 5km/sec. Two conclusions can be drawn - you want this system first for mass transport, not person transport, and it is easier to build than a skyhook by a couple of orders of magnitude. Thus it does appear to be an interesting step between rockets (or even lasers) and skyhooks. Jim ------- ------------------------------ Date: 15 Dec 1981 0917-PST From: Jim McGrath Subject: Skyhooks To: space at MIT-MC Hans - thanks for the references. Re skyhook stability - my comment on vertical stability was meant as a comment on principle - ie that you do have to be careful (ie anchor it, prevent the payload/structure mass from getting too high, etc...), and that puts greater demands on the engineering (it also sets you up for diasters - say you lose your space anchor - then the beanstalk comes crashing down) Once again, on the shear forces I was not so much thinking of operational problems, but potential diasters - like someone slamming into it in a passanger plane. The problem is that such diasters WILL happen, and that the potential loss of such an expensive structure in one will deter people from building them unless the engineering and safty precautions are VERY good. Thus I do not expect skyhooks within 20 years - more like 20 to 50 years (ie after we have a lot of space engineering experience and experience building VERY large structures). Jim ------- ------------------------------ Date: 15 Dec 1981 1222-EST From: MPH at MIT-XX Subject: Planetary Science in extremis To: space at mc This is an excerpt from an article in the December 18 issue of Science, "Planetary Science /in extremis/." Copyright AAAS, 1981. [Start of excerpt] The office of Management and Budget (OMB) wants the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to virtually cease its planetary exploration activities as of fiscal year 1983. The order was given to the space agency privately on 24 November. Although NASA will undoubtedly appeal the decision and try to negotiate a compromise, it has little time. The FY1983 budget must be ready for submission to Congress in January. The OMB proposal, as it stands, includes the cancellation of the Galileo orbiter/probe mission to Jupiter, which is already nearly built, and the Venus orbiting imaging radar (VOIR), which had been penciled into budget projections as a new start for 1984. The only mission that will /not/ be affected is Voyager 2, now on its way toward encounters with Uranus and Neptune. [End of excerpt] ------- ------------------------------ Date: 15 Dec 1981 1017-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: A few more comments on skyhooks To: space at MIT-MC Note that a skyhook that looses its earth surface anchor doesn't fall down it falls UP. As to safety, I would like to emphasize here that a structure that is some 100,000 Kilometers long and weighs millions of tons is not likely to be inconvenienced by some thing as trivial as a C-5A running into it at 500 MPH. Though I don't deny that it might be possible to design a geosynchronous skyhook that would fail in this situation I think it would be hard to do. Keep in mind that it needs a strength reserve (strength in excess of that needed to maintain static equilibrium) to support the lifting of, say, a million tons per year to GEO or it wouldn't have been built in the first place. It is not likely to be a fragile object. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Dec 1981 1317-CST From: Jonathan Slocum Subject: multiple-laser launching systems To: space at MIT-MC As for JP's comment, I wasn't trying to nastily dampen enthusiasm for getting out there SOMEHOW, it just doesn't/didn't look like riding a laser beam thru the atmosphere would be viable. Question-raisers are not always enemies: maybe some are just ignorant friends willing to risk appearing like fools if it will stimulate discussion/learning. Or maybe I AM a fool, but a flat-worlder I am not! The multiple-beam answer to blooming is certainly thought-provoking. Each beam runs into the same problems I raised before, only (it is hoped) at a manageably small level. Ohmic heating will still take place, albeit to a smaller extent, and the air in the beam path will still expand. Argument: the beam will be off before the expansion gets going good. Counter-point: yeah, but the NEXT time the beam comes on the air will be in its expanding/ed state, and the next, and the next... Argument: well, the beam path will have moved (following the launch vehicle). Counter-point: but not always significantly; at sufficient distances and angles of incidence (beam path to vehicle trajectory) the movement will be small, approaching zero -- especially toward the laser end, where motion is minimized, hence ohmic heating and consequent beam dispersion is maximized where its effects are least desired (farthest from the target). So we have the following variables: number of lasers (affecting the pulse length and beam deflection between pulses, hence ohmic heating potential); how widespread they are (affecting the extent to which they tend to share a common beam path, i.e., appear in effect like a single beam); how high they are (how much air they have to punch thru); and of course their individual power output & frequency. Without the expertise to run the numbers, I still suspect that inefficiencies at the target will require a large total beam power, which will require a LOT of (expensive?) lasers if the average per beam is to be kept sufficiently low. If high laser altitude and large numbers of them are also necessary, it will take LOTS of mountains to get around the path-sharing problem. Dispersing the lasers also tends to increase the laser-to-target distances (through the air). By the way, the hull of this vehicle is gonna have to ba a damn good mirror, lest it be subject to melting; what happens to the reflected energy? Does anybody REALLY want to watch this thing go up?? Cheers. -Jonathan ------- ------------------------------ Date: 15 December 1981 2202-EST (Tuesday) From: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A (R110HM60) To: space at MIT-MC Subject: Spaceports CC: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A The orbiting linear accelerator article (I thought both the article and the idea were extremely good) was Roger D. Arnold and Donald Kingsbury, The Spaceport, Part 1: Analog v99 #11 November 1979 pp 48:67 and Part 2: Analog v99 #12 December 1979 pp 61:77 They propose an accelerator length of 600 km subjecting payloads to 5g, with an active stiffening system on the structure. Neither the mass nor the complexity is obviously lower than a cable performing the same task: Imagine a cable in low earth orbit that spins in the plane of the orbit so that the spin just cancels the orbital velocity at the points where the cable tips come closest to the ground. The cable is like two spokes of a giant wheel that is rolling on the earth's surface at orbital speed. A flying machine can now jump up and grab the cable end at its lowest and slowest point (for a few seconds the tip is actually stationary with respect to the ground, just like the portion of the rim of a rolling wheel in contact with the ground is momentarily stopped). The cable can actually enter the atmosphere (and with terminal guidance and high precision, it could even kiss the ground), so the job of docking with it is simpler than for the linear accelerator spaceport. The payload then hangs on to the end, and lets the cable flip it around to be flung off at high velocity later. At the top of the swing the cable tip is moving at twice the (orbital) velocity of the cable's center of mass, and if the payload lets go then, it is sent off with a factor of more that sqrt(2) beyond escape velocity. The cable loses some orbital momentum in the process, wich it can regain from incoming payloads, or high specific impulse engines at its middle, just like the orbiting linac. Such a non-anchored skyhook can be build low and spinning fast, or long and orbiting high and turning slow. If you build one to orbit at synchronous height, it has most of the properties of the synchronous beanstalk. It turns out that there is a lower orbit which is optimum in the sense that it minimizes the taper required by the cable. The length of such an optimum cable is one third the diameter of the earth (this is a general principle; cute, huh?). So we have the cable about 4000 km long, with its center orbiting 2000 km above the surface. With a material that can make a beanstalk with a taper of 100, we can make an optimum rolling cable like this with a taper of only 10, using 100 times less material for the same payload capacity. The rolling cable can hoist 1/50 of its own mass on each touchdown. Such touchdowns happen every 20 minutes, in succession at six equally spaced points around the orbit. The cable is very long relative to the depth of the atmosphere, and because of the scale and the cycloidal shape of the tip trajectory, the cable ends appear to descend from the sky vertically on each touchdown, with a continuous upward acceleration of 1.4 g. They stab downwards into the atmosphere at a tame 2 km/sec, slow to a dead stop for an instant at their lowest point, and accelerate gently upwards to leave in the same way. The tip stays in the atmosphere five minutes each touchdown. The material of the cable (if graphite) has a tensile strength of at least 3 million pounds per square inch, so one or two square inches at the cable ends is certainly sufficient for most tasks. The average cross section would then be about five square inches. This gives the whole rolling skyhook somewhat the scale and geometry of a typical transatlantic telephone cable, except that the graphite is five times less massive than the copper and steel of the phone cable. It seems at least possibly cheaper to me than the accelerator, but cost analyses would have to decide. The big advantage of the accelerator is that it can be engineered entirely with known materials and techniques, while the cable awaits the next increment in high strength materials. Re: collisions with aircraft, I agree that most of the time a taut 3 million psi, inch diameter, cable would be to a slow moving aluminum plane much like a cheese cutter is to a piece of cheese. Almost all of the cable is above the atmosphere, however, and a collision at orbital velocity would be another matter. The hit probability is no greater than for a big satellite. The rolling cable is 4000 km long and about 5 cm in diameter. This gives it the same "frontal" surface area as a 500 meter diameter sphere. A collision would not be much of a disaster on the ground, because the small cable diameter insures that the cables burns up on reentry (though the sheet of flame across the sky as several thousand kms burn simultaneously should be interesting). Still the cost to the owner (or insurance) and to the payload on the cable at the time certainly make this event undesirable. Some kind of Norad (or coast guard) traffic control or monitoring would seem worthwhile. Given a few hours or days warning a skyhook can dodge a few kilometers, but it will probably be the least maneuverable object in earth orbit. It will probably have to be given right of way most of the time, just as law of the sea gives oil tankers right of way. Here are a few more skyhook references: Arthur C. Clarke, The Fountains of Paradise, Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich, 1978. Charles Sheffield, The Web Between the Worlds, Ace SF, 1979. Charles Sheffield, How to Build a Beanstalk, Destinies Vol 1 #4, Aug-Sep 79, pp 41:68, Ace books. Charles Sheffield, Skystalk, Destinies Vol 1 #4, Aug-Sep 79, pp 7:39 Charles Sheffield, Summertide, Destinies Vol 3 #2, Aug 81, pp 16:84 ------------------------------ Date: 15 Dec 1981 22:29:14-PST From: decvax!watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley To: decvax!ucbvax!space@Berkeley Subject: Elevators into Space Correct me if I'm wrong, but might there be a problem with the fact that the Elevator is pulling a lot of mass into space against friction? As you pull the mass up, you give it momentum, and you thus give some downward momentum to the tower itself. All the momentum should be conserved at the end, but you keep pouring energy into the elevator which gets used up as friction, and the tower is a little bit lower every time. Perhaps the friction is very low, but over the whole 35,000 km it could add up. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Dec 1981 2338-PST From: HPM at S1-A Subject: Momentum To: space at MIT-MC No, such momentum loss is not a problem. The anchored cable-ballast system is ultra stable and self correcting - it is a weight at the end of a long string attached to an unstoppable spinning turntable. Any momentum loss by the cable (which must be by dropping off or picking up mass - as you say momentum is conserved in a closed system) causes the cable to lean forward or lag backward behind its anchor position. Its force vector is then no longer along a radius of the earth, but has a tangential component. This component taps the earth's angular momentum, a tiny fraction of which transfers itself to the cable until it straightens out again (this needs damping, otherwise you just get a 100,000km pendulum!). By riding loads up far beyond synchronous orbit you can actually get net energy from the system - centrifugal force will launch payloads for you, with energy that is drawn from the rotational energy of the earth. The non-synchronous rolling cable is on its own, however, and any momentum it loses in launching payloads must be regained sooner or later by landing other ones, or operating thrusters (or sails? what a kludge that would be), else the cable crashes. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 17-Dec-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #62 Date: 17 Dec 1981 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #62 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 62 Today's Topics: Multiple-Laser Launching Systems Skyhook Safety Reluctant skyhooks Re: Multiple-Laser Launching Systems Re: Multiple-Laser Launching Systems Re: Multiple-Laser Launching Systems A few technical quibbles... Project Orion and relatives Re: SPACE Digest V2 #61 Checkoff on your tax form ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Dec 1981 1247-PST From: Jim McGrath Subject: Multiple-Laser Launching Systems To: lrc.slocum at UTEXAS-20 cc: space at MIT-MC Good argument on the multiple-beam suggestion except that you did not consider the most general case. ie in reply to: Argument: well, the beam path will have moved (following the launch vehicle). Counter-point: but not always significantly; at sufficient distances and angles of incidence (beam path to vehicle trajectory) the movement will be small, approaching zero -- especially toward the laser end, where motion is minimized, hence ohmic heating and consequent beam dispersion is maximized where its effects are least desired (farthest from the target). I point out that the beam path changes because the payload has moved (although if you send it straight up for some stupid reason this does not have to be true) AND because you switch the origin of the beam! ie you have a single laser with a complicated mirror system that allows you to quickly redirect the beam to any one of several "firing windows" on the ground. These windows can be separated by hundreds of meters. The whole time the beam is under ground you keep it in vaccum. Now the beam can follw QUITE different paths, even if the payload it being launched straight up! And the heating of the air near the firing windows is a rather small problem if the (relaxation time needed for air to return to normal)/(number of firing windows you use) is a small number. The actual numbers you use here depend upon the relaxation time, the degree of complexity of your mirror system (and cost) and the capability of your central laser(s). Cost factors are difficult, but perhaps someone could come up with that relaxation time and the laser design (ie you can have a continous laser swapping between windows or a laser which can send out bursts very quickly). Jim ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 1981 1332-PST From: Jim McGrath Subject: Skyhook Safety To: space at MIT-MC cc: ota at S1-A, moravec at CMU-10A I am still not really certain about skyhook safety. Remember, that plane crashing into a skyhook (which would have a diameter on the order of meters at most) at 500 mph would easily snap it if a significant portion of the construction material could not take the shear forces (thus potentially increasing the stress on the rest of this weakened section). I even think that you could manage to completely shear through the stalk with a single accident if the diameter was a few meters. Which brings me back to my original question: granted we can get materials with high compression strength, can they also handle shear forces like that? If my understanding of the present state of the art in materials sciences is correct, these materials with great compression strength are not equally impressive in handling shear forces. Even if the material had the strength of steel, there could still be serious consequences as the result of an accident with a plane in low "orbit" (ie close to the ground, where the diameter of the skyhook is also the smallest). Such an accident could lose you the stalk (and yes, most of it will fall up - but I do not anticipate that to harm many people (unless they are on the stalk at the time) - the section falling down could cause damage in the immediate vicinityof the anchoring). All this does not mean you cannot build a stalk - only that the engineering problems with such a structure should not be underestimated. Which is why I do not think they are the natural step after shuttle/laser launch, but that rather some orbital accelerator concept will be implemented first. Jim ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: 16 December 1981 1743-EST (Wednesday) From: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A (R110HM60) To: McGrath at SU-AI, Space at MIT-MC Subject: Reluctant skyhooks It may be that a skyhook is harder to sell, but the reason, methinks, is its strange and unusual nature, not the technical difficulties - people haven't had a generation to ruminate the concept yet. Heavier than air flight seemed that way in the late 19th century, and interplanetary rockets must have seemed like pure lunacy in 1915. Arthur Clarke suggests that the idea will become a reality twenty years after people stop laughing. Since you bring up Mars, by the way, it's nice to realize that Mars is the best nontrivial place in the solar system to build a synchronous skyhook, since it both rotates quickly, and has a shallow gravity well. Any kind of skyhook for Mars can be made of steel, and is a piece of cake with Kevlar. As for shear strength under side impacts note that these days Kevlar is the only material considered for bullet proof clothing. A quarter inch of Kevlar weave will stop anything fired from a handgun. another reference: NASA technical memorandum TM-75174, G. Polyakov, A Space "Necklace" About the Earth. (translation of "Kosicheskoye 'Ozhere'ye' Zemli " in Teknika Molodezhi, No. 4, 197, pp. 41-43) ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 1981 1703-CST From: Jonathan Slocum Subject: Re: Multiple-Laser Launching Systems To: CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE cc: space at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Your message of 16-Dec-81 1447-CST Re: beam path, I was considering each laser INDIVIDUALLY. The origin of a particular beam does not change (by definition; I'm talking about the location of a "nozzle", whatever its realization). Consider: a laser fires, then shuts off while others are firing; sooner or later, it must fire again. Through the same air that it fired thru before? It depends on the diameter of the beam, the displacement of the nozzle end since last fired, and the change in angular displacement to the target. If the nozzle moves less than the beam diameter, the beam is guaranteed to pass through at least some of the same air as last time. Then, the smaller the change in angular displacement, the more "old" air seen by the beam. No matter how you distribute the nozzles, angular displacement will decrease with increasing target distance -- increasing the likelihood of problems -- but a wide distribution (more than "hundreds of meters" apart) does help, within limits. Increasing the number of lasers helps out in two ways: it increases the available relaxation time, and angular displacement to the target will have changed more between shots. I expect relaxation time to be large (thunder lasts a long time), hence the number of lasers will have to be large. If in addition they have to be widely dispersed AND high up, we need lots of mountains. Using mirrors instead of separate lasers is a neat idea, if it can be arranged. It does keep laser costs down. But since every reflection will introduce error -- which is multiplied by the next mirror -- the tolerances will be small indeed. Astronomers and their optician friends seem to have a good grip on most of the relevant factors. The biggest problems would seem to be mirror coating and switching. The mirror coating has to be awfully good. If switching is helped by turning the laser off, OK; but if done by mirror motion alone, it gets really tricky. Note that if lots of mountains are necessary, the mirror proposal suffers a bit (no vacuum tunnels). Using mirrors, of course, does not change arguments concerning beam refraction. Simply replace "laser" with "mirror" and it all stands except for details of the cost analysis. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 1981 1604-PST From: Jim McGrath Subject: Re: Multiple-Laser Launching Systems To: LRC.SLOCUM at UTEXAS-20 cc: space at MIT-MC Agreed that the more lasers you have the better (although you obviously reach a point of dimishing returns due to capital costs of the lasers). If you employ a mirror system (and you are correct in pointing out that there are severe switching and coating problems here, although I do not think they are insolvable - lasers use mirrors anyway in the generation of the beam, so something should be workable) then, as far as the influence of the atmosphere is concerned, you can make a single laser look like it is dozens of lasers hundreds of meters (or even kilometers) separate. True, there is still a natural spreading of the beam over meters of vaccum, but the effect can be ignored at this level of discussion. Now I am assuming that the column of heated air generated by the beam is on the order of meters in diameter. Therefore and system with different firing windows spread out over hundreds of meters should generate beams whose heated air columns never coincide anywhere. Now say the relaxation time is on the order of seconds. How long can you fire a laser before thermal booming becomes a major facter? I assume it is at least on the order of miliseconds. A dozen lasers, with several dozen windows each, could handle this quite well. Certainly better than hundreds of lasers! Of course, the final launch configuration depends on a lot of factors. But we could get high level land for a truely spread out launch site. It ultimately depends upon the cost tradeoffs, which we cannot evaluate exactly (although we can point out general relationships). Thus this present discussion is reaching its limit unless people can dig up hard numbers for things. Query: has NASA or anyone else done a REAL study of this concept? (Maybe JEP has a pointer) Jim ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 1981 1604-PST From: Jim McGrath Subject: Re: Multiple-Laser Launching Systems Sender: CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE To: LRC.SLOCUM at UTEXAS-20 cc: space at MIT-MC Reply-To: CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE Agreed that the more lasers you have the better (although you obviously reach a point of dimishing returns due to capital costs of the lasers). If you employ a mirror system (and you are correct in pointing out that there are severe switching and coating problems here, although I do not think they are insolvable - lasers use mirrors anyway in the generation of the beam, so something should be workable) then, as far as the influence of the atmosphere is concerned, you can make a single laser look like it is dozens of lasers hundreds of meters (or even kilometers) separate. True, there is still a natural spreading of the beam over meters of vaccum, but the effect can be ignored at this level of discussion. Now I am assuming that the column of heated air generated by the beam is on the order of meters in diameter. Therefore and system with different firing windows spread out over hundreds of meters should generate beams whose heated air columns never coincide anywhere. Now say the relaxation time is on the order of seconds. How long can you fire a laser before thermal booming becomes a major facter? I assume it is at least on the order of miliseconds. A dozen lasers, with several dozen windows each, could handle this quite well. Certainly better than hundreds of lasers! Of course, the final launch configuration depends on a lot of factors. But we could get high level land for a truely spread out launch site. It ultimately depends upon the cost tradeoffs, which we cannot evaluate exactly (although we can point out general relationships). Thus this present discussion is reaching its limit unless people can dig up hard numbers for things. Query: has NASA or anyone else done a REAL study of this concept? (Maybe JEP has a pointer) Jim ------- ------------------------------ Date: 17 December 1981 00:20 est From: Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics Subject: A few technical quibbles... To: Space at MIT-AI Mostly about the laser launch system. Jim McGrath's points about the advantages of laser launch over laser missle defense are very well taken. You CAN pick your launching times, and that offers a LOT of advantages. To all of you who are worried about selling the excess power to the public power grid: That's the wrong way. If you are going to build a nuclear power plant, then really take advantage of it. Build an industrial park along with the power plant thd the launch site. Populate the part with industries that use large amounts of interruptable energy and large amounts of low-level heat. There are many chemical processes that can use the low-level heat effectively. And there are lots of uses for industrial electricity. Someone mentioned electric furnaces for speciality steels, but there is a much better one: aluminum Consider: it requires LOTS of electricity, is a high-value low-weight product so you can afford to ship it from remote areas, and the pot line can be shut down on almost zero notice without damaging the process (something you can't do with an electric furnace). A very large percentage of our aluminum is now made in Washington state on third shift using the night power from the Columbia River dams. One of the aluminum companies (Alcoa? I really can't remember.) is seriously studying building their own nuclear plant to run a very large set of aluminum pots. They think it's justified just for the aluminum. And they didn't even factor in co-generation and other uses for waste heat. There is also a study kicking around somewhere on exactly the subject of having a nuclear plant power an industrial park, without extensive connections to the main power grid. The conclusions were favorable. The other point is that, while you need tremendous power to drive the lasers, you only need it for 90 seconds. Clearly you don't design your power plant to meet this peak. Rather, you design on some kind of energy storage device and design your power plant to meet something like the average need. Superconducting coils and large flywheels come immediately to mind. You then divert the output of your (much smaller) power plant for 8 hours or so to pump up your storage device and then let 'er rip. You could, for example, not build your own power plant, but charge your device during the night (keeping the power company happy since they couldn't otherwise sell the power) and then launch at sunrise. Again, you CAN pick your launch time. The storage devices have been extensivelystudied, since power companies want them for load-leveling. They seem practical, and should produce something like a 90% in-out efficiency. Both flywheels and superconducting coils can be discharged at very high rates. And, of course, if you are using multiple lasers then you build a storage device located with each one. Saves on power transmission losses. To Jim McGrath: I'm not sure why you think that the speed of light would be a problem in an active stabilization system for the skyhook. Any waves generated in the cable would travel at the speed of sound in the cable. That has got to be several orders of magnitude slower that light. Personally, I like it. Shall we start a company and build one? Paul ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 1981 21:50:29-PST From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley Subject: Project Orion and relatives If anyone is interested in the details of nuclear pulse propulsion, possibly the best place to start is the lead paper in the August 1979 issue of the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society: "Nuclear Pulse Propulsion: A historical review of an advanced propulsion concept". It discusses everything from the original concepts to the recent schemes based on beam-ignited microexplosions. About 1/3 of the 25-page paper is the best technical (as opposed to project-history) discussion of Orion I have seen, including an attempt at an analysis of the rather vague vehicle descriptions in "The Curve of Binding Energy". The 97-item bibliography might also be of interest. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 1981 0314-EST From: J. Noel Chiappa Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #61 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: JNC at MIT-XX In-Reply-To: Your message of 16-Dec-81 0602-EST I have this uncomfortable feeling that the report in Science is correct. I'm goddamned if I'm going to sit still and let my tax dollars be spent on everything EXCEPT the one thing I'd like to see them spent on. If my granparents starve because of it, too bad. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 1981 0319-EST From: J. Noel Chiappa Subject: Checkoff on your tax form To: space at MIT-MC cc: JNC at MIT-XX Wouldn't it be neat if there were checkoffs on your tax forms so you could send some of your tax money (or perhaps extra tax money) to projects of your chosing, the way they have the election funding thing now? ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 18-Dec-81 0304 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #63 Date: 18 Dec 1981 0303-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #63 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 63 Today's Topics: skyhook disasters Re: Multiple-Laser Launching Systems Multiple-Laser Launching Systems ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Dec 1981 0951-CST From: Clyde Hoover Subject: skyhook disasters To: space at MIT-MC What makes you folks think that the surface-to-geosynch skyhook would only be ONE cable? All that needs be done is to build a triangle, say 100-200 meters on a side, with three cables (each able to support its own weight). If one snaps, you have cleanup work to do, but the replacement cable could be quickly strung up (or down) on ANY of the remaining. Placing them sufficently far apart would solve the collision problem. Oh yes, what makes you folks think the airspace around the skyhook would'nt be restricted from air/LEO traffic -- try flying over the Kennedy Space Center in your Piper Cub and see if the FAA doesn't get upset (especially when a launch is scheduled -- the Air Force will chase your ass away with T-38's). ------- ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 1981 at 2159-PST From: Andrew Knutsen To: CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE Cc: space at MIT-MC Subject: Re: Multiple-Laser Launching Systems In-reply-to: Your message of 16 Dec 1981 1604-PST. Sender: knutsen at SRI-UNIX I dont think its obvious that one reaches a "point of diminishing returns" in the laser/mirror ratio. Its possible that a lot of little lasers are cheaper than a few big ones for reasons like mass production and using lower-spec materials. The question at least merits study... I sure hope this is tried at least. If air can be heated to incandescence before blooming gets bad, the effect might be like a cone of light with the ship at the top, lighting up the desert if its done at night. Wouldnt help NASA's "showbiz" reputation any though... ------------------------------ Date: 18 December 1981 03:25-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Multiple-Laser Launching Systems To: CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE cc: SPACE at MIT-MC (relaxation time to return to normal) / (number of windows) isn't a number, it's a unit of time. Thus asking it to be a small number is totally meaningless. I think you mean instead: ((relaxation t)+(excitation t)) / ((number of windows)*(excitation t)) < 1 For example, if relaxation time is 10 seconds and excitation time is 5 seconds, and number of windows is 3, you get (10sec + 5sec) / (3 * 5sec) = 15sec / 15sec = 1 so you just break even and have no allowance for safety, but with 5 windows you have 15sec/25sec=0.8 < 1 so you're ok. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 19-Dec-81 0304 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #64 Date: 19 Dec 1981 0303-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #64 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 64 Today's Topics: Skyhooks Nuclear Power Plant vs. SPS for Laser Launch System Power Laser launches Spaceports Spaceports Momentum ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 December 1981 18:05 est From: Tavares.Multics at MIT-Multics Subject: Skyhooks To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Message of 18 December 1981 06:03 est from Ted Anderson I assume you're suggesting building a hollow pyramidal skyhook, 200 meters wide at the base and meeting at the point? It seems to me that this would ADD strain to the structure. For instance, small to medium-size radio towers come to a point at the bottom just so wind flexing won't tear them apart. I should think that the magnitude of possible side forces on a skyhook structure would be much worse. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Dec 1981 17:39:41-PST From: A.exp at Berkeley Subject: Nuclear Power Plant vs. SPS for Laser Launch System Power I don't like radiation. Why not use an laser SPS instead of the nuclear power plant for the laser-launched shuttle? The power could be beamed to Earth and stored, then fired from Earth based lasers during the first part of launch to reduce thermal bloom while the shuttle is still deep in the atmosphere. After the shuttle gets out of the atmosphere it could be illuminated directly by the laser on the SPS, saving storage costs on the ground and allowing you to get away with fewer lasers on the ground since the reduced ground cost would allow decreased efficiency during part of the boost. If only ground-based lasers are used, the thermal bloom must be fought even after the shuttle itself clears the atmosphere, but for an SPS laser, after the shuttle gets through the denser layers there is a corresponding reduction in the thermal bloom effect, so you would need only one laser on it. Also note that nuclear power plants have had the problem that they are out of commission .2 to .5 of the time. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Dec 1981 00:47:53-EST From: dee at CCA-UNIX (Donald Eastlake) To: space at mc Subject: Laser launches If you need a lot of power for just 90 seconds, can't you accumulate it in flywheels or something over a longer period of time?? (Maybe a flywheel at each of multiple lasers?) ------------------------------ Date: 19 December 1981 03:10-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Spaceports To: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Even if the mass and complexity of the 600 km linear accellerator is the same as the rotating&dipping cable in orbit, the l.a. is much easier to build. Why? (1) It can be built and tested incrementaly. Each piece can be installed in sequence and suborbital test flights of cheap passive material (dirt, rock) can be made. When enough sections are installed to achieve orbital velocity, it becomes operational. The dipping cable, on the other hand, must be built and installed as one big piece somehow. (2) The cable must be put into space somehow whereas the linear accellerator can be installed by conventional means such as bulldozers cranes trucks etc. Thus the linear accellerator can be started now without needing the shuttle whereas the dipping cable will DETRACT from shuttle payload capacity by diverting capacity from normal use to cable use, and can't be started anyway until the shuttle is operational. Thus I don't think the cable should be done until after we are well out into space, whereas unemployed construction workers could be assigned to the accellerator in 1982. We could use the shuttle for delicate equipment and people, and the linear accellerator for bulk materials. (I'm not sure whether we should do the Earth-based accellerator now and use it for bootstrapping ourselves into space industry, or go instead with the moon-based accellerator which WILL need a few shuttle payloads to get it installed but possibly be more effective due to lower moon gravity and lack of atmospheric friction.) ------------------------------ Date: 19 December 1981 04:22-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Spaceports To: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Galombos proposes a spaceport, cnsisting of a large mass in high orbit that can lower a cable about 400 km long; hook onto a suborbital mass at Shuttle; and up it goes. The energy in the spaceport is restored by ion engines and solar arrays. ------------------------------ Date: 19 December 1981 04:25-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Momentum To: HPM at S1-A cc: SPACE at MIT-MC AHA! You want to use Earth's rotational energy for space launches. YUou technologists never care about the environment at all. What about all the creatures that can't survive longer days and nights? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 20-Dec-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #65 Date: 20 Dec 1981 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #65 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 65 Today's Topics: Spaceports SPACE Digest V2 #64 SPS firing with laser at launch. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Dec 1981 0305-PST From: HPM at S1-A Subject: Spaceports To: space at MIT-MC CC: rem at MIT-MC No, no! The 600km spaceport accelerator is in low earth orbit. It catches payloads that can climb that high (which is easy) but don't have the velocity to stay in orbit (which is hard) and speeds them up to orbital momentum. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Dec 1981 09:59:34-PST From: Cory.kline at Berkeley To: E@MIT-MC, SPACE@MIT-MC Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #64 .....Bah, humbug. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Dec 1981 20:27:36-PST From: decvax!watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley To: decvax!ucbvax!space@Berkeley Subject: SPS firing with laser at launch. Egads! Can the accuracy be found for this kind of work? I can just imagine the poor fellow on the ground who gets hit with a gigawatt of power in the face from the SPS laser while he strolls in his backyard. You will not hear much complaining from him, but you will from the lawyers of his estate. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 21-Dec-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #66 Date: 21 Dec 1981 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #66 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 66 Today's Topics: Complexity re: flywheels ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Dec 1981 0917-PST From: Jim McGrath Subject: Complexity To: space at MIT-MC I don't like radiation. Believe it or not, lasers produce radiation (electromagnetic). While one may want EVERYTHING to be eventually powered by SPS, the point is that by the time we get enough SPS installed we will be able (in an economic and engineering sense) to build a skyhook, and thus laser launch systems will go the way of rockets. I have a similar prolem with flywheels, et al. The problem is that in a new, already technically complicated venture you do NOT want to add complexity. That is a sure way to never get ANYTHING done. Perhaps flywheels should be used - but quite frankly it appears that a simple proper scheduling of your launches will do nicely to smooth out power demands. And thus flywheels should take a back seat to the more fundamental problems, which all have to do with the lasers (lasers themselves, blooming problems, tracking problems, etc...). They will be difficult enough to solve, although it appears it will be possible. Adding more constraints might make it impossible for the project to be done at all - it would definitely make it much harder, and probably DECREASE the cost/benefit ratio. Jim ------------------------------ Date: 20 Dec 1981 1652-EST From: Clifford V. R. Ludwi Subject: re: flywheels To: DEE at CCA-UNIX, space at MIT-MC The MIT Plasma Fusion Center uses a refurbished Con-Ed generator to power the Alcator fusion device. The generator is spun up to operating speed, and the load is connected. It delivers about 160KA at 100V for something like ten seconds. The exact figures may be off, but the order of magnitude is correct. Anyhow, the generator is used as a flywheel, and drops in speed by 10% after a shot. It takes roughly five minutes to get it back up to speed. Not bad, 16MW for 10 seconds. Of course, if you want to put something in orbit... Cliff ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 22-Dec-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #67 Date: 22 Dec 1981 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #67 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 67 Today's Topics: Flywheels Private manufacturing of satelites -- News clipping radiation Electric Satellites ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Dec 1981 1201-CST From: John Otken Subject: Flywheels To: space at MIT-MC They have a flywheel as a power source for the Tokamac here at U.T. also. Although the numbers I recall for it are 160V @ 400KA, what is important is that this was suppose to be peanuts for flywheel industry. So don't buy a nuke (unless it is on sale) or an SPS, rather buy a gigawatt worth of flywheel(s) and purchase power at night . Ready for a morning launch.... What's not very obvious to me is the receiving end of this thing. It has to absorb a gigawatt over a period of ninety seconds. Could someone give a sketch of this device? ------- ------------------------------ Date: 21 Dec 1981 1452-PST Sender: BILLW at SRI-KL Subject: Private manufacturing of satelites -- News clipping From: William "Chops" Westfield To: space-enthusiasts at MC Message-ID: <[SRI-KL]21-Dec-81 14:52:36.BILLW> e617 12:21 21-Dec-81 -u.s. firms plans to build its own satellites washington -(dj)--the american satellite co., a pioneer in the development of high-speed satellite communication networks for businesses, asked regulatory permission monday to build and launch its own satellites. the proposal, filed with the federal communications commission (fcc), asks permission to build three satellites. one would be launched in 1985; the second in 1986, and the third held as an on-ground spare. the project will cost more than 225 million dlrs if approved, the company said. american satellite, a joint venture between the continental telephone corp. and fairchild industries, based in rockville, maryland, has become one of the largest satellite operators in the u.s. by leasing or buying space on satellites built by other firms and then building specialized networks for its customers. most recently, the company purchased a 20 pc ownership position in western union's westar satellite system. through its parent companies, it also has the right to use up to 50 pc of the commercial capacity of two new advanced westar satellites now under construction. in its application to the fcc, american satellite said it intended to build special 'hybrid satellites,' which have the capability of operating on two different bands of radio frequencies. the satellites will have a 10-year design life instead of the 7-year life that is now the industry norm, and will be capable of being launched by either the space shuttle, an american delta rocket or the european space agency's ariane rocket. if approved, the satellites will be controlled through new facilities to be built at america satellite's existing operations center in vernon valley, new jersey, the firm added. the fcc's response to the application filed monday may be governed in part by a proceeding launched recently to explore the technical problems that might arise if the orbital spacing between existing satellites is reduced. the commission has said it may have difficulty authorizing new satellites without such a reduction. -0- -(dj-12-21-81 2021gmt *************** ------------------------------ Date: 21 December 1981 1706-cst From: Bill Vaughan Subject: radiation To: JPM at SAIL Cc: SPACE at MC Gee, sorry you don't like electromagnetic radiation. I tend to be a little more fussy about the kinds of EM radiation I don't like. E.g.: Gamma rays: NO! X-rays: only under my doctor's orders. Short-wave ultraviolet: only to erase EPROMs with, thanks. Long-wave UV: good in moderation for suntans, special effects at parties. Visible: enough to read by, thanks. Short-wave infrared: good for radiant heat; the sun puts out a lot. Long-wave IR: as long as I'm not dead, I emit a lot of that myself. Microwaves: please keep them in the oven! (And don't walk in front of big radars.) UHF, VHF: I like my television, telephone, & marine radios to work. HF, MF, LF: Ditto for broadcast (except for a few stations) etc. VLF on down: Not enough information (though lightning generates a lot of VLF, so it probably isn't too bad for me). Saying "I don't like radiation" sounds nice, but it's either demagogic or ignorant. BTW - was it an infrared, visible or UV laser you didn't like the EM radiation from? ------------------------------ Redistributed-Date: 21 December 1981 17:42 cst Redistributed-By: VaughanW.REFLECS at HI-Multics Redistributed-To: Space at MIT-MC Date: 15 December 1981 12:37 cst From: Bibbero.PMSDMKT at HI-Multics Subject: Electric Satellites To: {mbx >udd>reflecs>bv>ARPA_fwd} at HI-Multics (Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC) I don't recall hearing about a space elevator until reading Arthur Clarke's book, but there was a joke going around missile circles circa 1956 about the "electric satellite -- they haven't gotten around to inventing the extension cord yet." This joke inspired me to calculate the feasibility of such an extension cord from earth to synchronous altitude, using a tapered construction. With steel, I recollect the diameter at apex was several thousand feet. The calculations are long gone but my results are more in line with Hans Moravec's message of 11 December than those of wildbill ("several times the diameter of earth.") ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 24-Dec-81 0302 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #68 Date: 24 Dec 1981 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #68 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 68 Today's Topics: Electric Satellites ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 December 1981 06:40-EST From: Robert Elton Maas To: SPACE at MIT-MC Date: 23 December 1981 06:38-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Electric Satellites To: Bibbero.PMSDMKT at HI-MULTICS cc: "{mbx >udd>reflecs>bv>ARPA_fwd}" at HI-MULTICS Hmm, if people don't like microwaves, maybe a long extension cord, for the Earth, not for the SPS, would be a good way to deliver the power down to here from the SPS. How about a plug at the North Pole on a swivel, with superconductors running SPS --> NP --> power grid? (Don't jump on me, it's late at night and I'm in a strange mood after playing Go all night. Besides, it's not totally absurd is it?) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 25-Dec-81 0304 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #69 Date: 25 Dec 1981 0303-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #69 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 69 Today's Topics: long extension cords & beanstalks Engine supported sykhook. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Dec 1981 12:34:47-PST From: decvax!duke!phs!dennis at Berkeley To: duke!decvax!ucbvax!space@Berkeley Subject: long extension cords & beanstalks That seems to be a way to manage the SPS power-transmission problems: microwave beams to the top end of a beanstalk, then hardware transmission to the ground. Does anybody out there have lossage figures for vacuum power transmission, as opposed to 22,100 mi of vacuum + 200 mi of atmosphere? Granted, there's another conversion step involved (reception at the head of the beanstalk), but maybe the lack of atmosphere lossage will make up for that. Also, it gets rather neatly around those turkeys who think the microwaves will cook the atmosphere and the animals, and give an economic boost to the whole beanstalk system (cheap power -- that applies to the neighborhood around the base of the beanstalk, too!). ------------------------------ Date: 24 December 1981 20:35-EST From: Gene Salamin Subject: Engine supported sykhook. To: SPACE at MIT-MC REM's idea of an electric cable from SPS to earth inspired me with the idea of electric powered ion engines all along a skyhook to support its weight; also along REM's cable to support its weight too. This avoids the need for an exponential taper. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 26-Dec-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #70 Date: 26 Dec 1981 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #70 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 70 Today's Topics: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 December 1981 01:56-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle To: REM at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC not totally absurd at all. keep thinking... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 27-Dec-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #71 Date: 27 Dec 1981 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #71 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 71 Today's Topics: North Pole Cables to an SPS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Saturday, 26 December 1981 15:13-CST From: Jon A. Webb To: Space at MC Subject: North Pole cc: cs.webb at UTEXAS-20, REM at MC I guess it's not immediately obvious that skyhooks can only be attached to the equator, not to the north pole, since geosynchronous orbit is possible only in the plane of the equator. Jon ------------------------------ Date: 26 Dec 1981 00:05:43-EST From: p-btempl at CCA-UNIX (Brad Templeton) To: space at Mit-mc Subject: Cables to an SPS It occurs to me that even aiming at a reception station just above the atmosphere for cable transmission down to earth would not stop the complainers - it might cause them to complain more. If the SPS is at geosync orbit, then a station a few hundred miles up is effectively on the earth for most of the rotation cycle, so there would be lots of earth beyond the path of the beam, and worst of all, not just one place (like the desert) Instead a whole circle of danger is sweeped out if any leakage occurs. What are the figures on how much power can be stored in how much mass of chemical fuel? For example, is it practical at all to use SPS power to create fuel cells from (say lunar) raw materials, by things such as the electrolization of water? Could this fuel then be dumped right onto the earth for parachute pickup, or is the container cost too high? If the container cost is high, then perhaps the power canisters could be fired (safely, assuming we can catch them easily) to the top of a small (200 km high or so) skyhook, and sent down to Earth for whatever use. (ie. reconverted to electricity (somewhat inefficient) or pumped down in fuel form) Anyway, the canisters, and even the raw materials can then be shot back up to the SPS for re-use. On the ion lifted skyhook, I think this is pretty unlikely. Even if you cut the weight in half, you don't save much in taper, and you need the power from your engines capable of supporting what you wanted to support with your strong material. Probably easier to lift everything up by STS! Besides, might there not be an effect from the constant stream of energy going along the cable? I think with our current technology, the low orbit rotating hook is the only way we can go right now. It's a good stepping stone to the geosyncronous one. A hook is much preferable to a linacc, since the linacc is only of use to cargo, and people are forced to take something like the STS up. This means that most of us, who want to go up (at least for a visit) might not get the chance before we buy it. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 28-Dec-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #72 Date: 28 Dec 1981 0303-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #72 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 72 Today's Topics: North Pole ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Dec 1981 1936-PST From: Jim McGrath Subject: North Pole To: space at MIT-MC First, you CAN have a skyhook at the North (or South) Pole. In theory, these are the only two spots on the earth which do not rotate. There are, in fact, slight precessions that give you difficulties, especially since the skyhook's horizontial position (like an equatorial one's vertical position) is at an unstable stable point (ie the moment it gets out of wack the displacement tends to get larger, not smaller). However, all this speculation is really meaningless because a skyhook, in the sense we have been talking about, cannot be placed at the poles. Why? Well, our skyhooks rely upon the tension created throughout the structure by the rotation of the earth. At the poles, this tension cannot be generated (since the structure does not rotate). Thus the weight of the structure has to be supported by the base, just like any other building. I am not sure we could build such a structure (I have not cranked the numbers) , but clearly the polar skyhook scheme has no ADVANTAGE over the equatorial one. Second, I am puzzled that no one has mentioned the obvious solution to the SPS power beaming problem. Naturally the power transmission from space to ground is done via superconducting cables along a skyhook. So why not extend this logic further? Instead of beaming the power from the SPS to the skyhook (incurring transmission losses, conversion losses, and still some safety problems), simply string a superconducting cable from the SPS to the skyhook! That is, do not use beam transmission at all - always use cables. This cuts your transmission losses to near zero. If you are generating electricity directly at the SPS, then you never do any energy conversions - if not, then only one conversion is needed. And you have eliminated all safety problems. Jim ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 29-Dec-81 0304 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #73 Date: 29 Dec 1981 0303-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #73 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 73 Today's Topics: Cables to an SPS Cables to an SPS Otrag pulls out of Libya ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 December 1981 02:12-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Cables to an SPS To: p-btempl at CCA-UNIX cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Date: 26 Dec 1981 00:05:43-EST From: p-btempl at CCA-UNIX (Brad Templeton) It occurs to me that even aiming at a reception station just above the atmosphere for cable transmission down to earth would not stop the complainers - it might cause them to complain more. If the SPS is at geosync orbit, then a station a few hundred miles up is effectively on the earth for most of the rotation cycle, so there would be lots of earth beyond the path of the beam, and worst of all, not just one place (like the desert) Instead a whole circle of danger is sweeped out if any leakage occurs. This doesn't make sense. If the station a few hundred miles up is in normal orbit or otherwise moving with respect to the Earth, there's no way to connect a cable between the station and a fixed point on the Earth, which was the original idea of mine. On the other hand, if the station is fixed with respect to the Earth, as I intended, the geometry is fixed, the beam from the synchronous-orbit SPS always is aimed at the same place on or off the Earth. It can be arranged for the low-relay-station to be a quarter revolution away from the SPS (with respect to center of earth) so that the beam from SPS to relay-station is essentially tangent to the Earth, missing it at all times. My original idea was to run the cable all the way from the SPS to the Earth, but I think the relay-station idea is a viable alterntive which doesn't involve part of the beam passing the relay station and striking the Earth. Only the side lobes have a chance of striking the Earth, and with the relay station several hundred miles from the Earth the side lobes reaching the Earth can be made insignificant. ------------------------------ Date: 29 December 1981 02:41-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Cables to an SPS To: p-btempl at CCA-UNIX cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I don't see anything wrong with inventing a cheap way to put bulk materials into space and then reserving the shuttle for humans and fragile cargo. Thus the linear accelerator could be useful even though it works only for bulk cargo, reducing the need to reserve the shuttle for such loads, leaving it more free for other stuff. If delicate cargo can be packaged correctly so it can withstand the jarring of the accelerator, and if it's not too delicate to withstand the average acceleration, then even delicate cargo can be sent by accelerator. Here's another idea I just thought of. How about a rotating catapult in a vacuum chamber. There's a door that opens for a moment just as the load is released from the catapult and then closes quickly so not much air gets into the chamber. The reason for the chamber is so the catapult can spin up to speed without encountering much air friction. The whole contraption could be installed on a high mountain top or flown up in a baloon, so the air outside the chamber has much less pressure than sea-level, and the air inside could be a factor of ten lower pressure. The combination of high initial speed (because of spinning-up the catapult in a near vacuum) and nearness to the top of the atmosphere (because of location) possibly means a good shape (low friction, low turbulence) and a thin ablative coating would enable tossing up to a 100-mile altitude where a spacecraft could catch the projectiles and toss them to higher orbit etc. There would be a high velocity difference between the projectile and the orbiting relay (catch&re-toss) station, but that's easy to handle, just have a long arm that catches the projectile while withdrawing at high RPM (like the way a baseball player catches a fly ball) and then just rotates around (at constant RPM) to another position where it lets go of the projectile. Thus the catch&re-throw catapult has to withstand only centrifugal force while actually handling the load, no tangential force. The force while spinning up preparatory to catching the load and while spinning down afterward is small (the computer can plan the catch a quarter to half orbit ahead of catch-time, i.e. as soon as it's released from Earth, then make minor adjustments in the spin-up as the projectile is tracked on its way up from Earth, making the spin-up quite smoothe. Note that the axis of the catapult-spin, the distance of the catcher from the pivot point, and the RPM, can all be controlled, achieving a perfect catch, the projectile exactly striking the catcher and the velocities of the projectile&catcher being zero at the moment of catching). ------------------------------ Date: 29 Dec 1981 00:14:15-PST From: decvax!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley In-real-life: Steven M. Bellovin To: decvax!duke!unc!space@Berkeley Subject: Otrag pulls out of Libya Cc: POURNE@MIT-MC Otrag, a West German company that has been developing rockets with potential military applications, has halted testing work in Libya. They began withdrawing personnel and abandoning their launching base about two months ago. American intelligence sources indicated that the company was using its ostensibly peaceful rocket program to mask efforts to sell military technology, including short-range rockets, to Libya, Pakistan, Iraq, and other countries; the company has denied such reports. Sources claim that the pullout followed an internal battle, in which Lutz Kayser, an aerospace engineer who founded the company, was fired. Kayser is reported to have remained in Libya, and is still working on missle development. The company now says it will refrain from developing its own launch facilities, instead using launch sites operated by other countries or international groups. "This will help eliminate the political problems of Otrag-owned sites," said Frank Wukasch, president of Otrag. From a N.Y. Times News Service article ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 30-Dec-81 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #74 Date: 30 Dec 1981 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #74 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 74 Today's Topics: sps skyhook Re: Cables to an SPS Re: Cables to an SPS Transporting energy with space technology Building skyhooks Cables to an SPS / Fuel etc. for shuttle from space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Dec 1981 02:54:56-PST From: menlo70!sytek!zehntel!berry at Berkeley To: sytek!menlo70!ucbvax!space@Berkeley Subject: sps skyhook Why can't we build the sps into the top of a geosynchronous skyhook and not have to beam microwaves ANYWHERE?? Then what can they scream about? -berry kercheval ------------------------------ Date: 29 Dec 1981 20:56:39-EST From: p-btempl at CCA-UNIX (Brad Templeton) To: REM at MIT-MC Subject: Re: Cables to an SPS Cc: SPACE at MIT-MC In response to your message of Tue Dec 29 02:13:19 1981: Your comment is correct - I must have been in a Christmas mood when composing. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Dec 1981 21:07:57-EST From: p-btempl at CCA-UNIX (Brad Templeton) To: REM at MIT-MC Subject: Re: Cables to an SPS Cc: SPACE at MIT-MC In response to your message of Tue Dec 29 02:42:33 1981: The idea of a spinning catapult in a vacuum was mentionned to me by I fellow whose name I forget at an L-5 party at the Denvention (world SF convention in Denver) this year. I'll try and dig up the paper he gave me on it. As far as using the STS as the only transport for people, I suppose that is workable, but just how many people could we bring up in them? If each STS launch costs 30 megabucks, we are still talking about a large chunk of money per person. How many people could you launch if they were packed like sardines? Would the number of shuttles to be built be reduced once a cheap cargo method like a skyhook was in the works? It still all boils down to ME not getting into space. In another 60 years we will probably not be in shape even for the smoothest rides, if the current funding trends continue. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Dec 1981 21:17:22-EST From: p-btempl at CCA-UNIX (Brad Templeton) To: energy at mit-mc, space at mit-mc Subject: Transporting energy with space technology Although oil is not, in my opinion, the way to go, we still have to face up to the fact that large quantities of money are going to be spent on digging oil out of the ground in the next few decades. The Canadian government alone expects 300 GIGABUCKS will be spent in the next decade or so on matters such as the tar sands and arctic oil. This is a lot of money, enough to buy a whole passle of Shuttle flights or to put a solar power unit in orbit. Can we get some of it spent on space? People are looking anxiously for a way to get oil out of the north down to the consumers in Canada and the US. It's all in ice, so tankers can't reach it unless they are submarines, pipelines are hard to build, and are very vulnerable to very costly sabatoge by natives who don't want them. What can space technology do to ship the power. It can either be shipped as oil or in another form. Is it possible to build one of the catapults talked about in the Space Digest to send oil to a touchdown off the coast from some refinery? What about in other forms? If we can build such a plant there, could the oil be burned, and the power sent up to reflectors or collectors in orbit to be beamed back down to the surface again? This may all sound like it will perpetuate oil, but it puts lots of those nice petrodollars into space. Or am I dreaming? Brad Templeton (p-btempl@cca-unix or decvax!watmath!bstempleton@Berkeley) ------------------------------ Date: 29 Dec 1981 20:51:33-PST From: ihnss!karn at Berkeley Subject: Building skyhooks Has anyone actually thought about the strategy of building skyhooks? Would you start at ground level, without anything at the top to pull the line out from the earth, or would you start at geostationary altitude and go in both directions to keep it balanced? I'm not sure that a partially completed (unanchored) skyhook could be kept stable long enough to be completed. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 30 December 1981 03:29-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Cables to an SPS / Fuel etc. for shuttle from space To: p-btempl at CCA-UNIX cc: SPACE at MIT-MC It'll be trivial to send down the hydrogen and oxygen used for the main engines of the shuttle, once we find a source of hydrogen (in water or elsewhere) and have space industry and SPS running. It should be reasonable to send down solid rocket fuel. The large fuel tank is lightweight so we might make a bunch of them in space and dump them in a bundle over the ocean where they will gently float down to the surface (of the ocean). I'd sort of like to know where the money goes that we claim costs so much for each shuttle flight. I think it's mostly prorating on the original construction, so the more we use the shuttle (up to its usable lifetime) the less it costs per flight. If we can get fuel and construction materials cheap, maybe we can reduce the cost of building additional orbiters, and thus bring down the cost per launch? What if we had 100 orbiters, running up and down commute flights on a semi-daily basis (go up one day, come down the next, immediately prepare for launch the next day). We're a long way from that now, but maybe someday with passengers packed like sardines we can put about 3000 people in space (30 per orbiter, 100 orbiters in fleet) each two or three days. With SRBs and fuel tanks prepared ahead of time, so we just stick them on the shuttle and add the fuel and launch the contraption with a short countdown, couldn't we do that? Let's see, that would be half a million per year. I guess that's not enough with 4.5 billion wanting to go up there. (If we really did semi-mass-produce orbiters, would be the unit cost?) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 06-Jan-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #75 Date: 06 Jan 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #75 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 75 Today's Topics: Administrivia Transporting energy with space technology Cost of a Shuttle flight Shuttle passenger module Building skyhooks Re: Transporting energy with space technology Summary of garbled messages --> location of skyhook Re: SPACE Digest V2 #68 using skyhooks for energy transmission. Re: Summary of garbled messages --> location of skyhook Re: Summary of garbled messages --> location of skyhook long extension cords & beanstalks ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 05 Jan 1982 2244-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: Administrivia To: space at MIT-MC As perhaps you have noticed, the system that distributes the Space Digest was down for almost a week. It should now be back on line, sorry for the delay. Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 30 December 1981 11:10-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Transporting energy with space technology To: p-btempl at CCA-UNIX cc: ENERGY at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC Gigabucks spent just trying to get oil out of ground and send it to where it's needed is a good reason for developing space for energy. If a teensy fraction of that money were invested in space, we could get bootstrapped. There's a political problem, do we want some big petrolium company owning the whole space-industry project? But if nobody else will invest the money to develop the technology, maybe we have to go that way. We carefully watch their progress: If they develop it, fine; If they suppress it to protect their interests, we get on their backs. ------------------------------ Date: 30 December 1981 1126-EST (Wednesday) From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30) To: space at mit-mc Subject: Cost of a Shuttle flight Message-Id: <30Dec81 112618 DS30@CMU-10A> I read somewhere (AW&ST?) that when the shuttle is operational, it will cost about $9 million to refurbish and refuel a pair of SRBs. I don't know where all this goes, but it doesn't help that the propellant is aluminum. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 1981 2123-EST From: Roger H. Goun Subject: Shuttle passenger module To: space at MIT-MC I read somewhere that a passenger module for the space shuttle had been designed. I keep hearing that the orbiter is as large as a DC-9, but actually has the interior room of a DC-10, so does anyone know how many people this configuration can actually seat? How does this compare to the number of Marines that came boiling out of the Moonraker shuttle in the James Bond movie? -- Roger ------------------------------ Date: 2 January 1982 06:28-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Building skyhooks To: ihnss!karn at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC The best simple paper on building a skyhook is in THE ENDLESS FRONTIER Volume Two, editor J E Pournelle; paper by Charles Sheffield, called "Building A Skyhook". ENDLESS FRONTIER Volumes One and Two are the lead SF titles from ACE BOoks this month. JEP ------------------------------ Date: 31 Dec 1981 00:00:44-EST From: p-btempl at CCA-UNIX (Brad Templeton) To: REM at MIT-MC Subject: Re: Transporting energy with space technology Cc: ENERGY at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC In response to your message of Wed Dec 30 11:13:04 1981: If we're going to develop space and viable energy sources (I think those two go hand in hand), then the only way to see it in our lifetimes may be with petrodollars. Great leaps often only occur with paranoia, be it from WWII, the Cold War or the space race. Right now one of the big sources of fear is the problem of energy - people are willing to spend gigabucks at the drop of a hat if you mention oil to them. Moving heavy industry into space and powering it with a Solar Power Satellite is one of the best answers I know of for a lot of our problems today, and it paves the way for who knows what else better. (for those of you in space@mc, sorry for the preaching to the converted) ------------------------------ Date: 1 January 1982 13:22-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Summary of garbled messages --> location of skyhook To: CS.WEBB at UTEXAS-20 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Date: Thursday, 31 December 1981 18:31-CST From: Jon A. Webb The one on the North Pole pointed out there's a significant difference in power consumption between North Pole and equator skyhooks, perhaps enough to make the North Pole skyhook impractical (why bother to put it there anyway?) Equatorial spots are filling up fast with comsats. Soon there'll be no room there for anything new (would you want a giant object generating lots of radio noise sitting right in your comsat beam path?). Comsats must be equatorial because they are passive, they don't have gigawatts of energy available for levitation like SPSs do. That leaves SPSs with nice spots over the poles with no competition from comsats. ------------------------------ Date: 4-Jan-82 10:24:21 PST (Monday) From: Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #68 In-reply-to: OTA's message of 24 Dec 1981 0302-PST To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Reed REM's message of 24-DEC gave me another idea: Why not use the earth's rotational energy to drive a generator? Have the drive shaft run from an earth-based generating armature up to space, where solar or other energy can put energy into slowing the armature down relative to the earth's spin, essentially having the earth move the magnets around the armature. You cound even combine REM's and my ideas into one by having his swivel be my generator. (Another crazy idea, maybe, but I'm crazy anyway.) REM's cable need not be a real cable, but perhaps a microwave guide. I don't know enough electromagnetics to say for sure, but it might reduce losses at the same time as protecting the outside environment. We could apply this second idea to the equator based skyhook - use it for transportation and power transmission at the same time. Another crazy idea: What about the possibility of using the earth as the rotating armature itself and dragging a magnet through the Van Allen belts to generate power? -- Larry -- ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 1982 2146-PST Sender: BILLW at SRI-KL Subject: using skyhooks for energy transmission. From: William "Chops" Westfield To: space at MC Message-ID: <[SRI-KL] 5-Jan-82 21:46:16.BILLW> Hmm. I think you will have problems running superconducting cables down a beanstalk. Kelvar may be very strong and flexible and resilent, but superconductors and the machinery associated with them arent. However, what about using the beanstalk, or part of it, as a waveguide? Does anybody know about the dielectric properties of Kelvar? Anybody know what the relative transmission efficiencies of dielectric waveguides vs atmosphere transmission? How thick does a waveguide wall need to be; can you get away with metalizing the outside of a Kelvar rope? (I suppose I should know the answers to some of these questions, but I tended to be very bored with E&M by the time we got around to waveguides in classes...) I think this would solve all environmental complaints, as the microwaves would be contained inside the waveguide. If it broke, transmission would fall apart. Finally, re someones chewing out of someone elses statement to the effect that he didnt like the idea of being hit by the radiation from an SPS. Everything person 2 said (different types of "radiation", and so on) was true, but Ill agree with #1: I dont want to get hit with a beam of radiation of ANY type that has power densities high enough for efficient energy conversion attempts... (actually, I might take a chance if it meant going into space and virtualy unlimitted energy -- you have to take some risks for the good things in life ! ) Bill W ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 1982 1156-CST From: Jon Webb Subject: Re: Summary of garbled messages --> location of skyhook To: REM at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, CS.WEBB at UTEXAS-20 In-Reply-To: Your message of 1-Jan-82 1222-CST Obviously the communications satellites are only temporary. When we start building skyhooks their functions will be handled by stuff on the skyhooks. Jon ------------------------------ Date: 5 January 1982 20:19-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: Summary of garbled messages --> location of skyhook To: CS.WEBB at UTEXAS-20 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Date: 5 Jan 1982 1156-CST From: Jon Webb Obviously the communications satellites are only temporary. When we start building skyhooks their functions will be handled by stuff on the skyhooks. Good point, but I don't think it's completely valid. The trouble is, during the transition period both have to co-exist. After the transition period, maybe some comsats can be removed or just masked by new construction. Did you see the Cosmos episode about how New York City still has a general plan that is 2 centuries old, lots of buildings and streets that are 1 century old, and only a minority of really new stuff, because during the transition everything has to co-exist and it just doesn't pay to rip out all the old stuff before putting in the new stuff, or even afterward? (And how the human mind is even more conservative, the reptilian brain and lower brains still exist in essentially their old form even though the mammal and human brain have been added?) ------------------------------ Date: 26 December 1981 01:49-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: long extension cords & beanstalks To: decvax!duke!phs!dennis at UCB-C70 cc: duke!decvax!ucbvax!space at UCB-C70 I never thought of that advantage to a beanstalk, but of course there would grow up at stalkhead (in space) a complex of stuff, and a power statoin would be inevitable; then ptransmission down the stalk by large power DC lines, and... Good idea, or so think I on first thught. JEP ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 07-Jan-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #76 Date: 07 Jan 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V3 #76 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 76 Today's Topics: Cables down a skyhook Hauling cargo into orbit Keyworth on Space 2001ish alignment on March 10 Non-equatorial skyhooks How 'bout a RING! Space in the news USAF > Aerospace Force Non-equatorial skyhooks and other stable/levitating objects Levitating SPSs? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Jan 1982 1207-CST From: Clyde Hoover Subject: Cables down a skyhook To: space at MIT-MC Running superconducting cables down a skyhook should be no problem, for the stress of the skyhook is borne by the cables, not the power lines. Power cables do add to the weight of the structure, but one should not be building a skyhook unless one has sufficent extra load capacity to hang things off of it (like power cables). In short, if you can't run things up and down the skyhook, why bother with the whole mess? ------- ------------------------------ Date: 06 Jan 1982 1150-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Hauling cargo into orbit To: space at MIT-MC With regard to putting unmanned cargo packets into LEO and using the shuttle as a Greyhound Bus (people and their luggage only) the December 7, 1981 issue of Aviation Week had a small article about a similar idea. Boeing Aerospace has been contracted to study an unmanned launch vehicle based on the Shuttle SRB (solid rocket boosters). There are apparently several flavors of the SRB-X vehicle: * SRBs only. Apparently the cargo is strapped to a cluster of SRBs (one or more). Can put 65,000lb into LEO or 12,000lb into GEO. * LRB (liquid rocket booster) and ET (external tank). This is an orbiter configuration with LRBs replacing SRBs. Maximum payload is 100,000lb to LEO. * Unmanned Cargo Orbiter. Essentially a cargo canister that pretends to be an orbiter. Max payload is 130,000 to 140,000 pounds (presumably to LEO, though it does not say). * In-line vehicle. SRBs and ET with Shuttle engines mounted below the tank and cargo shroud mounted atop the ET. Payload between 80,000 and 140,000lb. Boeing will be studying all these (and probably more) and recommend a single configuration to be used. The idea is to build these things from available (off-the-shelf) components and launch from Shuttle launch facilities (KSC and Vandenberg). ------------------------------ Date: 06 Jan 1982 1151-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Keyworth on Space To: space at MIT-MC a008 2205 04 Jan 82 PM-Space Program, Bjt,490 Reagan Science Adviser Says U.S. To Stay In Space Business By WARREN E. LEARY AP Science Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States will stay in the space exploration business but will have to find more economical ways to do it because of federal budget cuts, says President Reagan's science adviser. George Keyworth said Monday that the Reagan administration will continue unmanned planetary exploration and initiate major new space programs despite rumors it would cut such missions to save money. But Keyworth said new missions to the other planets will be less complex and less expensive than recent billion-dollar projects such as Voyager, which returned spectacular data and pictures from Jupiter and Saturn. The physicist said the administation is committed to major space science projects and will back building the Gamma Ray Observatory, a major astronomy spacecraft to be launched by the space shuttle. Keyworth told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that the administration has begun a major reassessment of the space program. This review will look at the future of the space shuttle, new earth-orbiting satellites and plans for another generation of planetary exploration craft, he said. The study also will consider broadening the base of the U.S. space program to include more industry and university involvement, as well as more international cooperative projects to share the costs and responsibilities of space exploration, he added. But looking for cheaper, more effective ways to explore space should not be construed as lack of support or commitment, he said. ''The Reagan administration is supporting a strong initiative in planetary science, and this includes a number of new projects that will develop using the capabilities of the space shuttle,'' he said. Keyworth offered few details on the new projects pending completion of the program review and finalization of the fiscal 1983 budget about to go to Congress. He did indicate, however, that they may not begin until the end of the decade. The science adviser said there is no truth to rumors the administration is considering shutting off communications with the two Voyager spacecraft now on the way to explore Uranus and space outside the solar system. ''The deep-space network needed to receive data from Voyager still will receive support for data reception and analysis,'' he said. ''We'd throw away billions (of dollars) for want of a few million by not funding such activities.'' He said the Gamma Ray Observatory project would be a major one - on the scale of the Space Telescope, which will be launched by the shuttle in 1985. This project would be a follow-up to the successful Einstein X-ray Observatory which scanned the heavens for objects emitting X-rays, he said. Both gamma rays and X-rays are invisible to the human eye and objects that project these types of radiation can be missed by conventional astronomy. ''There is a strong administration commitment to the Gamma Ray Observatory,'' Keyworth said in a later interview. ''We have explored its potential and cost and believe it worthy of a major initiative.'' ap-ny-01-05 0102EST *************** ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 82 12:15-PDT From: mclure at SRI-UNIX To: space at mc Subject: 2001ish alignment on March 10 a203 1016 06 Jan 82 AM-National Briefs,540 ANN ARBOR, Mich. (AP) - The nine planets of the solar system are nearly aligned this year, a phenomenon that won't occur again for several centuries, a University of Michigan astronomer says. The planets will be lined up closest on March 10, astronomy Professor Richard G. Teske said this week. If an observer could stand on the sun on that date, he would see the planets in an arc of 97 degrees in space. According to one prediction, the formation will not be repeated until at least the 24th century, he said. Teske said the formation ''has no special significance'' for scientists, and no special studies are planned. ap-ny-01-06 1311EST ********** ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 1982 12:44 PST From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Non-equatorial skyhooks To: CS.WEBB at UTEXAS-20, REM at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC It seems that skyhooks anchored almost anywhere on earth could in theory be self-supporting and stable if it pointed in the right direction, and that most of them wouldn't pass through geosynchronous orbit. One anchored far away from the equator, of course, wouldn't go straight up as seen from the ground. It might look pretty impressive in the evening as it took off in a catenary. Trouble is, the difficulty of building a such a skyhook is probably an exponential function of the square of the latitude or something! Jerry ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 1982 1625-EST From: C. Greg Hagerty Subject: How 'bout a RING! To: space at MIT-MC By the time we start to worry about running out of room for satellites around the equator, as well as SPSs and things, how hard would it be to build a RING around the equator -made of all those old satellites, space-mined metals, you name it (hotels, chemical/mining/ plants, factories, SPSs, solar/space-o-thermic contraptions, Shuttle ports...). One could have many cables 'hanging' from this ring for power/communications, and an interesting horizon. At first, the idea seems unlikely, but after some unpractical thought, reading 'Ringworld'...it doesn't appear to be that far-fetched. No? .Greg ------- ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 1982 1343-PST Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3 Subject: Space in the news From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) To: Space at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3] 6-Jan-82 13:43:10.WMARTIN> From the Monday, 4 Jan 82, issue of Electronic Engineering Times: (Government/Aerospace section) DC Circuit by Howard Roth (column) A Problem of Space It is no secret that certain federal programs that originated in the 1960's are not looked upon with favor by the Reagan Administration. Mostly, those programs are of the welfare and social security variety. But there is a program of a different type that enjoys similar recognition - the space program. I have repeatedly written on the merits of the space program, the resulting commercial benefits and the program's great source for national pride. It is, unfortunately, again time to address the treatment of NASA by the President and his men. This does not include the space-shuttle program, though that is a part of the problem. It is the area of planetary programs that holds the most concern. At the moment, the Galileo mission to Jupiter is the only US planetary program left on the active list. The latest word to the Executive Office from the Office of Management and Budget is the recommendation to kill the Galileo mission, in which $300 million has already been sunk. Since it is the only full-scale program left on the active list, it is occupying much of the time of the 1200 program scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The demise of Galileo, according to NASA, would disperse many of these scientists, and therefore a significant portion of the US planetary capability. That would certainly be a bad move. If this does occur, then the NASA activities are concentrated, for the most part, with the space shuttle. But the plans are to turn the operation of the shuttle, once development is completed, over to private contractors. If this happens without a concurrent planetary program, NASA will be lacking a focus, a nucleus - a raison d'etre. A Reagan space policy is promised, but it has yet to materialize. But present actions have a tendency to speak louder than future words, and the Administrations's present actions are dictating the future - or lack therof - of US leadership in space. The Spatial Majority? Speaking of the space budget, less than one penny of every tax dollar in the US is spent on the space program. There is a group that is seeking to change that. Given today's political realities, this is a group whose appearance was inevitable. The Campaign for Space Political Action Committee (Space PAC) is now seeking contributions from citizens who want to elect politicians supporting an expanded space effort. This also means getting politicians who don't support such an effort out of office. According to Space PAC's executive director Thomas Frieling, "Although there are dozens of nonprofit, educational space organizations, ours is the only group that can solicit money and give it directly to political candidates." If this is your way of getting action, contact Space PAC at Box 1526, Bainbridge, GA 31717. -end- ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 1982 1358-PST Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3 Subject: USAF > Aerospace Force From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) To: space at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3] 6-Jan-82 13:58:31.WMARTIN> From the Jan 4 82 issue of Electronic Engineering Times: "AEROSPACE FORCE": New Name for Air Force Would Reflect Commitment To Lofty Goals Washington -- A bill has been introduced in Congress which would redesignate the US Air Force as the US Aerospace Force, and create a separate space command in the renamed service. Introduced by Rep. Ken Kramer (R-CO), the bill is necessary, according to its sponsor, because the US military space programs are "fragmented, duplicative, and without a strong advocate". He mentioned that at least 25 different Defense Dept. organizations now handle the military's space effort. If enacted, the bill would require the Secretary of the Aerospace Force to report to Congress 180 days after enactment with regard to "the feasibility and desirability of establishing a separate command for space". Centralized control and management of US space programs should be expedited because of two main reasons, according to Kramer. First is the growing Soviet space threat. The Soviets are reportedly using antisatellite systems equipped with clusters of interceptor vehicles. The second reason is the increasing US dependence on systems such as satellites, strategic communications, early warning and attack assessment, air defense, ballistic missle defense, and space-based lasers. Part of the problem, commented Kramer, is the difference in the way the military use of space is perceived by the US and the Soviet Union. He said the Soviets regard space as "a standard combat medium, an area where military encounters will occur. The US, on the other hand, persists in seeing space as a permanent 'sanctuary' where support systems for terrestrial forces can operate permissively. This view powerfully conditions our design and operational philosophy as well as our ogranization for military space systems." According to a spokesman for Kramer, the bill will probably be referred to the House Armed Services subcommittee on investigations. -end- ------------------------------ Date: 6 January 1982 19:24-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Non-equatorial skyhooks and other stable/levitating objects To: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, CS.WEBB at UTEXAS-20 There are only two places where a geosynchronous object can exist easily: (1) equatorial gwosynchronous orbit, like the current comsats, zero thrust needed except for stabilizing against purturbations; (2) polar levitating, like I suggested, the further away you are from Earth the less thrust you need to levitate a given mass, thus by going sufficiently far away you can find a place for any station with nonzero thrust. Anywhere else, the further away you go the less levitating thrust you need (passing thru zero at some distance when centrifugal force cancels gravity) but there's always a need for sideward thrust to cancel the non-levitating component of centrifugal force, with this sideward thrust approaching zero at poles (zero total centrifugal force) and at equator (centrifugal force in the same direction as levitating force, thus no component sideward). Centrifugal force increases as you get further out, the opposite of gravitational force, so if you're very close or very far from Earth the total force gets too large to handle. Somewhere in the middle there's a point where minimum total force is needed to maintain geosynchronous location, but that minimal force may be too much for a given technology. Eventually, however, we may find technology sufficienty effective to levitate above any point on Earth, espcially near the poles. Skyhooks are another matter, because the higher up you are the more mass of cable you have to support. This kills the polar existance proof, leaving equatorial spots as the only obvious places and others depending on effectiveness of technology. Of course if the SPS is very large and the cable is arbitrarily thin, the polar argument applies again, you put the SPS out far enough that it can levitate itself plus a little more, then make the cable thin enough that that little more is enough for it. But that's only valid if you have a large SPS for space work and you want to prove a trickle can be sent down to Earth. With a given technology for superconducting cable, if you double the SPS to double the power available to levitate, you also double the power you want to feed to Earth thus double the mass of the cable, and the ratio remains constant. The result is that for a given technology, only a fixed percentage of the total SPS power can be fed to Earth (the rest needed to levitate the SPS and cable), and if this is too small it isn't worth the trouble. ------------------------------ Date: 06 Jan 1982 2035-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: Levitating SPSs? To: space at MIT-MC REM has repeatedly brought up the idea of levitating an SPS, so I decided to see if it was even slightly feasible. E=.5mv^2 is the energy equation for the thrust. p=mv momentum eq. Gravity basically adds momentum, at the rate of gM, where g is the local acceleration of gravity and M is the mass of the SPS. Thus the energy (power) we have tells us how little exhaust mass (mass flow) we can get away with. The other equation equates the momentum added to the SPS by the earths gravitation field with the momentum provided by the rockets. m = M^2*g^2/2/P M is the mass of the SPS per square metre, avg. g is the local acceleration of gravity P is the power available. m is the mass per second exhausted by the rocket. More interesting is the ratio of the mass exhausted to the mass being supported. This tells you approximately what fraction of your SPS is fuel and how often you have to refuel. m/M = M*g^2/2/P Clearly we want g as small as possible. At GEO, g=.3m/s/s, and I used M = 100grams/m^2, P = .5Kw/m^2 (Is this reasonable? I seem to remember that solar flux is about .5 Kw/m^2 or was that 1.5Kw/m^2? Anyway this is optimistic since it assumes very efficient solar cells and rockets.). Using these numbers I get 1e-5. Note that there are about 1e5 seconds per day, so you are using the whole mass of the SPS once a day, not too good. At 10 times GEO, which is about where the moon is, I get 1e-9, which is about 30 years, much more reasonable. Cheers, Ted Anderson ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 08-Jan-82 0604 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #77 Date: 08 Jan 1982 0303-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #77 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 77 Today's Topics: Cost of a Shuttle flight Re: SPACE Digest V2 #76 Polar Skyhooks ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 January 1982 06:13-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Cost of a Shuttle flight To: David.Smith at CMU-10A cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, HPM at MIT-MC Date: 30 December 1981 1126-EST (Wednesday) From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30) I read somewhere (AW&ST?) that when the shuttle is operational, it will cost about $9 million to refurbish and refuel a pair of SRBs. I don't know where all this goes, but it doesn't help that the propellant is aluminum. Gee, what a dandy argument in favor of mining the moon. You see, moondust/rock is mostly oxygen, silicon, ALUMINUM, titanium, ... Just think if we could refine aluminum on the moon or at L-5 or elsewhere in space and send the rocket fuel to earth where it can just be packed and sealed in the SRB? Eventually we could make the whole SRB in space. (HPM has the original report on Apollo samples containing the nice info about aluminum etc.) ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 1982 1027-EST From: G.RONNIE at MIT-EECS Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #76 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC cc: G.RONNIE at MIT-EECS In-Reply-To: Your message of 7-Jan-82 0609-EST When is the shuttle launching again and with what? ------- ------------------------------ Date: 07 Jan 1982 1545-PST From: Jim McGrath Subject: Polar Skyhooks To: space at MIT-MC Once again, there is NO difficulty in thory with building a skyhook at a pole. There are some complications (see my previous message for details), which basically boil down to horizontial instability and the lack of tension along the structure. The stability problem is really not a serious one. The tension one simply requires you to build a structure that will support itself like any regular building. So while it would be difficult to build a polar tower, it would be far from impossible. The major requirement would be a material with a high enouh strength to weight ratio. Since polar towers win you little compared to those on the equator, it does look like, as a practical matter, they will not be built until we reach the stage where we can afford to build things like that for "fun." Jim ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 13-Jan-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #78 Date: 13 Jan 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #78 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 78 Today's Topics: Long article on isolation life from comets ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Jan 1982 1029-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Long article on isolation To: space at MIT-MC BC-POLE (ScienceTimes) By ROBERT REINHOLD c. 1982 N.Y. Times News Service SOUTH POLE STATION, Antarctica - The events of Aug. 17, 1979, will not get into the official history books, but they were something of psychological milestone in the history of the South Pole. Outside, temperatures dipped to 71 degrees below zero in a blinding blizzard, but inside, emotional temperatures among the crew of 16 men and one woman, after nearly half a year of total darkness, were reaching the flash point. Foaming at the mouth and roaring drunk, a member of the crew who had recently learned of his father's death, piles into the galley in rage. He yells and begins to smash cups wildly. Blood and glass everywhere. Soon he spies his rival for the affections of the station's lone woman and charges with a two-by-four, then runs out into the blizzard. It is hours before the mayhem ends, with gashes, bruises and frostbite. In the three days of eerie calm that followed, Andrew Cameron, the 22-year-old supply man who witnessed all this, reflects in his diary: ''Most people would never winter over if they knew what it really is like. Well the truth of it is that it can be fun at times but the deep dark winter with hopeless evacuation for eight months is a sheer mental hell.'' He wonders how the crew, afflicted by deep jealousies and divisions, can survive another three months. Though an extreme example, that night of violence underscores the powerful mental effects of protracted isolation. And many psychologists believe the unusual nature of Antarctic isolation - in which a small group of scientists and support personnel is confined to a tiny life-sustaining cocoon surrounded by an impenetrable hostile environment that permits no quick escape - may hold lessons for an approaching age of prolonged space travel and space colonization. To judge from the experiences of recent winter crews at Antarctic outposts, there is still much to be learned about human adaptation to these rigors. A major problem has been to learn how best to incorporate women into the previously all-male Antarctic culture. After a recent winter here, one woman required treatment in a mental institution. ''Isolation is a kind of stress - it brings out the best and worst in people,'' said Dr. Jay T. Shurley, a psychiatrist who spent several years studying the denizens of the South Pole. Those who have wintered here almost invariably say it was the worst and best year of their lives. They tell of extreme depression, boredom, insomnia, paranoia, sexual frustration. They also speak of spectacular auroral displays, starlit nights of incredible beauty and enduring bonds of friendship. Again in a few weeks, as the Antarctic summer ebbs and the annual sunset begins over a barren white horizon of ice, the last flight will lift off, leaving 15 men and two women here to their own devices until next November. They will be unable to escape even for the most extreme medical emergency. Rustling leaves, falling rain and animals will all become foreign. There will be no new clothes, new movies or fresh food. In such an environment, say psychiatric experts on isolation, seemingly minor personality quirks or even a slight change in the weather are magnified out of all proportion and can have unpredictable effects on the group's psychological well-being, and conflict flares easily. For this reason, those volunteering to winter in the Antarctic are screened for personal idiosyncrasies like knuckle-cracking or other nervous habits that might be a source of irritation to others, according to Capt. Noel S. Howard, a psychiatrist with the Navy's Bureau of Medicine and Surgery who supervises the testing. He said the most important traits he looks for are ''flexibility'' and tolerance of other people's habits and beliefs. Bad bets, he said, are those with any paranoid traits, excessive suspicion and those excessively dependent on external stimuli and rewards. ''A person with some introverted qualities is better off than the glad-handing back-slapping extrovert,'' he said. Oddly, many say that having regular radio communication with home sometimes exacerbates the isolation, underscoring a feeling that the world is passing by. ''So if a loved one runs off with the milkman, that person is stuck there,'' said Howard, who likened personnel at the Antarctic station psychologically to prisoners of war. Whatever the psychological stress, this station can hardly be called a hardship post. The station is housed in three overheated orange-colored buildings snuggled under a 50-foot-high geodesic dome. The dome keeps out the snow drifts and wind, providing a pleasant and spacious environment in the floodlit area beneath it. There is a small gym, a room for weight-lifting, a Jacuzzi bath, a bar (''Club 90 Degrees South - We Never Close''), an excellent library and an extensive videotape collection (''The French Connection,'' ''Patton,'' ''MASH''). The social center is the galley, decorated with murals of country lakes, where Merriann Bell of Keene, N.H., prepares sensational meals. For those wanting privacy, there is the Sky Lab Lounge, a small room at the top of a spiral staircase, warmly furnished with dark rugs and luxurious armchairs. Outside the picture window one can gaze at the bamboo stake that marks the exact bottom of the globe. It has to be moved each year because the ice has drifted about 30 feet, dragging the entire station with it. Though the Navy does the screening, the entire winter crew belongs to the United States Antarctic Research Program, an arm of the National Science Foundation. Seven of the 17 are scientific personnel making observations of the weather, upper atmosphere and geophysical phenomena. The rest are support workers - a cook, engineers, mechanics, a doctor - employed by a private contractor, ITT Antarctic Services Inc., of Paramus, N.J. If the past is any guide, the group will soon form a divergent social system of its own, developing its own humor and jargon, and will divide into cliques. By most accounts, the 1981 winter was fairly successful despite some tensions. The station leader, Tom Plyler, a tall, bearded, 32-year-old former Marine officer said he held weekly meetings to resolve problems and that alcohol use actually declined as the winter wore on. Still it was not easy for Cynthia McFee, the lone woman. She is a lieutenant (junior grade) in the uniformed corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and she was running the South Pole branch of the agency's program on geophysical monitoring for climate change. Though she said he was not harassed sexually by the 16 men, she found it extraordinarily lonely without any other women. ''I could never be one of the guys, no matter how hard I tried,'' she said. ''Male camaraderie is a very powerful thing. Men and women think differently. No matter how great I was, I'd still never be accepted. This is when I was really lonely.'' She said she may have done better than other women because she was used to working in mostly male settings. There is debate over whether women should be allowed to winter here. Shipwreck studies suggest that male-female combinations fare better psychologically, but the experience here is very mixed. ''It's hard enough for a group of men to be at this isolated spot without a member of the opposite sex, with the cold and the darkness,'' said Dr. Richard L. Cameron, manager of the science foundation's glaciology program. ''Then you throw in one or two women and the group dynamics become very strange. It would be very difficult to find the right mix. So all men or all women might be better.'' Howard of the Navy said that ideally there should be at least three women - ''certainly more than one'' - and that the whole question was under review. As for sexual relations, Howard said that all candidates were warned of the ''dangers'' of sexual liaisons under the supercharged conditions here. He said celibacy was the best course. According to Shurley and others, the men think of nothing but sex for the first few weeks, then it is submerged until nearly the end of the winter. ''You just basically put it out of your mind,'' said said Andrew Cameron, the author of the diary, who is Dr. Cameron's son. ''You are working all the time; there is no privacy.'' Indeed, he said, he was so preoccupied with station problems that he read only a dozen books. He said the first emergency came early in 1979, when a technician panicked after the last flight out had left. He was afraid that God could not find him if he died in the Antarctic, according to Cameron. Fortunately it was not too late to evacuate him. There were other diversions, he said, such as the product of the ''biological gardens,'' the marijuana patch that produced ''South Pole home grown.'' He saw little evidence of harder drug use, though alcohol abuse was heavy. Psychologists say the best candidates for isolation are hard-working personalities, somewhat diffident, with higher than average intelligence and education, and without close family ties. Above all, they say, isolated personnel should be competent in their work, since criticism can be devastating in such confines. Probably the best bets are what Shurley calls ''professional isolates,'' the kind of men who work on offshore oil rigs and Alaskan pipelines. Such men, he said, do not relate well to women and seem to thrive on isolation. They are definitely not homosexuals, but what Shurley calls ''latent heterosexuals.'' ''Some of the people who are most gung-ho for this experience are not well adapted,'' said Cameron. ''They tend to be misfits, seeking something they'll not find. And when the bubble bursts, their depressive experience is very difficult for others to handle. This is the big league of isolation.'' As for Andrew Cameron, now living in Gaithersburg, Md., he says it took him nearly a year to calm down from the winter. Toward the end he wrote in his diary: ''I am sick of this chunk of ice. I want to get out of this cesspool. Let me get the hell out of here. I want to go home.'' Today he calls it ''the greatest year of my life.'' nyt-01-12-82 0003est *************** ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 82 13:45-PDT From: mclure at SRI-UNIX To: space at mc Subject: life from comets a229 1300 12 Jan 82 AM-Life From Comets,500 Astronomer Says 'Seeding' Theory Gaining Acceptance By JACK A. SEAMONDS Associated Press Writer TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) - An astrophysicist says there is growing acceptance of the theory that comets ''seeded'' a barren Earth billions of years ago with the ingredients for life. Dr. Armand Delsemme, a professor at the University of Toledo, said that during a meeting last week in Mountain View, Calif., a consensus of scientists agreed that the theory is growing as more is learned about the ''rich'' chemistry in outer space. He said the meeting at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Ames Research Laboratory argued only about how - not whether - the ''seeding'' took place. ''Essentially, the elements in our bodies are 99.9 percent of the group including hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen,'' Delsemme said in an interview Monday. ''The same elements are found in the sea, but they are not found in the interior of the Earth.'' ''The question is, how did these elements get to Earth, where they clearly are in abundance? Where did the ocean itself come from? Through research in astronomy, we have found that all these same elements ... exist in outer space, and that with these fundamental elements we have the building blocks of life itself.'' He said astrophysicists have detected 52 interstellar molecules of organic compounds in space. ''In addition, we found that there are huge concentrations of water in space. In addition, we found what could be called two precursors of life, the compounds formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide. ''Starting with only these three molecules, we can make all the amino acids, which are the basic stones with which life is built,'' Delsemme said. The key link missing in the chain, he said, is linking the molecules to the development of life on Earth and, perhaps, on other planets. Also being sought, Delsemme said, are methods to detect whether amino acids themselves exist in space. ''We have found evidence of the lightest of these, glycine, and it is very likely we will find others once we can identify them with radio-telescopes,'' he said. Delsemme said that as the Earth was developing it was preiodically ''swept'' by comets' tails, which left cosmic dust that he believes carried the elements basic to life. Delsemme and other scientists speculate that the dust accounts for the Earth's crust, which is rich in nitrogen, hydrogen and other elements essential to agriculture. ''This gradual process would have been accomplished by 100 billion comets in a vast cloud surrounding our solar system,'' Delsemme said. The Earth's oceans are probably the result of melting the cosmic dust, which included large amounts of space ''frost,'' he said. ''If you consider the Earth has existed for more than 4 billion years, and life has been in existence on Earth for only a half-billion years, you see the development of life happened rather quickly,'' Delsemme said. ''Something almost automatic happened, but so far we don't know exactly how ... But I believe within the next 20 years ... we will know how it happened because of the advancements being made in the biological sciences and astronomy.'' ap-ny-01-12 1557EST ********** ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 14-Jan-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #79 Date: 14 Jan 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #79 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 79 Today's Topics: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #78 Question on Michelson-Morley experiment ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Jan 1982 0958-PST From: Paul Dietz Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #78 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC cc: DIETZ at USC-ECL In-Reply-To: Your message of 13-Jan-82 0302-PST The claim in that news article that life has been in existence on the Earth for only 1/2 billion years is patently false. There is evidence for life going back over 3 1/2 billion years. In fact, it is now thought that it is very easy for life to get started, taking only a few million years. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 14 January 1982 00:26-EST From: Ken Harrenstien Subject: Question on Michelson-Morley experiment To: SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI, space at MIT-MC Apologies to those receiving duplicates. I was reading through a friend's pile of old magazines the other day, and came across a curious statement. In the November 1979 issue of ANALOG there is a guest editorial titled "Beyond Relativity" by G. Harry Stine. It is a fairly standard treatise on Einstein, the nature of science, and so forth, at least until page 161. At that point there is a paragraph which made me blink several times: "And, while it is true that Michelson and Morley did not find the expected 60 kilometer per second differential that would have confirmed the existence of the luminiferous ether, THEY DID FIND A DIFFERENCE OF ABOUT 8 KILOMETERS PER SECOND!" (caps are italics in original) There is more following this, to the effect that these results have been duplicated repeatedly, and it seems as if the speed of light is not, in fact, independent of the motion of the observer! Naturally I am very curious to know what more knowledgeable readers might have to say about this, or the article itself if they can find it. Is the quote, for example, a correct statement of fact? Is G. Stine given to wild conjectures or distortions? (Doesn't strike me that way, though.) Considering the desperate search of SF for holes in the lightspeed limit, I'm a little surprised that Analog doesn't seem to have followed up on that in later issues. Perhaps somebody has already explained it away? --Ken ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 15-Jan-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #80 Date: 15 Jan 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #80 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 80 Today's Topics: Question on Michelson-Morley experiment Re: Question on Michelson-Morley experiment Question on Michelson-Morley experiment Question on Michelson-Morley experiment Analog 'hoaxes' Harry Stine Harry Stein and Physics The 8 KPH Light Drift ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 January 1982 06:31-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Question on Michelson-Morley experiment To: KLH at MIT-AI cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI Harry gets carried away sometimes. He also told of the chap who did the Michaelson Morley experiment hudreds of times and got all kinds of relative motion. I asked Bob Forward about that, and Bob said, "Yep, he did the same experiment with the same crummy equipment and kept getting the same erroneous results..." I have often thought of doing an SF story in which they go to the Moon and someone does the M-M experiment and gets the relative velocity of Moon around Earth... ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 1982 10:40:35-EST From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: klh at mit-ai Subject: Re: Question on Michelson-Morley experiment Cc: space-enthusiasts at mit-mc I will leave the question of references, accuracy, etc. to those who have more immediate access to physics libraries. (Though I notice you don't mention any footnote going with this claim.) However, it should be noted that G. Harry Stine is an enthusiast, liable like most such (especially hard-engineering types) to go overboard when talking outside his specialty. (Stine's specialty is rockets; he was one of the honchos at White Sands and helped push a nationwide model rocketry club.) ------------------------------ Date: 14 January 1982 11:41-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Question on Michelson-Morley experiment To: KLH at MIT-AI cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI Analog has a long history of making absolutely matter of fact statements which are totally false, to support their latest big hoax. -- Remember the "Dean Drive"? Campbell, then editor, made a flat statement in a reply to a letter to the editor that a Dean Drive hanging from the ceiling on a rope and aimed sideways will rise up at an angle, thus refuting the claim that all thrust was really just nonlinear vibrational effects on the bathroom scale they had been using. I actually started believing in the Dean Drive after that letter-reply, for a few years, sigh. -- Remember the crystal that dissolved about 1 second before it struck water, so they hooked up a chain of them with each dissolving of a crystal causing water to drop on the next? They went pretty matter-of-fact on that, although I was smart enough not to believe them. -- I don't believe this stuff about Michaelson-Morley experiment showing a positive result. More likely the velocity reported was the experimental error, the claim being that an upper bound on our motion thru the "ether" was found, and Analog distorted the truth to make their hoax. (If experimental error is 8, and you measure 0, then it's possible the correct value is anywhere from -8 to +8, you can't say it's zero for sure, but Analog has no right to say it isn't zero either. Probably the measured value was not zero, but close enough to zero to be within the range of experimental error. The best (simplest) conclusion to make is that it's probably exactly zero but that more accurate equipment will be needed to either bracket it closer to zero or actually bracket it away from zero.) Now if Science had made the same claim, I'd be more willing to look into the matter instead of just dismissing it. ------------------------------ Date: 14 January 1982 13:27-EST From: John G. Aspinall Subject: Question on Michelson-Morley experiment To: KLH at MIT-AI cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI The Michelson-Morely experiment has been repeated many times. A summary of a number of these experiments appeared in a review article by Shankland et al. [1] in 1955. The best test I could find a reference to, is one using lasers in 1964 [2]. (I found pointers to both these references in "Special Relativity", by French.) In none of these experiments, was there any detected fringe shift that could be ascribed to ether motion. Later experiments put successively lower bounds on any possible motion. In the laser experiment, "... No change in beat frequency ... was detectable within the accuracy of the measurement (about +/- 3kHz). This was less than 1/1000 of the change that one would calculate from an ether-wind hypothesis...." (Quote from French.) Now fringe shift (or beat frequency shift - same thing) is proportional to the square of the velocity difference, so this means that any motion is down by a factor of more than 30 from the ether-wind hypothesis. This is certainly not the detected motion that Stine claims. I haven't read the Stine column, and I would be interested to hear if the letters section in following months had any complaints about this in it, but I will inject one personal note here. This is the sort of thing that gives SF a very bad name - if we (the collective SF community, editors especially) let this sort of thing go unchallenged, then we deserve the reputation of not being able to distinguish fact from fiction. SF might as well be all fantasy. Any claims to being intelligent speculation about "what might happen" go out the window, in the eyes of many. Agreed, there is a line to be drawn between stifling creative thought, and "print everything as fact", but you don't overcome "math anxiety" by telling the student that all answers are right. Likewise you don't encourage intelligent speculation about OUR world, by ignoring what we know already. [1] Shankland et al., Rev. Mod. Phys., 27, 167, (1955). [2] Jaseja et al., Phys. Rev. 133, A1221, (1964). John Aspinall. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 1982 1108-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Analog 'hoaxes' To: rem at MIT-MC CC: space at MIT-MC, sf-lovers at MIT-MC I think Robert has his facts a little confused about Analog participation in gross deception. - The Dean Drive has never been tested (or the tests were not reported in Analog) by hanging it pendulum-fashion. Analog carried several articles saying that this is the proper way to test alleged reactionless drives (I agree). Dean never let his drive system get into the hands of people who could test it scientifically. Analog NEVER said it was a real reactionless drive, only that it MIGHT be one and somebody should try and find out. Several people did try (Stine among them) but nobody ever got a Dean Drive to play with and thus nobody knows. - Thiotimoline (the crystal that dissolved before the water hit it) was the subject of a series of fiction stories by (I believe) Isaac Asimov. You are the first person I have heard from to believe they were NOT intended as fiction. As for the differences in the Michelson-Morley experimental data, I am inclined to treat them as experimental error. In any event, I recall reading that article and being somewhat annoyed that Stine did not provide references to back up his claim. Flaming on a technical subject is fine as it stimulates thought, but if you can't back it up you lose credibility as far as I am concerned. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 1982 (Thursday) 1642-EST From: DYER at NBS-10 Subject: Harry Stine To: klh at MIT-AI cc: space at MIT-AI Isn't he the person who also claimed (in the pages of Analog) to have discovered, or at least found someone who had discovered, a reactionless drive, presumably based on mechanical (e.g. gears and pulleys and electric motors) principles? I think that Harry (?) Stine is a person given to the lost causes of physics (FTL, antigravity and something-for-nothing.) Last I heard, which was a long time ago, he was having the predictable trouble in convincing people he had a /real/ (now the name comes back) 'Dean Drive,' which somehow produced thrust without an equal and opposite reaction. Some people will do anything for a living.... -Landon- ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 1982 1712-PST From: Alan R. Katz Subject: Harry Stein and Physics To: klh at MIT-AI, space at MIT-MC, sf-lovers at MIT-AI cc: katz at USC-ISIF Please dont believe what Harry Stein says about more abstract physics. There is an excellent rebuttal to this particular article in an issue of analog a few months later written by some graduate student. In particular, the feeling you get from the article that physicists dont really know as much as they pretend to, that there really may be an ether, and that there is lots wrong with relativity is pretty much hogwash. Stein also writes about the Dean drive, an new reactionless drive which is really bizzare and so on. His book, "The Third Industrial Revolution" is quite good, and he has written much about space industrialization which is quite good, however, after the things he writes about physics, or about the dean drive, I wonder how correct his other information is. Alan ------------------------------ Date: 14 January 1982 20:43 est From: Tavares.WFSO at MIT-Multics Subject: The 8 KPH Light Drift To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Message of 14 January 1982 06:02 est from Ted Anderson Intriguing, indeed! After reading this trans, I called Harry Stine to ask where he got the info. He says he found it in "The Act of Creation" by Arthur Kessler. He also sent for a copy of a paper that was given to the American Physical Society by a Doctor Miller ("he didn't want to give it to me-- the APS doesn't like to admit it exists") wherein it was also described. He says he's also seen it in several physics books, where they "attempted to explain it away-- which is like arguing about how many devils fit on the head of a pin. It's a hole, it bothers me, but it's there and it's been checked, and proven, and everything." According to Harry, the motion is in the "right direction" to the motion of any expected ether. A "viscous" ether, perhaps? (Harry, who lives in Phoenix, would love access to this mailing list in general, but doesn't have any leads. Can anybody help?) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 16-Jan-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #81 Date: 16 Jan 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #81 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 81 Today's Topics: Harry Stine and the Dean Drive Thiotimoline 1982 NASA Schedule Analog 'hoaxes' Harry Stine Harry Stein and Physics Harry Stein and Physics (sri-unix.514) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri Jan 15 00:54:39 1982 To: Space@MIT-MC From: Onyx.jeffc@Berkeley Subject: Harry Stine and the Dean Drive Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Perhaps the most convincing argument I've ever seen that proves that the Dean Drive is IMPOSSIBLE is the one offered by Isaac Asimov in his autobiography, when he was discussing John Campell's eccentricities (to put it nicely). While I don't remember the exact wording, it went something like this (after explaining how it was supposed to work): That's just fine. Except that it violates the law of conservation of momentum, and the law of conservation of angular momentum, and if it actually worked I don't believe that the physicists would ever be able to put back together again the laws of physics after the shambles that would result. Sigh. You'd never know that Stine was into such mysticism from reading that excellent book, the Third Industrial Revolution. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 1982 13:26:01-EST From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: space-enthusiasts at mit-mc Subject: Thiotimoline was indeed invented by Isaac Asimov. As he says in IN MEMORY YET GREEN (vol. 1 of autobiography) he had been selling SF since very early in college and, a decade later, was worried that he wouldn't be able to summon the turgid prose considered appropriate for a doctoral thesis in chemistry after developing an excellent, readable style for the SF magazines. (A lot of his prose seems bland or flat today but his early work was certainly much better as writing than much of what was published then.) He accordingly wrote this fake scientific paper, "The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline", which Campbell published in a tall tales section of ASF. Another paper described side effects of thiotimoline, and "Thiotimoline to the Stars", written for the Campbell memorial anthology, proposed its use in space travel. (If you can't have FTL, get up to relativistic speeds and use t- to pull your ship back so that internal and external times appear to match.) Asimov also claims that after he had been grilled on general chemistry and the contents of his thesis one of the professors asked, "And now, \\Mr.// Asimov, what can you tell us about the properties of thiotimoline?" at which point A had to be carried from the room. Incidentally, ASF has had a number of strange things show up in it, since Campbell was given to a wide range of enthusiasms. (This is far from uncommon in geniuses; Edison, for instance, was rare in being able to make practical objects out of most of his ideas, and the later interests of, for instance, Newton, can be embarassing to the historian of science.) But I don't think it is legitimate to speak of "hoaxes" in ASF, save in the humorous reading of the word (e.g., thiotimoline, Kelvin Throop); so far as a large number of people have been able to discover, it has never succumbed to the sort of behavior common in, for instance, flying saucer magazines. ------------------------------ Date: 15 January 1982 15:09-EST From: Robert M. Gerber Sender: ___115 at MIT-AI Subject: 1982 NASA Schedule To: SPACE at MIT-AI cc: GERBER at MIT-AI 1982 NASA Schedule [From Science News V121#1 2-Jan-82] Month Mission Description ===== ============= ================================ Jan RCA-C' communications Feb Westar IV communications Feb Intelsat V-D communications March Space Shuttle third orbital test flight April INSAT-1A communications (India) May Intelsat V-E communications June NOAA-E weather, search-and-rescue June Navy 21 navigation July Landsat D communications July Space Shuttle fourth orbital test flight Aug Telesat G communications (Canada) Sept Westar V communications Oct RCA-E communications ?Oct IRAS IR astronomy (US/Netherlands/UK) Nov Space Shuttle first operation flight Nov San Marco D/L atmospheric research (US/Italy) Dec Intelsat VA-A communications ------------------------------ Date: 16 January 1982 04:09-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Analog 'hoaxes' To: TAW at S1-A cc: REM at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC, SF-LOVERS at MIT-MC (1) John W. Campbell personally saw the Dean Machine and stated many times that he saw a (small) reduction in the apparent weighht as measured by a bathroom scale when the machine was turned on. The machine jumped around a lot, however. (2) G. Harry Stine actually touched it and states that when turned on, it had a much stronger resistance to horizontal motion (it was at that time turnd on its side with a push-rod along the axis of 'thrust') when turned on than when turned off. he took no measurements because he was not permittd to. (3) Several aserospace firms including Boeing and MMM attempted to purchase the dean Machine after the famous picture in LIFE of Dave garroway thrusting a peice of paper under the machine. Dean wanted about $1 million and a Nobel prize IN ADVANCE. i know for a fact that one aerospace firm sent an irrevocable letter of credit worth $500,000 if signed by all of a three-person team (two engineers and one lawyer); their instructions wer to buy the damn thing if there wwere ANY lift or thrust whatever, on the groudns that a major company would get it working (and i you build airplanes you can build spaceships if you have a drive./..) They were unable to examine the machine sufficiently to be able to form an infomred conclusion. (4) No one knows whata happened to the original Dean Machine. The one described in the patent is NOT the machine that we saw operate. ------------------------------ Date: 16 January 1982 04:12-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Harry Stine To: DYER at NBS-10 cc: klh at MIT-AI, space at MIT-AI G. Harry Stine is a curator of the aerospace museum, a well-known author and cunsultant, and a private pilot of his own airplane; and indeed a very sound engineer. He has written a lot about model rockets and was very influential in design of safety equipment in that hobby. As to some people doing anything for a living, Harry hasn't time to do silly thngs. He's far too busy writing damned good books. ------------------------------ Date: 16 January 1982 04:20-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Harry Stein and Physics To: KATZ at USC-ISIF cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, klh at MIT-AI, sf-lovers at MIT-AI I suspect Harry's physics is a little better than some people's spelling. G. Harry Stine worked for a number of years as assistant to Dr. (Col.) William Davis. Now "Spacedrive" Davis was indeed considered wrong; but he was pretty well respected even so. Not a crackpot. I thought Harry's article a bit intemperate, but I've noticed a number of physicists who didn't seem very interested in looking at new data either. A few years ago we had a big meeting on Davis Mechanics and the Dean Drive, on the theory that if there was ANY chance of experimental data in contradiction to relativity it would be worth presewrving. Dr. Robert Forward of Hughes Research wasn't too proud to come to the meeting. Dr. Robert Bussard hasn't been too proud to discuss the subjhect. True, the evidence is skimpy to non-existent, and if you had to bet you'd have to put your money on general relativity; but even Forward points out that in the Einstein tensor, inertia and gravity aren't NECESSARILY equal. Empirically they turn out to be so to about 11 decimal places, but the Cal Tech people way there's still no really definitive reason why they should; at least that's what I think Lee and Lightman were saying. Certainly Forward says it. It's one thing to be convinced of orthodox physical theory and to defend it; it's quite another to become intemperate in the defense. Harry is probably wrong, and he loves to rattle people's cages anyway; leave it at that, and don't think it necessary to destroy the man. ------------------------------ Date: Fri Jan 15 15:09:50 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ARPAVAX.Onyx.jmrubin at Berkeley Subject: Harry Stein and Physics (sri-unix.514) The Dean drive? That hoary fraud? Next you'll be telling me about a new perpetual motion device. I suspect the science articles in Analog have been influenced by the ghost of its most famous editor, John Campbell. (spelling?) As a science-fiction pulp editor, he was great. However, he entertained notions like Dianetics, psi, the Dean Drive, et. al. (And Dianetics actually started in the pages of Amazing, the predecessor to Analog.) Joel Rubin ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 17-Jan-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #82 Date: 17 Jan 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #82 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 82 Today's Topics: Absolute velocity of the Earth Re: life from comets Physical laws Firms sign up to use less costly European rockets Dean Machine History ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 January 1982 17:56-EST From: Gene Salamin Subject: Absolute velocity of the Earth To: SPACE at MIT-MC The tenets of special relativity, that absolute velocity is physically meaningless and that there is no lumeniferous ether, are generally considered as established because of the agreement between the predictions of the theory and experimental results. Although there is no ether with respect to which we can measure the velocity of the Earth, the vacuum of space is actually filled with black body radiation at a temperature of 3 K, and it is possible to define one's velocity with respect to this radiation. An observer is at rest when the radiation is isotropic (independent of direction). An observer in motion with respect to the black body radiation will measure a higher temperature in the direction toward which he is moving, and a lower temperature in the direction opposite, as a consequence of Doppler shift. The optical absorption length for this radiation is larger than the radius of the known universe, so the reference frame defined by the radiation is of a cosmological scale (although not necessarily of the entire universe). Using balloon carried microwave sensors, the "absolute" velocity of the Earth has been measured. It is something like 300 km/sec. ------------------------------ Date: Sat Jan 16 01:46:57 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: decvax!watmath!jcwinterton at Berkeley Subject: Re: life from comets Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. I wish people would not post newswire stuff to this network. It is not all that useful, and I am not even sure it can be legal. What about the copyright of the wire service? ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 1982 2028-EST From: Jon Webb Subject: Physical laws To: Space at MIT-MC The Michelson-Morley experiment was one of the major problems that led to the creation of the theory of special relativity, but if it turned out to be in error today we would still have to keep a lot of relativity around. This is because physicists observe every day things that are consistent with the "strange" predictions of relativity, like time dilation and increase in mass with velocity. They observe these things in particle accelarators. So just finding an error in M-M won't make it possible to build FTL ships after all. The same thing applies much more strongly to things like the Dean Drive, of course. If we're going to find ways around the obstacles we've encountered, those ways will probably be at the frontiers of science, not way back someplace which has been overlooked by mankind and Mother Nature all these millenia. Jon ------- ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 1982 0000-EST From: JoSH Subject: Firms sign up to use less costly European rockets To: space at MIT-MC According to a news story (Gannet) under this title, three US companies, Western Union, Southern Pacific Comm., and GTE have signed up for a total of 5 satellites so far on the "mostly-French" Ariane. At $20 million a shot that comes to $100 million, instead of spending $125 to $135 million at NASA (which would have used McDonnell-Douglass Deltas). "Despite the shuttle's potential as an efficient cargo carrier into space, America's space transportation system could price itself out of the market by the end of the decade if--as expected--NASA raises its shuttle cargo rates due to escalating costs of the external tanks and solid rocket boosters." The story says the French completed the Ariane test flight program last month after four launches. The satellites are scheduled to go up in 83 and 84. --JoSH ------- ------------------------------ From: Marvin Minsky@MIT-AI (Sent by MINSKY@MIT-AI) Date: 01/17/82 00:25:30 Subject: Dean Machine History Marvin Minsky@MIT-AI (Sent by MINSKY@MIT-AI) 01/17/82 00:25:30 Re: Dean Machine History To: space at MIT-MC, Pourne at MIT-MC, sf-lovers at MIT-MC Shortly after the Dean drive was described in Astounding, John Campbell published a picture of it. I examined the picture with a lens and managed to read the brand name of the bathroom scale used to measure the loss of weight of the machine. My college roommate, Roland Silver, and I conjectured correctly that this scale had a "diode" in it that coupled the platform and the reading device. So we went to Sears Roebuck in Porter Square, Cambridge and bought that very scale. When you stand on it it reads your weight fine, but if you pump your arms up and down -- just as did the dean machine itself -- then the weight fluctuates a lot -- with the mean weight (and even the maximum) far below the real weight. So then Clause Shannon and John Pierce and I wrote a sharp detailed letter to Campbell about this. John Campbell didn't print our letter, but he sent me (knowing I was the instigator) a long letter that I still have here, denouncing establishment scientists for their reactionary and unimaginative rigidity and general intolerance. Suitably chastened, I dropped yhe matter and continued with my reactionary, establishment-bound studies. Anyway, this incident jibes with Pournelle's account about Cambell seeing the machine which "jumped around a lot" on a bathroom scale. I checked out all the other scales, too, and finally found one that reads high when you bounce. But these were much less common. So, possibly, Dean was hoist by this pitiful petard. But I maintained that this was extremely unlikely since, obviously, he was all too familiar with flakey, vibrating, weighing mechanisms. -- marvin P.S.. I should add that much as we hated him, we loved him greatly too, and for all he did for all of us. And same for G. Harry Stine. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 18-Jan-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #83 Date: 18 Jan 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #83 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 83 Today's Topics: News Query newswire stuff G. Harry Stine Re: life from comets Firms sign up to use less costly European rockets Dean Machine History Harry Stine and the Dean Drive ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun Jan 17 10:25:48 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: mhtsa!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: News Query Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. There has recently arisen at SRI-UNIX a gateway between the space digest at MIT-MC and a USENET newsgroup (net.columbia) that came into existence a bit before STS-2 for the primary purpose of keeping people informed about the space program (and the space programs of other countries -- most noticeably now is the ESA Ariane booster). Mostly, news summaries from the news wires (AP, etc.) have gone through it and also some other informative blurbs (I don't recall any discussion going through it though that wouldn't have mattered) With the new gateway, I need a decision from ARPAland whether or not to continue posting these news things to net.columbia or to net.space (the new group), which feeds into the mailing list. If I take the former action, you will not see the news; the latter will get the news to you. Please mail replies to me (research!sjb at Berkeley) -- for the time being, I'll start posting news to net.space unless I hear complaints. Adam Buchsbaum UUCP - ucbvax!research!sjb ARPA - research!sjb at Berkeley ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 1982 1153-PST From: Bob Amsler Subject: newswire stuff To: space at MIT-MC I disagree emphatically with decvax!watmath!jcwinterton@Berkeley re: posting of posting of "newswire stuff" to the space digest. FIRST! the digest is an internal communication without "public" distribution and as such probably qualifies for "fair use". Second, there happen to be many highly qualified people who are employed by the govt. who read this list and SHOULD be aware of space developments which appear in the wire services. The major concern is that nothing from this digest (or any other) be released to a public channel. As long as these discussions pass solely between individuals in a closed network I believe they are legal. Technically, there is NO "publication" taking place here. It is actually just a massive mailing list for communication between individuals. Access is restricted and controlled by govt. monitoring of the members of the net. Anyone who is on the net without such monitoring is in violation of the law. Their further misuse of the private communications which take place on the net would constitute further violation. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 1982 1827-CST From: Jonathan Slocum Subject: G. Harry Stine To: space at MIT-MC While we're on the topic, and since I haven't heard it mentioned... Space Power, by G. Harry Stine, c. 1981, 1st printing Sept. 1981, pub. by ACE, $2.50 ppb. I got mine in the Miami airport last October, hot off the press... Cover contains the following phrases, among others: THE NEWS THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TRIED TO BURY! THE *TRUTH* ABOUT SOLAR POWER! Having read it (and his 3rd Ind. Rev.) my impression is that he is truly a hard-nosed engineering type, characterized by the potential short-sightedness (all problems can be solved through technology) for which such types are famed. Damn stimulating book, though. I recommend it -- with a grain of salt if you're a humanist. ------------------------------ Date: 18 January 1982 05:04-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Re: life from comets To: decvax!watmath!jcwinterton at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC why listen? ------------------------------ Date: 18 January 1982 05:07-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Firms sign up to use less costly European rockets To: JoSH at RUTGERS cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Gary Hudson says this is substantially correct, but you ought to look at latest AVIATION WEEK for who wants to buy 5th orbiter... Date: 17 Jan 1982 0000-EST From: JoSH According to a news story (Gannet) under this title, three US companies, Western Union, Southern Pacific Comm., and GTE have signed up for a total of 5 satellites so far on the "mostly-French" Ariane. At $20 million a shot that comes to $100 million, instead of spending $125 to $135 million at NASA (which would have used McDonnell-Douglass Deltas). "Despite the shuttle's potential as an efficient cargo carrier into space, America's space transportation system could price itself out of the market by the end of the decade if--as expected--NASA raises its shuttle cargo rates due to escalating costs of the external tanks and solid rocket boosters." The story says the French completed the Ariane test flight program last month after four launches. The satellites are scheduled to go up in 83 and 84. --JoSH ------- ------------------------------ Date: 18 January 1982 05:10-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Dean Machine History To: Marvin Minsky at MIT-AI cc: SPACE at MIT-MC AS you loved Dean, so loved he we all.... ------------------------------ Date: 18 January 1982 05:42-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Harry Stine and the Dean Drive To: Onyx.jeffc at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC While I am prepared--aye, even eager--to believe that we FINALLY understand THE laws of physics, I must say, b given their history, that I ought to be prepared to accept heir radical negations. To sya that Harry, by challenging orthodoxy, has proved hiumself fundamentally silly is to say that one understands little of the history of science. Harry is very probably wrong; but to say he is uninteresting is to say more about yurself than I would... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 21-Jan-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #84 Date: 21 Jan 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #84 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 84 Today's Topics: wire stuff Harry Stine and Science Collision with skyhook Question about gateway pur-ee!davy's question about gateway G. Harry Stine ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon Jan 18 10:18:34 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: mhtsa!eagle!ihnss!cbosg!cbosgd!mark at Berkeley Subject: wire stuff Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. I beg to differ with you. Perhaps you can legally say that newsgroups are only internal mailings, sent to a closed controlled set of people, but this does not make it true. In fact, most of the interesting arpanet mailing lists (including space-enthusiasts) have a copy fed into USENET, which is neither the arpanet nor tightly controlled. Most, if not all, of the contributions you see posted by somewhere!somewhere!somebody@Berkeley are from somebody on USENET who would not have contributed had the digests not been posted to USENET in the first place. The point is, a digest is in effect a newsletter, not mail, and as a contributor you have no control or knowledge of who is getting it. (This is true even on the ARPANET, not just USENET.) Since the space news stuff that Adam posts are already on USENET (a less tightly controlled entity than the ARPANET) and since he retypes things that look interesting, rather than having an automatic feed, it seems to me there is no legal problem with the wire services. (Obviously there would be no problem in taking them from the newspaper, right? Same thing.) The real question being asked is whether the arpanet people on the space mailing list WANT to get the news Adam posts. The USENET people are going to get it anyway. The obvious thing to do is to try it for a while and see what the arpanet people think. Mark Horton ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 1982 1119-PST From: Paul Dietz Subject: Harry Stine and Science To: space at MIT-MC I remember being extremely annoyed when Analog printed Stine's article on relativity. I was so annoyed that I cancelled my subscription. The problem was NOT that Stine challenged widely held beliefs. What was annoying was that he was selectively myopic (look only at results that confirm your theory) and used ad hominem arguments (scientists are stupid/dishonest/evil, so don't believe them). These traits are characteristic of the pseudoscientist. For examples, try "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science" by Martin Gardner. I think we can safely classify Stine's theories as pseudoscience, not because they are wrong, but because of the way he presents them. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 1982 05:37:56-PST From: decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!horton at Berkeley Re: STS video on sat. transponder?? recently i saw an article about the upcoming sts video feed being on one of the staellite transponders. do you folks recall the details. it might have been a usenet only item, if so sorry to bother you with this. or it might havE come on net.columbia, thanks( kurt horton (pur-ee!uiucdcs!horton) ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 1982 22:10:09-PST From: A.exp at Berkeley >From Network:c70 Thu Jan 14 01:50:44 1982 Mail addressed to space at mc could not be sent. Host has been down for over a day ------- Unsent message is below ------- Date: 12 Jan 1982 11:53:05-PST From: A.exp at Berkeley Subject: Collision with skyhook What is the probability that a satellite would collide with a skyhook, both for the rotating and fixed versions? I read somewhere that SPSs could not be built in low orbit and transported to geosynchronous orbit because it was probable they would experience more than one collision with a satellite. Is this correct? What would be the cross-section of the skyhook in the regions of concentration of satellites? ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 18 January 1982 08:58-PST From: KING at KESTREL To: space at mit-mc cc: king at KESTREL I certainly concede that this isn't a very forceful argument, but it does constitute a plausibility argument for the assertion that no inertialess drive, buildable form more-or-less-ordinary movable parts, can exit. The argument is that there is no form of life tht uses one. It appears that essentially every piece of mechanical engineering that doesn't involve something like high vacuum, high temperature, extremely high velocity, etc. appears in some form of life. (For a while it appeared that no form of life had rotating parts, but many bacteria do.) Comments, anyone? As an aside, is there a mailing list which might be called "engineering in life forms"? ------------------------------ Date: Mon Jan 18 12:34:55 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: decvax!pur-ee!davy at Berkeley Subject: Question about gateway Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Is "fa.space" (the SPACE DIGEST) going away soon? It's getting kind of dull to see all those neat letters in net.space, and then seeing them 2 days later in the digest..... --Dave ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 1982 at 1744-PST From: Andrew Knutsen To: space at MC Subject: pur-ee!davy's question about gateway Sender: knutsen at SRI-UNIX Since this question applies to usenet only, and certainly doesnt involve space, I suggest it be discussed in "net.news.group". ------------------------------ Date: 21 January 1982 04:20-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: G. Harry Stine To: LRC.SLOCUM at UTEXAS-20 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC If one is a "humanist" does this invariably imply a tragic condition? that we accept fate, and give up the idea of solving our problems thrugh science and technology? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 22-Jan-82 0302 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #85 Date: 22 Jan 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #85 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 85 Today's Topics: Re: G. Harry Stine Harry Stine and Science Space Program Budget Re: News wires and stuff ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Jan 1982 1058-CST From: Jonathan Slocum Subject: Re: G. Harry Stine To: POURNE at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Your message of 21-Jan-82 0320-CST No, being a "humanist" does not (to me) imply a tragic condition, nor disbelief in technological solutions. It simply denies the position that ALL problems admit solution through technology. Even "technical" problems can require solutions tempered by the demands of human nature. It just seemed to me (from reading his books) that Stine is insufficuently aware of this. At least, he does not CONVEY such awareness in his writings. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 1982 1356-PST From: Alan R. Katz Subject: Harry Stine and Science To: dietz at USC-ECL cc: katz Remailed-date: 21 Jan 1982 1359-PST Remailed-from: Alan R. Katz Remailed-to: space at MIT-MC Right on! If I had had a subscription to Analog I would have cancelled it. However, you may have missed the excellent refutation of Stine's article that appeared a few months later. The danger I see, is that when people hear someone talk about space colonies and space industry, and then hear the same person talk about things they know has a high probability of being nonsense, they will tend not to believe any of what is said. Alan ------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue Jan 19 20:14:29 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: decvax!duke!chico!harpo!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Space Program Budget Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Well, here is the first summary from the newswire I am posting. Consider it a test of how you like it (ARPAland) as well as being informative... The chairman of the House Subcommittee on Science and Technology said that the Reagan budget plans could threaten our space program. The 1983 fiscal budget calls for $6.5 billion for NASA (about what it is now) Not only could this hurt our planetary program, but also threaten the shuttle program. Orbiter 104 (the fourth shuttle) could be put in question as well as a proposed fifth shuttle. While the Reagan administration has expressed interest in a fifth shuttle, they have not offered any financing for it. As per the planetary program, the deep space network, which receives signals from unmanned probes, such as Voyager and Pioneer, could be hurt, as well as jobs. Also threatened is the Centaur upper stage project, designed to launch payloads once deployed from the shuttle's cargo bay. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 1982 1507-PST Sender: BILLW at SRI-KL Subject: Re: News wires and stuff From: BILLW at SRI-KL To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[SRI-KL]21-Jan-82 15:07:23.BILLW> In-Reply-To: Your message of 21 Jan 1982 0302-PST Are we debating whether its legal/desirable for newswire stories from usenet to appear on the ARPANet, or newswires stories from the ARPANet to appear on usenet ? Just who all has automatic newswire searching software anyway ? (aside from SAIL and SRI on ARPANet). I for one agreee that there are few legal problems, since it is essentially the same as retyping articles from the paper unless you start distributing everything in real time... And I also DO want to read the stories that are being submitted... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 24-Jan-82 0305 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #86 Date: 24 Jan 1982 0304-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #86 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 86 Today's Topics: Harry Stine and Science Collisions with skyhook Copyrights & retyping SPACE Digest V2 #85 Administrivia Skyhook collisions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Jan 1982 0805-PST From: Tom Wadlow To: space at MIT-MC Date: 21 Jan 1982 1356-PST From: Alan R. Katz Subject: Harry Stine and Science Right on! If I had had a subscription to Analog I would have cancelled it. However, you may have missed the excellent refutation of Stine's article that appeared a few months later. [Sigh. Am I the only person that sees an irony in the above two sentences? I fail to see how a person can subscribe to a magazine, enjoy dozens, if not hundreds, of articles, and then cancel because of one bad piece. Hasn't anybody ever heard of Letters to the Editor?? --Tom] ------------------------------ From: CARLF@MIT-AI Date: 01/22/82 15:41:41 Subject: Collisions with skyhook CARLF@MIT-AI 01/22/82 15:41:41 Re: Collisions with skyhook To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC A.exp at Berkeley asked about the problem of satellites running into a skyhook. It does indeed seem to be a problem. A five meter cable would be hit by something big enough to smash it about once a month. This is based upon data from an article called "Formation of a spacecraft debris belt" (I think) in a book called "Space systems and their interaction with the environment" (I think) which is #71 in the series "Progress in aeronautics and astronautics" (I know). If two spheres of different radius smash into each other at 10 km/sec there are two possible outcomes. If the small one is sufficiently tiny, it will only produce a crater on the big one. If the spheres are closer in size, they will both be totally fragmented. The ratio of projectile mass to target mass above which both will be destroyed is called the "catastrophic limit". It depends on the material of the target. It has values which range from 2600, for soft aluminium, to 120,000 for glass. Basalt has an intermediate value of 25,000. I adopted this value for the material of the skyhook. If we assume a five meter diameter cable to be as hard to break as a five meter diameter sphere, the cable will be broken by a 17 cm object, making the conservative assumption that the object is moving at 10 km/sec rather than the 7.7 km/sec of most LEO objects. The most dangerous zone lies between 700 km and 1200 km altitude. If we assume that we are putting up the skyhook in 2020, and that 510 satellites and items of debris are launched each year until then, then the flux of different-sized objects is as follows: MASS (kg) FLUX (impacts / m^2 / yr) 1000 5 e-7 10 5 e-6 0.1 1 e-5 0.001 2 e-4 0.00001 1 We see that a 500 km section of 5m cable will be hit by a breaker about 12 times a year. Clearly we have to sweep out LEO. Fortunately, NORAD is tracking nearly 80% of the objects in orbit, and the rest can be found if need be. Useful satellites can be tied onto the skyhook, and useless ones can be shot down. This is easy to do: just take a big chunk of someting soft up to the appropriate point on the skyhook, and drop it into the path of the garbage. The fragments which result will be moving too slow to stay in orbit, and will fall into the air, to be burned up. -- Carl ------------------------------ From: TK@MIT-AI Date: 01/22/82 15:45:16 Subject: Copyrights & retyping TK@MIT-AI 01/22/82 15:45:16 Re: Copyrights & retyping To: space at MIT-MC I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the copyright issue depends not in the least upon whether you re-type, or even paraphrase a copyrighted article. The only possible way in which it is not a copyright infringement to report news stories in this forum is if this use falls within the doctrine of "fair use" which, roughly, is use for individual scholarly purposes. That one is hard to call, indeed, but the question of whether you retype an article has no relevance to the discussion. Copyrights are just as infringed (or not, as the case may be) by hand copying a document as by making a Xerox copy. The technology and the medium are irrelevant. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jan 1982 14:16:57-PST From: Cory.kline at Berkeley To: E@MIT-MC, SPACE@MIT-MC Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #85 Regarding the newswire controversy, it seems to me that stories re- transmitted a day (or several days) late have scant claim to be catagorized as "news". Feature stories are another matter, of course. Gary D. Kline ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jan 1982 23:59PST From: The Moderator To: space at MIT-MC Subject: Administrivia I hope the messages in this digest will be the last debating the issue of redistribution of news service stories. Not, of course, because the issue is unimportant, but because this is not the proper format for such a discussion. TK's comment about paraphasing stories is, I believe, correct. Since, news service stories appear from time to time, in all the digests and many of the mailing lists I know of, I'm not convinced that SPACE needs to be the first to renounce their use. As long as people exercise restraint, I think things will be OK, at least for now. Brief and Concise are the key concepts that should be used in including news stories (from whatever source). I will continue to discuss this issue with anyone who is interested, but privately, not in the SPACE Digest. The Moderator, Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jan 1982 0233-PST From: Hans Moravec To: space at MIT-MC Subject: Skyhook collisions For an earth skyhook to be practical its material must have a tensile strength on the order of 500,000 kilograms per square centimeter. Thus a cross section of one cm**2 at ground height could hoist 500 tonnes, and 10 cm**2 (i.e. a radius of less than 2 cm) could transport hefty 5000 tonnes on each run, which should be enough for a whole lot of purposes. At the point of maximum thickness the skyhook would have 10 to 100 times the cross sectional area, i.e. a radius of 5 to 20 cm. Because of the exponential nature of shape of the taper function, most of the skyhook's length is at the smaller rather than the larger radius. The average radius is thus less than about 10 cm, about 50 times smaller than the enormous five meters in CARLF's calculation. This cuts the hit rate, keeping the other assumptions the same, to about one every four years. In any case, sweeping out low earth orbit is a good idea, and not only for the sake of skyhooks. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 25-Jan-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #87 Date: 25 Jan 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #87 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 87 Today's Topics: G. Harry Stine Copyrights & retyping ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 January 1982 20:58-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: G. Harry Stine To: POURNE at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Date: 21 January 1982 04:20-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle If one is a "humanist" does this invariably imply a tragic condition? that we accept fate, and give up the idea of solving our problems thrugh science and technology? A word means whatever I say it means, no more, no less. - Humpty Dumpty (Humanism is the quality of being human, so I guess we're all humanists.) (Another definition: a philosophy in which man, his interests, AND DEVELOPMENT are made central and dominant, tending to exalt the cultural and RATIONAL elements of man rather than the SUPERNATURAL OR SPECULATIVE. That would seem to include science and technology and exclude astrology and religion.) [Definitions from Doubleday dictionary 1975, upper-casification by REM for emphasis.] ------------------------------ Date: 25 January 1982 02:41-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle To: TAW at S1-A cc: SPACE at MIT-MC More interestingly, if you cancel your subscriptoin, how will you ever see the refutations? Let me repeat, Harry loves ratling people's cages. ------------------------------ Date: 25 January 1982 02:45-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Copyrights & retyping To: TK at MIT-AI cc: SPACE at MIT-MC While I am as zealous for the rights of authors as anyone you know, let me point out that as a pratical matter copyrights are licenses to sue; and precisely what remedy does one get? In the case of material put on this net, whom do you sue; for what; and what damages does one ask for? Obviously if someone starts putting valuable properties onto the net, the authors and publishers are going to put a stop to it if they feel they are being harmed; but often what they will do is ignore the situation (thus not giving actual permission, which they'd be loathe to do, but not trying to stop things either...) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 26-Jan-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #88 Date: 26 Jan 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #88 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 88 Today's Topics: Subscription Cancelling Collisions with skinny skyhook Cage Shaking Cage Shaking ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Jan 1982 1218-PST From: Paul Dietz Subject: Subscription Cancelling To: space at MIT-MC Although I cancelled my subscription (actually, I let it run out, it was almost up), I DID see the response in the later issue. About shaking cages: printing something that is pretty clearly false serves no one. After all, Stine's article was comparable to the nonsense we see printed about UFO's, ESP, life-after-death and all that. If he wants to turn Analog into another National Enquirer that's fine with me; just don't expect me to pay for it. ------- ------------------------------ From: CARLF@MIT-AI Date: 01/25/82 12:59:41 Subject: Collisions with skinny skyhook CARLF@MIT-AI 01/25/82 12:59:41 Re: Collisions with skinny skyhook To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Mr. Moravec is quite correct about the width of the skyhook. I erroneously assumed that anything that strong had to be big. However, I believe that he has erred in his calculation of the damage rate for the skinny skyhook. It is true that the skinny version has 1/50 of the area of the fat version, but this does not reduce the damage rate by a factor of 50, since it is now possible to break the cable with very much smaller projectiles. Instead of a 17cm diameter projectie, we now need only a 0.34cm projectile, which would wiegh about 0.2 g. The flux of such particles is about 0.1 impacts / m^2 / yr. A 500 km section of 5 cm wide cable has an area of 25,000 m^2, and thus will be hit 2,500 times per year, or about once every four hours. The problem is that the danger rises exponentially with the skinniness of the cable. It is hard to see how to solve this. -- Carl ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jan 1982 1252-PST From: Paul Dietz Subject: Cage Shaking To: space at MIT-MC, pourne at MIT-MC All this talk of cage shaking has prompted me to do a little of my own... My question is: why should the government be spending anything on space? (This is an instance of the more general question "why should the government be spending money on anything?") A common argumnt is "It's good for the country/world". Really? If it was so good, why wouldn't those with the money invest in it? National security: I fail to see how sending billion dollar robots out of the solar system helps national security. If this is the purpose of NASA, why isn't NASA part of DOD? Scientific Research: Research is good, @i(all else being equal). What do you give up when you send a Voyager out there? Preserving the species: If a group of people want to get together and build a space colony to survive a nuclear war, I'll let them. But why should I help pay for it? Other arguments: "Without challenge, man will soon whither ..." or "Future generations will judge us by what we did" -- Fine. You are entitled to your beliefs. Just don't force me to go along by taking my tax money. Comments, rebuttals, bric-bats, poison keyboard netnotes are welcome... ------- ------------------------------ Date: 26 January 1982 05:11-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Cage Shaking To: DIETZ at USC-ECL cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, POURNE at MIT-MC "THERE REMAIN those enterprises of such great value to all, and of so little value to any one, as to require public investment." Adam Smith, THE WEALTH OF NATIONS What institution has the task of looking ahead twenty years? Surely not investment combines; stock companies usually look at the quarterly report. Families once worried about the future, but the Government as a matter of policy has ruined the family (death taxes) as a long-term institution. So: if it's desirable to have basic research and find out if we're alone in the universe and whether or not there are resources out there--who is going to do it? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 27-Jan-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #89 Date: 27 Jan 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #89 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 89 Today's Topics: Government Funding GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES FOR SPACE Collisions with skinny skyhook ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Jan 1982 0805-PST From: Paul Dietz Subject: Government Funding To: space at MIT-MC, pourne at MIT-MC "THERE remain those enterprises of such great value to all, and of so little value to any one, as to require public investment." - A.S. I reject this. Who judges the value of a project? Not the person forced to contribute. If it is of so little value to John Doe, why should he pay for it? Government investment (public investment is a misnomer) removes any choice the unwilling taxpayers have. It puts the "public good" above individual rights. In support of this, I point to all those pork-barrel projects that no sane businessman would invest in. Every one of them can be justified by a similar argument. Scientific research is more pork-barrel-ly than we'd like to think. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 26 January 1982 23:03-EST From: Gene Salamin Subject: GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES FOR SPACE To: SPACE at MIT-MC I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF ELIMINATING ALL NON-DEFENSE RELATED GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE FOR SPACE, PROVIDED AT THE SAME TIME WE ALSO ELIMINATED ALL OTHER GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS EXCEPT FOR DEFENSE, CRIME PREVENTION, AND THE COURTS. THIS MEANS, IN PARTICULAR, THAT WE STOP SUPPORTING THE WELFARE SCUMS. ------------------------------ Date: 27 January 1982 00:24-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Collisions with skinny skyhook To: HPM at MIT-MC, CARLF at MIT-AI cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Sigh. Because a skyhook travels at non-orbital velocity everywhere except at its center (geosync for fixed hook, LEO for spinning hook), it sweeps out a volume of space, coliding with native material at near orbital velocities, unlike normal small orbiting objects which bump into other orbiting objects only at perturbation velocities which are a couple orders of magnitude less than orbital velocities. Thus skyhooks have much greater problems, even in absense of manmade orbiting projectiles, than small orbiting satellites do. Does that make skyhooks impractical, after all there will always be a rain of new cosmic debris drifting into Earth orbit to replenish any area that we sweep clean? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 28-Jan-82 2052 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #90 Date: 28 Jan 1982 1606-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #90 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 90 Today's Topics: Moderator filtration of flames Government Funding of Space SPACE Digest V2 #89 State of union ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Jan 1982 0953-CST From: CMP.MKSMITH at UTEXAS-20 Subject: Moderator filtration of flames To: space at MIT-MC "Welfare scum"? Why is such nonsense apearing on the Space Bboard? It is also amusing to see the Libertarians (I assume) who are heavy users of this medium complaining about governments spending their money on things like Arpanets and space research. I guess its a normal survival drive. Those sucking at the teat want the milk for themselves. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jan 1982 0830-EST From: INNERS at CMU-20C Subject: Government Funding of Space To: space at MIT-MC This might well belong in Poli-Sci, but since the issue was brought up here... First, if you accept the argument Dietz gives there is no special reason to fund even defense. If I want to be defended, I will voluntarily contribute to my local police, local NRA chapter, national military of my choice, etc. Everyone (except maybe the most radical Libertarians) agrees that some functions require mandatory contributions. Space exploration, in common with basic research, has the property that the benefits do not accrue directly to the organization performing the work. The benefits are distributed among many people who did not invest. Unless you impose severe restrictions on information flow, use of technology, mobility of employees, etc. there is no way that I, as owner of a firm doing (for example) free-fall medical research, can make every beneficiary pay for the benefits he is getting. I can't even get back my investment in all likelyhood. But the benefits have historicaly greatly outweighted the costs of such research. In the not-so-distant future space industrialization/exploration/ colonization has the potential to significantly improve conditions for the entire society. Again, there is no way for an investor to recover much profit from this. While it is not worthwhile for any small group of people to finance space exploration, a larger group finds it worthwhile since the cost can be spread thinner. -- Mike Inners ------- ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 27 January 1982 09:08-PST From: KING at KESTREL To: SPACE at MIT-MC, dietz at usc-ecl cc: King at KESTREL Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #89 It might be possible to have a non-governmental organizationproperly develop space. However, this is quite difficult for several reasons: 1) Much of what is necessary to develop space is unpatentable, often because it is in the realm of pure research. An example of another invention that grew out of pure research is semiconductors, which of course grew out of solid state physics research. It would not have been possible for a company to recover the costs of their research, even by patenting the transistor, because other devices were promptly invented, using the same physics. Of course there was more than enough profit for everyone, but this isn't always the case. 2) Patents are only good for seventeen years. Even those pieces of space hardware that are patentable may not reach the peak of their utilization within seventeen years of conception. 3) While this may seem like a pragmatic rather than a moral argument, governments have historically been involved in blazing trails. Oil companies drill for oil on the ocean floor, but it was the US who invented SCUBA and exotic gas mixtures. Railroads is a customary example (although the government probably did more than it had to or should have done). 4) It is reasonable to suppose that space is just about now turning the corner and should now be privatized. This will probably bedone in a few years. I understand that there are private bidders for STS-5. The US government will retain a few, to fulfill its own needs, just as they own buildings to fulfill their own needs. 5) I would not be opposed to a tax checkoff for space research. I think with such a checkoff it would fare better than it now does. I have previously proposed (elsewhere) that a person be able to designate what their taxes are used for (although in my original proposal the TOTAL would be fixed - each year there would be a referendum to choose among keeping taxes the same, raising them n%, or lowering them n%, where n is set by congress each year (large at the start or end of a war, small when things weren't changing rapidly, never less than some constant, probably 2). RMK ------------------------------ Date: 27 January 1982 16:42-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: State of union To: SPACE at MIT-MC I didn't hear one word about space in Reagan's state-of-union speech. Did anybody else? My guess is he wants to cut spending in everything except defense, and that means cut spending in space in particular. (Defense is a misnomer. We don't have any defense, we have only strategic deterrent. But that's a matter for ARMS-D rather than SPACE.) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 29-Jan-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #91 Date: 29 Jan 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #91 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 91 Today's Topics: Subscription Cancelling Indictments Handed Down Humanists and Technologists ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 January 1982 05:21-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Subscription Cancelling To: DIETZ at USC-ECL cc: SPACE at MIT-MC It must be extremely nice to be so very sure of being correct about so very many subjects. I wish I were. ------------------------------ Date: Thu Jan 28 18:07:36 1982 To: Space@MIT-MC From: ucbvax!mhtsa!alice!sjb@Berkeley Subject: Indictments Handed Down Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. handed down by Grand Juries charging that they conspired to defraud the government on construction costs for the space shuttle. One company, Mayfair Construction Co., has already pleaded guilty, faces a $10,000 fine for its actions, but has reached an agreement with the Justice Department under which it won't be charged with any criminal dealings with the other two companies, Capital Communication Corp. and New World Construction Co., or with the three executives, Phillip W. Akwa, Arthur L. Boschen, and James T. White, Jr., in return for its guilty plea. Mayfair had been given four contracts totaling $13 million to build ground support for the STS program. Capital worked jointly with Mayfair, while Mayfair subcontracted New World. The defendants ``hid their profit-sharing arrangements from NASA'' and planned to inflate costs, hours, and labor to NASA. ------------------------------ Date: Mon Jan 25 23:01:28 1982 To: Space@MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer@Berkeley Subject: Humanists and Technologists Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. any major social problem has ever been solved by a `humanist' or other form of social theorist. Typically, it has been engineers and hard scientists (those materialistic, crass, and soulless men) that have provided the solutions to the major social and political problems of their day. Slavery and hard, grinding, muscle labor at poverty pay, to take two classic examples from the 19th century, weren't eliminated by the wailing of philosophers but by the designs of engineers, and by the money of financiers. Admittedly, this is largely counter-intuitive. It seems unreasonable that social and political problems can magically be solved by throwing devices at them. I suspect the reason that this apparent paradox holds is that people will generally optimize their own condition subject to constraints, and the constraints are always a lack in some way or other of resources. Technology tends to free resources, thus loosening the constraints and providing a higher level of `potential' for most individuals, which they will happily take. The previous paragraph wasn't all that good an explanation of the phenomenon. The interested reader is referred to Smith[1776], Friedman[1957] `Capitalism and Freedom', or Friedman and Friedman `Free to Choose' [1979]. These references won't tell you a great deal about technology, but emphasize the failure of `humanists' or `social engineers' to do anything very productive in terms of ameliorating the human condition. One wishes that Prime Minister Trudeau could read... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 30-Jan-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #92 Date: 30 Jan 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #92 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 92 Today's Topics: HUMANISTS AND TECHNOLOGISTS Technologists and Humanists Government funded research Technologists "vs." Humanists Government Funding of Exploration "humanists" and "technologists" NOT disjoint sets! Re: Government Funding of Space Re: Technologists and Humanists ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 January 1982 07:24-EST From: Steve Kudlak Subject: HUMANISTS AND TECHNOLOGISTS To: SPACE at MIT-MC Actually, I honestly can't see what humanists and technologists fight over so much. Both want to see the world changed for the better. Humanists(philospher's artists writers etc) infleuence the world more indirectly but they do exert, in my view a considerable influence. By pointing out things they see in the world and how they feel about it artists and writers definitely influence the social climate that the technologist types work in and the like. Technology types that I have known have been seriously influenced by "works of art" especially literature and this causes them to do things differently than they would if they were not so influenced. Technology types do things that at thier best give power to people. Like the power to express my ideas to many people in many different areas quickly. Most technology types are not cold, crass individuals at all, and 99% of them bleed if you prick them. The problem is dealing with stereotypes of what artists and technologists are like. These stereotypes are usually quite funny. I STILL MEET PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT COMPUTER HACKERS TALK IN A DULL MONOTONE VOICE LIKE ROBOTS IN SOME OLD MONSTER MOVIE. Once upon a time science, technology and art were not considered mutually exclusive realms. It would be nice if we could recapture some of that rather than fighting about which is 'better' and 'more useful'. Have fun Sends Steve ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 1982 0842-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Technologists and Humanists To: space at MIT-MC Having met quite a few people in both the Arts and the Sciences, (I am an engineer myself) I have noticed that there seem to be far more technologists influenced by art, or even active participants in artistic endeavours, than vice versa. Many of the technologists I have known embrace art and see it in their work, while the artists (actors, literary types, film types) I have met seem to be afraid of, or claim to despise technology. This is, of course, not a general rule. But it is far too common to be comfortable with. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 1982 1317-EST From: MPH at MIT-XX Subject: Government funded research To: space at mc To those who question the usefulness of government funded research, I would like to point out that the electronic digital computer, as we now know it, was originally developed by research funded directly by the U.S. government (e.g. ENIAC, EDVAC) and by the British government (e.g. EDSAC). It took commercial development to make the computer ubiquitous; however, it seems quite implausible that any responsible profit-making enterprise would have undertaken computer research and development in the late 1940's without the foundation laid by the government projects. For instance, the very first commercial computer company (the Electronic Control Company, 1946) was founded by the leaders of the ENIAC project on the basis of the ENIAC patents. Even with this head start, it had severe cash flow problems, and survived only by being bought out by a larger company. "It is a noteworthy feature of our American system that much of the computer field owes its existence to the generosity of our government in giving to its employees and university contractors the rights to *inventions made with government funds*" H.H. Goldstine, The Computer from Pascal to von Neumann, p 71 (my emphasis). ------- ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 1982 1127-CST From: Jonathan Slocum Subject: Technologists "vs." Humanists To: space at MIT-AI First of all, I would lump myself in with the "Technologists" w.r.t. life goals and modus operandi. However, the statement about "nothing of significance being accomplished by `humanists'" cannot go unchallenged. I will simply point to one of the more spectacular existence proofs: amongst the various Nobel prizes for what amount to technologists, there is tucked away an item known as the Nobel Peace Prize. I shall leave the reader to fill in the details. 'Nuff said? Now maybe we can go back to talking about Space?? ------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri Jan 29 18:52:55 1982 To: Space@MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer@Berkeley Subject: Government Funding of Exploration Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. capitalists haven't ever been able to explore new frontiers without some government assistance. Even the enthusiastically laissez-faire 19th Century British governments supported financially and legally extraterritorial firms. A classic example is the East India Company, and, as jcwinterton pointed out, the Hudson's Bay Company. The anti-space enthusiasts may have a point, though. Contrary to popular leftist belief, an Empire doesn't usually materially benefit the Imperial nation. Britain bled itself white subsidizing Canada, Australia, India and South Africa, and didn't exactly make a killing on the American colonies. Space will, one suspects, ultimately be of tremendous benefit to the human race - but that portion of it that remains on Terra herself may not be the principal beneficiaries. Oh, well, with any luck, the only people on Earth by 2200 will all be amed Proxmire - and their heads firmly rooted in the sand. Cheers, Rick. ------------------------------ Date: Fri Jan 29 10:32:47 1982 To: Space@MIT-MC From: ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!floyd!houxi!ihnss!ihps3!pcl@Berkeley Subject: "humanists" and "technologists" NOT disjoint sets! Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. welfare" [Random House College Dictionary] I take strong exception to the sharp dichotomy watmath!pcmcgeer assumes between humanists and technologists! I consider myself to be both, and see many others here at work and on these nets (Usenet & ARPAnet) who I would describe similarly. And it's not just that I'm a technologist while sitting at my desk, and a humanist when considering the best remedy to living in an unratified state - we can be both at the same time! Of course, *some* *activities* may fall into just one category or the other, and it is (unfortunately) possible to find some technologists who are clearly not humanists. On the point pcmcgeer was addressing, I think it is those of us who are *more* than just technologists who are in a position to affect society the most. The technology by itself doesn't tell you how to get it out of the lab, where to put it, how to use it, or even WHY ANYONE SHOULD BOTHER! This point applies to more than just the topic of this news group/digest, and should probably be in HUMAN-NETS, but it does seem to have some connection to the 'popular' argument against funding for space ("Why not spend all that money on something that will benefit the masses?"). If ALL we are is technologists, or even if that's how the 'public' perceives us (and we perceive ourselves), we won't be able to refute that argument effectively. Paul Lustgarten Bell Labs - Indian Hill ------------------------------ Date: Fri Jan 29 14:23:00 1982 To: Space@MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!jcwinterton@Berkeley Subject: Re: Government Funding of Space Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. small-companies-are-good), we get the problem that no private organization is big enough to finance space exploration and research. In the last big exploratory push, things were financed by people who had every right to expect profits from the ventures. Some of the funding organizations were governments but not in the sense of governments today. The king of Spain financed Columbus for profit (territory, resources) and the Company of Gentleman Trading our of Hudson's Bay had exactly the same motive. Because of our *advanced* technology, we are now able to explore beyond the boundaries of our present space conveyance, and to venture into the next ocean. We have even managed to explore, briefly, the next island. Now, if a PRIVATE consortium of investors could be LEGALLY brought together, I wonder if we wouldn't be a lot further than we are? Present governments tend to be monolithic and conservative to the point where they timidly take mousy-steps where giant-steps are needed. Mind you, to take giant-step you have to take RISKS! Not only do you have to risk money, you have to risk LIVES. We honor those pioneers who gave their lives in settling our continent and romanticize about them greatly. Life wasn't regarded as cheap in those days, no matter what you may read. Realism simply demanded the risks be taken. The population pressure was the cause. We are coming to the same pressure levels in the global village. If there are too many of us here, we will have to go there. If some go there for breathing room, others will follow to get thinking room too. History does repeat, but with some skewing. The present skew seems to have to do with bureaucratic inertial and general tail covering. Grrrrr. ------------------------------ Date: Fri Jan 29 21:35:00 1982 To: Space@MIT-MC From: ucbvax!ihnss!mhtsa!harpo!chico!duke!decvax!watmath!jcwinterton@Berkeley Subject: Re: Technologists and Humanists Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. I expect that this is due to the feeling that there must be more to living than hacking away at some scientific persuit, eating, sleeping, having kids, etc. People in the arts already know this, and probably have no inclination to seek other horizons to expand because of the diversity that they already have. How many technologists do you know that have embraced other technologies than their own on a *for interest* basis? I can think of very few.... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 31-Jan-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #93 Date: 31 Jan 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #93 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 93 Today's Topics: ARPANET Withholding Tax? Technologists vs Humanists Technologists and Humanists Technologists "vs." Humanists Re: Government Funding of Space Re: Technologists and Humanists ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 January 1982 16:18 est From: Tavares.Multics at MIT-Multics Subject: ARPANET Withholding Tax? To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Message of 30 January 1982 06:02 est from Ted Anderson The first part of almost every message I have gotten over the past three or so days has been missing (where "message" means each individual note in each digest shipment). Whas hoppnin. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 1982 2322-PST From: Jim McGrath Subject: Technologists vs Humanists To: space at MIT-MC First, apoligies to everyone on SPACE for discussing what is probably not an appropiate topic for this list. But since the subject came up... Saying technology is more important than the humanities is stupid, since technology, the APPLICATION of scientific knowledge, has to be directed by social goals determined by the study of the humanities (and social "sciences"). However, saying humanities is more important than technology is equally stupid, since man is, above all else, a TECHNOLOGICAL animal. Our use of tools, more than anything else, has contributed to our current state of civilization. Trying to understand Man without his tools (please, no comments on sexist language!) is a fruitless endevour that will ultimately lead to failure. One problem we face is that there are significant numbers of people who believe that technology, in and of itself, can solve all problems. This is wrong, since those very problems CANNOT be defined or specified by a strict examination of technological alternatives (although some constraints as to what is physically possible can be supplied by technology) - one MUST appeal to the knowledge lodged in the study of Man, the humanities. Another problem we face is the presence of a large number of people who believe that Man's tools and his tool making capacity should be ignored when examining the proper role of our race in the universal scheme of things. One cannot make ANY decisions about what Man should do or should become without examining how Man interacts with the physical Universe - and this is the domain of Science and Technology. Frankly, I have no doubts that there are far more people causing the second problem than the first. At least most technologists believe that they SHOULD be aware of the Humanities, while many poeple in the Humanities feel no obligation to understand the first principles of Science and Technology. So while we need more people knowledgable in both areas, the lack of technological understanding among the people studying the Humanities seems to be the most severe problem we are currently facing. Jim ------------------------------ Date: 31 January 1982 03:39-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Technologists and Humanists To: TAW at S1-A cc: SPACE at MIT-MC If you burned all the art, people would be miserable but alive. If you burned all the technology, about 75% of the population would starve. Which should we do? (Maybe neither?) ------------------------------ Date: 31 January 1982 03:45-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Technologists "vs." Humanists To: LRC.SLOCUM at UTEXAS-20 cc: space at MIT-AI Which Nobel Peace Prize winners have really advanced the cause of Peace? As opposed to those who have managed to impress the right people? Indeed: how DOES one advance the cause of peace? Did Pacifist in WWII advance the cause of peace? Or did Joe and Willy (and General Patton)? Is Jane Fonda, or a US Army paratrooper lieutenant, more likely to advance the cause of peace today? Was Appius Claudius the Blind right when he said "If thou wouldst have peace, be thou then prepared for war," or is paying Danegeld a better approach (oops: don't needlessly irritate the totalitarians, they MEAN it...) ------------------------------ Date: 31 January 1982 03:52-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Re: Government Funding of Space To: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!jcwinterton at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC If a private company SUCCESSFULLY manages to make profits in space, it will instantly be broken up as a monopoly... ------------------------------ Date: 31 January 1982 03:56-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Re: Technologists and Humanists To: ucbvax!ihnss!mhtsa!harpo!chico!duke!decvax!watmath!jcwinterton at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Sir: you ought to come to some of my parties at AAAS meetings and MEET some REAL techologists; a more diversified group I don't know. Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that Kantrowitz, Dyson, Minsky, Forward, Anderson, Ruffini, Benford (Benford**2, actually), Bussard, etc. have no "humanistic" interests? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 01-Feb-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #94 Date: 01 Feb 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #94 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 94 Today's Topics: Tech vs Humanist duplication of articles Appropriate Quote... Reply to Rick at watmath Humanism vs Technology poking in here ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun Jan 31 06:00:51 1982 To: Space@MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!Rick@Berkeley Subject: Tech vs Humanist Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Frankly, I really didn't mean to start all of this... My apologies to all on net.space, and my absolute last word on the subject. First, it should be pointed out that no one ever claimed that ignorance of the humanities was bliss, or at least not harmful. It was claimed that no major moral or social problems have ever been solved by that rather unfortunate group that describe themselves as `social engineers'. I'm still waiting for a counter example. The point that was made was that typically, merchants and technologists solved the problems because *they saw a social need*. The typical action of the humanist to the problem was either to ignore it, or to justify it (read Aristotle on the subject of slavery, for instance). There are some prominent thinkers in the humanities whose works deserve attention. Friedman is an excellent example. So is Easton. Toynbee and Hobbes are first-rate reading, and a must for anyone who wishes to understand history. However ( again with the notable exception of Milton Friedman ) the current rather sad collection of scholars that dominate the thinking of the humanities can provide us with no solutions to our current problems. Rather than attempting to increase human freedom, the current intellectual fashion is to curtail it. Rather than attempting to expand and increase human wealth, the current fashion is the age of limits. And rather than attempting to master the basics of the technologies that have taken us from an impoverished, rural culture to the mightiest, wealthiest and most knowledgeable society this planet has ever seen, there is a popular intellectual fashion to argue that technological solutions to technological problems should not be pursued, because *that would create a privileged class on whom the ignorant would be independent*. There are few sentiments that are more ominous than this war cry of the new barbarians. Sorry I can't be cheerier about these characters, but most of us have seen far too much of the Naders, the Ehrlichs, the Fondas and the Trudeaus to have many illusions about humanists in the 1980s. Rick. ------------------------------ Date: Sun Jan 31 14:38:43 1982 To: Space@MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!duke!cjp@Berkeley Subject: duplication of articles Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. 1 2 3 4 5 6 (ARPAVAX blank lines: how many get lost?) I'm getting real tired of reading the same articles in fa.space as I read yesterday in net.space. Is there any way to avoid this? For example, could the fa.space moderator digestify separately the stuff from UNIXland and distribute it only to ARPA sites? Charles J. Poirier (duke!cjp) ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jan 1982 1538-PST Sender: BILLW at SRI-KL Subject: Appropriate Quote... From: William "Chops" Westfield To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[SRI-KL]31-Jan-82 15:38:37.BILLW> In-Reply-To: Your message of 31 Jan 1982 0302-PST "There are two kinds of fools: One says 'This is old, and therefore good', And the other says 'This is new, and therefore better'" ------------------------------ Date: Sun Jan 31 17:24:45 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!ihnss!vax135!harpo!utah-cs!lepreau at Berkeley Subject: Reply to Rick at watmath Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. If you're going to subject us to this hero-worship of Friedman and company for God's sakes at least spare us the arrogance of phrases like "most of us" when describing your own dislike of the Naders and Ehrlichs and your idolatry of the likes of old Milt. ------------------------------ From: RWK@MIT-AI Date: 02/01/82 02:45:12 Subject: Humanism vs Technology RWK@MIT-AI 02/01/82 02:45:12 Re: Humanism vs Technology To: POURNE at MIT-AI CC: SPACE at MIT-AI As I see it, Humanism is not just concerned with Art, but with such important questions as whether to burn all the technology. Of course, there is an obvious answer, and there are stupid humanists, just as there are Technologists who think they wouldn't mind living in a post nuclear era as long as we teach the Ruskies a lesson. But for the most part, there are no Technologists, merely clever Humanists! (See what you can do with words!) BTW, ever notice that there doesn't seem to be a word like Technologism? ------------------------------ Date: Mon Feb 1 00:14:08 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!yale-com!harley at Berkeley Subject: poking in here Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. first i note that talking of a dualism of technologists & humanists is like giving emphasis to the itsy-bitsy tailends of a bellcurve. then i wonder how the connection between humanism & art was made, so i really wonder whether we have a consensus definition of humanism, or just a meaningless word around which to rotate. next, i consider trying to label the reagan government either technologist or humanist ... & give up, but not without a fight. then, fondling the notion that technologists are more "socially valuable" than humanists, i try to reconcile the war machine. and i see the technologists claiming that their work trickles down into the wanting parts of society ... ... but will no one agree that humanities trickle down even less directly, but more evenly & (i dare ask) more positively? (think about that; apply trickledown theory across the board & see what it amounts to, beyond reaganism. what tricklesdown do you like best?) and finally i realize that, technologist or humanist, most of you are proud of your opinions but have given them little thought. you should be ashamed; as elitists, you should be committed to excellence. the last place i'd want to find the people doing this talking would be in a position of power. - steve harley (yale-comix!harley) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 02-Feb-82 0302 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #95 Date: 02 Feb 1982 0301-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #95 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 95 Today's Topics: Technology and Humanity RE: Technologists and Humanists Nuts --> Lunar solar-power station ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 01 Feb 1982 1014-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Technology and Humanity To: space at MIT-MC, pourne at MIT-MC Date: 31 January 1982 03:39-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Technologists and Humanists If you burned all the art, people would be miserable but alive. If you burned all the technology, about 75% of the population would starve. Which should we do? (Maybe neither?) My point was not that one is independant of the other, but that they are both facets of the same jewel. If you burned all the art, would you include well-designed machinery, or elegant computer programs? If you burned all the technology, would you destroy Moog synthesizers, or synthetic-fibre paintbrushes? Art can be functional, as technology can be artistic. Is writing a novel on a word-processor an act of artistry or technology? --Tom ------------------------------ Date: Mon Feb 1 18:49:11 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!npois!houxi!houxe!lime!gdg at Berkeley Subject: RE: Technologists and Humanists Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Bravo! Excellent observation stated in a few elegant sentences. With only a few exceptions I can think of (e.g. recent use of computer-generated graphics and holography as art media per se) artists tend to disparage technology/technologists while the reverse is not seen nearly as often. Is this a result of one-way ignorance? I think so; I am often shocked at the technological illiteracy of many of my artist friends. On the other hand, I am often impressed by the deep appreciation for art which most of my "tekkie" friends possess. (By the way, when I say "technological illiteracy" I don't mean that they never heard of Maxwell's equations; I mean they don't even have an understanding of what inductive reasoning (i.e. scientific method) IS!!!) - Glenn Golden ------------------------------ Date: 2 February 1982 02:42-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Nuts --> Lunar solar-power station To: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I think it's much easier to build large structures in space than on the Moon, because you can just float out things via automated beam-builders and not have to sorry about supporting the equipment against gravity nor even about the hills and valleys you'd have to traverse if you built it on the moon. Even if you build it ok, you have to beam the energy back about ten times the distance (225,000 miles instead of only 25,000 miles) and somehow re-direct it to a single place on Earth that will receive it. But it's a idea worth studying. Maybe I'm wrong and it's a good idea. Experts should add up all the costs and benefits and compare with the geosync and polarsync proposals and settle the matter by means other than my speculation. Has anybody seriously studied lunar-based SPS? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 03-Feb-82 0304 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #96 Date: 03 Feb 1982 0303-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #96 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 96 Today's Topics: Government Funding of Exploration (previous article) Shuttle Progress Re: sri-unix.660: ARPANET Withholding Tax? Time Article on Ariane space duplication poking agin post script TECHNOLOGY VS. HUMANISM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon Feb 1 15:36:32 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ARPAVAX.Onyx.jmrubin at Berkeley Subject: Government Funding of Exploration (previous article) Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. As I recall, off hand, the British East India Company and the Hudson's Bay Company, and the British West India Company were NOT supported by laissez-faire types. They supported MERCANTILISM which was precisely what laissez-faire types were against. Joel Rubin ------------------------------ Date: Tue Feb 2 07:49:36 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle Progress Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. At midnight tonight, the shuttle Columbia will be moved, a day early, from the Orbiter Processing Facility to the Vehicle Assembly Building. There, it will be mated with the external tank and SRB assembly. NASA officials say that the shuttle should be able to be rolled to pad 39A by 21 February, leading to a late March launch. ------------------------------ Date: Tue Feb 2 09:23:23 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!chico!duke!dukgeri!ccw at Berkeley Subject: Re: sri-unix.660: ARPANET Withholding Tax? Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. The problem with missing parts of messages appears to originate at ARPAVAX. Their "news" program is throwing away first lines and, from what I hear, everybody who can fix it is at the USENIX conference! ------------------------------ Date: Tue Feb 2 11:15:13 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!mhtsa!ihnss!karn at Berkeley Subject: Time Article on Ariane Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. The current issue of Time Magazine (February 8, 1982) has an article on the European Space Agency's Ariane launcher, along with a picture of the nighttime liftoff of L04 (the fourth test flight conducted last month). Arianespace, the private corporation that will handle commercial launches of the Ariane, is currently asking $25 million per launch. Phil Karn ------------------------------ Date: Tue Feb 2 11:57:01 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!uwvax!jon at Berkeley Subject: space duplication Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. The easiest way to prevent duplication of articles in net.space and arpanet's space digest is to do away with net.space! why have a set-up where we KNOW that articles will come out twice? why make the digest moderator clean up the mess? Jon Mauney (uwvax!jon) ------------------------------ Date: Tue Feb 2 12:14:01 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!yale-com!harley at Berkeley Subject: poking agin Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. for the record, i am an artist (writer & painter, mostly) who supports himself by programming computers. i know a number of other artists. i don't know any ARTISTS who disparage technology. i know a few humanists who disparage technology, but they are in the minority. personally, i don't disparage technology, but i tend to be very thoughtful, so i think a lot of technology is not worth having. like food processors & neutron bombs. i know a lot of scientists too, & a fair number of them have a very limited appreciation of art. the scientists/technoligists i know who do appreciate art tend to be humanists as well, so i think the comparison of techno-humano is balderdash. there are just people who are more limited than others. however, they don't bother me as much as people who are DEPENDENT on technology. - me again (yale-comix!harley) ------------------------------ Date: Tue Feb 2 12:27:36 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!yale-com!harley at Berkeley Subject: post script Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. post script to last message: i would regard the space program as a very expensive piece of art with some technological spinoffs. ------------------------------ Date: 2 February 1982 23:46-EST From: Gene Salamin Subject: TECHNOLOGY VS. HUMANISM To: SPACE at MIT-MC A long time ago I forgot what started this discussion. It doesn't seem to be related to space issues. Let's move it to some other mailing list. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* Note that digest #97 only went to a few people, and all its messages are reproduced in #98. 05-Feb-82 0334 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #98 Date: 05 Feb 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #98 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 98 Today's Topics: Administrivia dead batteries : This is the space mailing list! Relvancy of discussions New Saturnian Moons Shuttle Moved to VAB Re: poking agin Re: New Saturnian Moons Saturnian moons post script --> Space isn't just art RE: Technologists and Humanists Nuts --> Lunar solar-power station Re: Re: dead batteries ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thursday, 4 February 1982 23:39-PST From: OTA at S1-A Subject: Administrivia To: space at mit-mc I'm afraid that some of you will get most of these message twice. Please accept my appologies, I erred in adding a new user yesterday and that sent the mailer into hysterics. A couple of comments while I'm about it: The discussion of details of the distribution of the space digest and its constituent materials inside the USENET is not germane to this list. I will try and work out something with the maintainers of that network. In general question, complaints, or suggestings about the mechanics of the digest should be sent to SPACE-Request@MC or directly to me, not to the list as a whole. I generally agree with Bob Amsler's comments later in this digest. The discussions of Humanism vs. Technologism is getting rather far afield. Perhaps we can stop flogging that particular horse, and get on with issues such as why the shuttles fuel cell clogged up (asked and answered in this issue, how's that for service?). Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 3 February 1982 08:00-PST From: KING at KESTREL Subject: dead batteries To: space at mit-mc cc: King at KESTREL Has anyone read a clear explaination of what went wrong with Columbia's "b" fuel cell? ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 1982 1044-PST From: Bob Amsler Subject: : This is the space mailing list! To: space at MIT-MC Why is the space mailing list discussing the philosophical aspects of technology vs. humanities? Why is the space mailing list dealing with anti-space dialogues? As I understood this list's function it was to serve as a news medium for distribution of information about the space program and scientific speculation about possible space research. Could we return to that purpose... ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 1982 1304-CST From: Clyde Hoover Subject: Relvancy of discussions To: space at MIT-MC Concerning the relevance of the humanist vs. technologist debate of recent digests, I see no reason why they should NOT be in this digest. Assuming that the material in each disgest accurately reflects the amount of contributions, then everyone's missive is making it out on the list anyway, so what's to complain about? Offhand, I don't see where the humanist/technologist dichomety is MORE appropriately discussed than concerning space, that field being a major area of technological endeavor with possibly the largest potential impact upon humanity. In order to make sense of technology, the human factors must be added to the equation. Ignoring one for the other is perhaps expedient but ill-fated. Although I agree with JP that if forced to choose between 'art' and 'technology', 'art' would, for me, lose, though it would be painful to actually do such a deed. ------------------------------ Date: Tue Feb 2 21:47:05 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: mhtsa!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: New Saturnian Moons Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Scientists, analyzing data from Voyager II, say that information has increased the number of known moons of Saturn to 21 to 23. Two new satellites were confirmed, with two others listed as ``possibles,'' since they had only one sighting each and are awaiting confirmation as satellites. The moons range from 6 to 12 miles in diameter and have orbits as far as 292,000 miles from the ringed planet. Before Voyager I passed Saturn in 1979, only 10 moons were known to exist. ------------------------------ Date: Wed Feb 3 07:31:11 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle Moved to VAB Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. The shuttle Columbia was successfully moved to the Vehicle Assembly Building today, one day EARLY. There, it will be put into a vertical position and the external tank and SRB's will be attached. This completed (hopefully by Friday), the shuttle will undergo tests simulating during-mission conditions, leading to a hopefull rollout by 21 February and a launch the week of 22 March. ------------------------------ Date: Wed Feb 3 09:50:33 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!ihnss!vax135!harpo!cbosg!teklabs!tekmdp!azure!johnk at Berkeley Subject: Re: poking agin Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. I think we should have a new newsgroup net.space.philosophy and let those individuals that want to fight it out regarding technology vs humanism do it somewhere besides net.space. It seems net.space was intended to provide updates on recent developments in space exploration. Come on, guys, give us a break. ------------------------------ Date: Wed Feb 3 16:05:16 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!jcwinterton at Berkeley Subject: Re: New Saturnian Moons Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. I am confused. Does anyone know the definition used to state that some body orbiting a planet is a *moon*? Especially with Saturn and the rings, there must be a lot of orbiting debris. When does debris in orbit get dignified with the label *moon*? ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 1982 at 2153-PST From: Andrew Knutsen To: space at MC Subject: Saturnian moons Sender: knutsen at SRI-UNIX Here is another interesting thing about the moons, extracted from the news story: -------- One of the confirmed little moons and one of the ''possible'' satellites are companions of the larger moon, Tethys, and appear to move in what Synnott referred to as ''horseshoe'' orbits. Satellites in horseshoe orbits trade orbits as they approach each other, the NASA spokesman said. -------- From the name "horseshoe", I assume the moons actually loop around each other and change direction, rather than deflecting slightly and following the path the other moon approached in. This might be interesting to watch, especially if one were (firmly) attached to one of the moons. However my intuition rebels against the idea. Is there really enough gravitational attraction to do this? Would such an arrangement be stable? What would the tides be like? ------------------------------ Date: 4 February 1982 03:08-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: post script --> Space isn't just art To: ucbvax!decvax!yale-com!harley at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC The Voyager pictures are indeed a work of art, but not very expensive, I've heard it's about one six-pack of beer per person of this country. Most works of art are much more expensive for the number of people who can see them and appreciate them. (All we need to do is distribute prints of the best of the Voyager pictures to each and every citizen, and we'll truly have the cheapest masterpiece of art ever produced.) The rest of the space program is science, not art, mostly. We get vast amounts of crucial information that is a first step towards engineering to actually make use of space for our benefit. Science always comes first, then a lot of hard engineering, then profit. Thus I don't agree with your claim that the space program is just an expensive work of art with spinoff. It's a medium-priced science project with some artistic spinoff and also some random-product spinoff. ------------------------------ Date: 4 February 1982 05:32-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle To: JMC at SU-AI cc: SPACE at MIT-MC The whole space community, with, I thnk, particular credit to L-5 Society, deserves a couplee attaboys. I'll take a bit of the plaudits because of the Citizens Council activity (and Danny Graham's efforts, plus Newt Gingrich's were somewhat influenced and aided by the Council.) Anyway--it is not what we wanted, but it is less than we feared. We could get into next year's state of the union if we worked it right; it means more coordinated work... Date: 03 Feb 1982 2335-PST From: John McCarthy I think you deserve considerable credit for this result. a013 2242 03 Feb 82 PM-Space Budget,450 Reagan OKs Planet Program Money By HOWARD BENEDICT AP Aerospace Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Overriding his fiscal advisers, President Reagan is proposing in his new budget that much of the U.S. planetary exploration program be kept alive. Just three months ago, the Office of Management and Budget recommended killing most deep space exploration projects in its drive to cut federal spending. The effort met strong opposition from scientific organizations and congressmen on key space committees who took their case to the White House. As a result, Reagan has put money for several deep-space projects in his fiscal 1983 budget. Included is $92.6 million to continue development of the Jupiter-orbiting Galileo satellite; $21 million to move ahead with several European nations on a joint sun-probe mission; and money to maintain the deep space tracking network and to allow the Voyager 2 spacecraft to travel on to Uranus and Neptune. If OMB had succeeded in dropping the planetary programs, it would have meant the loss of about 1,200 jobs at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., which manages the deep-space efforts. The president is to submit his full 1983 budget to Congress on Monday. The Associated Press on Wednesday obtained an advance copy of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration section. Reagan proposes total NASA spending of $6.6 billion. Factoring in inflation, that's about equal to 1982's $5.98 billion. A major share of the 1983 budget, $1.7 billion, is for the manned space shuttle, which is to complete its test program with flights in March and July and to start cargo-carrying operational missions in November. A second shuttle, the Challenger, is to join the Columbia at Cape Canaveral, Fla., in June. Another $1.7 billion is earmarked for space flight operations, mainly for the shuttle. Reagan is a strong supporter of the reusable spaceship, primarily because of its potential military applications. NASA didn't get all it wanted in deep space. It lost a Venus orbiter and a probe to Halley's comet. Other projects were scaled down or stretched out. But, considering the bleak outlook a couple months ago, it came out pretty well. The proposed budget also includes $137.5 million, $61.7 million and $34.5 million, respectively, for continued development of three major orbiting satellites: a space telescope, an advanced Landsat Earth Resources payload and a gamma ray observatory; $100 million for construction of facilities; and $1.17 billion for research and program management. Aeronautical research dipped slightly, from $233 million in 1982, to $232 million. Heaviest cuts were in technology for transport aircraft and advanced propulsion. The budget projects total NASA employment of 21,219 by the Sept. 30, 1983, the end of fiscal 1983. This would be a drop of more than 400 from the projected 1982 figure of 21,652. ap-ny-02-04 0137EST *************** ------------------------------ Date: 4 February 1982 05:54-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: RE: Technologists and Humanists To: ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!npois!houxi!houxe!lime!gdg at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC In the history of the republic there has never ben a legislature--state or federal--not having a majority of lawyers. Whether lawyers are "humanists" or not, they certainly are not technologists or scientists. In our history there has never been a legislature having more than a few technologists or scientists in it. The laws are hideously complex; this may or may not have smething to do with the lawyers who have made them. Would a legislature of engineers have done worse? For most of our history we have in fact been governed by "humanists" to the extent that we have been governed by intellectuals at all. Certainly the lawyers have always controlled the output of technologists; while until very recently our academic institutions were run by "humanists." We have a system which seems often enough to have damned near killed the lot of us. Is this an interesting observation? Perhaps it is time to drop the whole matter. ------------------------------ Date: 4 February 1982 05:57-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Nuts --> Lunar solar-power station To: REM at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70 David Criswell has looked at lunar power stations. They will be discussed at the l-5 sponsored space citizen convention in LA April 4-6 (if you don't know about this and want to, ask me). Criswell is, of course, a lunar nut; but a rather sound one, and he can make a pretty good case for "go to the moon with shuttles first; THEN worry about SPS, whether lunar or orbital; either way you gotta build out of SOMETHING and lunar materials are cheapest..." The L-5 sponsored citizens convention will also feature architects and engineers beginning serious design of a luar colony. JEP ------------------------------ Date: Thu Feb 4 16:21:15 1982 To: Space@MIT-MC From: ARPAVAX.arnold@Berkeley Subject: Re: Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. I think you might also give some credit to Jerry Brown. Some inside information indicates that one reason Reagan + advisors decided not to slash hard at NASA programs was to avoid handing Jerry obvious and wonderful targets for his campaign. Not that I want to dengrate those who worked hard on this. But remember that Reagan doesn't make all of his decisions on a basis of philosophy. Ken P.S. Neither does any other politician, of course. ------------------------------ Date: Thu Feb 4 21:52:44 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!ihnss!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Re: dead batteries Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Yes, it seems that a little contamination (some aluminum compound) clogged up one of its aspirators. These are the little holes that drain the cell of water. Subsequently, the cell flooded and that's what caused it to be finally shut down. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 06-Feb-82 0302 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #99 Date: 06 Feb 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #99 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 99 Today's Topics: half-time power from the moon NASA budget "horseshoe" orbits LA l-5 convention ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Friday, 5 February 1982 08:44-PST From: KING at KESTREL Subject: half-time power from the moon To: space at mit-mc cc: King at KESTREL Don't lunar power stations cease to function two weeks every month? ------------------------------ Date: 5 Feb 1982 1036-PST From: Paul Dietz Subject: NASA budget To: space at MIT-MC Heaviest cuts were in technology for transport aircraft and advanced propulsion. Does this include scramjets? In my opinion developing the technology for single stage to orbit (SSTO) vehicles is a lot more important than planetary exploration. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Feb 1982 1310-CST From: Jonathan Slocum Subject: "horseshoe" orbits To: space at MIT-MC cc: knutsen at SRI-UNIX I'm sure there will be plenty of other replies on this, but... The word "horseshoe" may be unfortunate. But imagine TWO of them, ends-to-ends, one slightly larger than the other. That's what is meant. The satellites do not reverse their course; they merely exchange orbits. As the lower one catches up with the higher one, their mutual gravitational attraction acts to accelerate the former and retard the latter; the lower one thus moves into a higher orbit, and the higher one, into a lower orbit. They continue on their merry ways until the next encounter/dance. Actually, it surely takes several revolutions til the next meeting, so the horseshoe analogy does not exactly fit. But it's poetic, isn't it? ------------------------------ Date: 6 February 1982 04:05-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: LA l-5 convention To: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC cc: POURNE at MIT-MC, WEDEKIND.ES at MIT-MC, REM at MIT-MC, RMS at MIT-MC, PDL at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC, SF-LOVERS at MIT-MC The L-5 Convention is at the Hyatt International (LA AIRPORT HYATT) over the weekend of 2-4 April. Usual convention costs (around $30 at the door; "professional membership" including banquet, some papers, and a reception is about $75). Guests of Honor: Robert A. Heinlein Fred Haise (Grumman VP, Commander of Apollo 13) Keynote Speaker: Dr. Hans Mark, Deputy Adminnistratior NASA, former Secretary of the Air Force. Featured Guest: Honorable Newt Gingrich, Representative from Georgia, CoChair of the Congressonal Space Caucus. Arthur Kantrowitz, Gary Hudson (private rocket constructor) Harry Stine, George Merrick and Chuck Gould of Rockwell, General Dan Graham, and a buncha other notables. Convention cochaired by Je Pournelle and Milton Stevens (Stevens, a former Worldcon SF type, does most of the work). Purpose is to get enthusiasts and professionals together, adn to generate a strategy for the advancement of the space program. Please feel free to pass this messag on to whomever you like. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 07-Feb-82 0302 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #100 Date: 07 Feb 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #100 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 100 Today's Topics: Horseshoe Orbits ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 February 1982 19:30 est From: Tavares.WFSO at MIT-Multics Subject: Horseshoe Orbits To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Message of 6 February 1982 06:02 est from Ted Anderson All you space whizzes, don't get on me, I know I'm ignorant. But this is the second time I've heard horseshoe orbits explained in this fashion. What puzzles me is the explanation that "the lower one is attracted by the higher one ahead of it, making it go faster and therefore into a higher orbit." As was mentioned several times during the Skylab "re-entry," higher orbits are SLOWER, not faster. If the moon thus accelareted doesn't immediately fly into space, it must have to do with some interaction whereby the other moon, now lower (and slower) pulls it back. This sounds weird. It would be more likely that the moons are really orbiting each other, and the "horseshoe" effect is an optical illusion-- a cycloid-like figure, perhaps, traced out solely because both these moons are orbiting something larger in the meanwhile. Is this what is actually happening? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 08-Feb-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #101 Date: 08 Feb 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #101 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 101 Today's Topics: half-time power from the moon NASA budget "horseshoe" orbits Horseshoe Orbits ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 February 1982 06:19-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: half-time power from the moon To: KING at KESTREL cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Not if they are at the poles they don't. (that's the answer; the question was, don't lunar power stations cease to function two weeks of the month?) Of course a non-polar lunar colony would indeed need either a good energy storage system, or a good generation system; if you put it up in a large whack, say by ORION, then a small nuclear power plant would probably be the right thing to have for a colony. ------------------------------ Date: 7 February 1982 06:21-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: NASA budget To: DIETZ at USC-ECL cc: SPACE at MIT-MC There are other developments; and some private work on Big Dumb Boosters, and the like. But Single Stage to Orbit technology is indeed very important, and somewhat overlooked. It may, nowever, get funding directly from DOD. ------------------------------ Date: 7 February 1982 06:22-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: "horseshoe" orbits To: LRC.SLOCUM at UTEXAS-20 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, knutsen at SRI-UNIX I gather that two objects "in the same orbit" actually share an orbit that NEITHER of them is actually in? ------------------------------ Date: 8 February 1982 03:35-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Horseshoe Orbits To: Tavares.WFSO at MIT-MULTICS cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC The two satellites are in almost identically the same orbit, thus the one in the lower/faster/smaller orbit very very slowly overtakes the other over a period of many orbits. If they were of zero mass, they'd simply bump into each other as they pass, and be diflected in some semi-random direction like particles in a sub-atomic accellerator. But they have enough mass that as they get close to each other they pull on each other slightly. The one ahead in orbit (the higher/slower one) is pulled backward, causing it to lose energy and spiral down to a lower orbit. The one behind in orbit (the lower/faster one) is pulled forward, causing it to gain energy and spiral up to a higher orbit. Eventually they are in exactly the same orbit, one behind the other, and they don't get any closer because the one behind is no longer traveling faster than the one ahead. But they are still close together, in fact they are at their closest point now, and they continue to attract each other. The one ahead continues to lose energy and spiral into a lower and lower orbit, and the one behind continues to gain energy and spiral into a higher and higher orbit. The one ahead, being now in a lower orbit, races ahead, and the behind, being now in a highe orbit, lags behind. They thus slowly drift apart, the one in front in a lower oribit and the one behind in a higher orbit, until they are far enough away to no longer effect each other significantly. Many many orbits later, their difference in orbits has caused the one ahead&faster to get nearly a whole orbit ahead of the one behind, and they start to effect each other but with roles reversed (the one that was slightly ahead is now almost a full orbit ahead, thus is slightly behind, and is in the lower/faster orbit on approach; the one that was slightly behind is now almost a full orbit behind, thus slightly ahead, and is in the higher/slower orbit on approach). (I hope this explanation satisfies everybody.) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 09-Feb-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #102 Date: 09 Feb 1982 0303-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #102 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 102 Today's Topics: Re: sri-unix.707: Horseshoe Orbits RE: dennis' reply to Horseshoe Orbits half-time power from the moon Politics of Space Scramjet Request horseshoe orbits polar lunar solar power ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun Feb 7 10:51:10 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: hplabs!menlo70!ucbvax!ihnss!cbosg!harpo!chico!duke!phs!dennis at Berkeley Subject: Re: sri-unix.707: Horseshoe Orbits Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Nope -- it's not ignorance, it's just a point of view problem. Higher orbits are slower only in terms of angular velocity (speed relative to the surface). In linear velocity (yeah, orbits are ellipses, but that's the idea) higher orbits are faster. You need to accelerate from a low orbit to achieve a higher one. The ground speed is slower because the circumference grows quickly wrt speed and it has more distance to cover than it has extra speed to do it with. Thus, the two moons exchange kinetic energy (orbital speed) via gravitational attraction, and they BOTH (mutual and opposite) change orbits. The higher moon (the one caught up on) is decelerated and the lower moon is accelerated, causing them to exchange orbits. This will collapse eventually (tidal forces ALWAYS eat some of that kinetic energy), and either they will collide or just take up the same orbit; I suspect collision. ------------------------------ Date: Mon Feb 8 00:24:53 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: hplabs!menlo70!ucbvax!ihnss!houxi!houxg!lime!gdg at Berkeley Subject: RE: dennis' reply to Horseshoe Orbits Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. speaking, angular velocity is the rate at which an orbiting body subtends a given angle relative to the orbital *focus* (CG), which, in the case of relatively light moons orbiting relatively round, heavy planets, can be considered to be the center of the planet. Simply put, radians/second. *It has nothing to do with speed relative to the surface.* For example, a geosynchronous satellite has no motion relative to the Earth's surface, yet its angular velocity is considerable. If the earth suddenly stopped rotating, the satellite's angular velocity would remain the same (360 degrees/day), and it would remain in orbit at the original altitude. (Of course it would no longer be geosync either.) We just tend to think of orbital speeds as relative to the planet surface, but that is *apparent* angular velocity. Luckily for us, that's all it is. If the earth had no angular velocity (spin) of its own we wouldn't be able to have geosync satellites at all because no matter what orbit we put them in they'd always have some velocity relative to the surface. - Glenn Golden ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 8 February 1982 08:07-PST From: KING at KESTREL To: Jerry E. Pournelle cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, King at KESTREL Subject: half-time power from the moon In that case, unless the moon's equator happens to coincide almost exactly with the ecliptic (does it?) the power station will be out of service for six months out of the year. (There is NO pointof the Earth's surface that has continuous sunlight.) In addition, note that the sun's angle changes. If the moon's equator IS aimed at the sun, then only half of the sun is visible from the poles, and you would need a tall tower (built againstgravity, don't forget) and a rotator to take advantage of the continuous power available. Dick ------------------------------ Date: 8 Feb 1982 0926-PST Sender: WARD at USC-ISIF Subject: Politics of Space From: Craig E. Ward To: SPACE at MIT-MC Cc: Ward at USC-ISIF Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF] 8-Feb-82 09:26:10.WARD> Yesterday I got around to reading my copy of "The Planetary Report" and I found a reprint of an article by James Van Allen. I contend that this article illustrates one of the problems we have in getting the space program funded, namely, that many of the big names of the scientific community are politically naive and give the political opponents of science weapons to use against us. Very quickly, the article contends that we can not complain about the level of funding of the space program (6 billion NASA and 3 billion DoD), that if several scientific probes have been cancelled, we must remember that it is because the nation spends almost all its money on manned space flight. He hints that he thinks the space shuttle is going to be a "financial monstrosity" being 20-50 years ahead of its time. I disagree on several of his points. The NASA budget is not by any reasonable accounting adequate, nor is the general level of scientific funding. For something so vitally important to the country to receive such a small piece of the pie is a disgrace. I also contend that the manned space program has more than justified itself by its returns in science and technology. And finally, to illustrate my point, to assume that money taken from the manned program will go to the unmanned demonstrates great political naivity. Van Allen's arguments sound rather similar to those made by people like Senator Proxmire (a real tail-gunner if there ever was one). I think that Proxmire's statements have shown that he lacks an understanding of the scientific method and such statements as those of Van Allen allow him to claim allies in the scientific world (See, even their own agree with me). The battle over funding must be fought in the political arena and we must learn how to fight there if we are going to get anywhere. I do not want to give the impression that I think either Dr. Van Allen or Senator Proxmire are stupid or evil. I would very likely like both if I were to meet them. I would, however, like to caution people in positions like that of Dr. Van Allen to be careful of what they say and to whom they say it. The budget you save may be your own. /Craig ------------------------------ Date: 8 Feb 1982 1313-CST From: John Otken Subject: Scramjet Request To: Space at MIT-MC Could anyone supply some references to SStO technology? ------- ------------------------------ Date: 8 Feb 1982 06:47:05-PST From: menlo70!sytek!intelqa!murray at Berkeley HOORAY!!!!!! Finally some REAL space news! Please keep it up. ------------------------------ Date: Mon Feb 8 10:10:52 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!duke!phs!dennis at Berkeley Subject: horseshoe orbits Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Nuts. I fell into the point-of-view trap myself. Anyway, correcting for that, my remarks still apply, unless somebody who has taken more than one astrophysics course can correct me. ------------------------------ Date: Mon Feb 8 11:01:44 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!duke!cjp at Berkeley Subject: polar lunar solar power Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. I can see problems with moon-based solar power stations even at the poles. If you could get continuous power there, I could maybe see beaming it to earth from such a close tangent to the lunar surface. The moon's orbit is the problem. It is not quite in the same plane as the earth's orbit around the sun. So, the polar regions will cycle in and out of sunlight on a yearly basis. Even when the sun lights the pole, it is low on the lunar horizon. This means that the collectors would have to be huge and/or highly tilted, relative to the amount of power you'd get. And you would still have to build a power station at both poles to get year-round power. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 10-Feb-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #103 Date: 10 Feb 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #103 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 103 Today's Topics: Re: half-time power from the moon possible private funding for Shuttle #5 Re: Horseshoe (and other) orbits Re: Re: sri-unix.707: Horseshoe Orbits orbital speed Orbital mechanix, please! Re: sri-unix.707: Horseshoe Orbits Re: Mooning Around Mooning Around... Mooning Around Politics of Space polar lunar solar power ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon Feb 8 13:48:55 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!jcwinterton at Berkeley Subject: Re: half-time power from the moon Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. I would expect that lunar power stations would go to low output every two weeks (have to use earthshine only?). ------------------------------ Date: 9 Feb 1982 0959-EST From: MPH at MIT-XX Subject: possible private funding for Shuttle #5 To: space at mc The February 12 issue of Science magazine states that the Space Transportation Company, a group of investment bankers and venture capitalists, is considering funding the fifth Shuttle. STC is considering raising one billion dollars privately, and then turning the shuttle over to NASA (or whomever is operating shuttles in 1986), in return for which STC would become the sole ticketing and marketing agent for all commercial and foreign users of the STS. ------- ------------------------------ From: MINSKY@MIT-AI Date: 02/09/82 12:20:37 MINSKY@MIT-AI 02/09/82 12:20:37 To: space at MIT-MC The lunar-polar 24 houd power station would be built on a mountain-top. It is a question of fact: is there a peak with continuous sunlight, through entire year? If not, how high a tower would it need? ------------------------------ Date: 9 Feb 1982 10:43 PST From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Horseshoe (and other) orbits In-reply-to: OTA's message of 07 Feb 1982 0302-PST To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Ciccarelli @ PARC-MAXC About "horseshoe" orbits, actually about orbits in general... The higher orbit is not faster (higher *velocity*) but of higher *energy*. As the trailing moon (lower, faster, less energy) catches the leading moon (higher, slower, more energy) it takes some of the leading moon's energy, swapping orbits. It's counterintuitive -- higher energy does NOT imply higher orbital velocity. I dug up the formulas for your reference... --------------- The formula for orbital velocity (circular orbit approximation) is: V = V0 * SQRT( Earth radius / Orbit radius), where V0 = 7.86 KM/SEC ("Circular velocity at Earth's surface), Earth radius = 6400 KM (approx.), and SQRT is the Square-root operation (of course) You can check the formula for the three familiar orbit radii; calculate the velocity using the formula, then see that this velocity gives the right orbital period [distance = 2 * PI * Orbit radius; divide by velocity to get the period]. 1) near-earth: Orbit radius = Earth radius ==> V = V0 [gives 90 min. period] 2) geosynchronous: Orbit radius = 40,000 KM (approx.) [gives 24-hr period] 3) lunar: Orbit radius = 400,000 KM (approx.) [gives 28-day period] This also gives the expected result of V=0 at very great distances. --------------- The formula for orbit energy is: Total Energy = - (G * M1 * M2 / 2 * Orbit Radius), where G = Newton's gravitational constant, and M1, M2 = masses (i.e. Earth and satellite) Note that: 1) the total energy is negative (the physical interpretation is that the orbit is "bound", i.e. the satellite has less energy than that required to escape). 2) Orbit radius appears in the denominator again, thus the total energy will become greater (still negative, but closer to zero) as orbit radius increases. At very great distance, the energy goes to zero (as expected). [ Source: "Introductory Astronomy and Astrophysics", by Smith and Jacobs ] /John ------------------------------ Date: 9 Feb 1982 11:17 PST From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Re: sri-unix.707: Horseshoe Orbits In-reply-to: ETC!dennis's message of Sun Feb 7 10:51:10 1982 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Lynn.es Nice try on the orbital explanation, but it's unfortunately not right (even ignoring the ground speed business). Both linear velocity and angular velocity increase for satellites closer to the body they are orbiting. Take the moon (radius 238,000 miles, period 27+ days => 2200 mph, 0.04 rev/day) versus a low earth orbit satellite (radius 4000 miles, period 1.5 hrs => 17,000 mph, 16 rev/day). The angular velocity decreases with the 1.5 power of distance, the linear velocity decreases with the 0.5 power (square root) of distance. The actual explanation of why adding speed moves a satellite away from the body is this: With additional speed, the satellite tends to go in more of a straight line (has less time to fall toward the parent body), and increases its orbital distance. While increasing its distance, it is slowed by gravitation. It reaches equilibrium at a greater distance and a slower orbital speed than it originally had. This can be viewed another (equivalent) way: an orbiting body, given extra speed, has too much kinetic energy for that orbit, so it exchanges some of its kinetic energy for potential energy. The equilibrium is reached when the extra speed we gave it and some of its original speed are exchanged, ending up quite a bit higher and moving a little slower than originally. Point of view is important in understanding the name "horseshoe". Imagine two horseshoes, of slightly different size, mouth to mouth, on a plate. The plate spins quickly. As seen by a viewer on the plate, the satellite on the inner orbit is moving slowly counterclockwise along the smaller horseshoe, while the outer one is moving slowly clockwise on the larger horseshoe. The spinning of the plate represents the average rate of revolution of the two satellites, and so the viewer on the plate sees only the DIFFERENCE between a satellite's orbital speed and the average (plate's) speed. At encounter, we switch the sizes of the horseshoes, and the satellites (still seen from our spinning point of reference) seem to each reverse direction and traverse their (now slightly larger or smaller) respective horseshoes in the opposite directions. /Don Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 9 Feb 1982 21:51:13-EST From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: space at mit-mc Subject: orbital speed I suppose a lot of people will wake up on this one, but I might as well put in my nickel's worth. High orbits \are/ slower in linear velocity than low orbits. Local example (remember, earth orbits are measured from the surface, so add ca. 3900 miles to these figures): A satellite at LEO is ca. 150 miles up and has ca. 90-minute orbit; orbital velocity ca. 140 miles per minute. A satellite at GEO is ca. 22,300 miles up and has (by definition) a 24-hour orbit; orbital velocity ca. 57 miles per minute. The moon is around .25e6 miles up, orbits in 28+ days; orbital velocity ca. 19 miles per minute. Need more data? Start with Pluto being at 39 AU (earth-orbit radii) with a period of 200+ years. All of these figures are out of my head, but date from a grade-school infatuation with space and so are tolerably accurate. More precise figures are welcome. What happens when you add energy to an orbiting body is not that simple; the only way the body can maintain a stable orbit is by turning all that energy (and some of its own kinetic) into potential energy, i.e. take a higher orbit. What the shuttle is doing when it turns around and blasts in the direction it was going is throwing away enough KE that it can't keep a stable orbit above the Earth's surface; if you got rid of the atmosphere and dug a trench it could drop into a stable orbit below the net surface. C'mon, guys, even Brunner got this right (and used it to make an effective point in THE SHOCKWAVE RIDER). ------------------------------ Date: 9 February 1982 2232-EST (Tuesday) From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30) To: space at mit-mc Subject: Orbital mechanix, please! Message-Id: <09Feb82 223233 DS30@CMU-10A> In fact, higher orbits are slower any way you want to measure. But due to the gravity well, they are still at a higher energy level. Consider: f = GMm/r^2 where f is the force exerted between two bodies, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the primary, m the mass of the satellite, and r the radius between centers. Assume M >> m. For a circular orbit, we use f = ma (force, mass, acceleration) a = rw^2 (acceleration, radius, angular velocity) w = v/r (angular velocity, tangential velocity, radius) Equating gravitational force on the satellite with the force required to keep it in circular orbit, GMm/r^2 = mrw^2 = mv^2/r which produces w = sqrt( GM/r^3 ) v = sqrt( GM/r ) which clearly shows angular and tangential velocity dropping as radius rises. Low earth satellites travel at nearly 18,000 mph; geosynchronous satellites travel at around 6,000 mph; the moon travels at around 2,000 mph with respect to earth's center. Consider the task of moving a satellite from LEO to GEO. (I'll pull a few numbers out of my hat because I'm lazy, but the exact numbers aren't the point.) Starting at 18,000 mph at 150 miles up, you burn the rockets to accelerate it to 22000 mph. With more than circular velocity, the satellite climbs, trading speed for altitude, until it reaches apogee at geosynchronous height (around 23,000 miles) with 2000 mph. Since circular velocity there is 6000 mph, the satellite will drop back. It falls until it reaches 22000 mph at its next perigee, 150 miles up. At next apogee (23,000 miles, 2,000 mph), you burn the engines again to raise the speed to 6,000 mph. This raises the perigee to put the satellite into synchronous orbit. The satellite has gone from a 18,000 mph circular orbit to a 6,000 mph one purely by firing its rockets to increase speed. - David Smith ------------------------------ Date: 10 February 1982 01:27-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: sri-unix.707: Horseshoe Orbits To: HPLABS!MENLO70!UCBVAX!IHNSS!CBOSG!HARPO!CHICO!DUKE!PHS!DENNIS at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC You're mistaken (wrong). Under inverse-square law, such as gravity, higher orbits actually travel slower, not faster! If energy is added to a satellite, it rises into a higher orbit, but more knetic energy is converted into potential energy than was applied to make it rise to the new orbit and it has less knetic energy (but much more potential energy) than when it was lower. Earth-based common sense, if add energy an object travels faster, doesn't apply in orbital mechanics; add energy and the object ends up in a new slower orbit. Here's an example if you don't believe me. The moon is about 225,000 miles from Earth, while geosynchronous satellites are about 25,000 miles from Earth. Thus the moon has to travel about 10 times as far to get around, but takes about 29 times as long to do it because it is traveling only about a third as fast in linear velocity. ------------------------------ Date: Tue Feb 9 23:02:53 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley Subject: Re: Mooning Around Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Rick suggests that a geosynch sps would be in shadow half the time. where do you get this from? If in shadow at all, it would only be for a limited time due to bad design. also, projecting to a station in lunar 'geo'synch orbit is a little silly, if you think about what the distance of this orbit is. (Hint: name an object that stays fixed in the lunar sky) ------------------------------ Date: Wed Feb 10 00:26:45 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley Subject: Mooning Around... Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Oops, Brad's right. I goofed. The moon does rotate with respect to the sun, but unfortunately the postion of a satellite that could take advantage of that would be in the L5 position - rather further away than practicable. However, I'm not so sanguine about solving the problem of half time shadow by better design. The angular diameter of the Earth as seen by an 35,000 KM above the equator position is quite enough - comfortably enough - to blot out the Sun. Remember, the Moon is large enough to cover the Sun, and it's 400,000 KM away. Admittedly, the Earth wouldn't block the sun for 12 hours out of every day - six is actually more near correct. A solution would be to put two SPS in high earth orbit, but this involves taking up not one but two geostationary slots, which are pretty valuable. There are only 90 all told, since there has to be a 4 degree separation between any two satellites due to possible interference. Further, a quick glance at a globe will convince the military that one of the SPSs will be over hostile territory permanently. Rick. ------------------------------ Date: Tue Feb 9 20:35:00 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley Subject: Mooning Around Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. The Lunar SPS would, of course, deliver power only for half the time. Of course, this could be said about a geostationary SPS, since it would be in the shadow of the earth for 12 hours out of 24. The Lunar SPS proposal has some merits, though : 1) We could keep it stable. Precisely how would we keep a free-floating SPS, several square kilometers, from tumbling about a planar axis? And if we could, precisely how do we stress something like that? These really are mundane questions, but do we know how to do these things? A lunar SPS, on the other hand, has no such problems. It's merely a large, flat plain of collectors. We transmit from the surface (probably Mare Crisium) to a sattelite in Geosynch orbit above the moon, which transmits to a buddy in High Earth Orbit. The principal advantage is no large, freestanding structure; 2) The materials are there, or at least we hope they are. Siliates are, for sure. 3) (A cheap advantage, certainly) There would probably be much more public support for a Lunar base than for one in High Earth Orbit. The Moon has always had an emotional appeal that HEO doesn't share. The space program, like all government programs, depend in the long run on their public support; therefore, the chances are better that we will be able to build the Lunar SPS, if it's technically feasible; Which it might not be. The power-half-the-time problem can be solved by putting another SPS over on Farside. Another, better question, which I haven't got the foggiest idea about, is how we transmit the power - even a laser spreads somewhat over 400,000 KM, and the satellites orbiting moon and the earth, the ends of this game of celestial pitch - and - catch, will have a velocity difference between them. This is further complicated by the 3-sec feedback loop. To another question - yes, the Moon does orbit in the plane of the ecliptic, or near enough as to make no difference. This fact, plus the low tug-of-war ratio for the moon (about .46, as against an empirical minimum of 30.00 for a true satellite, led Asimov to speculate that the Earth-Moon system is in fact a binary planet system.. Cheers, Rick. ------------------------------ Date: 10 February 1982 04:39-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Politics of Space To: Ward at USC-ISIF cc: SPACE at MIT-MC What's really needed is a skilled politician who'll undertake to become the champion for space; someone to lead what is, after all, the most fundamental revolution since the evoluton of lungs. At the L-5 Convention (Los Angeles Airport Hyatt, April 2-4 1982) we're going to try to generate some strategy; and we might even have the politicians to help out. ------------------------------ Date: 10 February 1982 04:41-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: polar lunar solar power To: ucbvax!decvax!duke!cjp at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Those really interested in direct power from the moon ought to come to the L-5 Convention and hear Criswell on the subject. Dave Criswell used to have the lunar rocks, and he is a lunar fanatic. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 11-Feb-82 1512 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #104 Date: 11 Feb 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #104 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 104 Today's Topics: shadows on power satellites. . . Re: watmath.1678: Mooning Around Solar power satellite not usually eclipsed by earth Lunar SPS (Solar Power Station, not satellite) Shuttle Progress Space News ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Feb 1982 11:32:33-EST From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: space at mit-mc Subject: shadows on power satellites. . . It looks like we have a lot of people who weren't here the last time this went around. . . . The Earth's shadow for any low orbit is effectively a cylinder with r .= 4000 miles (farther out you have to imagine a cone with this as base); this means that a powersat in GEO is in shadow for (at a rough average) 4/(26.2 * pi) or around 1/20 of its orbit. There are all sorts of variations in this (because it should travel in equatorial plane rather than ecliptic, it might not be shadowed at all during the solstices). ------------------------------ Date: Wed Feb 10 09:28:38 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!duke!phs!dennis at Berkeley Subject: Re: watmath.1678: Mooning Around Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. A synchronous powersat would NOT be in earth's shadow half the time; it's much less than that. The shadow goes directly away from the sun, not outwards at the terminator. Planar platforms wouldn't tend to tumble; they would tend to align the long axis toward the planet; some sort of stabilizing thruster would be needed. A better thing than putting two power stations on the Moon is putting three at 120 degree intervals. That way somebody always has a good angle on the sunlight. If the moon were exactly in the ecliptic, there would be a lunar eclipse every full moon. It's pretty far off, but my books are far, far away and I can't give the right number. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 1982 13:36:12-PST From: A.exp at Berkeley Subject: Solar power satellite not usually eclipsed by earth The difference in orbital plane of the solar power satellites around the earth and the earth around the sun prevents eclipse all but about 98% of the time (or more, but I can't be sure). ------------------------------ Date: 10 Feb 1982 14:19:15-PST From: jef at LBL-UNIX (Jef Poskanzer [rtsg]) To: space at mit-mc Subject: Lunar SPS (Solar Power Station, not satellite) The antenna size and feedback loop problems both go up only linearly with increased distance of transmitter. The moon is ten times as far as GEO. Thus the transmitting and recieving antennas must be sqrt(10) times as big (their PRODUCT must be 10 times as big), and the earthside reference transmitter must lead the recieving array by kilometers instead of 100's of meters. (For those of you who haven't come across the rule-of-thumb for minimum antenna sizes before, it's: d d = l lambda 1 2 where d1 and d2 are the antenna sizes, l is the distance between them, and lambda is the wavelength you want to transmit.) So, the extra distance of a lunar SPS is a disadvantage, but not a big one. As was mentioned before, there are obvious advantages: the materials are available locally, we don't have to cope with the unknowns of zero-G engineering. The day/night problem remains, though. One suggested solution was two SPS's on opposite sides of the moon. I think you would want three, but either way, this either requires relay antennas in orbit (in which case, why not build the SPS there in the first place??!?), or a power transmission grid on the moon's surface. Since the grid would have to cover many thousands of km, it had better be superconducting. So here's my question: what about superconducting cables on the moon? Would simply shielding them with a mirror keep them cool enough, or is refrigeration necessary? --- Jef ------------------------------ Date: Wed Feb 10 20:58:19 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!ihnss!vax135!harpo!npois!rabbit!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle Progress Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Testing of Columbia inside the VAB has been rescheduled due to a leak of hydraulic fluid and a problem with the SRB's. However, in spite of these, officials now hope to get the shuttle rolled out to pad 39A on 16 February, a day earlier than the last early date, and the launch was still scheduled for 22 March. Workers will repair the leak and replace a ``nozzle actuator,'' which steers the nozzle of the SRB in flight, while astronaut crews take part in simulated tests of the upcoming mission. The sims will takes place one day early each, thus saving (hopefully) a day. These will start at 1000 EST Thursday. Roll-out is now scheduled to begin at 0500 EST Tuesday (the 16th), with preparations finished by Sunday or Monday. ------------------------------ Date: Wed Feb 10 20:54:40 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!ihnss!vax135!harpo!npois!rabbit!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Space News Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. NASA officials today asked Congress to approve money for a fifth space shuttle, citing that the fleet of four will not be enough to meet demands of those who want to launch cargo into Earth orbit. Last year, NASA signed up 41 customers who will pay to have their satellites launched with either the shuttle (upon operational readiness) or expendable boosters, (to be phased out slowly). A launch schedule was released, containing plans for 70 flights up to September, 1987, with most of them being multi-payload. These contain (in order of most to least) communications satellite, DoD cargo (usually secret), scientific instruments, and the European Spacelab. NASA plans 24 shuttle launches per year by 1988. Major General James Abrahamson, head of the shuttle project, said that when one of the shuttles needs to be taken out of action, be it for repairs or to fix a major accident, a fifth would smooth out launch schedule disruptions. The Columbia is scheduled to launch on its third test flight on 22 March, with STS-4 on 7 July and then it's first operational flight (with two communications satellites) is to come on 11 November. Challenger is scheduled to be delivered in June, with its maiden flight in January, 1983. Discovery is to be delivered in September, 1983 with Atlantis to follow in December, 1984. STS-4 will land at Edwards, in contrast to earlier hopes of landing on the runway at Cape Canaveral, to gain further descent and landing data. On the November, 1982, launch, the first shuttle spacewalk, utilizing a new jack backpack, may be made. New, lighter heat-protective tiles will be installed on Discovery, thus lightening it by 3500 pounds. Lighter external tanks and SRB's are also being developed. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 12-Feb-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #105 Date: 12 Feb 1982 0303-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #105 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 105 Today's Topics: Mooning Around Lunar synchronous sites VP Bush's view on budget Eclipses in geostationary orbit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 February 1982 06:33-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Mooning Around To: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC What makes you think a satellite in GEO is in the Earth's shadow half the time?? The shadow is only 8000miles in diameter (the umbra is slightly smaller, tapering to zero at four times lunar distance, the penumbra is slightly larger, tapering larger at the same rate, at geosync it's almost all umbra and rather close to 8000 miles in diameter), while the circumference of the orbit is 25,000 * 2 * PI which is about 150,000 miles. Thus the satellite spends only 8/150 of its time in Earth-shadow (about 75 minutes a day) on those days in March and September when the Sun and equator are nearly inline, less time in shadow when they aren't in line, zero when the sun is so far north or south of the equator that the far-night point of the orbit is more than 4000 miles from the center of the shadow. If major industries are willing to close down for an hour when the SPS is in shadow one satellite should do fine. If it's over the USA (actually over South America, with beam aimed at Arizona/NM), this time should be near local midnight when most industries are quite willing to shut down anyway. ------------------------------ Date: 11 February 1982 08:32-EST From: Hans P. Moravec Subject: Lunar synchronous sites To: SPACE at MIT-MC Lunar synchronous satellites are possible at L4 and L5, which are stable equilibria. They are also possible at L1 between the earth and the moon, 58,000 km from the moon's surface and at L2 on the lunar farside, 64,500 km from the farside. These are unstable equilibria and would require a small amount of station keeping (so is and does geosynch orbit). The station keeping can be done away with if you use a very thin thread that anchors the satellite to the lunar surface! This would be a very minimal lunar skyhook, made of a small amount of a conventional material like fiberglass. It would be just strong enough to exert the tiny force needed to keep the satellite from flying outwards when the satellite is placed a (relative) gnat's eyebrow farther from the lunar surface than L1 or L2. ref - Jerome Pearson, "Anchored Lunar Satellites for Cislunar Transportation and Communication" J. Astronautical Sciences ca. October 1977 (presented at the European Conf. on Space Settlements and Space Industries, London, 20 Sept. 1977) ------------------------------ Date: 11 February 1982 21:02-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: VP Bush's view on budget To: SPACE at MIT-MC I got a reply to my postcard to VP Bush about space budget. He seems to think the shuttle is the primary thing to spend money on now because it's needed before we can build LEO station. I'll have to explain to him that we need to start designing LEO station now so we can start building it soon and have it ready to put up when the shuttle is operational. [My letter was actually signed, and presumably written, by William D. Eckert, Lt.Col USAF, Military assistant/aide to the VP.] Anybody want me to type the full 3.5 paragraphs of the letter and send it to SPACE? ------------------------------ Date: 11 Feb 1982 18:58:40-PST From: ihnss!karn at Berkeley To: ucbvax!space@Berkeley Subject: Eclipses in geostationary orbit This is a topic that is well understood in the communications satellite business. Solar eclipses for spacecraft in geostationary orbit occur only during the spring and fall seasons (equinoxes) when the sun appears to pass behind the earth. During the summer and winter seasons (for the Northern hemisphere), the sun appears to pass above the north and south poles at local midnight, respectively, and there is no eclipse. The longest eclipses occur at midnight on the equinoxes, where they are 72 minutes long. Eclipse durations on days preceeding and following equinoxes decrease to zero in about + or - 20 days. A common practice in communications satellite operations is to place them to the west of the areas they serve. This causes eclipses to occur after midnight in the service area, when the traffic has fallen to lower levels. A more serious problem for communications are sun transits, in which the sun passes behind the satellite. The radio noise from the sun blots out the satellite signal. Of course, this would not be a problem for the SPS; the sun would even contribute (very slightly) to the received microwave energy. Phil Karn Bell Labs Indian Hill ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 13-Feb-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #106 Date: 13 Feb 1982 0303-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #106 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 106 Today's Topics: Re: Stability of large platforms Lunar polar power station ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Feb 1982 08:38 PST From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Stability of large platforms To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Ciccarelli Space Digest V2 #104 contained the following, from Dennis at Berkeley: "Planar platforms... would tend to align the long axis toward the planet; some sort of stabilizing thruster would be needed." It occurred to me that perhaps the need for thrusters (and fuel) to maintain alignment might be eliminated if a sizable mass were attached to the orbiting structure via a long boom. It seems to me that the mass would have to be comparable to the mass of the rest of the structure, perhaps dependent on boom length. Also that perhaps the boom arrangement might be unworkable due to compression or turning forces. If the basic idea is sound, getting the mass is not a big problem -- if you build the platform (SPS?) out of lunar material, you'll be producing alot of slag as you refine the ore. My knowledge of the dynamics of large orbiting objects is limited. Is this suggestion workable at all? Do any of you "orbital mechanics" out there have comments? /John Ciccarelli ------------------------------ Date: 12 Feb 1982 09:38 PST From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Lunar polar power station In-reply-to: SPACE Digest V2 #103 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Lynn.es Numbers for the lunar polar power stations: The moon's orbit is inclined about 5 degrees from the ecliptic. This puts its "arctic circle" (the polar area that gets seasonal darkness) of radius nearly 100 miles. It would take a tower or mountain of about 22000 ft to get above that, or higher if other mountains obscure the "flat" horizon. The inclination varies slowly over the years, and I don't recall what the max is. If it is 7 degrees, then the mountain has to be 2 times as high, which is getting unreasonable. Implications on power station design: Unless we find a nearly adequate mountain in the right place, it is probably easier to build two or more solar power stations roughly equatorially than a polar one. /Don Lynn ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 14-Feb-82 0302 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #107 Date: 14 Feb 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #107 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 107 Today's Topics: Lunar colony and SPS plan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 February 1982 02:18-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Lunar colony and SPS plan To: SPACE at MIT-MC Because polar SPS gets good sun angle none of the time at all, whereas equatorial SPS gets it about a third of the time, I think we should dismiss polar SPS and get on with more concrete plans for equatorial SPS. (With low sun angle you can't just lie your collectors side by side on the sort-of-flat surface, perhaps tilting a bit if they are on a slope such as craters have but basically lying flat; you have to prop them up to get a decent sun angle, you have to rotate them as the sun moves thru the sky, and you have to space them far enough apart that their shadows don't cast on each other; with all the space between them, you have to run longer cables to connect them and maintenance and installation requires longer commute trips.) We probably need a polar colony to mine Hydrogen from water we suspect is there, but first we gotta be sure the water is there (we need funds for a survey mission asap, lunar polar orbiter of course). For power, we can't use SPS grid, but if the different pieces of equipment are far enough apart we might have a small solar-array on each one. Alternately we could have a small fission nuclear reactor or a large radioactive-decay heat source, or a small heat source on each piece of equipment. Making the polar station energy-self-sufficient will be a big enough problem, exporting energy is out of the question. Our major mining investment should be at the equator where we can get lots of sunlight at a good angle about a third of the time, and thus run a large mining project supported on abundant solar energy. We can produce oxygen, silicon, aluminum, titanium, etc. out of equatorial moondirt and moonrocks. Initially we can run it only during good sun angles. When we want to run it 4 weeks a month instead only 1.5 or 2, we can build batteries out of oxygen and some convenient cation. For example, we can separate aluminum from oxygen, then at night burn them against one another to make electricity, an aluminum/oxygen rechargable battery. We can do refining during day, stockpiling pure aluminum and oxygen, and at night we can burn a small amount of it to maintain operations such as communications, life-support, and maybe even tossing payloads into space although that takes a lot of energy and might be best done only in daylight. Much later we can feed surplus energy via laser or microwave into a grid that feeds to Earth or other stations, if it's feasible. Much later we can establish a station on farside, and relay points at L1 and L4 or L5, and maybe other stations at quarter points along equator, if it's feasible. But that's far into the next century. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 18-Feb-82 0315 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #108 Date: 18 Feb 1982 0314-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #108 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 108 Today's Topics: Twisting of orbital platforms Lunar colony and SPS plan Long article on isolation life from comets Hauling cargo into orbit How 'bout a RING! Isolation Delivering the goods... Re-Ring More on upcoming L-5 conference ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: CARLF@MIT-AI Date: 02/14/82 16:46:35 Subject: Twisting of orbital platforms CARLF@MIT-AI 02/14/82 16:46:35 Re: Twisting of orbital platforms To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC The idea of putting a weight out on a long boom to stabilize a thing in orbit is correct. Fortunately, it is not neccesary to have the counterweight be of comparable mass to the thing you want to stabilize. What is neccesary is that it have a greater moment of inertia about the center of gravity of the aggregate object. Thus the weight can be arbitrarily small if placed far enough away. Indeed, a long thin rope might be the ideal thing to use as a counterweight. -- Carl ------------------------------ Date: 15 February 1982 03:59-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Lunar colony and SPS plan To: REM at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC The L-5 Society, using member talent including Dr. David Criswell and other lunar experts, plus SUNSAT people, plus some architects, plus human fctors types, will begin a "Project Deadalus"-like design of a Lunar colony as part of the L-5 Space Citizens conference at teh Hyatt Los Angeles Airport over weeken of 2-4 April. We hope to get a practical and technically defensible Lunar colony design we can do real cost analyses on. Once we have a design we can try to sell it; but unti you have a horse, you have no horse race... ------------------------------ Date: 16 February 1982 03:48-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Long article on isolation To: TAW at SU-AI cc: SPACE at MIT-MC 1. Although Antarctic experience has many points of similarity to space colonizatin, and can profitably be studied, there ARE differences. 1.1 - A COLONY is not going to be so concerned with "life back home." Colonists are there to stay. 1.2 Colonies are more likely tohave a nearly equal ratio of sexes. 1.3 Space colonies (and bases for that matter) wil have excellent communications; not just radio, but access to commercial tv, telephone lines, etc. They will be able to get the latest TV shows and such like. 1.4 Colonists always have something to do: expanding the base, digging new tunnels (on the Moon) etc. 2. Space is not so actively hostile as Anarctica. Hostile, certainly, in the sense that it is passively hostile and you need special equipment to survive outside the domes; but it doesn't come after you malevolently, which is the impression many get of the big antarctic white... INcidentlaly, Phil Chapman, President of L-5 Society, was an Antarctic observer left alone or with one or two others for long periods; this was for Australia before he became a naturalized US citizen and went into the astronaut program. ------------------------------ Date: 16 February 1982 03:58-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: life from comets To: mclure at SRI-UNIX cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Strange. If the waters came from the comets, and the crust of the earth, and leter life... then the waters and the firmament were all mixed up in 100 billion comets until they got themselves straightened out.. Ye heavenly days, sound like the book of Genesis (divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament...) It also lets us SF writers have a good reason for similar biochemistries on different planets, which is very convenient... ------------------------------ Date: 16 February 1982 04:04-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Hauling cargo into orbit To: TAW at S1-A cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Just getting to some of my back mail. Th eidea of using Shuttle parts to come up with a new expendable kep tcropping up last spring in the first Council meeting, and Hugh Davis (now of Eagle Engineering, formerly of NASA Transportation Office) worked up a strong briefing on it. I am glad to see Boeing is now seriously studying it. The Shuttle technologies are very advanced; the one thing I have against Bruce Murray's notins of buying Titans is why bother with 30-year-old propulsoin technology when you have something a little more modern? ------------------------------ Date: 16 February 1982 04:10-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: How 'bout a RING! To: HAGERTY at RUTGERS cc: SPACE at MIT-MC As iot happens, Bob Salkeld has a patent on a ring! Tether SPS or communications satellites in a full ring and overspin it; the result is more stable than if it were simply orbiting, and makes station keeping easier. Or so he and a couple of other Space Council people tell me. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Feb 1982 1029-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Isolation To: space at MIT-MC One can imagine that while the home colony will suffer few of the isolation problems of Antarctica, there will be smaller outposts (mining stations in the Belt or on the moon) where the Antarctic analogy will be applicable. In addition, it is (unfortunately) likely that colonists will not be amongst the first to go. The first few outposts will probably be inhabited by people who signed up with every intention of coming home at the end of their tours. (where home will be, after a long tour in Luna City is an interesting question. Heinlein wrote a marvelous story about precisely that, whose name I can't recall) Communications are a very important point. Space colonists will be the first colonists in history that can leave home without ever losing touch with the folks. This could be very important in terms of enticing new colonists. (''You'd love free-fall, Mom. We just saw this little place up by the spin axis that you and Dad could have for a song...'') But all of these points aside, if you can show a few years in an Artic/Antarctic research station on your resume, I certainly don't think it would disqualify you for a job in space. Rather the opposite... ------------------------------ Date: 16 Feb 1982 1049-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Delivering the goods... To: space at MIT-MC Date: 16 February 1982 04:04-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Hauling cargo into orbit The Shuttle technologies are very advanced; the one thing I have against Bruce Murray's notins of buying Titans is why bother with 30-year-old propulsoin technology when you have something a little more modern? Who was it that said ''Better is the enemy of Good Enough''??? Sorry, just couldn't resist that. I agree with your comments above entirely. The problem with using Titans *to the exclusion of the SRB-X concepts* is that thirty year technology gap. If, however, we could develop SRB-X *and* turn some of the Titan boosters into cargo ships (presumably as DOD decides to replace the siloed ICBMs with fresh Titans, or new technology) then we would be winning all around. The more launch capacity we have, the better. The nice thing about SRB class ships is that you are using the same technology all up and down the line. No more of this custom rocket jazz. Replaceable, reusable and mass produceable want to be the design philosophy of spacecraft. But I would hate to see all those lovely Titans go the way of the Saturn 5 sitting on the Kennedy Space Center lawn (When you think of all the millions of man-hours that went into producing a flyable bird, only to have it become the world's most expensive lawn ornament..... weep for Congress, they know not what they have done.) ------------------------------ Date: 16 Feb 1982 2146-EST From: HAGERTY at RUTGERS Subject: Re-Ring To: space at MIT-MC Well, at last, for a change, someone agrees with me. I originally applied the ring idea when someone mentioned crowding around the equator with sattelites. Since then, REM and I have exchanged a couple of thoughts on the matter (COSMOS Ringed Planet...)- he feels that it would not be practical around a star for energy capturing reasons. Ok, so there is some risk that a RING of people on earth would be smashed...but as a port/repair/production 'center' it would be most practical. Then again, I am no expert-just a dreamer. /Greg: ------- ------------------------------ Date: 17 Feb 82 1:33-PDT From: mclure at SRI-UNIX To: space at mc, sf-lovers at ai CC: geoff at csl Subject: More on upcoming L-5 conference From Pournelle: L-5 CONFERENCE 2-4 april 1982 Los Angeles AIRPORT HYATT THEME: Citizens in space; space development. GUESTS OF HONOR: Robert A. Heinlein, author Fred Haise, VP Grumman (Apollo 13 Commander) KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Hans Mark, Deputy Director NASA Honored Guest: Representative Newt Gingrich Workshop to design lunar colony; space suit design; strategy and tactics of space politics; propulsion; asteroid mines. Most members of Citizens Advisory Council an Natonal Space Policy will attend. Membership: General, $35 ($25 L-5 or AAS members); Banquet $25 Professoinal Membership (includes banquet) $75 Professional membership includes reception for guests of honor etc. Friday evening. There will be an open party for all members Saturday night (poolside, weather permitting). Intention is to mix enthusiasts and professionals and politicians and citizens and everyone try to learn from the others. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 19-Feb-82 0319 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #109 Date: 19 Feb 1982 0318-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #109 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 109 Today's Topics: Heinlein short-story Heinlein story/ Luna City "home" "All those lovely Titans going to waste" Using Titans L-5 Society KING can't get this, so rerouting to digest instead MARCH '82 SHUTTLE LAUNCH DATE? Twisting of orbital platforms Re-Ring / my ring better than yours Re: Re-Ring / my ring better than yours ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 02/18/82 1129-EDT From: GNC at LL Subject: Heinlein short-story To: space @ mit-mc I believe that the Heinlein story to which Tom Wadlow referred is "It's Great to be Back", from "The Green Hills of Earth" collection. Joe Baldassini ------- [That's the one. Thanks, Joe. --Tom W.] ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 1982 09:56 PST From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC Subject: Heinlein story/ Luna City "home" To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC cc: Ciccarelli ----- ...(where home will be, after a long tour in Luna City is an interesting question. Heinlein wrote a marvelous story about precisely that, whose name I can't recall) ----- Tom Wadlow -- you may be thinking of "The Menace from Earth", or of the novel "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". Regarding "losing touch with the folks" -- regardless of the video bandwidth used to "call home", Luna citizens have the unavoidable two-seconds-plus delay between action and reaction. I think it's something you'd get used to, especially with video, but I know how annoying the 500msec "hop" delay for today's satellite-relayed long-distance phone calls can be [I got delays occasionally when calling from Arizona to Florida, when I lived in Arizona recently]. Speculation -- would cheap "picturephone" service keep people *here on the planet* from "losing touch with the folks"? /John ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 1982 10:23 PST From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC Subject: "All those lovely Titans going to waste" To: Space at MIT-MC cc: Ciccarelli Making an analogy with computer science, I think of "finding uses for" all the computer hardware built just SEVEN years ago (memory boards with 256-bit chips, "4004" processors) that's now languishing somewhere in DOD's basement. And I soon dismiss the possibility for several reasons that are applicable to ANY quickly-evolving technology, i.e. launch vehicle design. Though the Titan would be "expendable" -- no need to "fix it" -- these arguments still hold some water [1] Spare parts availability. You cannot find replacements for many of the electronic components (logic chips, for example) incorporated into even fairly recent designs, let alone 30-year-old Titans. And even "slight" redesign (to work around parts you can't get) is out of the question. [2] Documentation. The "science" of documentation of large systems has been maturing rapidly; it may be prohibitively expensive to educate those who will be required to learn the equipment. [3] Basic advances in the state of the art. The equipment may not have the functions you need, because it was designed when those functions were too expensive, or not technically realizable, or simply not yet thought of! Likewise, your support equipment (tracking stations; telemetry programs...) may use a later, more advanced technology incompatible with the stuff you'd like to "reuse". I think we'd better total up the "hidden costs" of reusing ANYTHING before doing so. The money, time and energy might be better spent on creating low-cost spinoffs of Shuttle technology. We may find the Titan is no bargain even for FREE! /John ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 1982 1045-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Using Titans To: space at MIT-MC Unfortunately, the computer analogy is not quite on the mark. We have Titans, but they are not in mothballs. They are in silos, surrounded by people who know the intricacies of Titan maintenance and launch procedures. If we had to re-furbish them, I would agree, but they are *supposed* to be flight-ready today. If we allow the technical expertise to disappear, they will be impossible to use. But that should not be the case yet. Admittedly, I am in favor of developing Shuttle related launch systems in any event. But the Titan scheme should be looked at before they are replaced, to see if the cost is not prohibitive. An interesting question might be: If we suddenly acquire a massive launch capability, what would we do with it?? ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 1982 09:00:59-PST From: E.jeffc at Berkeley To: v:space@mit-mc Subject: L-5 Society Checking over the latest Silicon Gulch Gazette, it appears that the L-5 Society has a booth at the next West Coast Computer Faire in San Francisco. I guess I have no choice but to visit their booth, as I am dying of curiosity as to what they have to say to a bunch of hackers. ------------------------------ Date: 18 February 1982 15:57-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: KING can't get this, so rerouting to digest instead To: SPACE at MIT-MC COMSAT@MIT-MC 02/18/82 04:04:41 Re: Msg of Wednesday, 10 February 1982 01:51-EST To: REM at MIT-MC FAILED: KING at KESTREL; Host appears to be permanently down or not accepting mail. Failed message follows: ------- Date: 10 February 1982 01:51-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: half-time power from the moon To: KING at KESTREL It would be rather silly to put a power station on the far side of the moon and make an electrical conduit to bring the electricity 1500 miles to the polar region where it would face Earth half the year, and not bring it a few hundred more miles so it'd face the Earth year around. I think your design is a straw man. The expense of that extra few hundred miles of conduit would be small compared to the money already invested, and would double the uptime. ------------------------------ From: HQM@MIT-ML Date: 02/18/82 16:34:34 Subject: MARCH '82 SHUTTLE LAUNCH DATE? HQM@MIT-ML 02/18/82 16:34:34 Re: MARCH '82 SHUTTLE LAUNCH DATE? To: SPACE at MIT-MC DOES ANYONE KNOW THE PROJEECTED LAUNCH DATE FOR THE NEXT SHUTTLE MISSION? AND POSSIBLY ANY INTERESTING GOALS OF THIS FLIGHT? (PLEASE SEND A REPLY TO HQM@AI, AS I AM NOT ON SPACE MAILING LIST) THANK YOU HENRY MINSKY ------------------------------ Date: 18 February 1982 18:21-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Twisting of orbital platforms To: CARLF at MIT-AI cc: SPACE at MIT-MC A long thin rope doesn't work because it provides only longitudinal force, no torque. If the weight pulls sideways in an effort to restore the SPS to its correct attitude, the rope just bends instead of applying torque at the other end where it attaches to the SPS or other object. You need either a small weight on the end of a long rigid object such as a beam with supports: **********-------- * * -------- * * -------- * S P S *========================WEIGHT * * -------- * * -------- **********-------- or a larger weight closer: **********====********* * * * VERY * * S P S *====* LARGE * * * * WEIGHT* **********====********* In either case the supports must be resistant to torque, thus with a long weight with support wires tapering back to opposite sides of the SPS (first diagram above) the force on the guide wires will be several times the sidewards force on the conter-weight. Does anybody have figures on the total mass of an SPS capable of supplying 10% of USA electricity needs, on the restoring torque needed to maintain its angular position within 10 degrees either way from center, the diameter of the SPS capable of holding the support wires, the proposed mass of the counterweight and its proposed distance from the SPS, and thus the tension needed in the guy wires? ------------------------------ Date: 18 February 1982 18:44-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re-Ring / my ring better than yours To: HAGERTY at RUTGERS cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Date: 16 Feb 1982 2146-EST From: HAGERTY at RUTGERS Since then, REM and I have exchanged a couple of thoughts on the matter (COSMOS Ringed Planet...)- he feels that it would not be practical around a star for energy capturing reasons. No, you have it backwards. I said a ring around a planet as shown in Cosmos (located about 1/2 radius above the surface where orbital speed is about 12 orbits per day, but complete with about 40 columns reaching down to the surface forcing it to go only 1 orbit per day thus forcing the columns to support it from below), wouldn't be especially good for catching energy, and would be too dangerous but a ring of SPSs around the Sun would be dandy. (Sagan's planet-ring would span 8000 miles across whereas a ring around the sun would span 292,000,000 miles and thus collect 36,000 times as much sunlight if it had the same width in the polar direction and the same optical density and efficiency. Other factors are that putting stuff in orbit around the Sun costs more than putting in LEO around Earth, but putting up rigid ring with lots of physical support beams is probably much more expensive than just orbiting stuff anywhere in the solar system, so I think the ring-around-sun would be better than a ring-around-planet. Re use of ring-around-planet as spaceport. I wonder if it would be any cheaper than building a dome around the Earth to keep in the atmoshere, evacuating the air above the dome, and launching spaceships by mass drivers above the dome?? (Just for fun, imagine the environmental impact report for EITHER.) ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 1982 2011-EST From: C. Greg Hagerty Subject: Re: Re-Ring / my ring better than yours To: REM at MIT-MC cc: : ; In-Reply-To: Your message of 18-Feb-82 1844-EST Well, that makes sense. A dome would be quite expensive and REALLY throw off the environmental balance. One may wonder how fragile this balance really is: How much arisol-spray do you use. If you throw too many pennies into Odell Lake, fish type B will die, causing fish type A to die.. Skylab? .. NOW, Skylabs (instead of threatening the last two KooKoo birds in existance (on a hidden island of course)) along with the other falling/unfalling junk and satellites, could be harnessed togeather in the days of the space shuttle.[Yielding a ring with production possibility, political controvercy and all] Instead of killing the last 2 KooKoo birds with fallout from fusion-powered spacecraft (which could be built on the ring), we can kill them with the trivial shade of our ring (a thin ring), falling nuts and bolts, possibly the ring itself (after the explosion of a fusion-powered space ship) - but have enough fusion-powered spaceships to find another habitable planet (to breed KooKoo birds on). /Greg: ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* Partially butchered Space Digest. Volume 2 : Issue 110 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 110 Today's Topics: SPS tidal stabilization SPS tidal stabilization Using Titans ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Friday, 19 February 1982 09:29-PST From: KING at KESTREL Subject: SPS tidal stabilization To: space at mit-mc, REM at mit-mc cc: King at KESTREL I'm back on line, at least for the moment. You can send to me and expect replies. This concerns your message about SPS stabilization by masses on the ends of booms. You don't need === - |S| - |P|=================(mass) |S| - === - . This - === - - |S| - (mass1) |P| (mass2) - |S| - - === - will serve. Note the kinship between the design and that of a bicycle wheel. Remember that spokes are tension members of a bicycle wheel. You may need to extend the effective length of the SPS by sticking booms off its ends. - | - - | - - ===== - (mass1) |SPS| (mass2) - ===== - - | - - | - I doubt this will be necessary, but I will try some computations when I get the time. (huh!) Dick ------------------------------ Date: 19 February 1982 15:44-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: SPS tidal stabilization To: KING at KESTREL cc: SPACE at MIT-MC If you extend booms off the sides (to extend the base for the triangular support wires for the weights), they too must be supported, although since they are considerably shorter than the main booms you might get away with triangular-cross-truss aluminum beams instead of explicit support wires in large tringular position. -|X|- ------- |X| ------- ------- |X| ------- W SPS W ------- |X| ------- ------- |X| ------- -|X|- You see, when the SPS drifts out of correct attitude and the tidal force wants to pull the weights clockwise, the force on the upper-right (and lower left) guy wire is increased relative to the upper-left (and lower-right) wire, so the attach-point at top (and bottom) wants to be pulled clockwise, with the same torque as the original weights. The difference is the point of application is closer to center (thus higher thrust over shorter moment-arm) so cross-supported truss might be cost-effective where it wasn't for long distances such as all the way out to the weights. Note, if cross-supported aluminum beams are the standard way of building, using little robots that make the beams continuously at low cost, it may be cheaper to use beams everywhere rather than to use other things that must be tooled up specially. In that case, rather than have a weight or a pair of weights, just stick out a very very long beam and let it be its own weight (the part near the end is most effective, the part near the SPS is mostly wasted, but beam is so cheap we use the word in the singular like we use other bulk cargo on Earth...). Near the place where the beam attaches to the SPS we may need to attach triangular support for extra strength, perhaps we use beams for that too, thus achieving compressive strength needed during rocket firings. ------------------------------ Date: 20 February 1982 09:12-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Using Titans To: TAW at S1-A cc: SPACE at MIT-MC If we suddenly acquire a gigantic launch capability, put up a space station right away, or lots of parts that will be useful for making one. For example, we could put up tanks of oxygen etc. that are sure to be useful later no matter what our final design will be, and canned food, etc. If the space station is designed and built and waiting to be launched, put it up, otherwise just put up the accessories/supplies that we're pretty sure will be useful later. Maybe buy a space station from the USSR and put it up? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 21-Feb-82 0314 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #111 Date: 21 Feb 1982 0312-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #111 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 111 Today's Topics: how old Titan II? twisting of orbital platforms ring a ding ding Using Titans L-5 Society "All those lovely Titans going to waste" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 February 1982 2015-cst From: Bill Vaughan Subject: how old Titan II? To: space at mc 1t's 1982 unless Multix has got another time warp... so I make those titans to be 20 years old, not 30! (Old Titan II just fine thanx) ------------------------------ Date: 19 February 1982 2018-cst From: Bill Vaughan Subject: twisting of orbital platforms To: space at mc The scheme you are talking about is called "gravity gradient stabilization " and was first tried out on some very early Pioneers in about 1960 give or take a couple. It works. Basically you take a long thin rope with a mass (pendulum, plumb-bob, call it what you will) at one end and the satellite at the other. Some of the early schemes used two long thin ropes attached to top & bottom of satellite with weights at each end, like this: bob | The whole affair aligns its long axis | with the gravity gradient, i.e. normal towards | to the direction of orbit, or pointing the | towards the C.G. of the primary. Earth /-+-\ | | | bird | \-+-/ V | It works just like a plumb bob, or like the | tides, if you prefer. It doesn't need to be | rigid, because the ropes are in tension. In | fact, it is frictional damping in the ropes bob (I think) that makes the system settle down. ------------------------------ Date: 19 February 1982 2036-cst From: Bill Vaughan Subject: ring a ding ding To: space at mc the ring is a neat idea but there may be a problem. If the ring is rigid it is orbitally unstable; Larry Niven discovered this (or more likely somebody pointed it out to him) after RINGWORLD was published & the result was described somewhere (Analog?) but also in THE RINGWORLD ENGINEERS. I don't know whether a flexible ring is stable or not; my gut says it may be (since a discontinuous ring is stable) but man's guts were not made for orbital mechanics as witness the higher/faster/lower/slower discussion of a few days ago. ------------------------------ Date: 20 February 1982 02:50-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Using Titans To: TAW at S1-A cc: SPACE at MIT-MC The second meeting of the Citizens advisory council on National Space policy has one paper n the report that is relevent to this; we have ALWAYS underestimated our requirements for launch capability for both LEO and HEO. Even in terms of just communications, commercial, weather, and USAF payloads, it is likely that we will be feeling a real pinch in not many years. Thus if Titan could be used... It is interesting to develop space plans based on the cost of launches; Gary Hudson has worked out some interesting numbers. His idea of bringing cost down was to relax some reliability requirements, butr make each launch ten times cheaper. Payload costs become important under this sceheme, of course... ------------------------------ Date: 20 February 1982 02:53-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: L-5 Society To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC According to our membership figures, about 1/4 of the Society have some kind of professional connection with computers, and many are hackers... ------------------------------ Date: 20 February 1982 02:46-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: "All those lovely Titans going to waste" To: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, CICCARELLI at MIT-MC Arthur Kantrowitz (current Chmn of Board of L-5 Society) has an interesting story: back when first announcement of going to the Moon was made, the cost of putting a pound in orbit using Titan was about $2000. Figure that a 1,000,000 pound device could go from Earth orbit to Moon landing and back to Earth orbit, and that there was no real learning curve on the cost of a pound in oribt, the whole affair would be $2 billion. But when he asked why, he got very angry responses from White House and PSAC. turns out LBJ wanted some big high-tech factories in the South, and developing Saturn was the way to get that. How true the explanation is I wouldn't say; you can ask Arthur about it at the L-5 Convention if you come... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 22-Feb-82 0316 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #112 Date: 22 Feb 1982 0315-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #112 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 112 Today's Topics: Administrivia Honest Ron's Surplus Spaceships... twisting of orbital platforms ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Feb 1982 2108-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: Administrivia To: space at MIT-MC CC: rem at MIT-MC As most of you probably noticed another totally batshit set of digests emanated from this site over the weekend. This time the problem was that Friday's digest was recursively included in Saturday's digest which inexplicably got mailed out twice, the two copies comming about 30 minutes apart. This was caused by (or perhaps was the cause of), at least in part, the mailer task looping for about 24 hours over the weekend. Basically this system SUX. I'm working on a replacement but it will be some while in the construction. Please bear with me. Thanks, Ted Anderson [The Moderator] ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 1982 1426-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Honest Ron's Surplus Spaceships... To: space at MIT-MC I wonder what the orbit cost per pound is on a *second-hand* Titan? If all they do is scrap them at the end of their ''tour of duty'' as ICBMs, would the cost be just the price of transport, checkout and launch? (Presumably people would frown on launches directly from the silos). Are there any existing Titan launch complexes in use today, or would one have to be built? I would think that you could adapt an old missle base if you wanted to but an existing,tested site would sure make life easier. I like REMs idea of putting cheap canisters of raw material into orbit for future use. I would guess that the cans just need some small orbital correction devices and a radio beacon. That means that even NASA could be expected to develop them in a reasonably short time. ------------------------------ Date: 21 February 1982 20:54-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: twisting of orbital platforms To: VaughanW at HI-MULTICS cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Hmmm, putting weight at end of rope doesn't help at all for moment arm because ropes pull longitudinally only (except for some dynamic damping), but does help in terms of gravity difference that generates the tital force in the first place. Maybe a short supported column to create a decent moment arm, with a weight on a long rope attached to it to create large tidal differences, would be optimal. ------------------------------ Date: 22 February 1982 03:52-EST From: Robert Elton Maas To: SPACE at MIT-MC It seems almost a shame that the great reptiles were exterminated by that comet. Just think if they had survived and developed space travel, they could save lots of money inhabiting space by sending up eggs and having a nursary up in space instead of having to send up fullsize people like we mammals have to do presently. By the way, "Life on Earth" is a really good program of interest to those who like to understand evolution. The episode on amphibians just ended, and this next week comes the episode on reptiles. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 23-Feb-82 0320 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #113 Date: 23 Feb 1982 0319-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #113 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 113 Today's Topics: Recycling Titans More Politics & Marginal Costs "30-year-old Titans... oops!" "Man's guts were not made for orbital mechanics..." SPS tidal stabilization Re: twisting of orbital platforms Twisting of orbital platforms SPS tidal stabilization launching old titans Tidal stabilization ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Feb 1982 0950-CST From: Clyde Hoover Subject: Recycling Titans To: space at MIT-MC Unless you use the silos the Titans are in now, you have the cost of emptying them of propellant (Titan propellants are noxious liquids), hauling them out to KSC (where you can use LC 43) to launch them. This would not be cheap. On the other hand, you can't launch them from where they are now because the first stages would drop on somebody (unless you shot them all into near-polar orbit, even then Candians probably would not like to have 10 ton+ hunks of junk falling from 30 miles up on to their territory). Remember, the Titan silos were placed for a one-shot, over the pole trajectory to the USSR, and if you get to the point of lighting those babies it really doesn't matter if a crashing first stage kills some caribou. Nice idea, though - using the old beasts would save some hardware purchase costs, though the launch costs would not be appreicably less than that of the Titan III (a favorite of the Air Force for launching recon sattellites and used for Viking and Voyager). ------- ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 1982 0813-PST Sender: WARD at USC-ISIF Subject: More Politics & Marginal Costs From: Craig E. Ward To: Space at MIT-MC Cc: Ward at USC-ISIF, Pourne at MIT-MC, TCS at ECL, Riedel at ECL, Katz at USC-ISIF, REM at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF]22-Feb-82 08:13:13.WARD> I don't want to say "I told you so", but I told you so. In this Saturday's (Feb. 20) Santa Ana Register an article appeared with the headline "Space shuttle: an economic 'monstrosity'? $2-billion- a-year savings seen if project is scrapped". It was written by a Peter Larson of the Orlando Sentinel Star. One of the article's main points is that James Van Allen says so in his Science article. The reporter also interviewed a NASA spokesman named Charles Redmond who is quoted as saying NASA isn't sure about the Shuttle paying off. ("There's a lot of corridor talk..."). I wonder about this. Has anyone ever tried to figure out what the marginal cost of a shuttle launch is? (The marginal cost of something is the cost of doing or making one more of it). In my view, the money spent on developing the shuttle can not be used in figuring the marginal cost. That money is a sunk cost and is gone. We can only look at future expenses and returns. The Shuttle is here and we would be losing everything to drop it now. Also, it would seem to me that the marginal cost of throw-aways will be much greater because you have to keep building new ones. Anyone have figures? Craig P.S. It may also be worthy of note that the AP article below Larson's was headlined "Shuttle test troubled, but called 'success'". It reported some of the problems during Friday's test run. The article itself was not bad, but that headline makes it sound as if NASA is trying to hide something. Do we also have a problem with press coverage? ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 1982 08:40 PST From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC Subject: "30-year-old Titans... oops!" To: SPACE at MIT-MC Oops! Somehow my mind transmuted Jerry Pournelle's comment about "30- year- old PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY" (SPACE V2 #108) ...into... "30-year-old Titans". A quick subtraction puts "30 years ago" as 1952, which may be valid for the technology, but not for the missile... (Apologies...) /John ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 1982 08:51 PST From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC Subject: "Man's guts were not made for orbital mechanics..." To: SPACE at MIT-MC cc: Ciccarelli Methinks you speak of dirt-siders, spasebaw! The first generation that is born and raised in orbit will have no problem with the everyday mechanics... Playing catch, that parabolic pastime for Grounders, might be one of the ways a kid will learn physics "up there". Possibly, someone raised in "free fall" would just develop "orbital chauvinism" with regard to mechanics, just as we surface-dwellers have our "planetary chauvinism". /John ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 1982 10:28 PST From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: SPS tidal stabilization To: King at KESTREL, REM at mit-mc cc: SPACE@MIT-MC, Wedekind.es I missed some things here. Could someone recap and tell me precisely the problem you are trying to solve? Does it arise from the fact that an SPS would be so big that the gravity gradient becomes relevant? Jerry ------------------------------ Date: 22 February 1982 1226-cst From: Bill Vaughan Subject: Re: twisting of orbital platforms To: REM at MIT-MC Cc: space at mc yup, weight is just to increase tidal forces. Moment arm is simply distance between upper & lower attachment points, which can be several feet; or distance between single attachment point and bird's center of mass when only one pendulum is used. My recollection (possibly faulty) says the cables were *quite* long (several hundred meters) and that it took quite a few orbits before everything settled down nicely. I notice that comsats don't seem to use gravity-gradient stabilization so maybe it turned out to be a failure practically. The results are probably in some NASA tech brief somewhere but I don't want to hunt through NTIS for it. ------------------------------ From: CARLF@MIT-AI Date: 02/22/82 13:40:34 Subject: Twisting of orbital platforms CARLF@MIT-AI 02/22/82 13:40:34 Re: Twisting of orbital platforms To: CARLF at MIT-AI, REM at MIT-MC CC: SPACE at MIT-MC Everybody seems to be talking about putting weights on the end of ropes. My idea is to get rid of the weight on the end by replacing it with more rope. I figured this out recursively by noticing that a weight could be replaced by a rope with a smaller weight on the end, and then that weight could be replaced by more rope and an even smaller weight, and so on. This can be very economical, since moment of inertia goes as the square of the distance while tidal acceleration is proportional to distance. I never meant that a rope alone could be a stabilizing device. -- Carl ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 22 February 1982 13:18-PST From: KING at KESTREL To: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC cc: REM at mit-mc, SPACE at MIT-MC, King at KESTREL Subject: SPS tidal stabilization Yes. That's exactly the problem. You have two extended parts to an SPS: the microwave antenna (always more-or-less perpendicular to a line from it through the Earth's center) and the solar collector (varying orientations). The (much larger) solar collector is usually not in a stable position and the position of the (much heavier but smaller) antenna is always metastable. Dick ------------------------------ Date: 22 February 1982 1533-cst From: Bill Vaughan Subject: launching old titans To: space at mc Gee, maybe we *should* launch them directly from the silos. I mean, most everybody in Tucson wants to get rid of them, plus the L-5 society sort of lives there, so we could combine the whole thing -- put together a nice big cheering section for the launch, led by Mo Udall of course; give the southwesterners a chance to see a spaceship go up without having to pay airfare to Canaveral; incidentally destroy the silos so they can't put Minutemen in them (nobody araund Tucson wants that to happen anyway) and - at least temporarily - take the "smog capital of Arizona" title away from Phoenix (*my* hometown)! ------------------------------ Date: 22 Feb 1982 1413-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: Tidal stabilization To: space at MIT-MC I would like to suggest that since someone who is presumably an expert on the subject has studies the problem of tidal stabilization of satellites we should check with that source. Bill Vaughan suggest that a NASA technical brief exists on the subject, perhaps someone should look up that paper and report back to the digest. As some people have suggested the problem is quite complex. In particular the SPS itself needs to point to the sun, not the earth. The microwave transmitting antenna needs to point to the earth, so these two systems need to be connected by a heavy power cable but decoupled enough to allow them to point in different directions. Clearly this is a system that is much too complicated to be designed over a once-a-day general distribution digest. Ted Anderson ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 24-Feb-82 0314 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #114 Date: 24 Feb 1982 0313-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #114 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 114 Today's Topics: Quasars Intergalactic Colonization - How hard is it}? L-5 Society ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23-Feb-82 8:52:52 PST (Tuesday) From: Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Quasars To: Space@MIT-MC Reply-To: Reed cc: Reed A recent article in the LATimes 'dramatized' the plight of an astronomer (whose name escapes me at the moment) who may lose his viewing priveleges at Mt. Palomar, presumably because he holds controversial beliefs with respect to the nature of quasars. The article described the astronomer as believing that quasars are not necessarily the extremely distant objects most other astronomers believe they are. The committee responsible for allocating observatory time was considering a cutback of time to this astronomer because his research showed no direction or something of that nature. An article on quasars in the Feb. Scientific American espoused the conventional view with no more than a reference to the fact that some astronomers believe that quasars are nowhere as distant as is generally accepted. The LATimes article was a reasonably balanced account of both sides with respect to the allocation problem, but neither it nor the SA article gave any information as to what the alternative theory might be or why the astronomer's investigations towards proof might be considered inadequate and therefore worthy of termination. Anyone out there know anything more? -- Larry -- ------------------------------ Date: 23 Feb 1982 0745-PST From: Paul Dietz Subject: Intergalactic Colonization - How hard is it}? To: space at MIT-MC There was an argument on this digest a few months ago about extraterrestrial intelligence. One argument against it said that if it existed in any great profusion, at least one race would have expanded out through the galaxy. They aren't here, so there aren't very many ETI's. While this argument isn't watertight, it can be extended. What about intergalactic colonization. This at first seems ludicrous (millions and millions of light years). But, a ship travelling at .5c would reach the M-31 in only 4 megayears, or the virgo cluster in 120 megayears, a small fraction of the age of the universe. I'll assume that we can design a payload that can stay dormant for millions of years, activating itself at the end. A problem here might be damage to electronics and other information due to radiation. A lot of shielding may be required. This depends on the density of intergalactic gas. A bigger problem is to accelerate the ship to .5c. Even this seems possible. Bussard ramjets would be ideal, but we don't know how to make them work. Carrying fuel for acceleration seems impractical (antimatter?). One scheme that seems 'practical' is an overgrown mass driver. While the mass of a rocket goes up exponentially with the desired final velocity, the mass of a linear accelerator is proportional to the square of the final velocity. So, let's build a mass driver that can accelerate payloads at 1000g's. To reach .5c at 1000g's take around 1.5E4 seconds (a little over 4 hours), so the mass driver is around 700 million km long. [I know it's picky but it's 7e8 miles, and 1.125e8 km -ota] Energy requirements are high, but not impossible. The sun puts out 4.0E26 joules/sec. A mass of 1E9 kg traveling at .5c has kinetic energy of around 7.0E24 joules. The rate of energy usage could be decreased by launching the ship in pieces. If we increase the acceleration by a factor of k we decrease the length of the accelerator by k, and increase the rate of energy consumption by k. An accelerator capable of doing 1 million gees would be only ~700,000 km long, although I don't know what you'd accelerate in it. Building structures this big that use this much energy will not be possible soon. But they seem easier to build than dyson spheres or ringworlds. ------------------------------ Date: 24 February 1982 04:24-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: L-5 Society To: POURNE at MIT-MC cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC I spoke to Mr. Heinlein today and he definitely is coming to the L-5 Conference. Those interested shld send money: regular banquet professional l-5 member $25 $25 $65 (includes banquet) non-member $35 $25 $75 student L5 $20 $25 student n $30 $25 Send to L-5 Society Box 92056 Los Angeles CA 90009 Conference is April 2-4 (Fri-Sunday) Los Angeles Airport Hyatt ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 25-Feb-82 0321 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #115 Date: 25 Feb 1982 0320-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #115 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 115 Today's Topics: re: giant mass driver to colonize other galazies by accelerating to c/2 re: giant mass driver to colonize other galazies by accelerating to c/2 Re: Quasars re: giant mass driver to colonize other galazies by accelerating to c/2 Laser & Hydrogen What a million Gs?!? Re: Quasars ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wednesday, 24 February 1982 08:09-PST From: KING at KESTREL Subject: re: giant mass driver to colonize other galazies by accelerating to c/2 To: dietz at usc-ecl, space at mit-mc cc: King at KESTREL How do you decelerate when you get there? ------------------------------ Date: 24 Feb 1982 1027-PST From: Paul Dietz Subject: re: giant mass driver to colonize other galazies by accelerating to c/2 To: KING at KESTREL, space at MIT-MC cc: DIETZ at USC-ECL Deceleration: Presumably with rockets, stellar sails, pressure of the interstellar gas against magnetic fields (you'd have to ionize it first). Steering when you get to the other galaxy is no problem: just put a large electric charge on the ship and let the galactic magnetic field move you around. You could throw away most of the ship, or use it for fuel. Length of the Mass Driver: c = 3.0E8 m/sec (m=meters), and g = 10 m/sec^2, so it takes 1.5E8 / 1.0E4 = 1.5E4 seconds to reach .5c at 1000g's (ignoring relativity). During that time you travel .5at^2 = (.5)(1.0E4)(2.25E8) = 1.125E12 meters, or 1.125 billion kilometers. (darn arithmetic errors!) One millon g's: Lest this figure seem ridiculous, let me note that railguns have already achieved accelerations of over 1E6g's. So it's just engineering to design a railgun 1.1E6 km long. The big advantage of linear accelerators is that energy is used much more efficiently than in a rocket, where you have to use exponentially increasing amount of energy to accelerate a payload to higher and higher velocities. The energy used in a mass driver grows more slowly. Also, the mass driver can be used repeatedly. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Feb 1982 11:22 PST From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Quasars In-reply-to: Reed.ES's message of 23-Feb-82 8:52:52 PST To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Reed.ES, Lynn.es Halton Arp was the astronomer mentioned in the article. Everyone agrees that all quasars show huge redshifts. Essentially all normal galaxies are receding from us, causing a red-direction Doppler shift (redshift) in their spectra. The bigger the redshift, the faster the recessional velocity. The fact that the universe (on the galactic scale) is expanding requires that distance and speed of recession be directly related; that is, the faster the recession, the farther the galaxy is from us. Now we have two choices in explaining quasars: 1) they follow the rules of galaxies, and the huge redshifts mean huge recession velocities and huge distances, or 2) there is some physical means (what means is not clear) that redshifts quasar light, and they are not so distant nor receding. Arp is apparently the only astronomer of international note that believes the second choice. His contention is that some quasars show physical links with normal galaxies that have small redshifts and are therefore nearby. Most other astronomers believe that the apparent physical connections have to be coincidence of wispy objects nearby happening to lie in a line of sight with the distant quasars and some nearby galaxy. That seems easier to believe since no one, after years of trying, has come up with a decent explanation of a non-Doppler way to create huge redshifts in quasars. Arp wants to continue looking for physical connections to quasars to show that there are too many for it to be line-of-sight coincidences, while other astronomers want a physical explanation of the redshifts before spending much on the connections search. A few years ago, several astronomers were listening to Arp with interest, but apparently from the Times article and a few others elsewhere on quasars, few now give Arp much chance of being right. /Don Lynn ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 24 February 1982 11:26-PST From: KING at KESTREL To: Paul Dietz cc: space at MIT-MC, King at KESTREL Subject: re: giant mass driver to colonize other galazies by accelerating to c/2 The ship has a momentum of 1.5e17 newton-seconds. I suspect it would be necessary to shoot a dummy load through the mass driver backwards to avoid losing the mass driver after a couple of shots. I would design it as a series of separate modules "attached" by station-keeping hardware. Each module would have its own energy storage system (and probably its own power plant). However, one wonders whether something analogous to a traveling wave tube could be used. Send your energy pulse down a non-uniform helical superconducting cable wound in such a manner that the spiraling electrical pulse's velocity matches the ship. The mechanism is simple, but now the energy has to be supplied all at once. I'd rather use a laser and have frozen Hydrogen on the tail of the ship, to be heated within an inch of its life and sent back at .99c. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Sorry about the lack of detail - I'm pressed for time right now. Dick ------------------------------ Date: 24 Feb 1982 1200-PST From: Paul Dietz Subject: Laser & Hydrogen To: king at KESTREL cc: space at MIT-MC The problem with this scheme is that you have to accelerate your fuel, along with the ship. So, the amount of fuel increases exponentially with the final velocity of the payload. The mass driver avoids this problem. Also, I imagine that heating the hydrogen to such high temperatures will roast the ship in a bath of x-rays and gamma-rays. Recoil can be minimized by making the launcher very massive. If it weighs 1.0E12 tons the velocity increment is 150 m/sec. By launching when the launcher is on opposite sides of the sun the delta-v's will cancel out. Thumbnail calculations indicate that a trillion tons is bout the mass of an asteroid 5-10 km in diameter, so materials are no problem. The biggest problem is the energy source. It can be massive, though, because you don't have to accelerate it. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Feb 1982 1502-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: What a million Gs?!? To: space at MIT-MC, Dietz at USC-ECL In support of Paul's claim that a million Gs is "reasonable", consider this: I understand that experiencing an acceleration of 100,000 Gs is not uncommon for an artillary shell. Now I don't know that this is the same type of artillary pieces but I know of at least two fairly sophisticated devices that live in artillary shells. On is a nuclear warhead, the other is a frob which actually looks for tanks in some fashion. I don't know any of the details, however. At any rate, I'd be surprised if something interesting like an intergalactic probe couldn't be built to withstand 1 million Gs. Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 24-Feb-82 15:17:52 PST (Wednesday) From: Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Quasars In-reply-to: Lynn's message of 24 Feb 1982 11:22 PST To: Lynn cc: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, Reed If I remember correctly, a large gravitational potential can also cause a redshift. Is it not possible that a quasar's redshift could be at least partially gravitational in nature, thus reducing the recession velocity (and therefore distance) for a given redshift? On a scifi tack, what would a spaceship travelling away from us at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light (say .5c) look like to an observer on earth? Would we see a light source with a redshift? Could a quasar be such a light source? -- Larry -- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 26-Feb-82 0314 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #116 Date: 26 Feb 1982 0314-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #116 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 116 Today's Topics: Quasars Wierd accelerators flying short, stubby I-beams Quasars ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Feb 1982 0716-PST From: Paul Dietz Subject: Quasars To: Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC cc: space at MIT-MC Gravitational redshift is ruled out because the redshift is so great. A large cluster of stars (say) of sufficient density to get that redshfit would be unstable to gravitational collapse. If the quasars are local objects associated with our galaxy, calculations indicate that the energy necessary to accelerate them to their observed velocities is many, MANY solar masses, far too much to be believable. And why don't we see them around other galaxies, blue-shifted? Some evidence for the traditional view includes the fact that quasars resemble less active radio galaxies in that they have radio lobes, and the observation of a gravitational lens involving a quasar. This last doesn't work unless the quasar is very far away. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 1982 09:40 PST From: Stewart at PARC-MAXC Subject: Wierd accelerators To: Space@MIT-MC cc: Stewart Take the skyhook rope, tie a probe on the end, and whirl the affair around a suitable asteroid. As the rope wraps around the asteroid, the probe will reach 0.5 c and then you let go. At least as feasible as the bloater drive. -Larry PS Remind me to write up my wood burning TV receiver. ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 25 February 1982 09:41-PST From: KING at KESTREL Subject: flying short, stubby I-beams To: ota at s1-a cc: King at KESTREL, space at mit-mc I seem to remember that the strength required of an object of a given design to resist a given acceleration is proportional to the cube root of its mass. (All load-bearing members' cross sections are proportional to the square of a linear dimension, and the the mass of the object is proportional to the cube.) If I remember correctly, the strength of structural steel is approximately 1000 KPSI. If I wanted to send an I-beam to another galaxy, the load on its base would have to be < 1 PSI, so it could only be 6 inches tall. My recollection of steel's strength may be wrong, but not drastically. There are stronger materials, but a factor-of-100 improvement is clearly necessary (it would seem necessary for the ship to be at least 50 feet front-to-back). I would also assume that the intention is to send something more interesting than an I-beam. Intellegent artillery shells are made out of stronger materials then structural steel. They also are virtually solid inside. They are less then 6 feet long, and they are tapered. Probably our artillery pieces deliver 100,000G because more then that was deforming even dumb, passive shells. Dick ------------------------------ Date: 25 Feb 1982 11:15 PST From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Quasars To: Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC cc: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, Wedekind.es Larry, If you say that all of the quasar redshifts are due to velocities which are unrelated to the recession of the galaxies then it's hard to explain why none of them are blueshifted - that is, approaching us. Also, I think I read that people have reason to believe these redshifts aren't due to gravity. Does anyone know more about this? Jerry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 28-Feb-82 0319 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #117 Date: 28 Feb 1982 0318-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #117 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 117 Today's Topics: quasars Shuttle News Quasars as spaceships re: quasars quasar beliefs quasar redshifts ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: CARLF@MIT-AI Date: 02/27/82 15:54:34 Subject: quasars CARLF@MIT-AI 02/27/82 15:54:34 Re: quasars To: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC In the most recent (or perhaps last week's) issue of Nature there are two articles on Arp's theory of the nearness of quasars, both unfavorable. The first article considers Arp's assertion that a survey of the sky in the vicinity of nearby galaxies shows a higher than average density of quasars, and thus that the quasars must be associated with the nearby galaxies. Arp claims that the data have one chance in 10^17 of happening by chance, but the article disagrees with this. It states that the probability of the data occuring by chance are about 1/2. The article's description of Arp's method of analysis makes it seem dubious even to me, though I know little of statistical analysis. The second article is of a statistical nature, and examines Arp's claim that several sets of three quasars lie almost on straight lines, and yet have very different redshifts, showing that redshifts must not correlate with distance. The article disputes Arp's claim that these alignments are immensely improbable. It argues that Arp has incorrectly analyzed his data. The suggestion that quasars might be interstellar spaceships going away from us makes me wonder why we don't see any coming toward us. Are we so frightening that everyone is running away, or is something ghastly going to happen to this part of the galaxy that we haven't noticed yet? -- Carl ------------------------------ Date: Sat Feb 27 08:22:09 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!ihnss!cbosg!harpo!npois!rabbit!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle News Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. The unloading of supercold hydrogen and oxygen fuels went well, just as their loading did, leading the way for the last major step before the shuttle's countdown begins. Also tested out well were the three fuel cells and APU #1. The fuel cell that caused the problems during STS-2 had been replaced and all three overhauled to prevent a recurrence of that problem. If all goes on schedule now, loading of highly volatile fuels into the Columbia's maneuvering system will start next week. It was this loading of nitrogen tetroxide and liquid hydrazine that spilled during the pre-flight work of STS-2 and subsequently delayed its launch while workers fixed the tiles that were loosened during that accident. As of now, the work for STS-3 is still a bit ahead of schedule, giving a nice cussion if anything should go wrong. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 1982 1722-PST From: Hans Moravec Subject: Quasars as spaceships To: space at MIT-MC One of the features of efficient rockets is a tightly collimated exhaust. A rocket that converted a high mass fraction of its fuel to energy (near photon drive) would emit mostly photons frequency shifted by the motion of both the photon source and the acceleration of the exhaust reflector/nozzle, and these photons would be like a searchlight beam streaming from the rear of the ship. This beam would be so bright compared to any other emission that it is probably safe to say that we could see the ship only when the exhaust is pointed straight at us. We would see a blue shift only if a ship was using its engines to decelerate along our line of sight. There may be better ways of decelerating than using mass quantities of fuel, things like an interstellar hydrogen parachute, or interaction with the galactic magnetic field, and these would render the ship invisible to our feeble sensors in the only blue shift case. Another, maybe significant, effect is relativistic beam angle aberration. A source with a given beam angle seems to have a narrower beam when it is coming at you and a wider angle when moving away. Thus we have a greater chance of seeing a red shifted receding beam source than a blue shifted approaching one. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Feb 1982 00:24:14-PST From: decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!dudek at Berkeley To: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!space@Berkeley Subject: re: quasars Cc: decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!ings@Berkeley Is this where to send space disgest stuff? There was an article in the Canadian Journal of Physics about 2 years ago (I'll try & find it) postulating that quasars could be accounted for as a statistical anomaly in the way spectral data was identified. Essentially, I think the thesis was that the "supposed" red shifts were identified by matching observed spectral lines with known arrangements and then finding out how much the familiar configuration was shifted up the spectral scale. The author claimed that a number of spurious random matches could account for "quasars", and in fact the number of known quasars jived with this explanation. Gregory Dudek UNIX. of Toronto ..decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!dudek ------------------------------ Date: Fri Feb 26 16:14:44 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley Subject: quasar beliefs Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. I know nothing about the facts of the particular case of the astronomer who may lose his observing time because of unconventional beliefs about quasars. But it is worth remembering that just because somebody holds unconventional beliefs about some sacred cow does NOT mean that his research is well-organized, properly thought out, and deserving of observing time. If his observing time is imperiled BECAUSE of his views, that is deplorable. But don't forget that there may be a simpler and less dramatic explanation. I confess to a strong suspicion myself that the standard "cosmological" explanation of quasars is incorrect, but that does not blind me to the possibility that people who agree with me may not be organizing their work well enough to deserve time on scarce and expensive facilities. ------------------------------ Date: Fri Feb 26 16:44:01 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley Subject: quasar redshifts Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. The two possible explanations of the quasars given a few days ago missed a third: that the red shifts really are Doppler effect, but this does not correlate with distance the way it does for galaxies. In other words, you can eliminate the need for a non-Doppler redshift mechanism if you can devise a way of accelerating starlike objects to substantial fractions of c (interactions with the magnetic field of an exploding galactic core?). At one time this was a respectable theory; I don't know its current status. One problem is that one should then see some blueshifted objects as well, although one can fend this off by claiming that we aren't looking at the right wavelengths to see the major emissions of a massively blueshifted object. How this explanation stands in the presence of increasing astronomy efforts in the UV and X-rays, I don't know. Any attempt to avoid the "cosmological" explanation of quasars also needs to bear in mind that things like the recent case of double images of a quasar being formed by gravitational lens effects of a distant galaxy DO put a lower bound on the distance of SOME quasars. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 01-Mar-82 0317 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #118 Date: 01 Mar 1982 0316-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #118 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 118 Today's Topics: Comet strike this summer? A Green Mars? Quasar starships, contd. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Feb 1982 1303-PST From: Paul Dietz Subject: Comet strike this summer? To: space at MIT-MC The comet Swift-Tuttle may be returning this summer. It was first observed in 1862, and has a calculated period of around 120 years. What makes Swift-Tuttle interesting is that it is the comet responsible for the Perseid Meteor shower every August 10-14. If the comet crosses the earths orbit at the right time there could be a collision. No one knows for sure, since the comet has not been spotted since 1862 and the orbit is somewhat uncertain. The editor of Sky and Telescope magazine's comet digest column puts the chance of collision at around one in a million. A near miss will be quite spectacular. In any case, the Perseid shower has been getting heavier in recent years, and promises to be even better this year. ------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri Feb 26 19:05:42 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!ihnss!mhtsa!rabbit!npois!harpo!floyd!cmcl2!isaacson at Berkeley Subject: A Green Mars? Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. This is an open invitation to all who wish to discuss the matter of Terra Forming. Anyone who is interested in this or other related topics are welcome to send mail to me directly. If you do not already know what this "Terra Forming" is, I will explain. Some futurists believe that is would not be impossible to change the climatic and biological conditions of a planet such as Mars to a condition where human life may exist. Examples of the steps needed to accomplish this are, the promotion of bacterial life on the polar caps of Mars, the possibility of warming the planet by darkening the surface, and the promotion of liquid water by a combination of the above. Obviously, many of the planets in our solar system are not nearly suited for an attempt at this great task. However, tomorrow will come and accomplishments of this nature will be attainable. send mail to: Wesley Kaplow c/o cmcl2!isaacson ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 1982 0146-EST From: HPM at CMU-20C Subject: Quasar starships, contd. To: space at MIT-MC, hm60 at CMU-10A A few calculations for a change - most raw data drawn from Osmer article in February 1982 Scientific American: Quasar redshifts (wavelength shift/wavelength) range from 1.8 to 3.56 with a peak at 2.2. This corresponds to recession velocities (expressed as fraction of lightspeed) of .77 to .91 with a peak at about .82 . An approximation for beam angle aberration for small beam angles (the range where tan(x) is approximately x) can be expressed by 1 + v Apparent beam angle = Source frame beam angle * ----- 1 - v where v is recession velocity as fraction of lightspeed. Note that the ratio inverts when v is replaced by approach velocity. For the redshifts above, the beam spread is 7.7 to 21 with 10 typical. A starship moving at the typical quasar velocity has its beam widened by a factor of ten when accelerating, and narrowed by that much when decelerating (if it uses its engine to decelerate). The solid angle is affected by the square of that amount - a factor of 100. The ratio of solid angle of the beam of a ship accelerating away from us (broadened by 100) and of a ship decelerating towards us (narrowed by a factor of 100) is 10,000. We are thus 10,000 times as likely to see a ship leaving as approaching. By the same argument, the blue shifted ones should be about 10,000 times brighter - but our lack of observing time in that spectral region might explain the non-discovery of any so far - Note that only about 200 regular quasars have been identified so far in spot surveys. Dimness of these sources is not correlated with redshift, and in the most sensitive survey about 10 quasars per degree were found - extrapolating to the rest of the sky that comes to about 500,000 quasars observable with a four meter telescope. If they are photon rockets and if their beam angle is pretty small (so we see only a tiny fraction) this means billions of giant rockets operating in our galaxy. Note that a photon rocket with a mass ratio under 10 accelerating and decelerating at .001 g can cover a thousand light years in about 2000 years, reaching a maximum v of .76 c in the process, all perhaps reasonable for an advanced entity. The relative slowness of the travel would explain why we hadn't gotten any apparent visitors yet. But watch out for bright, blue shifted, quasars. Of course it might be considered polite not to turn your planet-destroying photon rocket exhaust directly on your destination! ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 02-Mar-82 0936 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #119 Date: 02 Mar 1982 0313-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #119 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 119 Today's Topics: quasars as spacecraft all receding? Quasar speculations Re: quasar redshifts Russian probe on Sol II Red vs blue spaceships [DD-B : for space digest -- Implacations of quasar findings] more quasars Quasars Soviet Space Probe Pioneer's Birthday ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Monday, 1 March 1982 07:56-PST From: KING at KESTREL Subject: quasars as spacecraft all receding? To: carlf at mit-ai, space at mit-mc cc: King at KESTREL If quasars are spacecraft, it seems likely that we would onlysee the ones going away from us because it would be the exhaust we're seeing. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 1982 1117-CST From: Clyde Hoover Subject: Quasar speculations To: space at MIT-MC I have heard a new speculation from an astronomer as to what quasars are: VERY young galaxies forming out of the primordial Big Bang produced hydrogen. Of course this assumes that the redshift for quasars are cosmological, that is due to their distance. The idea is that as all galaxies began to form out of the primordial hydrogen, a large number of VERY massive stars (>100 times the mass of our local little star) formed quickly, burned their guts out in a few million years and then exploded, dumping some of the stuff that we are made of into the galaxy. For the few million years that all these massive stars are shining, it is estimated that the galaxy would be VERY luminous (especially when you add in the ionized hydrogen clouds 100 kiloparseces in diameter). And since their redshifts (even if off by a factor of two) tell us that they are 5 to 15 billion light years away, meaning that looking at a quasar is viewing as close to the Big Bang as we are likely to see from the surface of out planet. So there's more astronomical grist for the discussion mill. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 1982 11:09 PST From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: quasar redshifts In-reply-to: henry at Berkeley's message of Feb 26 16:44:01 1982 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Lynn.es The Doppler-but-not-distant explanation of quasars wasn't considered because there are not only no blueshifts, but no small redshifts either. I refuse to believe everything is pointing away from us (that's why we believe the universe is expanding rather than that all distant galaxies happen to be traveling specifically away from us); quasars should have randomly oriented motion with respect to us, plus the general expansion of the universe (which would be negligible close by). If they are close and the shift is Doppler, this would result in a variety of all intermediate shifts from highly red to highly blue. /Don Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 01 Mar 1982 1223-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Russian probe on Sol II To: space at MIT-MC a074 0625 01 Mar 82 PM-Soviets-Space,350 Soviet Space Probe Reaches Venus MOSCOW (AP) - A Soviet space probe made a soft landing on the planet Venus today and was sending back photographs and information from soil samples, the official news agency Tass reported. The Soviets and the United States have previously landed unmanned space probes on Venus, the nearest planet to Earth. Tass said a second module is due to land on Venus Friday. Tass said a module descended from the unmanned Venus 13 spacecraft early this morning after a four-month flight. ''The results of the new cosmic experiment will significantly widen the information about the planet nearest to the Earth,'' Tass said. The news agency said the probe had already sent back photographs and scooped up a soil sample. The descent vehicle transmitted information from the surface of the planet for 127 minutes today, according to Tass. Venus 13 was launched Oct. 30, 1981. Tass said Venus 14, launched on Nov. 4, will reach the planet on Friday. Both craft were launched from a satellite in earth orbit, Tass said. The Soviet Union started its Venus research program in 1961. A year later, the U.S. space probe Mariner 2 passed by the planet. In 1967, a U.S. probe under the Mariner program and a Soviet probe reached the planet within a few hours of each other. The Soviet probe transmitted information for about 75 minutes, stopping after temperatures above 500 degrees Fahrenheit were recorded at what was later determined to be about 20 miles from the planet's surface. The U.S. probe, Mariner 5, passed about 6,000 miles from the planet's surface. The U.S. launched two Pioneer spacecraft in December 1978, one which went into orbit of the planet and the other which split into five separate landing space probes. Tass said its current Venus probes will test the ground surface of Venus in an effort to determine what elements are present on the hot, cloud-covered planet. The mother ship, Venus 13, passed at a distance of about 22,320 miles, Tass said. The news agency said joint Soviet-French experiments were carried out during the flight to Venus. ap-ny-03-01 0925EST *************** ------------------------------ Date: 1 March 1982 1525-EST (Monday) From: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A (R110HM60) To: space at MIT-MC Subject: Red vs blue spaceships CC: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A Fooey, there was a square root dropped in the beam angle calculations of my last note. The aberration in beam angle for a source emitting a narrow beam in the direction of travel should have read: 1 + v Aparent beam angle = Source beam angle * SQRT(-----) 1 - v with v being recession velocity as fraction of c. This means that photon starships moving with the typical quasar velocity of .82 c are only about 100 times as likely to be seen accelerating away from us as decelerating towards us. This is still in plausible agreement with observation since most of the 200 quasars that have been identified were found by looking for large redshift. And if the data should rule out the narrow blue beam possibility in future, we can always fall back on the hypothesis that there are better ways to slow down than using the big engines used for acceleration. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Mar 1982 1534-EST From: YOUNG at DEC-MARLBORO To: Space at MIT-AI Subject: [DD-B : for space digest -- Implacations of quasar findings] Message-ID: <"MS5(2052)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11804306872.28.443.2974 at DEC-MARLBORO> - - - - - - - Begin message from: DD-B Date: 1 Mar 1982 1316-EST From: DD-B To: young at MARKET Reply-to: DYER-BENNET at KL2137 DTN: 231-4076 Mailstop: MR1-2/L14 Subject: for space digest -- Implacations of quasar findings Message-ID: <"MS5(1715)+GLXLIB1(1033)" 11804281766.40.253.73939 at KL2137> I've been wondering if the possible change in the status of quasars is potentially damaging to large chunks of cosmological theory. So has a friend, and she took the trouble to dig up at least a little basis for the worry. The source, of course, is old and not terribly authoritative. Anybody know anything more about the consequences of not-so-old much-closer quasars on the rest of our understanding of the universe? - - - - - - - Begin message from: DYER-BENNET.DEAN Date: 1 Mar 1982 1305-EST From: DYER-BENNET.DEAN To: DYER-BENNET Reply-to: DYER-BENNET.DEAN at KL2137 From-the-terminal-of: Pamela C. Dean Subject: Quasars Message-ID: <"MS5(1715)+GLXLIB1(1033)" 11804279832.29.526.32241 at KL2137> "The mere existence of quasars and BSO's ["blue stellar objects; i.e., blue stars as distant, luminous, and small as quasars, but lacking the characteristic microwave emission, he says elsewhere -- pcd] was a heavy and perhaps even fatal blow at the steady-state theory. All of them are very far away and were therefore formed many eons ago. Since none can be detected in our own neighborhood, it seems that whatever processes formed them are not operative now... . This, in turn, means that the Universe was different in important ways, eons ago." Isaac Asimov, THE UNIVERSE, 1966 -- who knows what they've decided since then? Anyway, he goes on to say that some astronomers believe that quasars establish the big-bang theory, confirm theories of how long ago it was, and even allow them to decide between the hyperbolic and pulsating versions thereof. Gosh, Professor, sounds important to me. - - - - - - - End forwarded message - - - - - - - End forwarded message ------------------------------ Date: Mon Mar 1 09:03:12 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!chico!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley Subject: more quasars Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Every now and then, I see some report that two quasars seem to be moving away from each other with a net velocity > c. Have these observations ever been satisfactorily explained? ------------------------------ Date: Sun Feb 28 04:36:13 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley Subject: Quasars Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Well, if the ships have to be going away from us to be seen, why not? After all, we're talking about type III technology here. If they can build these quasi-stellar ships, perhaps they can have whole fleets of them, and they are constantly flitting about the galaxy. Here's a calculation to perform: Take the energy output of a quasar, and convert that into energy momentum for all the spectra they emit. Work out how much momentum is being thrown away from the quasar, and assuming it is all going one way, see how much would be imparted to a ship the other way. From that work out what kind of delta-v we could be getting for ships of various masses. ------------------------------ Date: Mon Mar 1 17:41:45 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!mhtsa!rabbit!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Soviet Space Probe Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. One of two recent probes launched by the USSR last year reached and landed on Venus today, Tass said. The second probe is due to land Friday. Reportedly, the probe sent back 127 minutes worth of transmission and scooped up soil on its first day. The mother ship passed within 23,000 miles of the planet. ------------------------------ Date: Mon Mar 1 22:15:21 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!mhtsa!rabbit!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Pioneer's Birthday Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Tomorrow, Pioneer 10, the first space probe to reach and pass Jupiter, will celebrate is 10th birthday in space. Launched on 2, March, 1972, Pioneer successfully crossed the asteroid belt and then Jupiter's radiation belt and is now traversing out of the solar system, around 3.5 light hours away from Earth. Since its launch, it has transmitted back invaluable data and is now studying the boundaries of the sun's atmosphere, created mostly by the solar wind. It would also prove valuable in finding a possible 10th planet, out beyond Pluto, if one existed. Radio contact with Pioneer is expected to last until the craft is about 5 billion miles away, or thoughout the decade. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 03-Mar-82 0603 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #120 Date: 03 Mar 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #120 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 120 Today's Topics: Quasar starships, contd. Space in the News ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!chico!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley's high-speed quasars black hole query ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 March 1982 06:25-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Quasar starships, contd. To: HPM at CMU-20C cc: SPACE at MIT-MC One other obvious effect not mentionned in your (HPM's) message is: Redshifting = time-expansion, blusshifting = time-contraction. Thus a rocket blast lasting 1 year but redshifted or blueshifted by a factor of 10 would seem to last 10 years or 0.1 year upon receipt. So a redshifted rocket blast would seem to be a longlasting quasar while a blueshifted rocket blast would seem to be a supernova somewhat. Maybe some of the mysterious x-ray bursts are blueshifted rockets? However I agree that it'd be stupid to blast your rocket in the exact direction of some planet you want to survey for life. Thus we'd see only far-away blasts that were aimed to miss a planet destined to survey and just happened to be aimed at this distant unknown planet called Earth that isn't even cataloged yet in Encyclopedia Gallactica. [HPM - right, except that at quasar velocity freq shift is only 3 or 4] ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 1982 0906-PST Sender: ELITE at OFFICE-1 Subject: Space in the News From: wmartin@office-3 To: space at MIT-AI Cc: wmartin at OFFICE-3 Message-ID: <[OFFICE-1] 2-Mar-82 09:06:28.ELITE> Just ran through an accumulation of back issues of Electronic Engineering Times, and have the following items that may be of interest to the list: From the 1 Feb. 82 issue: NASA recently published a document titled "Space Astronomy Program Plan for the 1980's and 1990's" which discusses, among other areas, plans for interstellar flight. The Management Operations Working Group For Space Astronomy (MOWGSA) states, "An interstellar mission is envisioned in the 1990 to 2000 time frame. An actual unmanned interstellar encounter [THAT could mean ALL sorts of things! - WM] is projected for the latter part of the 21st century." "The following types of drive systems have been considered, and deserve further study: ion electric propulsion, in which heavy ions are created and then accelerated electrically; a magnetohydrodynamic drive, in which a stream of propellant passes through an electric current, creating self-induced magnetic fields which interact with the current to provide acceleration; solar sails, utilizing solar radiation pressure to provide a boost out of the solar system; continuous thrust nuclear propulsion and pulsed explosive nuclear propulsion." [This document may well be of interest -- you may be able to get a copy as an individual citizen just by writing NASA or your congressperson and asking for it. Or a public or university library designated as a government documents depository may have it. WM] Other items of interest in this same column (DC Circuit, by Howard Roth): A study done by the National Science Board (part of the NSF) polled an unknown sample of people and came up with the findings that 58% thought that "scientific discoveries make our lives change too fast." Out of 13 areas of science and technology on which to spend tax dollars, health research was #1, but "discovering new knowledge about man and nature" and "exploring outer space" and "predicting and controlling weather" were #s 11, 12, and 13, respectively. [The other choices were not listed.] The other item in the column: The William Sword Co. of Princeton, NJ, is raising $1 billion to buy a space shuttle through a subsidiary, Space Transportation Co. The purpose is to serve industrial requirements for materials processing and R&D. This project could serve as a test case for involving large private investment in space. From the March 1 issue, same column: Soviet development of a space-shuttle-type winged reuseable spacecraft was acknowledged recently by the Soviet Emabassy in Washington. The science and technology attach told an American Astronautical Society meeting that launch of the system could occur in about five years. Another article from one issue in this range discussed Soviet industrial activity in space -- the Soviets published a report on the subject which discusses materials melting phenomena and crystalization. Also mentioned are "giant mirror reflectors suspended in space that will help scatter the dark of the polar night in the streets of northern cities and produce nearly cost-free power." [An SPS? - WM] Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 1982 13:22 EST From: Marshall.WBST at PARC-MAXC Subject: ucbvax!mhtsa!harpo!chico!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley's high-speed quasars In-reply-to: OTA's message of 02 Mar 1982 0313-PST To: Space at MIT-MC cc: Marshall.WBST Relativistic velocities don't add like slower velocities. If two objects are moving in opposite directions relative to a third observer at velocities v1 and v2 then the velocity of one object relative to the other is v = (v1 + v2) / (1 + (v1*v2)/(c^2)) The colliding beam experiments generally use particles traveling more than 99% the speed of light so a naive calculation would show they collide with a relative velocity of 198% the speed of light. The above formula gives 19800/19801 = 99.995% or still less than the speed of light. Two quasars therefore never recede from each other at more than the speed of light. --Sidney Marshall ------------------------------ Date: Tue Mar 2 13:00:40 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: hplabs!intelqa!murray at Berkeley Subject: black hole query Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. What would be the effect of a beam of light making a close approach to a black hole? Obviously, the light would be bent, but what affect would the transition have on the lights wavelength outside of the gravity well? murray at intelqa ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 04-Mar-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #121 Date: 04 Mar 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #121 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 121 Today's Topics: Soviet Lasers & Space Stations. Re: SPACE Digest V2 #119 Far, far away... Quasars as spacecraft Quasar starships Orbiting reflectors Quasar starships Doppler shift of light deflected by a black hole angle and energy shifts of moving objects ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Mar 1982 0805-PST Sender: GEOFF at SRI-CSL Subject: Soviet Lasers & Space Stations. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow Reply-To: Geoff at SRI-CSL To: arms-d at MC, space at MC Message-ID: <[SRI-CSL] 3-Mar-82 08:05:13.GEOFF> a010 2230 02 Mar 82 AM-Soviet Lasers,390 Report Soviet Space Weapon Possible in 1983-88 WASHINGTON (AP) - The Soviet Union may deploy laser weapons in space during 1983-1988 - a period beginning next year - that could threaten U.S. communications and spy satellites, according to a published report of secret testimony by the Pentagon's top scientist. Richard D. DeLauer, undersecretary of defense, also said the Soviets were expected to orbit a manned space complex capable of attacking ground, sea and air targets from space about 1990, according to The Army Times. The Pentagon has said for some time that the Soviets were ahead of the United States in developing such weapons but DeLauer's estimate is the first to disclose such an early date for deployment. The newspaper, a privately owned weekly, said in its edition dated March 8 that DeLauer's statements were contained in a secret testimony inadvertently read aloud by Rep. Ken Kramer, R-Colo., during a public hearing last week of the House Armed Services Committee. ''Geosynchronous satellites may be threatened by a Soviet space-based laser ... as early as 1983-1988,'' DeLauer was quoted was saying in the testimony read by Kramer. Geosynchronous satellites always stay above the same spot on earth. Such satellites are used primarily for communications. Kramer's reading was interrupted by a committee aide, but not before DeLauer's words painted a grimmer prospect for the 1990s. ''We expect a large permanent manned orbital space complex to be operational by about 1990,'' DeLauer's testimony was reported as saying. ''If our understanding of Soviet space doctrine is correct ... (it) will allow the Soviets to begin to place in orbit in the early 1990s systems capable of effectively attacking ... ground, sea and air targets from space.'' Kramer was quoted as saying he found the threat to U.S. satellites ''most frightening.'' The Army Times reporter, Walter Andrews, said Tuesday night DeLauer asked the newspaper not to run the article. ''He said Kramer had made a mistake and the story shouldn't be written,'' Andrews said. DeLauer has an unlisted telephone. A senior defense scientist, who said he was not familiar with DeLauer's testimony, told the Associated Press Tuesday night he believes that ''it would take more like 10 years for the Soviets to deploy a space-based laser weapon.'' Such a weapon has been moved out of Soviet laboratories into advanced development but the Soviets have not tested it in space ''as far as we have seen,'' the scientist said. ''The manned systems they have tested, such as Soyuz, have nothing like that aboard,'' said the scientist, who spoke on condition he not be identified. ap-ny-03-03 0121EST *************** ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 1982 08:45 PST From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #119 In-reply-to: OTA's message of 03 Mar 1982 0302-PST To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Ciccarelli Note regarding algebraic formulae presented to the group... Some of us (e.g. at Xerox) use workstations on which the typefaces are proportionally spaced, i.e. characters do not have a constant width. Thus, formulae displayed on multiple lines, e.g.: 1+v SQRT[------] 1-v ...often appear jumbled. While I can discern the intent of the formula, it would be better expressed as: SQRT[(1+v)/(1-v)] ...at least until all of us have the facilities to send drawings to each other. /John ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 1982 1108-PST Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3 Subject: Far, far away... From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) To: Space at MIT-AI Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3] 3-Mar-82 11:08:55.WMARTIN> This must be a dumb question; nonetheless, I just can't seem to answer it, and, since the quasar discussion arose, this seems an appropriate time to ask it: The whole idea of "looking back in time" when we view a quasar (or whatever) at some far distance, like 10 billion light years, because the light left it that long ago, has a confusing aspect to it. The thing we are now looking at wasn't THERE that long ago! That far back, it was back near or in the Big Bang, back at THAT point from where it has travelled (look back over your shoulder at the center of the universe...). So we are looking at this quasar which we see out at the "edge" of the universe, and say that the light from it took 10 billion years to go from there to us here. But, ten billion years ago, the thing wasn't where we are looking at now, it was over that way somewhere. Can someone explain if we are talking about some relativistic effect where we are seeing light curved around from that original site, or has space itself changed during that time span, so that the definition of "there" is different now from what it was then, or do I have some basic misunderstanding of the whole business? Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 1982 1121-PST Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3 Subject: Quasars as spacecraft From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) To: space at MIT-AI Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3] 3-Mar-82 11:21:58.WMARTIN> I think I missed something here... I thought one of the characteristics of quasars is that they are emitting enormous quantities of energy -- more energy than galaxies combined. If some culture has spacecraft that can emit such energy levels, why would they bother GOING anywhere? They could bring the entire universe to them! Or is the quasar energy-emission a calculated figure, assuming that it is radiating in all directions with the same intensity we see, and also assuming that it is at this theoretical enormous distance, and the emission level we see could be accounted for by a reasonable-scale spacecraft, directing all the energy of its exhaust right at us by chance, and also rather close (tens or 100's of light-years)? A flashlight at 10 feet being as bright as a H-bomb at lunar orbit, or some such analogy... Still, wouldn't this spacecraft have to be emitting at least as much energy as a star to account for us detecting it at all? (Even considering directed rather than omnidirectional radiated energy.) That still seems a bit much for a manufactured craft of any sort... Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 1982 13:12 PST From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Quasar starships To: HPM at CMU-20C cc: REM at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC, Wedekind.es That redshift-blueshift asymettry explanation is appealing. If quasars were spaceships in our galaxy, though, wouldn't we have seen (after 20 years and ~ 2,000 quasar-years of viewing) some of these: brightness changes on the order of hours, days, or months long-term brightness changes due to changes of heading increases in red shift due to acceleration greater quasar incidence (adjusted for dust clouds) in the plane of the galaxy and in the direction of its center? (I put this as a question 'cause that's what it is; maybe with some numbers here we can shoot down/support your theory). Jerry ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 1982 1351-PST Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3 Subject: Orbiting reflectors From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) To: space at MIT-AI Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3] 3-Mar-82 13:51:39.WMARTIN> That comment from the Soviet publication I quoted (issue #120) about "giant mirror relectors" reminds me of a query I had meant to make long ago. For many years I have supposed that a sensible use of space would be for cities to fund large reflectors orbiting in such a location that they would reflect focussed sunlight on the city at night in winter (or even during the day) in order to keep the city warm enough to make snow melt as it falls and keep any from accumulating. One would think that the snow-removal budget for a major northern city for a few years could pay the cost of such a device, after space industry is commonplace. Is this a feasible idea? Are such orbits possible for northern cities, and would enough energy be reflected to do this? For a daylight operation, I envision the inhabitants seeing two suns, and doubling the sunlight should, I think, do enough good to burn through cloud cover and keep precipitation liquid. Is this so? What more immediate service to me of space science than to enable me to retire my snow shovel? Will Martin (St.Louis, MO) ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 1982 2122-EST From: HPM at CMU-20C Subject: Quasar starships To: space at MIT-MC cc: hm60 at CMU-10A, Wedekind.es at PARC-MAXC, rem at MIT-MC Re: 1) Short term brightness changes in quasars Paragraph from "The Evolution of Quasars" by Maarten Schmidt and Francis Bello May 1971 Scientific American "Unlike the light output of normal galaxies, the light output of some quasars has been observed to change significantly in a matter of days. The only explanation is that some variable component, if not the entire quasar, may be not much larger than the solar system." - One point for the starship hypothesis. 2) Long term brightness changes Chapter six of Burbidge and Burbidge, "Quasi-stellar Objects" Freeman 1967 tells about studies of 70 years of old astronomical plates from the Harvard and Pulkova Observatories which show that the light from 3C 273 varied by a factor of two over periods of years and that flashes of months or weeks occurred. There is a possible 13 year period. 3) Increases in red shift with time Four years (63 - 67) of spectra of 3C 273 (above) detected no redshift change. I chose .001 g as a plausible acceleration because it allows a continuously accelerated 1000 light year trip in a total conversion photon rocket with a mass ratio under 10. By comparison, at .01 g the mass ratio is nearly 200. Over a 10 year period .001 g gives a velocity change of .01 c, from .82c to .83c at typical quasar velocity, a change in redshift from 2.18 to 2.28. The quasar articles I've seen give redshifts to two decimal places, so a change of this magnitude should be detectable. Any lower bounds on redshift change known? A less than .01 change in ten years would imply an acceleration of less than 10e-5 g. Low values could be explained as being reasonable for something less than total conversion. (The spectral lines (H, C, Mg) of quasars show that there is a mix of stuff there). A detected increase in redshift would be very strong evidence for a rocket, but lack of such would be a strong negative indication. Any data? 4) Density correlation with the galactic disk The stellar neighborhood is pretty isotropic in a thousand lightyear sphere, and farther away they would be harder to see. Also, most quasar searches have been made out of the galactic plane, because the in-plane sky is so cluttered. A quasar set against a background of a galactic dust cloud would, of course, be wonderful evidence of them being nearby. But only 200 have been found so far, so the evidence is not yet in. The Feb 82 Osmer Sci. Am. article statement that there seems to be no correlation between redshift and brightness is positive evidence. Perhaps related, from the same article: "The spectra of quasars are quite unlike the spectra of all other astronomical objects ... The strongest feature is the Lyman-alpha line of atomic hydrogen ... ... in many instances the lines are wide, an indication that some of the gas surrounding the quasar is moving at velocities as high as [ 0.1 c ]. The physical conditions deduced from the various lines show that the gas is hotter than the gas in normal nebulas ..." 5) Power output of a quasar-bright starship (other message) Yes, the huge energy output is entirely predicated on them being at the edge of the visible universe. Their power output drops by inverse square law. If they are at 10e10 light years, their output (if isotropic) is that of 10e13 stars. If they are only 1000 lightyears distant and isotropic the output is one tenth that of a star. If the power output is concentrated into a one degree of divergence beam, one millionth of a stellar output suffices. This is 10e27 ergs per second. If the power for this last case is provided by total conversion, it means conversion of 1000 kg, or 1 tonne, of fuel per second - Certainly awesome by our standards, but much smaller than astronomical in scale, and probably not absurd for a mature starship technology. Assuming, as before, a 1000 light year trip and 10 mass ratio, thus .001 g acceleration we can calculate that the mass of a typical quasarship to be 10^11 tonnes, 100 billion tonnes. (By comparison, the earth masses 10^22 tonnes.) If the ship has the density of water, it might be contained in a sphere 10 kilometers in diameter. (Sounds just right to me!) Because of the small fraction of such ships which would have their narrow beams aimed at us, the density of visible quasars would imply that there are maybe 100 billion of these cuties within a few thousand light years. Could be big trouble later if they're not very friendly. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 4 March 1982 02:34-EST From: Gene Salamin Subject: Doppler shift of light deflected by a black hole To: SPACE at MIT-MC In the rest frame of the black hole, there is no Doppler shift. ------------------------------ Date: 4 March 1982 02:27-EST From: Gene Salamin Subject: angle and energy shifts of moving objects To: SPACE at MIT-MC Let K be the blueshift factor of an approaching object. Then the angular size of the approaching object is reduced by a factor 1/K, and the solid angle is reduced by a factor 1/K^2. I don't know an obvious proof of this; you can work out the Lorentz transformation. However, the energy per photon is increased by factor K (the Doppler shift), and the number of recieved photons per unit time increases by factor K (again a sort of Doppler shift), so the total received power increases by a factor K^2. If the object subtends an observable nonzero solid angle, i.e. is not a point source, the its brightness (Watt/stearadian) increases by a factor of K^4. For this reason I would expect a blue shifted quasar to be more readily detected than a similar red shifted one. The above results apply regardless of the angle of approach, as long as K is the blueshift factor. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 05-Mar-82 0304 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #122 Date: 05 Mar 1982 0303-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #122 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 122 Today's Topics: Back to basic? Quasar Spaceship Theory Re: Melting snow with orbiting mirrors Re: Orbiting reflectors Re: Quasar speculations Shuttle News ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 March 1982 07:26-EST From: Robert W. Kerns Subject: Back to basic? To: SPACE at MIT-MC Force all us humans to read machine-format formulae for the sake of our friends at Xerox who seem to lack fixed-width fonts? Seems to be a case of blindly embracing new technology while throwing away the advantages of the old. There's a lot of fixed-width formated text in this world, so I always use a single fixed-width font for reading (and writing) mail. I don't use my integral sign key either, and thus we can communicate both ways. But I don't want to start a discussion about message-formatting technology (at least, not in this forum). I do want to point out that it is an imposition to expect the rest of the world to read fortran-gubble with naked eyeball. -- ((B*o-b)/(K*e/(r+n-(log(s))) ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 1982 0736-PST From: Paul Dietz Subject: Quasar Spaceship Theory To: space at MIT-MC This theory is not very consistent with the evidence. (1) Shifts in positions of quasars. If quasars are moving at near c, and are only a few thousand parsecs away, shouldn't we see them move? Remember, we can determine their positions to within very close limits by using very long baseline interferometry. (2) Observable effects of such spaceships If the ships produce lots of high velocity gas they should have dramatic effects on the interstellar medium. We should see features that look like long jets of very hot gas, radiating X-rays and such. We would know if such features existed within a few thousand light years: no such effects have been detected. If there are 10^11 quasar spaceships within a few thousand light years their density comes out to one spaceship per ~10 cubic light years. If one were within, say, 20 light years it shouldn't be hard to spot, even if the beam is directed away from us. (3) Other details The gravitational lens is inexplicable unless qusars are at cosmological distances. Quasars often have a two lobed structure. This structure is easy to explain if the quasar is a galaxy, but not if it is a spaceship. If quasars are spaceships they should be visible in other galaxies, but they are not. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 1982 12:27 PST From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Melting snow with orbiting mirrors In-reply-to: WMartin's suggestion in V2 #121 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Ciccarelli You're toying with weather modification on a LARGE SCALE, there! The "heat bubble" of cities already has an effect on surrounding territory; this sort of thing could have all sorts of ramifications on downwind vegetation (crops, trees), for instance. Heat and wind patterns are implicated in desert formation as well! This is of an entirely different class from the Soviet's suggestion of providing city lighting with a spaceborne mirror; that can be done with far less intensity (and thus heat input to the biosphere). Both of these projects also raise substantial legal and freedom-of-choice issues. Legislating freeway construction is one thing; the creation of a (visual) second sun or an omnipresent "Night-light" is quite another. Keep your snow shovel, Will... /John ------------------------------ Date: 4 Mar 1982 14:04 PST From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Orbiting reflectors In-reply-to: WMARTIN's message of 3 Mar 1982 1351-PST To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Lynn.es About Will Martin's reflector question: In order to double the solar radiation, the mirror would have to intercept the same amount of sun's radiation as the city does, and therefore be the same size as the city. For any continuity of service, it would have to placed in geosync orbit, would have to rotate once every two days because the sun's direction is changing as seen from geosync, and it would have to be reflective on both sides. As the mirror approached edge-on every noon, the output would drop off substantially for a few hours. Very far northern cities would have a permanent similar problem because the city lies inclined. An hour or so of eclipse would occur around midnight during fall and spring. A 20 mile mirror would appear, at geosync distance, ten times smaller than the sun, but 100 times brighter per unit area (if the full output is focussed on 20 miles of earth). This would burn a few photographers shutters and may cause instantaneous blindness if viewed. It's shadow would be spread out over 200 miles, and be hardly noticeable, and would move across almost half the equator every mid-day. The size of the light spot where it hit the earth would also spread out to 200 miles, unless the mirror were optically shaped to focus the light. In fact, I don't see how to prevent spread without a compound optical system (two or more mirrors that demagnify the image of the sun as projected onto the earth). This brings up problems of maintaining precise shape of an object miles across. Low orbit would limit the spread problem to a few miles, but then the shadow would be objectionable, the mirror would have to rotate fast and irregularly, and a given city could only get light for several minutes out of every revolution (1.5 hours). Also, no night-time operation, as the mirror would be in shadow. It might still be effective if the mirror gave as little as 10% of sunlight, so you can scale the mirror down by sqrt(10) to get a sort of lower limit. Or you could scale up the mirror until it was comparable to the spread size and get whole states rather than cities. Any way you do it, the mirror is a pretty sizable task. /Don Lynn ------------------------------ Date: Tue Mar 2 14:31:47 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley Subject: Re: Quasar speculations Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. If quasars are red shifted because they are so far way, just how old are they estimated to be? One one hand, they are at the outer fringe of the universe, and thus would be old since they were the first things to be thrown away from the bang, but on the other hand, the light we see left them many billion years ago. So just how old is what we see? ------------------------------ Date: Wed Mar 3 07:21:27 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!mhtsa!rabbit!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle News Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. At 1800 EST yesterday, a ``call to stations'' went out, signaling the commencement of the loading of toxic fuels into the shuttle's orbital maneuvering system and reaction control system. These guide the shuttle's pitch and yaw during flight. Testing and preparations on systems have gone on without trouble, and actual loading is scheduled to begin at midnight tonight. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 06-Mar-82 0304 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #123 Date: 06 Mar 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #123 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 123 Today's Topics: Gravity-Gradient Stabilization of Satellites the distance of quasars Re: SPACE Digest V2 #122 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #121 A "nearest neighbor" calculation quasar redshifts FTL Quasars superluminal quasars Reply To FUNCTIONAL INFINITY Quasar Spaceship Theory ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed Mar 3 13:14:21 1982 From: Kieran Carroll Subject: Gravity-Gradient Stabilization of Satellites With reference to CARLF@MIT-AI's message (issue 113), there is at least one reason to use masses on the ends of ropes (or wires, more likely) to stabilize an orbiting satellite by taking advantage of a gravity-gradient. This is that you want to avoid deploying any excess structural area with the stabilization system, since excess area means excess reflection of solar radiation, which means excess solar-pressure on the structure. This pressure will increase the disturbance forces acting on the satellite, tending to modify its orbit (although the effect may cancel out over a one-year period), which causes an increase in the station-keeping activity required, and hence the amount of fuel burned by the station- keeping thrusters--bad news! A second effect of the solar pressure acting on the wires would be to bend their tips away from the sun (much like a slender, flexible mast swaying in a breeze), since ideal wires have no rigidity in the transverse direction. This could also be undesirable. True, if you want to deploy ANY mass to stabilize the satellite, that mass will have some cross-sectional area, and hence will be subject to these solar pressures. However, a sphere of mass M has a much smaller surface area than a long, thin wire of mass M; the area of the counter- weight is reduced by concentrating it into a compact shape. Of course, the whole idea of the system is to deploy a mass at some large distance from the satellite, in order to take advantage of the local gravity-gradient. Hence there is a good reason to put the mass on the end of a long wire; however, a lumped-mass on the end of a wire would still be better than a wire alone (I'm pretty sure...). The length of the wire used, and the size of lumped-mass used, could be calculated so as to optimize the ratio (stabilizing effect)/(total system mass), depending on the strength of the local solar radiation, the amount of stabilizing torque required, the reflectivity of the wire and the lumped-mass, and various other things. (Spacecraft engineers are VERY weight-conscious, and just LOVE to optimize systems with respect to weight) I'm sorry for flogging what may already be a dead horse, but by the time the digest gets from arpanet to usenet to utzoo, the messages are rather old. Kieran A. Carroll ------------------------------ Date: Friday, 5 March 1982 08:04-PST From: KING at KESTREL To: WMartin at Office-3 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, King at KESTREL Subject: the distance of quasars We have been running away from the light source (in that source's reference frame) for 10 billion years. It took a while for the photons to overtake us. Put differently, the object's proximity to us at "big bang" time is partially a relativistic compression. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 1982 08:40 PST From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #122 In-reply-to: OTA's message of 05 Mar 1982 0303-PST To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Ciccarelli Aargh. I concede. Fixed-width it will be! However, watch the use of tabs... [End of discussion on formatting; please forgive the use of the Digest...] ----- Question for Paul Dietz: In V2# 122, under "other details", you said, "If quasars are spaceships they should be visible in other galaxies, BUT THEY ARE NOT." (Emphasis mine) -- Please elaborate (?) /John ------------------------------ Date: 5 March 1982 11:59 est From: York.Multics at MIT-MULTICS (William M. York) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #121 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Message of 4 March 1982 06:02 est from Ted Anderson Does anyone have any details on what STS-3 is supposed to accomplish? Are there any new and exciting gadgets to be tested? Are they going to use the arm again? Any info would be appreciated. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 1982 10:12 PST From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: A "nearest neighbor" calculation To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Wedekind.es Here's an interesting attempt to calculate the average distance between technical civilizations in our part of the galaxy. A bit long, but it's only algebra and even if you think it's balderdash you might enjoy deciding just what parts you disagree with. It comes from "Time and the Space Traveller" by L. Marder (his discussion is based on S. von Hoerner's Dec '61 article in Science). First, a couple of "typicality" assumptions: 1) Life and intelligence develop everywhere by the same rules of natural selection given the proper surroundings and time. 2) The average intelligent civilization will take about as long as ours did to reach our current level of science, technology and desire for interstellar communication. Not certain, but plausible. Now, for the local part of our galaxy, name these avg quantities: T0 = time from the birth of a star to develop a technical civilization T = age of oldest stars V0 = fraction of stars which are "favorable", i.e. possess planets capable of supporting life V = fraction of stars which at present have a tech civilization L = longetivity of the civilization after the technical stage is reached, i.e. until destruction or degeneration. Von Hoerner considers 5 cases of longetivity limitation: 1) Complete destruction of life 2) Destruction of higher forms only 3) Physical or mental degeneration and decay 4) Loss of interest in science and technology 5) No limitation. Let P1,..,P5 and L1,..,L5 be the probability and longetivity of the respective fates (so that L5 = T - T0). Then the average longetivity is L = P1*L1 + ... + P5*L5, and if each favorable star supports only one civilization in its lifetime then a fraction L/T of them will do so at any given time, V = V0*L/T (this assumes that star formation is a fairly constant phenomenon, so that star ages are evenly distributed up to the maximum value T). Now if L2 and L3 are short enough it's worth counting the possibility that a second civilization develops on the same planet in cases 2) or 3). This argument applied recursively changes the right hand side of the last equation to V = V0*L*Q/T, with Q = 1 + (P2+P3) + (P2+P3)^2 + ... = 1/(1-(P2+P3)). Finally, if we call D = mean distance betwixt neighboring technical civilizations, & D0 = mean dist between neighboring stars of ALL kinds, then D = D0/V^(1/3), that is, D depends inversely on V's cube root. Now von Hoerner tries to assign values which people won't laugh at. For the Pi and Li (notice P2): Case Est. range for Li Adopted Li Adopted Pi 1) Complete 0 - 200 100 .05 destruction 2) Higher 0 - 50 30 .6 life only 3) Degeneration 10^4 - 10^5 3 X 10^4 .15 4) Loss of int 10^3 - 10^5 10^4 .2 5) No limit >= (T - T0) T - T0 0 so that L = avg longetivity of 6500 years, Q = recurrence factor of 4. He also sets T = star lifetime = 10^10 years, and D0 = neighbor dist = 7.5 light yrs. Finally let's estimate V0, the fraction of stars with planets capable of supporting life. According to assumption 1) we can base this estimate solely on the existence and physical characteristics (temperature, etc) of the planets & stars themselves - say, for argument's sake, V0 = .01. (von Hoerner used .1 for V0; we're being more conservative). We get V = 2.6 X 10^-8, or one star in 40 million having a technical civilization at any given time, and D = 2500 light years for the expected distance to the nearest. Big changes in the Pi or in V0 don't change D too much, because of the cube root dependence of D on V. If you're a real pessimist, for instance, and set V0 = .0001, you get D = 12000 light years. (Woops - the assumed value for D0 is not valid for a sphere of 12000 ly radius centered on Sol - well, you get the idea). In either of these cases seperate calculations suggest that the most likely "technical age" of the first civilation encountered is many thousands of years. So we'd better be polite! Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Thu Mar 4 19:50:33 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley Subject: quasar redshifts Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. The Doppler-but-not-distant explanation of quasars WAS taken seriously at one point, because it is possible to explain the absence of blueshifts, small redshifts, etc. if the quasars are high-velocity objects expelled by the core of our own galaxy. This gives them a strong reason to all be pointing away from us: we are part of the structure that launched them. This does assume that they were launched in a particular epoch some time ago and are no longer being launched (or that some clever aspect of the launch process or the quasars themselves keeps us from seeing more recent launches). Maybe the quasars are trying to tell us something: perhaps expulsion of quasars is the first sign of an exploding galactic core... Of course, this theory does not sit well with several things found more recently. There are an awful LOT of the damn things. There is no other sign of the spectacular event that expelled them. Some of the quasars found after serious searches started have redshifts indicating velocities of 0.9c+, which is hard to explain. We don't seem them around other galaxies, and assuming that ours is unique is rather ad hoc. And finally, this theory cannot explain why some otherwise-typical-looking quasars definitely ARE far away. Oh well... ------------------------------ Date: Thu Mar 4 18:14:28 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley Subject: FTL Quasars Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Hmm. Sounds interesting. Is it possible that the value of c is related in some way to the gravitational constant - or, put more formally, to the global curvature of space? If it is, then an explanation for the Faster-Than-Light quasars is immediate: It is known that the gravitational constant is decreasing over time (discovered in 1980). If we take the standard cosmological view of quasars, then they are inhabitants of the early universe, a time when according to current theory G had a much higher value than now. If it developed that c was directly related to G, then c would be correspondingly higher at that time: thus, we have quasars moving at speed greater than 300,000 kps but less than the then-current value of c. Notice how nicely this hypothesis fits with special relativity; we need not hypothesize faster-than-light objects. However, if true, then c (since this is, at bottom, just the speed of a little blue photon) should be variable with local (as well as global) spacetime curvature. Presumably, then, relativistic dilations experienced at some velocity in curved spacetime would be different from those experienced in flat spacetime, though I don't know how you'd do an experiment to determine it. This opens up interesting possibilities for an interstellar drive; if we could transport a portable black hole with an interstellar ship, we could, presumably, travle at much higher velocities than we could in flat spacetime. Cheers, Rick. ------------------------------ Date: Wed Mar 3 19:56:10 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!ihnss!mhtsa!rabbit!npois!harpo!chico!duke!unc!dopey.smb at Berkeley Subject: superluminal quasars Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Here's the basis for my question about quasars moving faster than light, from the August 22, 1981 issue of Science News: Just a few months ago, only four quasars with components moving apart at apparent velocities faster than the speed of light had been identified. Now... there are six. ... Each of the six has at least one pair of components separating at velocities that, from our vantage point, appear to be faster than light. The apparent expansion velocities are all in the range of 3 to 10 times the speed of light, with the exact numbers depending on which assumed value of the Hubble constant... is used. ... When astronomers refer to "superluminal expansion", they don't necessarily mean the components involved actually are separating from each other at faster than the speed of light. Built into the phrase... is the idea ... "as it appears from earth." The leading explanation... calls on a geometric situation in which a relativistic jet from the quasar is moving out from the core at a small angle to our line of sight to the core. During any given period since light left the jet on its route towards us, the jet itself has moved almost the same distance toward us as well. The light from its second position therefore reaches us only a short time after the light from its first position. ... Most astronomers assume this to be what is responsible for the measurements of superluminal expansions, although there is plenty of uneasiness over the requirement of having the fairly special line-of-sight orientation.... Six of twelve, or half, the appropriately analyzed quasars have shown it, a troublingly high frequency. However, the twelve are not random samples, but highly selective samples, and that might help explain away the difficulty. Now -- does anyone have any later information on this? (I note in passing that we seem to have yet another situation where special alignments are involved, as in the red shift/blue shift discussion.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed Mar 3 10:44:35 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!mhtsa!ihnss!houxi!hocsb!bsm at Berkeley Subject: Reply To FUNCTIONAL INFINITY Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Several years ago (nowhere near infinity) I was discussing a similar idea with a friend. We never thought to consider the vector implications, thus our idea diverged somewhat from yours. This infinity was a general range of values (or distances) that could not be represented by our usual numerical system. It might be visualized as moving the decimal point to the left by some reference distance (10 ** 1000), the result being that all usual numbers now (almost) equal zero and all the infinity numbers are now scaled down to the usual numbers. This visualization is poor because these numbers of infinity can still be represented by the usual number system. It would be a significant step if someone could develop a math system for dealing with such numbers. I beleive this has already been done by Isaac Newton around 1675 and possibly Archimedes before Christ. Calculus always deals with numbers that are to small to be represented by the usual numerical system, these numbers being called DELTA's. In many Calculus derivations, reciprocals of Delta's arise and must be eliminated by inversion. These reciprocals of Delta's are FUNCTIONAL INFINITIES. Unfortunately, the Calculus always eliminates them to obtain a result. What is needed is a way of directly dealing with them, or treating them as "ANTI-DELTA's". (This would be distinct from Antiderivative or Integral) L'Hopital's Rule is a nice start, but it only evaluates points on a function, and what we need are functions whose values are infinite everywhere. I enjoyed your vector description of infinity, but I disagree on a major concept. If the infinite position was at a distance relatively infinite from all other positions. , then there would be only one direction. This would be from the infinite position toward all the other positions. Although this puts a kink in some of your observations, it could have some astounding uses. By introducing infinity to a 3 dimensional system, it reduces the system to one dimension. ......but maybe this observation is incorrect......? I would appreciate any re-replies or additional information. Sorry for being so wordy. yours till the end of time, Bryan Moffitt ------------------------------ Date: 5 March 1982 19:19-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Quasar Spaceship Theory To: DIETZ at USC-ECL cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I'm not so sure spaceships in other galaxies would be visible (ignoring the possibility that ours is the first, that we're here because we were seeded by advanced life in the one middling-sized galaxy that just happened to be first, and thus the observation bias that our galaxy seems different from all others in that it has advanced life). Remember they are quite faint here, needing large telescopes, and there are still more on the limits of our telescope's power we won't see until the large space telescope is put up. If the ones we're seeing are uniformly distributed in space, rather than along the gallactic plane, because we can't see any beyond 100 or maybe 1000 light years, then surely we can't see even ones ten or a hundred times bigger in other galaxies that are millions of light years away. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 07-Mar-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #124 Date: 07 Mar 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #124 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 124 Today's Topics: Shuttle News Shuttle News Constancy of c and G. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu Mar 4 18:02:26 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!ihnss!mhtsa!rabbit!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle News Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Although 8 hours behind schedule, at 0800 EST today, fueling of nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine fuels commenced, and have been running since then with no problems. The five day operation was delayed twice, once by a balky pump and a snag in setting up service lines. Officials say it will pose no delay to the launch date, now set at 22 March. ------------------------------ Date: Fri Mar 5 07:26:11 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!ihnss!mhtsa!rabbit!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle News Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Although started 8 hours behind schedule, loading of toxic propellants into the shuttle was ahead of schedule as of early this morning. Time was made up and then some by workers in safety suits and all is proceeding well. In other space news, Intelsat V-D was launched aboard an Atlas-Centaur booster last night. Put into elliptical orbit, it will be placed into its final orbit on Sunday. ------------------------------ Date: 6 March 1982 23:21-EST From: Gene Salamin Subject: Constancy of c and G. To: SPACE at MIT-MC The speed of light, c, and gravitational constant, G, are constant in the general theory of relativity. A variable c would imply either a preferred coordinate system with respect to which an absolute velocity could be measured, or a medium (the ether) whose elastic vibrations constitute electromagnetic radiation. The conjecture (not established fact) of a variable G arises as follows. An electron and proton are electrically attracted about 10^40 times stronger than they are gravitationally attracted. Also, the radius of the known universe is about 10^40 times the radius of a proton. Dirac suggested that so large a number as 10^40 could not occur by coincidence, and that perhaps G scales inversely with the radius of the universe. This has some consequences for celestial mechanics and geophysics, and I vaguely seem to remember that the observations are not consistent with the dG/dt required by the Hubble constant. More elaborate conjectures attempt to incorporate the estimate that the number of protons in the known universe is about (10^40)^2. Unlike the case of a variable c, I believe it is possible to concoct a theory with variable G without violating either experimental observation or strongly believed basic principles. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 08-Mar-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #125 Date: 08 Mar 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #125 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 125 Today's Topics: Variable C Trip to watch Shuttle landing Shuttle News A "nearest neighbor" calculation Re: STS-3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 07 Mar 1982 0326-PST From: JPM at SU-AI Subject: Variable C To: space at MIT-MC Our galaxy is moving with a definite velocity with respect to the background radiation which most believe to be from the Big Bang. This movement would seem to indicate that there IS a preferred reference frame in which to measure velocity, that is the one in which there is no relative motion with respect to the "location" of the Big Bang. Has anyone done any work along these lines, especially involving the consequences for the various theories of realitivity? Jim ------------------------------ Date: 7 March 1982 15:43-EST From: Gene Salamin Subject: Trip to watch Shuttle landing To: SPACE at MIT-MC I hope to have the time to drive (from the Stanford area) to Edwards AFB to watch the Shuttle landing. Following this, I plan to hike and sightsee in the Death Valley, Saline Valley, Eureaka Valley area. This region is described in the Sierra Club Guidebook "Hiking the Great Basin". Perhaps also an easy snowshoe hike in the Eastern Sierra. If interested in carpooling, contact me: home 415-948-9072, work 415-858-2250 x217, or ES@MIT-MC. ------------------------------ Date: Sun Mar 7 20:30:29 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!ihnss!mhtsa!rabbit!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle News Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. At around midnight Saturday, fueling of nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine propellants into the shuttle's orbital maneuvering system and reaction control system was completed without a hitch. The next step on the line to a 22 March launch is the pressurization of helium tanks inside the orbital maneuvering pod. This week, workers will begin to prepare pad 39A for the countdown and launch. ------------------------------ Date: 07 Mar 1982 2121-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: A "nearest neighbor" calculation To: space at MIT-MC CC: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC This is an interesting calculation. I think it is a cop out, however, to assume that the probability of a very long lived race is zero. It is also ridiculous to assume a life time as the same as that of a star. Clearly a race that survives that long could outlive its original solar system. It seems extremely likely that a few civilizations would have matured sufficiently to survive forever. It is impossible to evaluate the likelihood of losing interest in technology, but who knows? I'm afraid that the problem with these numbers is that V0 is much smaller than .01. Perhaps 1e-4 to 1e-6 would be more conservative. Still the inverse cube root dependence means this isn't too important an effect. We still have the question then: "where is everybody?". I think we're in a "game preserve". Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 7-Mar-82 22:24:39 PST (Sunday) From: Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: STS-3 To: York.Multics at MIT-MULTICS (William M. York) cc: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, Hamilton See (as usual) Aviation Week (1 March) for a detailed mission summary. The two major experiments are (1) a continuation of electrophoresis work begun on SkyLab (for concentration of various biological substances) and (2) casting large latex spheres, which are of interest for such applications as delivering medication to specific sites in the body. These experiments will be conducted during a couple days of "low gravity" (minimal thruster firing). Other activities during the 8-day mission include thermal stress testing (making sure the payload bay doors still work when they move from extreme cold (shadow) into extended periods of sunlight), and testing passive cooling (putting the shuttle into a slow roll to minimize demand on heating and cooling systems). --Bruce ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 09-Mar-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #126 Date: 09 Mar 1982 0303-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #126 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 126 Today's Topics: Quasars STS-3 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #125 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri Mar 5 19:08:19 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!donald at Berkeley Subject: Quasars Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. The idea that quasars are the exhausts of spaceships smacks faintly of the ridiculous (excuse me for being a pro-establishment stuffed shirt). Immediately obvious questions arise: - If the exhaust of these hypothetical is pure photons, then perhaps one would observe these enormous redshifts, but then the question of how the spectral lines by which these redshifts are measured got there! It seems to me that a pure photon exhaust (via a an enormous galaxy-sized laser) would *not* contain spectral lines by which a redshift may be detected. On the other hand, if these spaceships were shooting out very energetic matter as reaction mass, then we would not observe redshifts because the reaction mass (which is emitting the light) would be racing to- wards us, cancelling the forward velocity of the spaceship. - There must me quite a few of these civilizations have a strong dislike of via lactea to be shootin' away from us all around the visible celestial sphere. Re: Superluminal Quasars. There is nothing wrong with quasars apparently receding from each other at superluminal velocities as measured by *us*. However, in their own frame of reference each quasar must see the other as traveling at a speed less than C. ------------------------------ Date: 8 March 1982 22:07 est From: Tavares.Coop at MIT-MULTICS Subject: STS-3 To: York.m at MIT-MULTICS, Space at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Message of 6 March 1982 06:02 est from Ted Anderson Far from the most significant mission, but the onlY one I know personally of, is a benchmark "get-away special" package developed by Jim Barrowman. It is a test "special" designed to what engineers THINK are the necessary tolerances, requirements, environmental specifications, etc. that all future get-away specials will be required to adhere to. If this one fails to work for one reason or another, they can change the specifications as necessary before destroying some poor experimenter's equipment in a real get-away special. ------------------------------ Date: 9 March 1982 04:25 est From: JSLove at MIT-MULTICS (J. Spencer Love) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #125 Sender: JSLove.PDO at MIT-MULTICS To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: JSLove.PDO at MIT-MULTICS In-Reply-To: Message of 8 March 1982 06:02 est from Ted Anderson I recall seeing an explanation for why we could NOT detect a velocity relative to the radiation from the Big Bang. It had something to do with where the radiation was supposed to be coming from (the outermost fringes of the universe), and is only 3 degrees Kelvin because it is hugely red-shifted. The argument called on relativity (I think general, but perhaps special is sufficient) to explain why the radiation from all directions looks just the same. Therefore, I was surprised to see the claim in a recent digest that such an anisotropy could be detected. Do you know something I don't know (sources, PLEASE, and sorry I can't do the same) or are you committing the sin of the French philosophers (and Aristotle) of telling us how you think things should be instead of how they are? -- Spencer ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 10-Mar-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #127 Date: 10 Mar 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #127 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 127 Today's Topics: Variable C gravitaion effect on C quasar redshifts Background Radiation Sodium heat engine - SPS application? life is dangerous on planets! Superluminal quasars ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 09 Mar 1982 0540-PST From: JPM at SU-AI Subject: Variable C To: space at MIT-MC I saw the calculations in either a Science News or Scientific American article several years ago. I am sure someone can be more specific. Basically the argument goes as follows. The background radiation is so low because the frontier of the universe is expanding, implying a massive redshift of all energies from the big bang. But this redshift is NOT equal in all directions. Rather, some directions are decidedly "hotter" than others. The pattern is such to suggest that we are moving at about 300 mps towards the "hot" spot. ie that there is a frame of reference in which we are moving which, if any frame of reference can, is an "absolute" frame of reference. As to claims that "there are no absolute frames of reference because all physical laws are invariant," bull. We do NOT know that physical laws are invariant. We know that SOME physical laws are invariant for a LOCAL area of space at a CERTAIN period of time. We have not even shown that EM force is indeed inverse square over large distances (all experiments have been over short distances that have any reasonable degree of accuracy). It SHOULD be inverse square, and I would bet on it, but it is a DEDUCTION, not a directly observed fact (ie one that depends only upon the correctness of a simple detection mechanism). We don't know half of what we do know. (yes, that is recursive) Jim ------------------------------ Date: Mon Mar 8 12:33:32 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: hplabs!intelqa!murray at Berkeley Subject: gravitaion effect on C Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Several years ago, scientists observed the effect the sun's gravity had on a radio beam from a distant sattelite (Pioneer I believe). They found that the radio beams velocity changed as the radio beam came near the sun. However, as I remember, the light went slower in the increased gravity field, not faster. Oh well, there goes the black hole space ships. murray at intelqa ------------------------------ Date: Mon Mar 8 12:26:53 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: hplabs!intelqa!murray at Berkeley Subject: quasar redshifts Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. What would be the effect of a beam of light making a close approach to a black hole? Obviously, the light would be bent, but what affect would the transition have on the lights wavelength outside of the gravity well? murray at intelqa From: Robert Elton Maas Assuming no particle event happens (such as absorbption and re-radiation from an electron), the light is blueshifted as it enters and redshifted as it leaves, to end up with exactly the same wavelength as it started with at the same distance. If the blackhole is moving it's possible some net momemtum transfer might occur, creating a net redshift or blueshift. ES might know better. Assuming the black hole is spinning or otherwise in motion, would this lend some credence to Arp's theory of close quasers? For example: Light leaves a nearby ( but hidden from direct view) quaser, bends around a black hole and is redshifted in the process. The light then proceeds into some astronomers telescope where he declares that quasar is X light years away because its light is redshifted by a factor of Y. Admittedly, this theory is full of holes (in particular, where are the blue-shifted quasars) but it does seem to answer the question as to how you can have nearby redshifted quasars. Comments, speculation? murray at intelqa ------------------------------ Date: 9 Mar 1982 0736-PST From: Paul Dietz Subject: Background Radiation To: space at MIT-MC, JSLove.PDO at MIT-MULTICS The reason we see an anisotropy in the background radiation is (they think) because our galaxy is being drawn towards the center of a supercluster of galaxies, roughly in the direction of the virgo cluster. The background radiation does not provide a prefered reference frame, because it doesn't provide ANY well defined reference frame. It expands along with the rest of the universe, so the rest velocity defined by the radiation several billion light years away is going to be a good fraction of c different from what it is here. On another topic, I read an interesting article in a recent Science about a new theory on the origin of the universe. This theory postulates that our universe is embedded in a larger space that is called a de Sitter space. Thiis space has the property that separate points move apart exponentially as time progresses. So, de Sitter space is chock full of event horizons which produce lots of Hawking radiation. This Hawking radiation causes the space to expand, generating more event horizons, etc. The space has a density of around 10^93 grams per cc and a temperature of 10^31 degrees K. Ocasionally, a phase transition in this space causes a bubble to appear. This bubble expands at the speed of light. Hawking radiation seeps in from de Sitter space making a big bang. This theory is nice: it avoids singularities at time 0, it provides for the existence of many universes (justifying the anthropic principle), it explains why the background radiation is so homogeneous (because de Sitter space is). It doesn't explain where de Sitter space comes from, though. A final note: I read somewhere about a nifty effect of relativity. Consider the view from an *accelerating* starship moving near c. For any acceleration there is a speed at which strange things happen: light emitted by a stationary observer behind the starship follows the starship forever but never quite catches it. In effect, the starship has created a black hole behind itself. This event horizon behaves just like a black hole and emits Hawking radiation. For reasonable accelerations this radiation will be very cold, however. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Mar 1982 1220-PST From: Paul Dietz Subject: Sodium heat engine - SPS application? To: space at MIT-MC, pourne at MIT-MC The following appeared in a recent (Feb. 27) Science News: ---------------------------------------- Electricity from a sodium heat engine Scientists at the Ford Motor Company are developing a new device capable of converting heat directly into electrical energy. This device, called a sodium heat engine, has no moving parts and uses a small quantity of liquid sodium as its working fluid. Hot liquid sodium fills one side of a closed container divided into two parts by a ceramic wall of the compound beta''-alumina. The wall allows passage of sodium ions but not electrons or sodium atoms. Thus, sodium ions go through the solid, ion-conducting electrolyte, while electrons travel an external circuit to provide a low voltage, high current electrical output. A sodium vapor pressure difference across the electrolyte generates the driving voltage. In the low temperature part of the system, the sodium vaporizes from the electrode surface and then condenses on a cooled wall. An electromagnetic pump returns the condensed sodium to the hot region. The device can use any source delivering heat at 700 degrees C or more. Its efficiency, potentially in the range of 30 to 40 percent, is independent of the heat engine's size. A model designed for long-term testing has reached 19 percent efficiency at an output of 22 watts. The pump siphons off less than 0.1 percent of the energy output. The major problem with the system is deterioration of the electrodes after several hundred hours of operation, which lowers the voltage and decreases power. Despite this problem, the sodium heat engine looks good more promising than many earlier thermionic devices. The researchers say, "An efficient, durable, low maintenance, thermoelectric energy converter with good power density, made of readily available materials and with efficiency independent of size would have substantial implications for solution of some of the nation's energy, transportation and defense problems." Potential applications include use in total energy systems for residences and factories, in remote locations and as part of solar energy installations the concentrate light. Even the rejected heat at the low temperature end of the cycle can be used. ---------------------------------------- If they can solve that electrode problem this thing could be useful in solar power satellites. ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 9 March 1982 12:49-PST From: KING at KESTREL Subject: life is dangerous on planets! To: space at mit-mc cc: King at KESTREL I was recently musing over the possibility that the dinasours met their untimely end at the hands of a large meteorite, and the separate musing that one dinasour was beginning to show some intellegence when the extinction happened. The idea was put forth that an intellegent, warm-blooded reptile might have evolved tens of millions of years ago if this disaster hadn't happened. Is it possible that there is intellegent life on Earth now because an unusually long period has passed since the last meteorite has hit? Perhaps attempts to calculate the distance to the nearest neighbor ought to include a term for intellegences that never "make it" because they keep getting creamed. I don't think I'd like to live on a planet the neighborhood of which contained stars .5 parsecs apart! First, the Sun might be the target of an occasional near-collision. Second, because of the higher density of gas & dust in that region once (or how did there come to be so many stars?) there might be more junk in the solar system then we have. Third, the cometary halo would be more frequently disturbed. Does anyone know whether the distance from the Sun to its nearest neighbor is unusual? Dick ------------------------------ Date: Mon Mar 8 18:13:56 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!duke!unc!dopey.smb at Berkeley Subject: Superluminal quasars Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. [It appeas that the ARPANet withholding tax has been levied again, I'm looking into it. -The Ed] of lightmonths or larger -- not unreasonable if they're some sort of proto-galaxy, in which case they'd be far larger) -- how can they change luminosity as quickly as has been reported? Some sort of time contraction by the time the light reaches us? Also, what are the limitations on Very Long Baseline Interferometry? The case I cited earlier, of apparent superluminal expansion of several quasars, was detected by VLBI, which means it can be used to determine at least relative measurements of objects at vast distances. But it can't be used to determine absolute distances, or we wouldn't be wondering so much about the value of the Hubble constant. Anyone have any details they can supply? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 11-Mar-82 0304 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #128 Date: 11 Mar 1982 0303-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #128 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 128 Today's Topics: anisotropic monobloc radiation Anisotropy in Big Bang radiation quasars as continous-drive starships Conjunction of the Planets Renaming FUNCTIONAL INFINITY Re: life is dangerous on planets Superluminal quasars Various cosmological comments Re: quasars as continous-drive starships ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wednesday, 10 March 1982 08:28-PST From: KING at KESTREL Subject: anisotropic monobloc radiation To: space at mit-mc cc: King at KESTREL Consider the following thought experiment: Construct a transparent [crystal?] sphere a parsec or so in diameter, and a few meters outside that another sphere, painted black on the inside, whose temperature is 3 deg. K. At or near the center of the sphere place a measuring apparatus which is moving with some speed relative to the transparent and black spheres. Observe the deviation in the radiation field caused by the Doppler shift. Now remove the black sphere and set the transparent sphere into motion so it feels isotropic radiation from the Big Bang. Since the radiation field on the surface of the transparent sphere is the same in this experiment as it was before, the motion of the measuring apparatus has the same effect on the anisotropy of the radiation as it would have had the black sphere been there. It is thus an easy matter to measure our absolute motion. We are actually measuring our motion relative to the part of the monobloc that occupied our position in the universe in the olden days. I believe, by the way, that if I took two spaceships tied together by a very long (1 megaparsec might be enough) piece of string, that the string would be under constant tension. The galazies aren't receding - there keeps on coming to be more space in between us and the nearest galaxy. This means that another galaxy with respect to which we have no red/blue shift would have a different anisotropy in its monobloc radiation measurement. I haven't quite worked out the paradox yet, but I think that if my 1 parsec black sphere were, instead, a megaparsec or so in diameter it would matter which wall we were closer to. Comments? ------------------------------ Date: Tue Mar 9 18:40:25 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!duke!unc!dopey.smb at Berkeley Subject: Anisotropy in Big Bang radiation Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. The anisotropy in the 3-degree Kelvin background radiation is real, though of course the interpretation is open to question. A good explanation is in the July 16, 1977 issue of Science News; it reports on work by George Smoot, M. V. Gorenstein, and Richard A. Muller of the Lawrence Berkeley Lab (The work was presented at the American Physical Society Meeting and a meeting of the American Astronomical Society -- no dates given.) Basically, they mounted two directional antennas in a U-2 and flew it back and forth, switching things around to cancel out equipment errors. The net result is a movement of about 390+/-60 km/sec toward a point in the sky located at about 11 hours right ascension and +6 degress declination -- in Saggitarius, if I recall correctly other stories on the same experiment. The observation has been confirmed by other experimenters; I can supply further pointers to Science News stories upon request. One especially interesting one is in the January 26, 1980 issue; it describes a "quadrapole anisotropy" in the background radiation. The dipole anisotropy measured by Smoot et al. can be explained as motion; a quadrapole anisotropy must have to do with the structure of the universe itself. ------------------------------ Date: Tue Mar 9 19:32:48 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley Subject: quasars as continous-drive starships Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. are implausible except for IMMENSELY long-distance travel. At high accelerations (e.g. 1G), it takes only a short time to reach relativistic speeds (1G is about c/year), and after that you are wasting fuel and driving up your mass-ratio for very little extra speed. Clearly if quasars are continuous for long periods of time they must use quite low accelerations (the lack of observed drift in Doppler shift also implies a low rate of change of velocity, leading to the same conclusion). The problem with low accelerations, say 0.001G, is that it takes centuries to reach interstellar speeds! For all but very long trips, acceleration time dominates travel time so thoroughly that you are better off using a high-acceleration drive even if it has a lower exhaust velocity (and hence a lower cruising speed for the same mass-ratio) because it gets there sooner! You have to be going a hundred light-years or so before low-acceleration high-exhaust-velocity drives make sense. At shorter distances, even the primitive fusion engines proposed in the Project Daedalus design study get there first -- and those engines will be the state of the art here within a century or less. This has two consequences. If quasars are the long-range ships, where are the short-range ships? If there is enough traffic in this vicinity for that many long-range ships to be visible (over the entire sky, please note, not just one area) then we should be in the middle of an active trading area and should be able to see (and hear!) the short-range traffic. Maybe the answer is that the ships are ALL long-range and are ALL headed away from here because something *REAL BAD* is happening in this area and everybody wants to get as far away as possible. Hmm, maybe some of the game-preserve animals on an obscure little planet around an obscure little sun have gotten out of control... ------------------------------ Date: Tue Mar 9 16:08:04 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!ihnss!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxa!mhuxh!lute at Berkeley Subject: Conjunction of the Planets Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Does anyone know at what time, and on what day the Grand Conjunction of the Planets is supposed to occur? I heard that it should be visible at sunset in the west around the middle of the month. If you know, please send the info to mhuxh!lute. Thanks. Jim Collymore ------------------------------ Date: Mon Mar 8 14:11:52 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!ihnss!eagle!mhuxj!mhuxv!mhuxm!mhuxh!lute at Berkeley Subject: Renaming FUNCTIONAL INFINITY Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Thanks, Bryan, for the explanation "functional infinities" as the reciprocals of Delta in calculus. I see that I will have to create a new term for my Functional Infinity, so for the time being let's call it: USTN, for Universal Space-Time Nexus (prnounced: houston). The point of there being only one direction in USTN is not really true, there are actually two directions. One direction is spatial and the other is temporal. An example of the difference between the two can be taken from the movie of H.G. Wells' novel, "The Time Machine." Although the machine could travel through time, it could not move an INCH spatially. Adding spatial movement, therefore, incorporates a second directional choice. So, a person in (or at) USTN would have to "move" to a desired temporal position and then determine the desired spatial position (like setting the dials on a TV, although this a terrible analogy). However, there is another direction I hadn't thought of previously, and that is the movement from USTN into finite (normal) space-time. If USTN is to serve any purpose transition is essential, and it IS a direction, therefore, USTN has three possible directions: space, time and transition. Finally, I don't know how far-fetched this idea is, but if these three factors are considered "dimensions," is USTN an alternative dimension (i.e. 3-D') to our current concepts of the universe? Is USTN a place that must be passed through if one is to consider time travel possible (especially if considering interstellar or inter-galactic travel)? Is it a mid-point, previously not described or considered, when considering changes to matter when one attempts to convert energy to matter? What's your opinion? I would enjoy further replies and discussions on this from other subscribers to the space newsgroup. --James L. Collymore ------------------------------ Date: 10 Mar 1982 09:59 PST From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: life is dangerous on planets In-reply-to: KING's message of 9 March 1982 12:49-PST To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Lynn.es As the space junk gets swept up by the planets, collisions are getting orders of magnitude rarer than they were in the early existence of the planets. Assuming our history is typical of a planetary system, it seems that life gets reasonably safe on planets eventually anyway. The numbers I've seen on collision frequency imply that the 65 million years since the supposed collision that wiped out the dinosaurs is not a particularly long interval. Given the number of stars in the milky way, its size, and the assumption that many of its stars are double or worse, the average spacing between star systems (system = double or single or whatever) is in the range of 8 or 10 light years. Of course no star will be exactly equal distant from its neighbors in all directions, so our distance of 4 light years for the closest direction is quite average. This average holds roughly over the outer parts of the galaxy, but is not valid at all in the areas much closer to the center of a galaxy than we are. There the density gets much higher, probably orders of magnitude higher. Speculations are that stable planetary systems would not last long in the center of a galaxy. /Don Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 10 March 1982 17:26-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Superluminal quasars To: ucbvax!decvax!duke!unc!dopey.smb at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC If a quasar is a brand-new galaxy, shining mostly by very-massive (and thus short-lived) stars, in fact perhaps shining mostly by the accumulated light of supernovas, it's quite possible that a single supernova could change the brightness measurably within a period of hours and that if several supernovas just happen to occasionally explode at the same apparent time as measured by light that reaches Earth, that the galaxy may appear to double brightness in a few days. -- I don't recall just how significant the changes are that are observed to take a few days. Are they doublings of brightness, or just a percent or so? If they are factors of ten increase in brightness then I'd tend to reject my supernova theory, but a few percent usual and doubling on rare occasions would be satisfied by the galaxy&supernova theory. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Mar 1982 2001-PST From: Ted Anderson To: space at MIT-MC n006 0655 08 Mar 82 BC-SPACE(COX) By HENRY EASON c. 1982 The Atlanta Constitution WASHINGTON - While others in this town are squabbling over the dollars and cents of earthly economics, Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., is literally looking to the stars for deliverance. The imaginative former college professor believes, along with Star Trekkers, that space is ''the final frontier.'' Gingrich is promoting a bold 30-year plan that would industrialize and militarize space - a plan he contends would catapult the United States again into a predominant position in world economics and defense. In doing so, the Reagan loyalist journeys far beyond his party leader's program to shrink government influence in the economy and calls for a massive federal commitment to aid business expansion beyond this planet. Testifying before the House space science subcommittee last week, Gingrich argued that this country's major leaps in economic development were boosted by an aggressive government. Arguing against the nay-sayers, Gingrich said, ''Those people would not have sent Lewis and Clark to the Pacific Ocean like Thomas Jefferson...Those people would not have built the transcontinental railroad with government subsidies, government land, and government help...Those people would not have built the Panama Canal.'' Excited by the growing prospects of a jobs and defense-rich space program, Gingrich is pushing for a $2.4 billion increase in Reagan's $6.6 billion NASA budget proposal for fiscal 1983. The additional funds, he said, would go toward expanding the shuttle program, establishing a permanent base in earth orbit, more vigorously pursuing research, and advancing the nation's high technology industry. Gingrich is a leader in what has come to be known as the Congressional Space Caucus, a bipartisan group which is advancing a vigorous national space program. Fellow member Rep. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, said recently, ''Space offers staggering opportunities for solving major global problems and the development of new industries.'' Akaka, Gingrich, and other space proponents are concerned that, as Akaka put it, ''Federal support for space activities has declined steadily since the mid-1960s, with a 70 percent drop in constant dollars (spent), while nearly every other government expenditure has increased.'' In an interview last week, Gingrich put it more bluntly: ''We have, basically, sold out the future.'' For years, under what Gingrich characterized as the ''liberal welfare state,'' federal spending has grown in areas lik fotsamps ane welare, instead o b1 lay the foundations for a new industrial take-off. By n m, ''I think we have lost 10 years and at least a million jobs,'' Gingrich said. Space development could be an economic area in which the United States could vastlx outstrip Japanzse,West German, ande Fovet cobmpetcto s, he maintained. Already, Johnson & Johnson, in a joint venture with the McDonnell-Douglas Corp., is planning to launch a small pharmaceutical lab on a space shuttle in July. The small automated factory, according to McDonnell-Douglas program manager Jim Rose, will be the first phase of a plan to orbit a small manned factory where far more effective medicines can be manufactured in a ''zero-gravity'' environment than on earth. In congressional testimony last week, the John Deere tractor company indicated interest in making metal alloys in space for machine parts that could withstand much greater wear than those made in a gravity environment. Other industries are also interested in metallurgy in space. There is already a billion-dollar communications industry in space, one enhancing the transmitting capabilities of firms such as AT&T and RCA. Other firms believe, according to NASA scientists, that silicon cystals for computer discs can be made cheaper and better in a non-gravity environment. Oil companies are interested in pressing ahead in the field of ''remote sensing,'' where highly detailed, sophisticated pictures from space help them prospect for energy. ''We're on the cutting edge of a new industrial revolution,'' Gingrich proclaimed. Still, knowledgeable congressional observers seriously doubt that promoters of greater government stimulation in space industries will get the funds they want in the austere 1983 budget. One Capitol Hill insider said that there was an ambiguous space policy under President Carter. Under Reagan, ''That policy is made with the budget, and that's a very constrained policy.'' Gingrich, faulting the Reagan administration's budget design, said, ''I just think (budget director David) Stockman has not been willing to reshape the budget. What we have now is stinginess, rather than cutting in one place to invest in another...There are times when you want to build, and times when you're willing to go into debt - buying a house, for example. ''The point is,'' a congressional observer remarked, ''you can sit and let things happen, or you can make your own future. We haven't been doing that in space.'' Distributed by The New York Times News Service. nyt-03-08-82 0956est *************** ------------------------------ Date: 11 March 1982 00:26-EST From: Gene Salamin Subject: Various cosmological comments To: SPACE at MIT-MC 1. How do we know that the known laws of electromagnetism apply on a cosmological scale? I will try to remember to research this question next time I'm at the Stanford physucs library. Somebody remind me if I don't respond for a while. 2. Are the laws of physics invariant with respect to the observer's velocity? Well, no counterexample is known. 3. In an experiment in which a radar beam passed near the sun, did its velocity differ from c as passed the sun? Removing from consideration the index of refraction of the interplanetary plasma, the speed of light is always c. Experimentally, the transmission time from Earth to satellite to Earth was measured. The result was consistent with the general theory of relativity, but inconsistent with, for example, special relativity plus Newtonian gravity. The general relativistic interpretation is that the sun curves the surrounding space, and thus alters the optical path length. One could try to claim that the speed of light was altered, but then one can just as well claim that the Earth is the center of the solar system; neither assumption contradicts experiment, but just needlessly complicates the theory. 4. A very serious problem with the "bubble in de Sitter space" theory of the origin of the universe is that it requires the de Sitter space to have existed in a metastable state for the infinte amount of time preceeding the formation of the bubble. 5. This de Sitter space theory is not radical enough to have any bearing on the "Anthropic Principle". This princlple, apparently first expounded by John Archibald Wheeler, permits the existence of all possible universes. Those universes suited to the development of intelligence will be the ones observed to exist. At a lecture at Harvard many years ago, Wheeler said that one of his students had computed that organic chemistry type life could not exist if the fine structure constant were more than about 1% different from its known value. There is good evidence that the fine structure constant is the same far away as it is here, for a change in that constant would affect atomic spectra in a manner that could not be explained by redshift. We do not have a physical thoery to explain the value of the fine structure constant, so it is possible that there is no explaination for its value. Then the anthropic principle comes to the rescue and tells us that if its value were different, we would not be here to measure it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed Mar 10 12:59:45 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley Subject: Re: quasars as continous-drive starships Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. I disagree with the comment that after a year at 1G you are wasting your time putting on more speed. You may be wasting earth-time, but you are not wasting your own dilated time. For the ship, there is no such thing as the "speed of light" barrier. It is fundamental to physics that you can not detect the asymptotic nature of acceleration the Earth observer sees. As far as you are concerned, you go faster and faster, beyond one light second/second as if there were no barrier. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 12-Mar-82 0303 Ted Anderson SPACE Digest V2 #129 Date: 12 Mar 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #129 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 129 Today's Topics: High Frontier Re: Conjunction of the Planets Comet Showers shuttle landing Various cosmological comments ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Mar 82 11:11-PDT From: mclure at SRI-UNIX To: space at mc Subject: High Frontier !n002 0607 11 Mar 82 BC-WILSON-03-11 A COMMENTARY column By David B. Wilson (c) 1982 Boston Globe (Field News Service) WASHINGTON - High Frontier is Star Wars, nature imitating art. Knee-jerk nukies, no-win pacifists and the compulsively seditious aren't going to like it. They want to ban the bomb in Outer Space. Better there than here. Think about it. Innocence is irrecoverable. Humankind is forever barred from the pre-Alamogordo Eden. Whatever Dr. Helen Caldicott and her antinuclear allies say or do, there are bombs; there are going to be bombs; and, if every nuke stored or deployed should miraculously disappear, the plans and components would remain in readiness on the shelf. The problem, then, is not to ban the bomb, a quixotic adventure which, human history conclusively teaches, is not feasible. The problem is to prevent it from killing and hurting people and destroying their civilization and, quite possibly, their species. High Frontier, for those who came in late, is a set of proposals unveiled in Washington by the Heritage Foundation embracing satellite-borne antimissile defense systems and, in a synergistic fiscal marriage of military and civilian functions, exploitation of the industrial and commercial potential of space and the collection of solar power and its transmission to Earth for peaceful use. Lt. Gen. Daniel O. Graham (Ret.) is former chief of the supersecret, bigger-than-CIA Defense Intelligence Agency. He directed the High Frontier study. He told a press conference at the Sheraton Carlton that 95 percent of Soviet ICBMs could be shot down, most of them on ascent, by a 432-satellite Global Ballistic Missile Defense System (GBMDS) acquiring targets by optical tracking and firing heat-seeking missiles. The announcement came the same day (March 3) that the Washington Post's George C. Wilson reported that the Pentagon expects the Soviet Union to deploy laser weapons in space as early as next year. The Post story smelled to old Washington hands of premeditated and coordinated leak, but that does not mean it is not true. Graham is to be taken seriously. He campaigned for Ronald Reagan in 1980. He and Heritage, the supervening conservative think-tank, have access. High Frontier envisions a $50 billion, Manhattan Project-style effort. The paperwork is on Ronald Reagan's desk. You don't have to work for the Hudson Institute or the Rand Corporation to figure out that any Soviet deployment in space of antimissile laser beams fatally upsets the balance of terror, the antiwar strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) that has in recent history deterred both sides. If they can hit you and you can't hit them, the outlook is Pax Sovietica. But if both sides deploy extraterrestrial navies, their field of battle 20,000 miles up, human casualties are certainly going to be minimized in any conflict. Further, the loser in this capital-intensive conflict will not be tempted to launch ICBMs. Why? Because the loser in Star Wars would have to know that his nukes would not get through but his opponent's nukes would. Escalation scenarios under the aptly acronymed (MAD) doctrine uniformly posit that the loser would inevitably resort to his big, city-busting nukes. In High Frontier's Star War, the loser simply surrenders after a battle above the clouds. The moral squalor and Doomsday potential of MAD are as apparent to Gen. Graham as they are to Dr. Caldicott. At this intersection of destiny, the pertinent question is which approach is the more likely to lead to Armageddon. High Frontier promises to be the critical strategic, diplomatic, technological and even philosophical issue of the decade. That its source is a conservative soldier may initially burden it with a public relations handicap. But it would not add a kiloton to the world's menacing nuclear arsenal. Instead, it would make much of it obsolete. It implies a war among machines rather than against people. That would be genuine defense, cheap at any price. END nyt-03-11-82 0904est ********** ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 1982 12:08 PST From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Conjunction of the Planets In-reply-to: Jim Collymore's message of Mar 9 16:08:04 1982 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Lynn.es The best grouping of the planets (as seen from the sun, not from earth) occurred yesterday. Then Mercury passed the most easterly planet and is starting to pull away to widen the total span that includes all the planets (about 95 degree angle for all 9 -- only Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn are really very close in angle). From earth, the situation is complicated because the inner planets (Mercury and Venus), are almost opposite from the outer planets. The best time to see all planets at once was when Mercury was farthest from the sun as seen from earth, and therefore the sky was still the darkest when Mercury rose just before dawn. This occurred a couple of weeks ago. You can for the next few months catch all but Mercury after 3 am or so when Venus has risen. Only Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn can be seen in the evening now, as the rest rise later. Mercury will move to the sunset side of the sun in a few weeks, but if I recall correctly Venus will remain on the dawn side for much longer. Pluto will take at least a ten inch telescope and a good finder chart. The rest can be seen naked eye except Uranus and Neptune, which require at least binoculars. /Don Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 1982 1302-PST From: Paul Dietz Subject: Comet Showers To: space at MIT-MC On the subject of close encounters with nearby stars (not aliens!), I read that a brush with a star could cause a "comet shower", sending thousands of comets from the cometary halo into the solar system. Many would collide with the planets, either immediately or after being deflected into closed orbits by the gas giants. Perhaps this happened 65 million years ago? De Sitter space: The argument that the de Sitter space thepry is false because the space must exist for an infinite period of time in a metastable state is flawed. For one thing, the space can produce unlimited numbers of separate universes. For another, how do you measure time? The best you could say is that there are infinitely long world lines. Spacetime cannot be said to exist at certain moments and not at others: the concept of time is meaningless unless spacetime exists. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 1982 2020-PST From: Ron Goldman Subject: shuttle landing To: space at MIT-MC Could anyone who's been to Edwards for the earlier shuttle landings please pass on any info about things like: Can you camp there the night before? If not is there anywhere nearby to set up a tent? Where's a good place to watch from or isn't there really any choice. How bad is the traffic jam before & after? And anything else one should know. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: 12 March 1982 02:10-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Various cosmological comments To: ES at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC You've just inspired something brilliant in me, an anthropic explanation for redshift of distant galaxies! Suppose that some physical "constant" that affects the global characteristics of atomic spectra varies continuously but otherwise is free to vary at will. Suppose that when this "constant" is at a maximum, energy (frequency) of spectral lines is at a maximum, and life evolves at a maximum rate. Then the reason we observe distant galaxies redshifted is that we happen to be at a local peak in this physical "constant". Why does this "constant" happen to be at a maximum here, because if it weren't then life would evolve somewhere else instead of here and we would be there instead of here looking at the Universe. I don't for a moment propose this theory, but it's hard to refute! Anybody want to try? ------------------------------ Date: 12 March 1982 03:44-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle To: OTA at SU-AI cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Congressman Gingrich will be at the L-5 Converence 2-4 April in Los Angeles at the LA Airport Hyatt Hotel, along with Mr. Heinlein and a number of other leaders in the space movement. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 13-Mar-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #130 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 130 Today's Topics: Quasar theories Re: Wilson's High Frontier column Re: shuttle landing Re: SPACE Digest V2 #129 Private Enterprise A note about the "High Frontier" article Something *REAL BAD*... Re: shuttle landing variable c ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Mar 1982 1028-EST From: FREDERKING at CMU-20C To: space at MIT-AI Subject: Quasar theories Message-ID: <820211102832FREDERKING@CMU-20C> I'm not a regular reader, so excuse me if this has been discussed, but is it possible to account for the red-shifts of quasars by assuming they are extremely massive, so that it is a gravitational red-shift? They would have to be fairly spread out to avoid becoming black holes, but this would account for only seeing red shifts, and would leave the question of distance open (unless you assume such objects only existed in the early universe). ------------------------------ Date: 12 Mar 1982 11:01:27-EST From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: space at mit-mc Subject: Re: Wilson's High Frontier column Cc: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX, mclure at SRI-UNIX Sigh. I suppose it's our compensation for having home-grown Ellen Goodman that Bostonians also have to acknowledge a flaming idiot like Wilson. Wilson is, like Talleyrand, a lord of the weathervane; he talks libertarian when anyone might be infringing on his freedom to be a fool but throws around jabber like "compulsively seditious" when he wants to stomp on the opposition. I don't mind being called a "no-win pacifist" by canaille like him; I would much rather see a continuing stalemate than the Pax Americana that he seems to look forward to. Wilson is particularly a fool for believing the Heritage Foundation, which is devoted to the god-and-devil theory of world affairs. That a conservative military man endorses this fruitcake idea is no advantage; in this age very few military men are ever willing to turn down technological gimcrackery. (I'm beginning to feel that we're on the wrong side of Arthur C. Clarke's "Superiority".) So satellites and a space navy from one "side" defeat the other "side" in a space battle. How do they enforce their victory on the world below? About all they can do from that height is throw bombs, and they couldn't even prevent the US and the USSR from wiping out each other with low-flying weapons---our cruise missiles and George O. Smith's post-Cuba bogie of tramp freighters with short-range missiles in their holds (to say nothing of random saboteurs---even high-minded ones as in Joe Haldeman's "Modest Proposal"). In the meantime, all it takes is one ill-tempered officer to take a few shots at communications satellites and I expect we'd really be up for it (anyone have figures on the percent of traffic that goes through a satellite nowadays?). Thirty years ago, Lester del Rey portrayed a deluded heavy trying to prevent the arming of the first space station. As far as I'm concerned, that individual was the one true hero of STEP TO THE STARS. I am fascinated by the parallels to early aviation history---the dreams and the windy rhetoric alike being eclipsed by nationalist idiots. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Mar 1982 09:31 PST From: Suk at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: shuttle landing In-reply-to: ARG's message of 11 Mar 1982 2020-PST To: Ron Goldman c: space at MIT-MC Ron, I went to Edwards when Columbia landed the second time. I can't help you much, but: I had a pass from a friend at NASA so watched from the place to which I was directed after arriving on the base. I believe the off-base viewing is rather limited, crowded, and not that good, but that's only hearsay. I understand that many local C of Cs have passes available for the asking. If you know anyone in city government anywhere in California, you should be able to scrounge up a vehicle pass. As a last resort, call NASA at Moffet Field. The traffic was not bad. People arrive mostly during the last few hours before touch-down. We left the Bay Area at 1:00 a.m., had breakfast in Bakersfield, and got there around 9:00, still time for a little shuteye before the big event. Of course, I don't know the planned landing time this time. We left immediately afterward, and traffic wasn't bad at all. If we waited around a little, it might've been worse. I enjoy camping, but didn't try it there. On the base, RVs and autos are all herded together. They have portable johns, drinking water, hot dog stands, and souvenir tents set up within walking distance, but you'd have to call them about whether they allow overnight camping -- I doubt it. The whole thing is over in such a hurry, especially after waiting in anticipation for many hours. You can see it better on TV, but it's still an experience I'm glad I had. Good luck! Stan ------------------------------ Date: 12-Mar-82 9:53:24 PST (Friday) From: Trigoboff at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #129 In-reply-to: OTA's message of 12 Mar 1982 0302-PST To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Re: High Frontier In this week's Science magazine is an article claiming that satellite-based anti-ballistic-missle systems are a crock. The reason is that one (yes, ONE!) three-megaton warhead, detonated above the atmosphere would destroy almost all of them. (The survivors would be the ones in the Earth's shadow from the blast.) Two warheads would kill them all. The mechanism would be high voltages (~ 1,000,000 volts/inch) induced by the impact of charged particles from the blast. The destructive effect stretches out past geosynchronous orbit, even if the warhead goes off just above the atmosphere. This claim is made by the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA). DARPA, which is developing these space-based weapons, has the following response to DNA's claim: "We haven't gotten around to studying that problem yet." ------------------------------ Date: 12 Mar 1982 1102-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Private Enterprise To: space at MIT-MC n008 0632 12 Mar 82 BC-SATELLITES(COX) SATELLITES COULD BRING JOBS TO HAWAII By SCOTT C.S. STONE c. 1982 Cox News Service SOUTH POINT, Hawaii - On this southernmost tip of the United States, where the Polynesian discoverers of Hawaii probably first stepped ashore, the first U.S. commercial satellites are to be launched by private enterprise. Known to local residents as Ka Lae, South Point formerly was the site of a NASA tracking station. Today it is grazing land for cattle, a favorite launching site for fishing boats, and likely a place of great historic value to Hawaii. The mayor of the island of Hawaii, Herbert Matayoshi, has vowed to protect whatever historic sites are yet to be found, but at the same time welcomes the satellite enterprise which, he believes, will be an asset on an island suffering from high unemployment and slumping sugar and tourism industries. The Houston firm of Space Services, Inc., of America has been negotiating with the state's Department of Planning and Economic Development as well as the mayor of Hawaii Island and other officials. If negotiations succeed, the firm could be launching anywhere from 2 to 12 satellites a year by 1985. The satellites would provide customers with weather information and communications channels. South Point was selected because it is the U.S. site closest to the equator and most feasible for satellites with equator orbits. Matayoshi told Cox News Service that ''We will make sure historic sites are protected, and that our environment is not disturbed. We are very impressed with the concern shown so far by the company (SSI) for these issues. We think it's going to work out all right.'' The state's planning director, Hideto Kono, said the satellite-launching plan was ''not a wild dream, but a very real possibility,'' and said the state welcomed the new industry and would give it all possible support. Hawaii Island is four times the size of the other Hawaiian islands but with far less population. The island's tourism industry has been in a slump for the past two years, and its construction industry in decline. Additionally, a sugar plantation has closed and unemployment has reached 9 per cent, the highest in Hawaii. An asset is its land area, and the new satellite industry could require some 200 acres simply for a launching site, plus adjacent land for support facilities. South Point is an isolated, lava-strewn stretch of coastline where, historians believe, Polynesians from the Marquesas Islands may have first landed in Hawaii more than a thousand years ago. The satellite firm, SSI, reportedly is working on a solid-fuel rocket which might be test-launched in Texas this summer, but the first continuing launch program is scheduled for Hawaii and preliminary studies indicate the starting date would be within the next three years. Distributed by The N.Y. Times News Service nyt-03-12-82 0932est *************** ------------------------------ Date: 12 Mar 1982 1215-PST Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3 Subject: A note about the "High Frontier" article From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) To: space at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]12-Mar-82 12:15:38.WMARTIN> This article referred to the "supersecret, bigger-than-CIA Defense Intelligence Agency". Sorry, not so. Published figures (somewhat old, but the exact figures are unimportant) show that the DIA has about a third the employees of the CIA. So it can't be bigger. (It might well be BETTER, though...) Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 12 March 1982 18:45 est From: Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Something *REAL BAD*... To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley Maybe the answer is that the ships are ALL long-range and are ALL headed away from here because something *REAL BAD* is happening in this area and everybody wants to get as far away as possible. Hmm, maybe some of the game-preserve animals on an obscure little planet around an obscure little sun have gotten out of control... What, little ol' us? Scare that many people that badly? People that can build starships like that?? I think I'm flattered. And a bit scared myself... Paul ------------------------------ Date: 12-Mar-82 17:38:21 PST (Friday) From: Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: shuttle landing To: Ron Goldman cc: Space @ MC, Hamilton.ES I motorcycled up for the first landing (which I would guess is as crowded as it would ever get). It was all handled extremely well by the Air Force folks. Traffic moved steadily. I got in about 2am the night before. You're free to park and drop your sleeping bag at the spot they direct you to. They had everybody strung out in the eastern part of Rogers (dry) Lake, in an area about two miles N-S and 1/2 mile E-W. There were lots of porta-potties and drinking water, but bring your own food. I was able to get right up along the fence to view the landing -- the crowd wasn't more than about two deep, since lots of folks prefer the roofs of their RVs. You're free to walk around anywhere within the public viewing area. Columbia made a loud double sonic boom as it passed overhead at about 50,000 feet and Mach 2, then pulled about a 220-degree turn for final approach. It wasn't visible until about half a minute before touchdown, on final. Touchdown was about two miles from my viewing site, and was so smooth that I could only identify it by the clouds of dust that started to appear. I didn't have any trouble getting out, but even if I'd been in a car, I don't think it would have taken much over half an hour to get out of the worst traffic jams. The latest weather-word is that Rogers may be too wet for landing STS-3 there. --Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Tue Mar 9 15:02:43 1982 'o: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley Subject: variable c Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Pardon me...I should have reported the variable G statement as conjecture rather than fact. Dirac suggested it, and there has been some recent (circa december 1980) evidence in favour of it. I have seen these results in several places, but unfortuantely th only one that I can remember is in Expanded Universe, which (all due respect to RAH) is not a definitive source. Sorry. As for the conjecture of a variable c, it was suggested here that c is some function of the curvature of spacetime, which, agreed, implies preferred reference frames. A correspondent at pur-ee!purdue!pur-ph wrote privately to say that in fact it was a well-known result of general relativity that light speeds up in the near neighbourhood of a star - which (I think) is precisely what I suggested might be the case. Of course, I might have missed the point entirely. Comments? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 14-Mar-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #131 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 131 Today's Topics: Source of hydrogen Source of carbon That 3 meg weapon in Science Glenn for President? Edwards AFB ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 March 1982 09:51-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Source of hydrogen To: SPACE at MIT-MC Greg Yob (inventor of WUMPUS) says surveys of the moon show there's a thin layer of surface-of-moon (perhaps a millimeter thick) which contains particles of solar wind (mostly Hydrogen) that have collided with the surface of the moon for billions of years and gradually built up. He says there's enough Hydrogen to make it worth extracting. (Recall, we can get lots of Oxygen, Silicon, Aluminum, Magnesium, Titanium, etc. from moonrocks, but there's a problem getting Hydrogen and Carbon, both essential in space industry.) He suggests something like this: A vehicle containing a dome that can be set down in various locations, and a laser to zap the surface under the dome to vaporize the surface. The rock quickly condenses back to dust and quickly falls back to the surface, leaving the Hydrogen as a thin gas under the dome. The Hydrogen can then be pumped out of the dome into a storage container containing some chemical that readily reacts with free Hydrogen. Pumping methods include (1) make the dome collapsable, squeezing the Hydrogen out to another chamber (containing the Hydrogen-liking chemical) [Yob], (2) make the dome a cylinder and put a lid on the bottom to keep the Hydrogen from being pushed back into the surface of the Moon, then push down with a piston to squeeze the Hydrogen out a pipe to the other chamber [Maas], (3) mount a turbine pump inside the chamber, so the gas collides with the spinning turbine and gets deflected circumferentially into pipe leading to other chamber or directly to chemical located around the spinner [Yob]. Thus the hydrogen previously thinly spread all over the surface can be quickly concentrated to this chemical compound which can be transported inexpensively back to the processing station where the hydrogen is re-extracted from chemical, leaving the chemical free to be used again perhaps. ------------------------------ Date: 13 March 1982 09:58-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Source of carbon To: SPACE at MIT-MC Greg Yob suggests that carbonaceous meteors might have falled on the moon and remained near enough the surface to be profitable to mine. We might survey this from orbit, perhaps on the same mission as the polar orbiter (looking for water ice near poles). Once we locate the carbonaceous meteorites, I'm not sure how best to collect them. Maybe take a large survey and try to find the largest concentration in a local area, and send a lander there with a rover to go around and collect them all. In any case, it might be faster to pick the meteorites off the moon than try to divert an asteroid or comet to Earth vicinity. (Recall, orbital mechanics would cause asteroid or comet capture to take many years, whereas objects can be picked off the moon in just a couple weeks once we know where to land.) Thus during initial bootstrapping when we need a moderate amoung of Carbon *FAST* we might be better getting it from the Moon. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Mar 1982 1915-PST From: JPM at SU-AI Subject: That 3 meg weapon in Science To: space at MIT-MC I'll have to read the article, but it sounds like a crock. A nuclear weapon is NOT very good at distributing energy throughout a wide area (ie it wastes a lot of energy at ground zero), space is not a good medium for the transmission of any left over energy in a manner that will deliver a deadly dose far away (and 1000km to 20000km is FAR away), and the form of energy in this particular place would be KE of high speed particles, which seems to be very similar to cosmic rays and solar flares, which any station would have to guard against anyway (and which is relatively easy to guard against, as many SPS and Space Colony studies have made clear). They may be correct, but I have not been impressed with stories in Science I have read in the past (ie whenever they talked about things I knew about they were usually wrong in significant ways). Anyone interested in high energy atmospheric physics out there who could crunch some rough numbers? Jim ------------------------------ Date: 13 Mar 1982 2038-PST From: JPM at SU-AI Subject: Glenn for President? To: space at MIT-MC CC: poli-sci at MIT-AI John Glenn is seriously thinking of running for President in 1984. He is the only democratic candidate I could support. I feel fairly positive that he would support the space program (!) And his 10 years in the Senate would have given him more real experience than Reagan (or Carter) had when they came into office. Could Glenn get the nomination? Could he win? SHOULD he win? Any opinions out there? Jim ------------------------------ Date: 14 March 1982 01:23-EST From: Gene Salamin Subject: Edwards AFB To: SPACE at MIT-MC I was there for the second landing. The Chambers of Commerce of most large cities have entrance passes available for free, however these passes weren't being checked when I arrived. The real value of getting a pass is for the map that is enclosed. The base opens 24 hours before the landing, and you may camp at the public viewing area. However it's likely to be pretty noisy, and I advise camping somewhere along the way. I was southbound on 395, a rather unlikely route for most of you, and camped off a dirt side road somewhere south of Ridgecrest. For those leaving from the San Francisco area, I suggest camping off the road to California City (left turn off 58 a few miles west of Mojave). Those arriving via 14 should be aware that the Rosamund Boulevard entrance is closed to the public. Plan to arrive at least a few hours before the landing to avoid a traffic crunch. The base will be closed to arriving vehicles about a half hour before the landing in order to permit all lanes to used for departing traffic. Leave quickly after the landing, because the RV's will take a few extra minutes for the folding chairs and televisions to be packed. Traffic was fairly slow getting to the North exit, but looked like a complete standstill southbound (the direction toward L.A.). The best viewing location is the top of an RV. Another good spot is one of the hills east of Rodgers Dry Lake. I watched from the Northwest corner of the public viewing area, as close to the fence as I could get. People were packed about a dozen deep there, but that location had the advantage of a 270 degree view at ground level. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 15-Mar-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #132 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 132 Today's Topics: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #131 space station? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Mar 1982 2304-PST From: tom spencer Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #131 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: CSD.SPENCER at SU-SCORE In-Reply-To: Your message of 14-Mar-82 0302-PST Subject: That 3 meg weapon in Science Some random comments. There is no relevent ground zero for a blast this high. There was a nuclear weapon detonated in the upper atmosphere in the past. (Late '60s maybe ?) Models of the ionosphere still take explict account of the effects of this weapon. -Tom ------- ------------------------------ Date: 15 Mar 82 1:52-PDT From: mclure at SRI-UNIX To: space at mc Subject: space station? !a017 0050 15 Mar 82 PM-National Briefs,600 COCOA, Fla. (AP) - The administrator of the American space program says the United States may join with Japan and Europe within the next five years to build an orbiting space station. James Beggs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration told the newspaper Cocoa TODAY in an interview published Sunday that the station would use European Space Agency technology in building spacelabs and Japanese computer expertise. He said habitable modules connected by steel beams would be designed at the Johnson Space Center in Houston and launched piece-by-piece from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. ap-ny-03-15 0343EST ********** ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 16-Mar-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #133 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 133 Today's Topics: Planetary Society An international space station?!? Glenn for President Re: Superluminal quasars Space Shuttle Operating Frequencys ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu Mar 11 02:08:26 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsovax!pat at Berkeley Subject: Planetary Society Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. I just got junk mail from "The Planetary Society" inviting me to join. Carl Sagan & Bruce Murray are co-founders. Are the benifits worth the $15.00 price ? How good is "The Planetary Report" ? Patrick E. Kane Computing Services Office University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign ...decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsovax!pat ------------------------------ Date: 15 Mar 1982 0403-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: An international space station?!? To: space at MIT-MC CC: OTA at S1-A A couple of comments on the message sent in by McLure quoting Beggs as suggesting that a Japanese, ESA and NASA cooperative Space Operations Center might be in the works: First I think it is possibly the best thing that could happen with respect to the opening up of space. The Europeans and the Japanese are more interested in space development than we are. This, sad to say, is the impression I get. So it would probably not be dropped after a year or two due to budget cut backs. Also it would provide a non-military platform for Space Operations. This might get our military in gear to build one of their own, which they need. Also all parties should have good attitude towards leasing out space to companies for private R&D work. However, it seems very unlikely to actually come to pass. The Europeans at least have learned that the US doesn't live up to its agreements on cooperative space ventures. What assurances are we likely to be able to offer that we will hold up our end of an operation like this? What actually seems more likely is that the Japanese and the Europeans will put one up on their own, using Ariane, or buying shuttle launches. Here are a few excerpts from a more complete article (the expanded story doesn't add much other info): However, the building of a manned space station with the help of European hardware, Japanese computer technology and the U.S. space shuttle is still in the talking stages, Beggs said in an interview with the newspaper Cocoa TODAY, which was published Sunday. ["When all is said and done a lot more is said than done"] ''Generally, they are interested. Right now the Japanese and Europeans want to see if they can get some benefit. They want a piece of the action,'' Beggs said in Washington, D.C. [This is clearly bull. What is more likely is that they wonder if WE want a piece of the action. Beggs is probably just trying to soften the blow to our national ego. Anyone look at the semiconductor business lately?] Using the 10-nation European Spacelab technology, the station would be made up of habitable modules connected by steel beams, technology also under study at Marshall Flight Center at Huntsville, Ala., Beggs said. [I assume the reference to "steel" beams is total nonsense, inserted by the newspaper people. I wonder if they got any of the other facts correct. Is there a scrap of structural steel in anything sent into space in the last 10 years?] The Japanese Space Agency's contribution would come from their prowess in computer technology, he added. . . . ''The shuttle will be our key element,'' Beggs said. ''We have the means to do it and, as the shuttle evolves, it will be able to carry heavier and heavier payloads,'' mostly composed of space station parts. [What a statement! The only thing we have to offer the rest of the world in a project to build a space station is the space shuttle that we initiated the design of 13 years ago. What a state of affairs! Has everybody signed up for lessons in Japanese?] ------------------------------ From: BRUC@MIT-ML Date: 03/15/82 14:54:51 Subject: Glenn for President BRUC@MIT-ML 03/15/82 14:54:51 Re: Glenn for President To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC I've heard Glenn give interviews when SALT II was being negotiated, during the AWACS sale debate, and around the first shuttle launch. He impressed me very much as he is very knowledgable and bright. He's also an excellent speaker, and would impress the masses. He supports basic research including NASA (he wouldn't bite the hand that fed him!). I think he would make a potent candidate. First of all, he was a national hero in 1962, so anyone over 30 (or so) would remember that. He's American as apple pie and motherhood, is reasonably religious, and therefore, would not alienate the moderates or reasonable conservatives (the Moral Majority types I'm sure would find a reason to hate him.) He has great stage-presence and can impress people by his demeanor nearly as well as Reagan can. Since he's a Democrat, he could move into the power vacuum that exists in that party right now and not have to fight too hard to take on whoever the GOP puts up in '84. Glenn is the only Democrat that I could support in 1984. If he decides to run and doesn't do anything to lose my respect, I will be supporting him with a reasonable amount of money come 1984. ------------------------------ Date: Mon Mar 15 11:25:11 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!decvax!duke!unc!dopey.smb at Berkeley Subject: Re: Superluminal quasars Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. REM has a good point. How significant are the changes? Also, for those quasars for which some structure has been observed (i.e., outlying lobes), are the brightness changes uniform across the entire image? ------------------------------ Date: 15-Mar-82 13:57:15 PST (Monday) From: Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Space Shuttle Operating Frequencys To: Space @ MC Reply-To: Gray.ES @ PARC-MAXC ------------------------------ Date: 15 March 1982 1:46 pm PST (Monday) From: Gray.ES Frequencys for the space shuttle will be as follows: 2287.50MHz - Primary voice intercommunications 2217.50MHz - Secondary voice 2250.00 & 2205.00 - Data and video channels ( FM mode ) VHF backup frequencys: 296.800MHz, 259.700MHz, and 243.00MHz If your in the Houston Texas area frequency of 171.150MHz will have a rebroadcast of the shuttles air to ground voice communications. For the L.A. area the W6VIO repeater on 223.960MHz will also be rebroadcasting the shuttle. REMEMBER tape recording or revealing contents of these transmissions are illegal. Have a good time listening. Scott p.s. for anyone succesfully receiving the shuttle direct, let me know what type of antenna you used.. tnx ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 17-Mar-82 0302 OTA 16-Mar-82 1530 mclure at SRI-UNIX Glenn for President? hold on. Date: 16 Mar 82 15:14-PDT From: mclure at SRI-UNIX To: space at mc Subject: Glenn for President? hold on. Foo. Let's hear more about his views. Fiscal policy, military policy, energy, &c. There's a lot more than just his space ideas to consider. I would certainly refrain from voting for him if I didn't get partial satisfaction in these other (particularly the first two) much more important areas. Yes, space is important, but let's not decide on candidates the way many anti-abortionists pick their candidates, on one plank alone. That is the sign of a limited world-view and grossly inadequate for today's complications. !17-Mar-82 0002 Ted Anderson Political messages may be hazardous to your mailing list Date: 17 Mar 1982 0002-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: Political messages may be hazardous to your mailing list To: space at MIT-MC This seems a good time to remind the readers of, and particularly the contributors to, this mailing list that messages of too overt a political nature are considered hazardous to its health. McLure's comment in the previous message, that Space policy should not be the only criterium used to select a U.S. President, is a good note to end this discussion on. Feel free to send me a note at SPACE-Request @ MC or OTA @ S1-A if you have any questions on this aspect of editorial policy. Ted Anderson (The Moderator) 17-Mar-82 0358 OTA What this digest would have looked like SPACE Digest V2 #134 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 134 Today's Topics: Glenn for President? hold on. Political messages may be hazardous to your mailing list ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Mar 82 15:14-PDT From: mclure at SRI-UNIX To: space at mc Subject: Glenn for President? hold on. Foo. Let's hear more about his views. Fiscal policy, military policy, energy, &c. There's a lot more than just his space ideas to consider. I would certainly refrain from voting for him if I didn't get partial satisfaction in these other (particularly the first two) much more important areas. Yes, space is important, but let's not decide on candidates the way many anti-abortionists pick their candidates, on one plank alone. That is the sign of a limited world-view and grossly inadequate for today's complications. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Mar 1982 0002-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: Political messages may be hazardous to your mailing list To: space at MIT-MC This seems a good time to remind the readers of, and particularly the contributors to, this mailing list that messages of too overt a political nature are considered hazardous to its health. McLure's comment in the previous message, that Space policy should not be the only criterium used to select a U.S. President, is a good note to end this discussion on. Feel free to send me a note at SPACE-Request @ MC or OTA @ S1-A if you have any questions on this aspect of editorial policy. Ted Anderson (The Moderator) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 19-Mar-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #135 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 135 Today's Topics: Thought experiment in general relativity ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Mar 1982 17:10:41-PST From: A.exp at Berkeley Subject: Thought experiment in general relativity Is the path followed by a light ray which is known to intersect tangentially at one point an infinitely rigid straight rod always along the rod? ------------------------------ Date: 18 Mar 1982 18:18:20-PST From: decvax!minow at Berkeley To: ucbvax!space@Berkeley A few years ago, I remember reading about a proposed "light sail race around the moon" -- the sails being launched from the Space Shuttle. Can anyone bring me up to date? How much would an entry cost? Is the moon kept to port or starboard? Martin Minow. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 20-Mar-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #136 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 136 Today's Topics: Light sail race Be a Solar Sailor Re: SPACE Digest V2 #135 Space Shuttle experiment slots open Thought experiment in general relativity ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 March 1982 1106-EST (Friday) From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30) To: decvax!minow at UCB-C70 Subject: Light sail race CC: space at mit-mc Message-Id: <19Mar82 110607 DS30@CMU-10A> Boy's Life ran a story called "(The) Sunjammer(s)" around 15 years ago. There was some discussion of it in SF-Lovers some time back. They started from low earth orbit, and the finish line was the moon's orbit. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Mar 1982 1033-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Be a Solar Sailor To: space at MIT-MC The story 'Wind from the Sun' (formerly 'Sunjammer') by Arthur C. Clarke describes a solar sailboat race around the moon in excellent detail. I understand that at Unispace '82, someone from the US will be issuing a similar challenge. ------------------------------ Date: 19-Mar-82 11:24:06 PST (Friday) From: Ayers at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #135 In-reply-to: A.exp at Berkeley's message of 19 Mar 1982 0302-PST To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC "Is the path followed by a light ray which is known to intersect tangentially at one point an infinitely rigid straight rod always along the rod?" Yes, but that does not say anything, because "straight" is DEFINED to be "the path taken by a light ray." Bob ------------------------------ Date: 19 Mar 1982 14:13 PST From: penalver.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Space Shuttle experiment slots open To: SPACE at MIT-MC cc: penalver.es,Wedekind.es Through NASA's Get Away Special program a group of JPL employees, Occidental College students, and other interested persons are developing a materials processing payload to be flown in late '82 or early '83. This payload will contain 18 furnaces able to heat small (2 cc) samples to 1000 degrees Centigrade in 60 minutes. Its purpose is to investigate materials behavior in near-zero gravity. Each furnace will support an individual experiment. Six of the furnaces are still unallocated. Since we would like to put this payload to good use we would like to hear from people with good experiments in mind who are willing to do the ground-based preliminary and follow-up work involved. You supply the sample and temperature profile. We will, at no cost, fly and return your sample along with in-flight temperature and acceleration data. You write a report on the results, which will be published as part of the overall project report. If you are interested please get back to me. (If you just want to barbecue some chicken, I suggest your own back yard). Tony ------------------------------ Date: 19 Mar 1982 17:00:42-PST From: A.exp at Berkeley >From JGA@MIT-MC Fri Mar 19 06:16:11 1982 Date: 19 March 1982 09:14-EST From: John G. Aspinall To: A.exp at UCB-C70 Date: 17 Mar 1982 17:10:41-PST From: A.exp at Berkeley Subject: Thought experiment in general relativity Is the path followed by a light ray which is known to intersect tangentially at one point an infinitely rigid straight rod always along the rod? What does "intersect tangentially at one point" mean? If it means "passes through the point", then the answer is that the light ray is the best definition of "straight" you've got. John Aspinall Intersect tangentially at one point means that the light ray passes through some point of the rod, and is tangent to that point. If the rod is first rendered straight by aligning it with a beam of light in a gravitational field in any given region of the universe, since it is rigid when it is transported to another region it will remain straight, so it follows the geodesic of the old region when it is moved to the new one. The beam of light in the new region will follow the geodesic in the new region, so will it follow the beam? The beam of light may be the best standard of strightness in one region but is this the same as the straight line defined by another beam of light in a different region? The purpose of the rigid rod in the experiment is to allow comparison. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 21-Mar-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #137 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 137 Today's Topics: Re: Thought experiment in general relativity Re: light sail race around the moon Glenn for President Re: SPACE Digest V2 #135 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu Mar 18 08:39:49 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!berry at Berkeley Subject: Re: Thought experiment in general relativity Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. It depends on the rest of the mass in the universe. If there is none, I would guess "Yes". Lets see, where did I put my physics book.... --berry ------------------------------ Date: Fri Mar 19 09:21:50 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!berry at Berkeley Subject: Re: light sail race around the moon Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. I am curious too. Talk about your "offshore racing"! Who gets right of way? the ship on the port or starboard tack? or maybe the up or down tack? (relative to the ecliptic, of course). How do you decide which craft is burdened? Enough sailing jargon, the idea is interesting anyway (but at present sounds more like SF than reality, at least with my limited info.) I surmise that most space applications will be more-or- less serious until it becomes (relatively) inexpensive. I can't see anyone spending a billion dollars for a race. (but then I can't understand why the America Cup contenders spend millions, but it's their cash, and fun to watch anyway) --Berry Kercheval, Zehntel Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Sat Mar 20 05:24:09 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: hplabs!intelqa!murray at Berkeley Subject: Glenn for President Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Everything I have heard so far about Glenn sound good. I would love to see more money appropriated for space, but I don't want everything else to go down the tubes if he is lousy in other areas. Can anyone state his views on other matters of presidential intrest? murray at intelqa ------------------------------ Date: 21 Mar 1982 0222-PST From: Alan R. Katz Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #135 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: KATZ at USC-ISIF In-Reply-To: Your message of 19-Mar-82 0302-PST Thought experiment in general relativity: How do you define a straight line? It turns out that a "straight" line is the path of a light ray, so by definition, if you have a "straight" rod, a beam of light would follow it. However, "straight" here means a geodesic which is a straight line in a curved space. Alan ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 22-Mar-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #138 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 138 Today's Topics: Solar sailing, call for info Get-Away Special Bulletin Board Basic information on the shuttle Basic information on the shuttle ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Mar 1982 1515-EST From: Ron Fischer Subject: Solar sailing, call for info To: space at MIT-AI If contestants were to use the shuttle to launch from weight would be >the< expense. Unmanned craft might be an angle on realization. Anyone on this list know enough to rough out the costs? Did the discussion on SF-LOVERS cover any practical aspects? (no wise cracks about that list please...) How much did NASA estimate for the solar sail Halley's comet rendevous vehicle? Could something similar w/o instrument packages be rigged? (ron) PS- How did ESA's plans to visit the comet go? ------- ------------------------------ Date: 21 March 1982 23:55 est From: Tavares.Coop at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Get-Away Special Bulletin Board To: SPACE at MIT-MC I don't remember that this have ever been announced here, so: A computerized BB for NASA get-away-specials is available by calling (202) 344-9156. It operates at 300 baud. Online instructions are plentiful. One can leave messages and, to a limited extent, teleconference with GAS experimenters, many of whom also use the system. ------------------------------ Date: 22 March 1982 05:19 est From: Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Basic information on the shuttle To: Space at MIT-MC I would like some information on the shuttle that, I am sure, someone out there has. Could someone please tell me: - the dimension of the cargo bay, - the maximum cargo to LEO, - the maximum acceleration the cargo will be subjected to, - and the projected cost for a flight? Reply to me, please, and I will forward one reply. Thanks, Paul ------------------------------ Date: 22 March 1982 05:20 est From: Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Basic information on the shuttle To: Space at MIT-MC I would like some information on the shuttle that, I am sure, someone out there has. Could someone please tell me: - the dimension of the cargo bay, - the maximum cargo to LEO, - the maximum acceleration the cargo will be subjected to, - and the projected cost for a flight? Reply to me, please, and I will forward one reply. Thanks, Paul ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 23-Mar-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #139 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 139 Today's Topics: Terraforming John Glenn Shuttle Operating Frequencies Poll Finds Skepticism Over Space Program GAS bulletin board computer Stowaway and unplanned experiment ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Mar 1982 0553-PST Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3 Subject: Terraforming From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) To: space at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]22-Mar-82 05:53:28.WMARTIN> I thought the list might be interested in a new book by James Oberg, who also wrote "Red Star in Orbit", which I mentioned some months ago. It is titled "New Earths -- Restructuring Earth and Other Planets" (Stackpole, 1981) and discusses possible terraforming methodologies. It is largely based on the presentations and discussions at the terraforming colloquium at the Houston Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, March 1979. I've just started it but scanned through it first and can recommend it as readable and interesting. One section discusses the mirrors-in-orbit we recently had some comments about. Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 1982 0634-PST Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3 Subject: John Glenn From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) To: space at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]22-Mar-82 06:34:54.WMARTIN> For general background on Glenn's personality and character traits from a reasonably competent observer, I recommend you read Tom Wolfe's "The Right Stuff", which discusses the group of original astronauts including Glenn. My other knowledge of him is that he is anti-freedom-of-gun-ownership, which indicates a desire to impose onerous restrictions on personal freedom; that is enough to turn me against him despite other qualifications. (Personal opinion.) Gun issue debate currently (and perennially) rages on the Poli-Sci mailing list, if you are interested in the topic. Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 22-Mar-82 11:44:35 PST (Monday) From: Duncan.es Subject: Shuttle Operating Frequencies To: Junk^, HamRadio^ cc: Duncan Correct shuttle operation frequencies on the amateur bands aare as follows: 224.04 MHz W6VIO 145.60 MHz W6VIO 2m dump from Mt. Wilson enjoy Don .-.-. ------------------------------ Date: 22 March 1982 15:14-EST From: J. Noel Chiappa Subject: Poll Finds Skepticism Over Space Program To: SPACE at MIT-MC From the NYT, Sunday March 21, pg 28: "Although half the American public is 'excited' about tomorrow's planned launching of the space shuttle, far more people believe that too much is being spent on space exploration than believe too little is being spent, according to the latest NYT/CBS Poll. Rspondents were asked 'Are you excited when you see a space launch, or don't you care all that much about it?' 51% of the 1,545 adults questioned in the March 11-15 telephone poll said they were excited, while 46% said they did not care very much. People with high incomes, college graduates and Westerners were most interested. But when it came to spending, 42% of the respondents said too much was being spent; 18% said it was too little, and 27% said it was ' the right amount'. The others had no opinion. While 60% of those who said they were not interested believed too much was being spent, only 29% of those who said they were excited by a launching said expenditures were too low." Looks grim. I guess if you're a laid off steel worker, it seems a waste of money. I wish they had given more detailed figures; anybody know more detailed ones? Also, I seem to remember a poll a year or so ago where the people who thought we were spening too much were in a clear majority. Anyone remember any details? I hope this doesn't continue. ------------------------------ Date: 22 March 1982 2013-PST (Monday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: GAS bulletin board computer To: SPACE at AI I just tried out the NASA GetAway Special Bulletin Board system in Washington, and was horrified to realize that the thing is a Northstar computer with two minifloppies. Period. I know budgets are tight, but this is ridiculous. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 23 March 1982 02:11-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Stowaway and unplanned experiment To: SPACE at MIT-MC Oh my goodness, a fruit fly snuck into the Columbia and has been flying around in zero-gee since orbit was established. I hope the shuttlenauts have the presence of mind to take advantage of this serendipitous event, by carefuly observing the ability of the insect to navigate in zero-gee. (On a later flight a get-away special is supposed to monitor moths trying to fly in zero-gee, but now we have a chance to get some preliminary info earlier, and possibly modify the moth experiment to get more info, like we modified the Voyager 2 schedule after the unexpected Voyager 1 results.) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 24-Mar-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #140 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 140 Today's Topics: poll on space expenditure Ham relay of shuttle Re: Stowaway and unplanned experiment "South Atlantic Anomaly" poll shuttle repair Space Poll that poll Thought experiment in general relativity ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 March 1982 09:40 est From: York.Multics at MIT-MULTICS (William M. York) Subject: poll on space expenditure To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Message of 23 March 1982 06:02 est from Ted Anderson Fun with statistics: That means that only 42% feel that too much is being spent on space, while 45% think that the right amount or too little is being spent. Looks good... ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 1982 0706-PST Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3 Subject: Ham relay of shuttle From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) To: space at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]23-Mar-82 07:06:20.WMARTIN> This last weekend's "DX News" report from Glenn Hauser on Radio Canada International's Shortwave Listener's Digest had this info: There will be a relay of the shuttle communications via the ham station W5RRR on the following frequencies (SSB): 3940 kHz 7265 kHz 14280 kHz 21365 kHz 28600 kHz I tried listening on each of those frequencies last night, tuning a reasonable amount above and below, and heard no indication of the shuttle traffic, though. I don't know if this was intended to relay just the launch, all the traffic with Houston all during the flight, or just selected times. Also, I don't know if they intended to use one frequency at a time, depending on propagation. all frequencies at once, or some selection of them. Anyway, thought it might be of interest to somebody on the list. If I detect any relayed traffic, I'll report on it. Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 1982 10:24:37-EST From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: REM at MIT-MC Subject: Re: Stowaway and unplanned experiment Cc: Space at mit-mc According to two lead stories and a sidebar in today's NEW YORK TIMES, it's \\this// flight of the shuttle which is testing the capabilities of a moth and a bumblebee in zero-gee. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 1982 1235-PST From: Barry Megdal Subject: "South Atlantic Anomaly" To: space-lovers at MIT-AI I was looking a mission map for STS-3 (the current space shuttle mission), and noticed a large area off the east coast of South America labeled "South Atlantic Anomaly". Anyone know what such a thing is? ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 82 14:18-PDT From: mclure at SRI-UNIX To: jnc at mc, space at mc Subject: poll I suggest you ignore all polls about space exploration. What do you expect in times of recession? ------------------------------ Date: 23 March 1982 17:31 est From: York.Multics at MIT-MULTICS (William M. York) Subject: shuttle repair To: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC I just heard (indirectly) that Columbia lost some (non-critical) tiles during the launch. Can anyone verify this? I think that we have been over this before, but do they have any sort of in-flight repair capability? Are they even equipped for EVA? ------------------------------ From: MINSKY@MIT-AI Date: 03/23/82 15:30:30 Subject: Space Poll To: SPACE at MIT-AI There is a context problem about a space-launch poll, surely. I mean, I like launches a lot but, foo, I like fireworks too. When John Q Public is asked if he gets excited about launches and, then, if the Space Program is worth k x 10,000,000,000 dollars, part of his mind just has to think you're asking if the fireworks budget is big enough! Too bad we can't have more real space news. If you catch your poll sample after showing some knowledge that might bear on terraforming venus, or on energy or manufacturing in space, or on protecting humanity from poverty or disaster, that would be the time to ask what it is worth. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 1982 2115-EST From: Steven J. Zeve Subject: that poll To: space at MIT-AI cc: zeve at RUTGERS Typical of poll questions (or so it seems to me), the question about being excited by the shuttle launch doesn't seem to gather any information. A better question is "How do you feel about the shuttle launch and why do you feel it". Of course, that isn't a simple, easily tallied question so pollsters shy away from it. I'm not sure why, but the question asked feels biased to me; almost as if it was rigged to get the "I don't care response". I also have to wonder about the % on the question about too little/too much/ just enough. As far as I can tell from the figures quoted, 1/4 of the people who were excited about the launch think we're spending too much!!!!! (.60*46% = 27.6%. 42-27.6 = 14.4 which is approx 51%/4). If they think that, then I wonder why they're excited about the launch. (Alas, where is D.D.Harriman when we need him!). Steve Z. ------------------------------ Date: 24 March 1982 00:56-EST From: Gene Salamin Subject: Thought experiment in general relativity To: SPACE at MIT-MC The whole question was improperly posed on account of the non-existence of rigid bodies. Suppose you observe a rigid body. It has the property that when pushed at one end, all parts of it start to move simultaneously. However, to an observer moving relative to you, simultaneity is different, and the body appears nonrigid. Furthermore, a "rigid" body has an infinite speed of sound. To other observers, the speed of sound can be anywhere down to but always greater than the speed of light. To some observers sound travels backward in time. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 25-Mar-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #141 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 141 Today's Topics: rigid body thought experiment transits of Columbia GAS bulletin board computer ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wednesday, 24 March 1982 08:02-PST From: KING at KESTREL To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, King at KESTREL Subject: rigid body thought experiment "Rigid" bodies hold their shape through use of the electromagnetic force (or other forces that follow geodesics and propogate at only the speed of light, such as the nuclear forces or gravity). They will, therefore, "distort" to conform to the properties of the space they are imbedded in. Dick ------------------------------ Date: 24 March 1982 12:09 est From: York.Multics at MIT-MULTICS (William M. York) Subject: transits of Columbia To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Message of 24 March 1982 06:02 est from Ted Anderson Does anyone have any information on if, when, and where Columbia might be visible in the night (early morning?) sky? I am in Boston, but I am sure that info for any locality would be appreciated. I tried to spot it during STS-1, but the clouds came in 10 minutes before it was due. [I saw a news story that claimed that this shuttle launch would only be visible from New Orleans (600 odd miles to the south), and Honolulu (about 250 miles to the south), both on the 5th day I think. -Ted Anderson] ------------------------------ Date: 25 March 1982 05:16-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: GAS bulletin board computer To: lauren at UCLA-SECURITY cc: SPACE at MIT-AI The lest they could do is get a Maxi Floppy. Actually, I bet I could get Bill Godbout to donate a better machine for NASA to use... Wonder if they can take it? We'll have to ask Hans Mark next week at the L-5 conference. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 26-Mar-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #142 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 142 Today's Topics: South American anamoly Thought experiment in gen rel shuttle invisibility in the north South Atlantic Anomaly ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 March 1982 09:12 est From: CLJones.Multics at MIT-MULTICS Subject: South American anamoly To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC The South American anamoly is an area where the Van Allen (tm) belts are particularly close to the surface of the earth. I recall reading in Michael Collin's book ''Carrying the Fire'' that Gemini X, which reached a maximum altitude of 476 miles or so right in this region, was scraping the bottom of the belts, and some people were concerned about the increased radiation the astronauts would be exposed to. Radiation badges they carried showed no particular problems, though. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 1982 14:43:02-PST From: A.exp at Berkeley Subject: Thought experiment in gen rel Isn't movement backwards in time only a virtual mathematical effect of the symmetry of particle physics? No part of the rod undergoes acceleration during the comparison of the path of the rod in the new region of the universe with the geodesic in that region. The point about it being impossible for a totally rigid rod to exist is valid, but once the rod is moved to its new position any sound can be allowed to damp until no part of the rod is in motion with respect to any other part. If the speed of light sets an upper limit on the rigidity of a material, a rod could be considered which would be arbitrarily close in rigidity to the limit. The experiment previously posed can be asked in this situation. As King was saying the solution may be that the forces between the component atoms of the rod follow the geodesic, causing the rod as a whole to follow the geodesic. If however the rod is of finite thickness won't bending it in this way cause reduction of the distances between atoms on the side of the rod which is bent towards the concave, with a resulting reactive force that would prevent the rod from quite following the geodesic? ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 25 March 1982 15:38-PST From: KING at KESTREL Subject: shuttle invisibility in the north To: space at mit-mc cc: King at KESTREL I just assumed that we wouldn't be able to see it this far north. Since it was launched pretty close to noon, its local time (and will orbit for a very small fraction of a year) it will be crossing the Equator quite close to 6AM and 6PM, and will be south of the Equator all night. Dick ------------------------------ Date: 26 March 1982 00:09 est From: Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS Subject: South Atlantic Anomaly To: Space at MIT-MC I used to know someone at the NASA Goddard tracking center who could have told you about this in great detail. I have to work from (faulty) memory. The South Atlantic Anomaly is an area lying roughly between Bermuda and Ascension Island. Within this area, satellites don't work right, the earth's magnetic field does strange and upredictable things, spacecraft radios receive odd things, and so on. Goddard would try to avoid either sending commands to satellites or having them be executed when the bird was within this region. Any Bermuda Triangle fans out there?? Paul ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 27-Mar-82 0301 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #143 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 143 Today's Topics: Space Poll poor TV coverage ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 March 1982 08:34-EST From: Oded Anoaf Feingold Subject: Space Poll To: MINSKY at MIT-AI cc: space at MIT-AI Re Minsky's complaint that after-launch polls work down to being fireworks polls: Hear hear. A space-launch poll asking serious benefit-oriented questions would be a good idea. Why not assemble a set of such questions in a file, have someone organize them, and contact one of the polling see if they'll use it at a propitious time? Sample question: Weather and earth-resource measurement satellites have resulted in how much increased farm productivity in the U.S. (per year) in the past 10 years? a) $1,000,000 __ b) $10,000,000 __ c) $100,000,000 __ d) $1,000,000,000 __ e) $10,000,000,000 __ (and provide the right answer somewhere, which I happen not to know, but suspect it is greater than the last suggested answer.) Next sample question, to follow the first: Present expenditure levels for these satellites and associated support systems are in the range of how much per year? a) $1,000,000 __ b) $10,000,000 __ c) $100,000,000 __ d) $1,000,000,000 __ e) $10,000,000,000 __ (and provide the right answer there too.) Third sample question, to follow the preceding: In your opinion, expenditures for weather and earth-resource satellites should be a) cut out altogether __ b) drastically reduced __ c) slightly reduced __ d) kept the same __ e) slightly increased __ f) greatly increased __ g) increased to encompass the entire GNP __ . I guess in this case it's hard to provide the "right" answer. Other interesting topics should cover various benefits engendered or otherwise associated with the space program. Eg: velcro, teflon, microelectronics, communications, and national defense. Last sample question. Where would we be without spy satellites, command/control/commun- ications satellites, and so on? a) Here __ b) Heaven __ c) Hell __ Putting my disk space where my mouth is, I have created SPACE-POLL at MIT-MC where sample questions and flamacious comments may go. I'll report on what shows up there. Oded ------------------------------ Date: 26 March 1982 20:41-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: poor TV coverage To: SPACE at MIT-MC "at this very hour, the shuttle is crossing the Pacific Ocean heading toward the West Coast" -- heard on tv news at 17:33 PST. Do they mean at this very minute, or at 17:00 or 18:00, or do they expect us to believe what they literally said, that for a solid hour the shuttle is over the Pacific Ocean the whole time? P.s. this station (KGO tv, channel 7) has such crummy news that I avoid it except they have the only 5pm news so I was sort of stuck with it. (A few nights ago they said something about an elephant getting a gift from the tooth fairy. But this is SPACE so I'll drop that issue.) Is there any really good coverage of the shuttle on TV other than occasional special coverage on ABC Nightline? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 28-Mar-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #144 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 144 Today's Topics: Shuttle visibility Missing Persons Report / Dead Letter Office Commentary on Space Program ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu Mar 25 08:40:08 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: hplabs!intelqa!murray at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle visibility Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. According to the STS-3 map published by NASA, the shuttle never gets north of San Francisco, (or Pueblo CO, or Kansas City MO, or about 150 miles south of Washington DC.) so I doubt it would be visible from Boston. murray at intelqa ------------------------------ Date: 27 March 1982 15:31 est From: Tavares.Coop at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Missing Persons Report / Dead Letter Office To: Space at MIT-AI As the result of a transaction I put in this digest around 9 March, I was sent a reply by someone cleaiming to be all of the following people: Douglas P Kingston III; Doug Humphrey at MIT-AI; and ___100 (a terminal) at MIT-AI. The sender misspelled my name and the mail was not delivered until today, when someone discovered it in the dead letter office at MIT-AI and kindly forwarded it. MIT-AI's COMSAT originally attempted to return the message to the sender, but apparently none of the sender ID's were valid. A corollary of this statement is that even though I now have the mail, I cannot repond either. If the originator would kindly identify himself with a working net ID, I will happily correspond with him. Send reply to "Tavares -at MIT-Multics" and remember that Multics often requires strict capitalization. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Mar 1982 1804-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Commentary on Space Program To: space at MIT-MC a511 1938 26 Mar 82 BC-NASA Future, Adv 28-2 takes,700-1500 $ADV 28 Advance for Sunday March 28 Space Program Entering Lean Era By PAUL RECER AP Aerospace Writer SPACE CENTER, Houston (AP) - America's manned space program is moving into a tough new era, a time of lean budgets and rugged competition for the limited federal dollar. Gone are the lush funds that propelled America to the moon, sent a variety of complex robot craft cruising outward to distant planets and seemed to offer possibilities limited only by imagination. The dreams are just as large, the visions as ambitious, but the budgets are smaller and the justifications are more pragmatic. Ideals are dying in the pinch of economic realities. America went to the moon, as the famous lunar plaque states, ''in peace for all mankind.'' But the United States will continue in manned spaceflight, in part, because of the perceived need for new weapons of war. Color the changes gray, blue and red. The young engineers and pilots who amazed the world with the adventures of Mercury, Gemini and Apollo are now graying senior space statesmen. Many have left the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, replaced by men skilled in the art of the practical and the politically possible. There's also a bluing of NASA. Blue-clad Air Force officers now work shoulder-to-shoulder with NASA civilians, preparing for the day when manned spaceflight becomes a part of the nation's arsenal. The red is in the NASA budgets of the recent past. In the complex, decade-long struggle to produce the shuttle, NASA repeatedly faced cost overruns and was forced to return to Congress for more funds. It soiled NASA's reputation, earned in the Apollo program, for being an on-time, within-budget agency. And this has made it more difficult to run the Washington budget gauntlet. President Reagan proposed a NASA budget for fiscal year 1983 of $6.6 billion. This is a $673 million increase over the revised 1982 budget, a boost of about 11 percent, or a slight raise when inflation is factored in. Reagan's proposal is less than NASA requested, but more than was suggested by Office of Management and Budget. NASA was required to reshape priorities, cutting some areas and boosting others. Science and aeronautics research absorbed most of the cuts, but the effects rippled throughout NASA. Some effects were minor. A hiring freeze created a shortage of secretaries and some middle-level executives have had to file reports in handwriting. Other effects were more serious, and some fear they will erode America's pre-eminent role in some elements of space exploration. Planetary science was battered the hardest. Plans to send a $350 million orbiting radar satellite to Venus were canceled. This surrenders to the Soviet Union the lead in exploring that planet. Funds for processing and study of data from a group of satellites orbiting the sun were also cut. Pioneer 6, 7, 8 and 9 are in orbit of the sun, some out to the vicinity of Jupiter. Data from instruments probing the solar wind and magnetic fields are now going uncollected. The Viking spacecraft on Mars continues to send back data every eight days, but there now is no money to study the information. Some elements of the deep space network, which collects radio signals from distant satellites, have been shut down. Said one NASA official: ''We have enough voices to study the solar system, but not enough ears to catch the data.'' An infrared telescope in Hawaii has been mothballed and the lunar rock curatorial facility at the Johnson Space Center may share a similar fate. Despite the losses, NASA officials who fought the budget battle seemed content in what was preserved. As administrator James M. Beggs noted: ''I believe we did well.'' NASA received funds for the $640 million Galileo mission to Jupiter. This joint German-American project will be launched in 1985 and will arrive two to four years later. The craft will release a probe which will descend toward the planet's surface, passing through atmospheric layers that may be rich in organic compounds. This may give basic chemical information on the origin of life. A second part of Galileo will remain in orbit of Jupiter, studying the planet and its four moons with cameras even more sophisticated than those used on the two Voyager spacecraft that earlier studied the planet. The $800 million space telescope program, perhaps the most ambitious and sophisticated astronomy project ever conceived, was also preserved. It involves the orbit of a telescope that will be able to look farther out into the universe than ever before. It will conduct a basic study of such elements in the universe as black holes and quasars. It will also be able to search for planets orbiting distant stars. None has ever been sighted, but the space telescope makes it possible for the first time to conduct a systematic search. The most money in the NASA budget, by far, is going toward the development and operation of the space shuttle. A total of $3.5 billion is dedicated in 1983 for flying two shuttle orbiters and for production work on two more. Columbia, the craft being flown now, will be joined later this year by Challenger. The two craft will make five flights in 1983. Work will also continue toward developing an upper stage, to boost satellites to high orbit NASA's emphasis on the shuttle springs from two reasons. Experts see it as the major and most complex step toward a permanent presence in space and the opportunity to harvest vast benefits for Earth from space. The second reason is that the military need for the space shuttle virtually assures that NASA will be given the money to build the system. ''The military use of the shuttle helps support the argument for the need of a Space Transportation System. It helps keep NASA's budget where it is,'' said Maj. Gen. J. A. Abrahamson, the associate NASA administrator for Space Transportation Systems. The focus of NASA between now and 1985, said Abrahamson, is to assure that the shuttle is operational and to continue its ''partnership'' with the Air Force. Military experts believe the shuttle may be essential for the defense of the nation in the decades ahead. The Air Force is spending vast sums to develop a laser weapon which could operate from space. The value of the weapon has not been proven, but if it turns out to be feasible, some predict it would revolutionize warfare as much as did the invention of gunpowder. The Soviets also are developing a laser weapon. If the laser is built, the shuttle will put it into space and maintain it. Space shuttles will also be used to deliver to orbit the various types of military satellites which are now part of the nation's strategic plans. Most NASA officials feel that the military need for the shuttle virtually assures that the planned fleet of four will be developed. Reagan's budget proposal also provides some early funds for studies of where the space program will go after the shuttle fleet is fully operational. Christopher C. Kraft, director of the Johnson Space Center, and others favor development of some type of orbiting space station that would enable the United States to have permanent presence in orbit. Such a facility would make it possible to conduct Earth observations, zero gravity manufacturing and the assembly of spacecraft for voyages into deep space. Such platforms would also have a valuable military function, particularly if the laser weapon is developed. ''NASA is ready to be challenged again with those kinds of things,'' said Kraft. ''We have to convince Congress.'' Persuading Congress to provide funds to meet dreams of space visionaries means proving that space exploration is not only important for the military, but also for purposes of peace. And that is a major facet of NASA's new era. ''We've got to make space exploration pay off for all of us down here on Earth - not just for us space cadets, but for everyone,'' said Kraft. Instead of being but a spinoff of pure space exploration, commercial products and services from space will be the first consideration and space exploration will be second, believes Kraft. ''We will get to go to Jupiter, for instance, because we have first built a system to benefit people on Earth,'' said Kraft. ''It's the exact reverse of the old concepts. ''Space may provide us the balance of trade 20 years from now. We'll make better products in space, and provide worldwide communications and seek out vital new Earth resources,'' he adds. ''You can see it coming. This thing (the commercial use of space) is really going to take off.'' End Advance Sunday March 28 ap-ny-03-26 2233EST *************** ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 29-Mar-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #145 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 145 Today's Topics: Advanced Rockets and SSTO's Re: Shuttle Visibility ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Mar 1982 1614-PST From: Paul Dietz Subject: Advanced Rockets and SSTO's To: space at MIT-MC I went to an interesting presentation last night about a new rocket idea called the Dual Expander rocket engine. The idea is this: most of the mass of propellant in a rocket is burned during the first parts of the launch. As it turns out, if you want to build a single stage to orbit vehicle the fuel burned during the first part should NOT be chosen for high exhaust velocity, but rather for high propellant density. Specifically, we should use hydrocarbons (like propane, methane or kerosene) instead of hydrogen. The dual expander rocket engine burns both hydrocarbons (propane) and hydrogen. It is essentially an engine within an engine. The interior engine burns propane and LOX during the first part of the launch with a chamber pressure of 6000 psia. It is surrounded by an annular combustion chamber where hydrogen and LOX are burned. This outer chamber has a smaller aperature than the space shuttle main engine, so a smaller nozzle is needed. When the center engine is shut down it generates far less thrust than the SSME, but at that point you don't need much thrust. The eignine has a top thrust of 1/2 of the SSME, but weighs 1/3 as much. The speaker presented several designs using the engines. The first is an upgraded shuttle. The SRB's are removed, and the main tank is enlarged to include a propane tank and extra LH and LOX. On the bottom of the tank goes a cluster of (eight?) dual expander engines. Both the tank and the orbiter are placed in a stable orbit. The engines are removed from the tank and returned inside the shuttle. If you want a real heavy lift vehicle, put the SRB's back on. I forget the exact figures but this thing lifts well over 100,000 lbs. of payload. And you have a tank in orbit to play with. A one man Air Force shuttle was also described. It is much smaller than the space shuttle. Depending on the exact design, it can be launched from a C5A or from the ground. It uses two dual expander engines and strap on propane tanks that get left in orbit. Next, several commercial SSTO's. Three designs were given, the smallest smaller than the space shuttle, the largest weighing 10,000,000 lb. and having 29 (!) engines. The speaker also showed how you can take the proposed airforce shuttle, put it on an upgraded space shuttle tank and get a vehicle capable of getting to geosynchronous orbit and back again. Another proposed design used LEO refueling from an ordinary shuttle. The last and most practical design is a disposable SSTO unmanned booster. It has two dual expanders. On top goes a second stage that propels the payload to geosynchronous orbit. It could carry over 6000 lbs. of payload. The kicker is this: the first stage is ~14 feet in diameter by 50 some odd feet long. These numbers should ring a bell, because the shuttle cargo bay is 15'x60', making this a "fully reusable disposable". Final note on this thing: it can be air-launched from the back of a 747! This would avoid dynamic pressure problems. Launch procedure involves putting the 747 into a 45 degree climb at 30,000 feet, igniting the rocket and pulling negative g's to get away. Boeing is examining putting a SSME in the tail of a 747 (!) to get it higher. The launch altitude then becomes something like 50,000 or 60,000 feet. This last idea has been looked at by SAC already; in the 60's they considered putting a Titan engine in the tail of a B52 to get it away from the field quickly: said vehicle could be at 30,000 feet 30 miles from the runway in 1 minute! I hope they get to develope the engine. It uses no really new technology. The speaker claimed it could be developed in 4-5 years at a cost of $400M (1980). He works for Aerojet (the company responsible for this thing) so he isn't unbiased. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 1982 21:13:51-EST From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: space at mit-mc Subject: Re: Shuttle Visibility If the shuttle is within 150 miles due south of DC it's less than 500 miles south of Boston; at that distance an object <32 miles up is above the theoretical horizon. The additional 100+ miles of shuttle elevation would put it some distance above the horizon, although it would not be that close or that high for long. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 01-Apr-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #146 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 146 Today's Topics: Food for thought Mailing list tv coverage shuttle vis ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 31 Mar 1982 at 1258-CST From: knutson at UTEXAS-11 Subject: Food for thought To: space at mit-ai Now that the shuttle has flown approximately 6 million miles has anyone ever sat down and calculated what kind of gas milage it has been getting? ------- ------------------------------ Date: 31 Mar 1982 2112-EST From: J. Scott Hamilton Subject: Mailing list To: space at MIT-MC I am a lowly freshman trying to expand his horizons (no pun intended). Could you please put me on your mailing list. Thanks Hammy ------- ------------------------------ From: DWO@MIT-AI Date: 04/01/82 01:21:02 Subject: tv coverage DWO@MIT-AI 04/01/82 01:21:02 Re: tv coverage To: SPACE at MIT-AI the shuttle one launch was covered live on the hbo channel without any commentary. only the downlink, uplink, and the "voice of shuttle control" was heard. in my view, that is perfect coverage for those of us who are technically inclined. unfortunately, since then, hbo has begun 24 hour-a-day programming, precluding the use of its transponder for such special events. however, as long as public interest remains reasonably high in shuttle launches, this seems like a natural programming selection for c-span, the cable channel that airs the house of representatives and other public interest programming. of course eventually, the ultimate would be the "space channel", with 24 hour-a-day space coverage, uninterupted except during periods when no shuttle was flying or those that were were out of contact with houston( or colorado springs! ). for now though, is there anyone on the list with connections who would be able to put a bug in c-span's ear? ------------------------------ From: DWO@MIT-AI Date: 04/01/82 01:37:09 Subject: shuttle vis DWO@MIT-AI 04/01/82 01:37:09 Re: shuttle vis To: SPACE at MIT-AI not only does the shuttle have to appear above the horizon to be visable, but it must do so while the observer and most of the atmosphere above him are in darkness, but the shuttle is still illuminated. this is a rather rare event for objects in low earth orbit, and is even more so when you constrain it by the observer's location and weather conditions. this should explain the paucity of suitable viewing locations and times promulgated by nasa. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 02-Apr-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #147 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 147 Today's Topics: Long article on Shuttle Usage Cosmic Microwave Anisotropy Re: SPACE Digest V2 #146 shuttle vis Another source of hydrogen? Peace Games ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 01 Apr 1982 1015-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Long article on Shuttle Usage To: space at MIT-MC a007 2221 30 Mar 82 PM-Shuttle-Cargoes, Bjt,710 No Room on Shuttle until September 1987 By HOWARD BENEDICT AP Aerospace Writer CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - NASA expects the successful third test of Columbia to generate more customer interest in the space shuttle, but no one need apply for a flight until after September 1987. The 70 flights until then are fully booked with communications, weather and military satellites, space probes, planetary missions, science labs, and materials-processing payloads. The space agency is now working on manifests to accommodate those who want to launch payloads in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Many have expressed an interest since the shuttle began flying a year ago. Columbia's third flight, which ended Tuesday, ''advanced the shuttle a significant step toward operational missions,'' said flight director Neil Hutchinson. After one more test flight, scheduled for late June, the spacecraft will be ready. The final shakedown flight is set to last seven days. It is to land at a dry lake bed at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., providing the final confidence for bringing the ship back to a 15,000-foot concrete runway near the Cape Canaveral launch site. Edwards was washed out by rain for Flight 3 and Columbia returned to another desert runway at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. In the cargo bay for the fourth flight will be a classified Defense Department payload, reportedly testing infrared sensors for a future spy satellite. Asked about secrecy surrounding that package, NASA's Glynn Lunney said Monday: ''We're flying a DOD payload. Other than that I won't say anything about it, per our arrangement with them. We will fly a lot of DOD payloads, and we'll tell you the same thing on each.'' Twenty-five of those 70 flights have been reserved by the Pentagon to carry up reconnaissance, military communications, navigation and other satellites and to test space weapons such as laser beams. Columbia's first commercial flight is set for Nov. 11, the cargo a pair of communications satellites to be lofted into orbit for Satellite Business Systems Inc. and Telesat of Canada. Meanwhile, the second shuttle, Challenger, is to make its debut next Jan. 20, hauling into space a large tracking and data-relay satellite, one of two that will provide almost constant communications between spaceships and Mission Control in Houston, eliminating the need for most of NASA's expensive network of ground stations. Lunney said Challenger could be launched in December, but its satellite and a new lightweight external fuel tank probably won't be ready. Four shuttles are being built, and the space agency and Pentagon will ask later this year for money to start a fifth. The Discovery is to be flying in January 1984 and the Atlantis in April 1985. The cost of renting a cargo bay for a single flight is $35 million until 1985, when the prices will increase to about $50 million. If there is more than one user, they split the cost. A user can launch a payload on the shuttle for as little as a fourth of the cost on conventional throwaway rockets. The first of several Spacelab launches is set for Sept. 30, 1983. Spacelab will serve as a reusable laboratory for as many as four scientists or medical experts. A huge space telescope will be orbited from Challenger and the Galileo space probe will be dispatched from Atlantis, both in 1985. The Air Force is building a second shuttle launch complex at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. Discovery is to use it first, hauling a military satellite into orbit on Oct. 25, 1985, according to the current schedule. That schedule calls for two more launches in 1982, six in 1983, 11 in 1984, 16 in 1985, 18 in 1986 and 16 through Sept. 15, 1987. NASA later this year will request funds to start development of a space station to be used for scientific, military and industrial projects. The shuttle, capable of lifting up to 65,000 pounds in its bay, would be the ferry ship for building materials, construction workers and station occupants. Christopher C. Kraft, director of NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, said if money is approved for the project in fiscal year 1984, ''we could have a basic modular station up in seven to eight years.'' Kraft predicted the present shuttle design will be flying for 30 years. Each of the vehicles is designed for 100 roundtrips into orbit. ''By 1990 we might start thinking about a follow-on vehicle,'' he said. ''We could probably develop a derivitive of the shuttle that would lift 200,000 pounds.'' ------------------------------ Date: Wed Mar 31 20:52:12 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!npois!harpo!mhtsa!allegra!green at Berkeley Subject: Cosmic Microwave Anisotropy Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Today I heard a colloquium by Ed Cheng, a member of the Princeton group that has measured the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background. The results so far can be summarized as follows: Three groups, Berkeley, Princeton, and Florence, have measured a dipole moment in the background. All three agree on this measurement. Of these groups, the first two have measurements covering enough of the sky to report on the quadrupole moment. These two groups disagree significantly on the quadropole moment. The difficulty in the quadrupole moment lies in the contribution of the galaxy. (The galaxy does not affect the dipole measurements because the dipole effect is relatively large and because the galaxy as viewed from here has little dipole moment). Errors in how the contribution of the galaxy are handled could explain the measured quadrupole moment. The final word on whether there is a quadrupole moment awaits more sensitive experiments. Leaving Ed's talk, I would like to comment on the fact that the microwave radiation does not establish an absolute or preferred rest frame, any more than does the earth or the sun or the galaxy. It is merely the rest frame of a larger object than any other object we have measured. Jim Green ------------------------------ Date: 1 Apr 1982 17:54 PST From: jackson at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #146 In-reply-to: OTA's message of 01 Apr 1982 0302-PST To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: jackson In response to what to do with the "Space Channel" when there is no shuttle: How about showing the pictures from the weather satellites. There is very little on TV that could compete with a view of Earth from on high. stephen ------------------------------ Date: 2 April 1982 03:36-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: shuttle vis To: DWO at MIT-AI cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Shuttle is hard to see, but here in Calif when we go hiking in the mountains we are likely to see several satellites each night around twilight. Of course that lasts fairly long at 8000 feet. ------------------------------ Date: 2 April 1982 03:54-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Another source of hydrogen? To: SPACE at MIT-MC Recall that most materials we'll need for space industry and life-support are already known to exist on the moon, but hydrogen may be hard to find locally. We've suggested the polar regions of the Moon which might have water-ice, the outer surface of the Moon which may have atoms of hydrogen from the solar wind accumulated over 4 billion years, and more distant sources such as asteroids comets and Jupiter. Here's a new idea I came up with tonight: Once we get an SPS working, suppose we build two large electrodes and charge one positive and the other negative. Then free electrons will be attracted to the positive one and free protons to the negative one. The electrons merely flow through our circuit where they combine with the protons to form hydrogen which we then collect somehow. Thus instead of collecting atomic hydrogen, we collect hydrogen which has been ionized by the solar ultraviolet radiation (plus some stray protons). Anybody want to speculate on whether this idea could be made to work cost-effectively? One idea for collecting the hydrogen after the protons have been grabbed: If the protons embed themselves in the surface of the negative electrode, we may simply run the device for a while to collect a considerable quantity of embedded hydrogen, then turn the device off, cover the electrode with something (to make a sealed chamber with the electrode as one wall), zap the electrode with a laser to boil off the hydrogen, collect the hydrogen from the chamber in any of the ways suggested earlier for boiling hydrogen off the surface of the moon, then remove the cover and turn the electric charge back on to collect another batch. Anybody have other ideas? ------------------------------ Date: 2 April 1982 04:06-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Peace Games To: frye at BBN-UNIX cc: ARMS-D at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC Re effect on national governments, you may have something there, perhaps if more of us played peace instead of war games, the Generals would play peace instead of war with each other. Maybe we should make a fantasy space-exploration game, where everybody pretends to have various expertise, and we all cooperate to pretend to develop space industry, and we are only allowed to use powers within our area of expertise, but we are allowed to freely "invent" plausable solutions to technical problems in our area of expertise and then pretend they are real and follow thru on what comes next (like I might pretend I've discovered ice on the moon, in a polar valley, and then I'd proceed to ask the pretend-engineers to design me a way of extracting it and sending the hydrogen to where it's needed in the equatorial colony). ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 03-Apr-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #148 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 148 Today's Topics: Building a space station Cosmic Microwave Anisotropy Shuttle future plans lousy radio coverage Re: John Glenn Re: Shuttle Plants and Security Bruce Murray resigns as Head of JPL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri Apr 2 00:52:11 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley Subject: Building a space station Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Currently the external tanks on the shuttle are burning up in the atmosphere, I recall. I seem to also recall hearing of plans for the eminently sensible idea of releasing these things late enough so that they stay in space for several years to come. Those tanks are ideal space station construction material as far as I see. They are big, round and can obviously take pressure and temperature extremes (lox and hydrogen!). They are probably not too bad on stress either considering the Gs they take, so they could even be strung in a circle or star and rotated for artificial gravity. The tanks are big enough to fit plenty of labs and comfortable living quarters in, and one goes up with every shuttle. Is this possible? When are the tanks released? How much would the shuttle lose keeping them attached until orbit is reached? Could a small booster (could be solid fuel even) be attached to these babies to be fired once they are relased to push them up a good distance from the atmosphere. By the end of the decade, there could be several dozen tanks in space ready to be inhabited. If NASA wants a space station in 1990, this is the way to do it. We are all familiar with the effects that weightlessness has on astronauts over extended periods, in particular the decay of bone. Eventually there should be a study of the effects of artificial gravity (centrifugal effect) over extended periods of time. I suspect the shuttle could bring up a cargo looking like this: ____________ ____________ | \ / | | |==============================================| | | / \ | ------------ ------------ where there is a big cable between the canisters and the thing is spun around the center. Astronauts sit in the canisters with weight (real toilets) and perform experiments at the same time as being them. ------------------------------ Date: Wed Mar 31 20:50:01 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: duke!harpo!mhtsa!allegra!green at Berkeley Subject: Cosmic Microwave Anisotropy Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. As each new shuttle vehicle is constructed, will it go through a single or series of cargo-less shakedown flight(s)? Or will its initial flight be a production run, carrying cargo? When, if ever, is it scheduled or predicted for there to be more than one shuttle vehicle in orbit at the same time? Will this be some sort of joint flight, where these vehicles are in proximity for some purpose, or will they just happen to be working up there at the same time, and maybe be on opposite sides of the planet? I heartily endorse the concept of a "space channel"; I would for now settle for a shortwave radio broadcast going on constantly covering the audio traffic on the main communications channel between vehicles in flight/orbit and the main control site, Houston or wherever. I would think that the VOA (Voice of America) could score a propaganda coup by such worldwide coverage and it would be at minimal cost -- just tying up a transmitter and antenna (one frequency at a time will suffice) and an audio link out of NASA to the transmitter site. Wouldn't need any announcer or commentary, so that expense could be avoided. It sure seems to be all reward and no disadvantage, as far as I can see. Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: Thu Apr 1 15:02:32 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: harpo!npois!houxi!houxe!lime!we13!rjr at Berkeley Subject: lousy radio coverage Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. What is it with these network announcers that are in love with their own voices? To catch the launching and the landing of Columbia, a few of us listened to the events as broadcast on CBS radio. The announcer's audio was mixed with equal level with the audio from the cape and resulted in a mess. The CBS guy kept trying to talk over the live material and ended up repeating everything he covered up. What confusion. Why can't those clowns just comment on the things that are not obvious? we13.rjr ------------------------------ Date: Fri Apr 2 13:19:03 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: harpo!uwvax!orc at Berkeley Subject: Re: John Glenn Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Does this sort of stuff belong *anywhere* near net.space? I would love to reply to anti-freedon-of-garbage, but it DOES'NT BELONG HERE. Thanks orc@uwisc ------------------------------ Date: Fri Apr 2 15:06:39 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: harpo!floyd!vax135!houxi!houxt!govern at Berkeley Subject: Re: Shuttle Plants and Security Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. I once read a US Govt reprint (now lost) of a Russian paper called "The Life of an Onion, Not Knowing Down from Up". Conclusion was that plants generally need gravity to know where to send roots and where to send leaves; light wasn't enough, and the plants tended to get confused and die. However, a small electrical field provided enough information for the plant to choose a "down" and an "up", and grow successfully. One technique used in the study was putting the seeds, dirt, light source, etc. in a container which was turned over every 10 seconds or so -- this was the cheapest available substitute for zero-gravity, since the cost of the real thing would have been too high. ------------------------------ Date: Fri Apr 2 19:46:57 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: harpo!mhtsa!allegra!phr at Berkeley Subject: Bruce Murray resigns as Head of JPL Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Bruce Murray, 50, has notified Caltech that he will step down later this year as director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The announcement came at the very start of Murray's seventh year as JPL head, a pos he took April 1, 1976. He recently has been involved in guiding JPL through a financial crisis caused by funding cuts in deep space exploration by the federal government. The date of his departure has not been determined, and no new director has been named. Murray says he plans to travel with his wife, Suzanne, and also undertake some writing. [from AP-NR-04-02 1529EST] ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 04-Apr-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #149 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 149 Today's Topics: Winds Delay Return to KSC Re: Another source of hydrogen Re: Shuttle future plans Weather Turnaround at WS Re: Shuttle Plants and Security update on fruit fly in space || Shuttle Work Ahead of Schedule ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri Apr 2 17:48:05 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: harpo!floyd!vax135!houxi!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Winds Delay Return to KSC Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. High winds, gusting up to 50 knots, stopped all operations on the Columbia today, and set back the transfer to KSC by at least two days, to 9 April. Most all of the minor jobs have been done, but the assembly of the tail-cone (and its mounting on the shuttle) and the mating of the shuttle to a 747 (scheduled to arrive at White Sands on Monday) require winds at no more than 8 knots. ------------------------------ Date: Fri Apr 2 12:22:14 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!ARPAVAX.CAD.teklabs!tekmdp!dadlaB!dadlaA!steve at Berkeley Subject: Re: Another source of hydrogen Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. I am posting this because I have heard that mail from USENET doesn't make it onto ARPANET correctly. REM@MIT-MC suggested using free electrons from a negatively charged electrode and free protons from a positively charged electrode to make hydrogen for a space city. Sorry - you don't understand the physics of the situation. A positively charged electrode has less than its normal complement of electrons. It doesn't have free protons. Hadrons don't pull the kind of stunts that leptons do about wandering around. In essence you are suggesting using a simple battery to induce fission of low-atomic-weight elements. Far more energy than that is necessary.... Steve Den Beste ------------------------------ Date: Fri Apr 2 18:14:49 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Re: Shuttle future plans Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. In response to your question of shake down flight(s), Challenger is scheduled to make its debut in January, 1983. I believe it is scheduled to deploy one or more satellites. ------------------------------ Date: Fri Apr 2 22:05:49 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Weather Turnaround at WS Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. The weather at White Sands underwent a complete turnaround tonight, and workers rushed back to the area where the Columbia is parked. Now, instead of delaying Wednesday's takeoff to KSC until Friday, officials say they might even make it by Tuesday. If weather holds, the tail cone could be assembled and attached by tomorrow night, and the shuttle could be hoisted on the 747 Sunday or Monday. Officials won't know until Monday when the takeoff will occur. ----------------------- In other news, Bruce Murray, director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for the past six years, has announced that he will step down from that post at the end of this year. No new director has yet been named. ------------------------------ Date: 3 April 1982 14:34-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: Shuttle Plants and Security To: harpo!floyd!vax135!houxi!houxt!govern at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Hmmm, a good experiment for shuttle, now that we have this USSR info, would be to try growing seeds both in zero-gee and zero-gee-with-electric-field and compare the results. Doing just zero-gee without any field would seem to be a waste of shuttle space. Does anybody have more info about the plant-growing experiment(s) being planned in the orbiter? ------------------------------ Date: 3 April 1982 14:36-EST From: Robert Elton Maas To: SPACE at MIT-MC I've heard nothing about that stowaway fruit-fly since the first day when the local station made a dumb joke about spraying it with malathion (it wasn't even a medfly, it was a Florida fruitfly). I guess I'll search the news services. But meanwhile has anybody else heard anything about that fruitfly? ------------------------------ Date: 3 April 1982 15:09-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: update on fruit fly in space To: SPACE at MIT-MC I searched AP/NYT but all I could find was one sentence that the fruit fly dissappeared shortly after being discovered, nothing on whether it was ever seen again during the flight (presumably not) or whether the ground crew found it later. ------------------------------ Date: 3 April 1982 1600-EST (Saturday) From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30) To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Subject: || CC: watmath!bstempleton at UCB-C70 In-Reply-To: Ted Anderson's message of 3 Apr 82 06:02-EST Message-Id: <03Apr82 160020 DS30@CMU-10A> There was a discussion of using the external tank about a year ago. Martin Marietta (maker of the ET) is looking into ways to utilize the tanks. The reason the ET is dropped short of orbit is to avoid the Skylab syndrome. The OMS burns required to boost the shuttle the rest of the way into orbit amount to about 300 mph, so it is clear that the tank could be taken into orbit, too. ------------------------------ Date: Sat Apr 3 16:39:56 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: harpo!floyd!vax135!houxi!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle Work Ahead of Schedule Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Work on the Columbia jumped ahead of schedule today, and officials say that the attachment of the tail cone to the shuttle may come tomorrow. If that occurs, the mating to the 747, now scheduled to land at White Sands tomorrow instead of Monday on the same strip as the shuttle, could take place on Monday afternoon. By Monday, NASA hopes to have a definite take off date and time for the shuttle's return to KSC. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 05-Apr-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #150 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 150 Today's Topics: Re: Another source of hydrogen ET as space station material Saving the shuttle external tank Shuttle Being Readied Re: Another source of hydrogen? Florida Shuttle Relay Frequency Florida Shuttle Relay Correction ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 April 1982 06:18-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: Another source of hydrogen To: ucbvax!ARPAVAX.CAD.teklabs!tekmdp!dadlaB!dadlaA!steve at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I don't understand your message at all. The solar wind is mostly hydrogen, both atomic and ionized (protons and electrons). All I suggested was that we harvest the protons (and to keep things balanced, an equal number of electrons). The protons are attracted to the negative electrode, where they lose their charge and remain embedded in the surface of the electrode. Where did you get the idea I was fissioning nuclii? I'm merely using solar UV to ionize hydrogen molecules (it happens already) and harvesting the resultant free protons (new). ------------------------------ Date: 4 April 1982 17:05 est From: Tavares.Coop at MIT-MULTICS Subject: ET as space station material To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Message of 4 April 1982 06:02 est from Ted Anderson We went over this some months ago right in this mailing list. I thought the final word was that there is so much noxious residue in the ET that it wasn't worth the effort of neutralizing it to make the material fit for human re-use of any type? ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 1982 1716-EST From: Roger H. Goun Subject: Saving the shuttle external tank To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Your message of 3-Apr-82 0602-EST I heard Gerald K O'Neill (a major proponent of the High Frontier concept) lecture at MIT last year. The plan he outlined for the exploitation and colonization of space depended on the use of the shuttle external tank as building material. As I recall, O'Neill claimed that the shuttle could place it's tank in LEO at a loss of only 3% of it's cargo capacity. Can anyone confirm or refute this figure? -- Roger ------------------------------ Date: Sun Apr 4 19:17:13 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle Being Readied Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Final work on the shuttle was being carried out today, and it is scheduled to be bolted to a 747 from midnight until 0800 tomorrow. If all goes well, takeoff for KSC could occur any time from as early as Monday afternoon on. ------------------------------ Date: Sat Apr 3 22:09:30 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: watmath!dthedmonds at Berkeley Subject: Re: Another source of hydrogen? Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Re: the electrode collection method. The design sounds like a low-power affair....if you turn the power up too high you're going to end up with the world's largest X-ray tube. Or have I dropped a digit somewhere? ------------------------------ Date: Sun Apr 4 20:53:48 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: duke!mcnc!unc!dopey.jl at Berkeley Subject: Florida Shuttle Relay Frequency Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. At the launch I heard the air-to-ground communications relayed at 170 MHz (plus or minus 1 MHz) on a Sears multi-band radio. Pilots were advised to tune to 110.0 MHz or 273.5 MHz after the launch for reports on location and drift of exhaust cloud, but I didn't listen in. ------------------------------ Date: Sun Apr 4 22:50:39 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: harpo!duke!mcnc!unc!dopey.jl at Berkeley Subject: Florida Shuttle Relay Correction Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Oops, air-to-ground relay at KSC was at 117 MHz, not 170 MHz. Sorry. ------------------------------ From: MIYATA@MIT-AI Date: 04/05/82 02:19:24 MIYATA@MIT-AI 04/05/82 02:19:24 To: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC I have periodically read your digest and would like to be placed on the distribution. If this should have been sent elsewhere, please forward or reply to me. thanks. gaylord miyata @MIT-AI ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 06-Apr-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #151 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 151 Today's Topics: Shuttle external tank discussion heavily loaded shuttle What noxious residue? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Apr 1982 1026-EST From: Jon Webb Subject: Shuttle external tank discussion To: space at MIT-MC Could someone who knows where they are go through the SPACE archive files and provide pointers to the discussion of a few months ago. I think all the questions being brought up now were discussed extensively not long ago, and I don't see the point of discussing them again. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 5 April 1982 08:06-PST From: KING at KESTREL Subject: heavily loaded shuttle To: space at mit-mc cc: King at KESTREL Anyone know if there are plans to launch and land the fourth shuttle test flight "heavy" (full cargo)? Seems to me they've been launching with very light cargos. I presume the weight limitation is launch weight. How much landing weight is the vehicle "stressed" for? Dick ------------------------------ Date: 5 April 1982 1051-EST (Monday) From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30) To: Tavares.Coop at MIT-MULTICS Subject: What noxious residue? CC: space at mit-mc Message-Id: <05Apr82 105123 DS30@CMU-10A> The ET carries liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. What is so noxious about that? The shuttle orbiter itself does use noxious propellants, in the form of hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide for the OMS and attitude control rockets. These are carried in the orbiter, not the ET. They explain the caution with which ground personnel approach the orbiter after landing -- from the right direction, clothed in protective garb, and using a wind machine. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 07-Apr-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #152 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 152 Today's Topics: Shuttle to Take Off Tomorrow QUERY using shuttle tanks heavily loaded shuttle shuttle insurance recent L5 conference in L.A. Shuttle Back at KSC ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon Apr 5 17:41:00 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: ucbvax!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle to Take Off Tomorrow Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Winds forced a five hour delay in the mating of the Columbia to its 747, and that forced officials to abandon hopes for takeoff today for KSC. Plans now call for the shuttle to take off at 0900 EST tomorrow and land at Cape Canaveral at 1600 EST. ------------------------------ Date: Mon Apr 5 23:09:40 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: harpo!uwvax!doug at Berkeley Subject: QUERY Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Columbia Stats Query I don't know if the info I'm looking for has been in this journal before. I need some data for a program a student of mine is writing. Does someone out there know: a) the mass of the columbia b) the total cross sectional area of it looking up or down at it c) it's speed upon entry to the atmosphere d) the time of flight from entry until landing e) the angle from the horozontal at which it enters f) the horozontal velocity at which it lands g) any equations regarding its acceleration as a function of air speed or time of flight thanks ------------------------------ Date: Mon Apr 5 18:50:36 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: utzoo!henry at Berkeley Subject: using shuttle tanks Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. NASA has studied a number of ways of making productive use of Shuttle external tanks, including using them as the hull(s) for a space station. It's plausible. The major problem is getting the tank all the way into orbit. The shuttle can take the tank up with it at a cost of about 10% of its payload. BUT, the resulting orbit is too low for something big and light like the tank to stay up long. Getting the tank into an orbit high enough to bring the air drag down is more expensive. Attaching solids and the like to the tank is counterproductive in most cases, since the Shuttle main engines are considerably more efficient, and are better used directly (as opposed to using them to haul less-efficient engines into orbit). Aside from these hassles, the major problem with using tanks as the hulls for a station is that they are rather large, and the station designs being contemplated for starters are smaller. Turning a tank into a station hull also involves a great deal of in-orbit work, and it will be a while yet before this sort of thing is routinely contemplated. ------------------------------ Date: 6 April 1982 08:59-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: heavily loaded shuttle To: KING at KESTREL cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Good idea. Maybe the top-secret military satellite is full weight? If not, wonder if the military would mind adding extra dead-weight? ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 6 April 1982 11:02-PST From: KING at KESTREL Subject: shuttle insurance To: space at mit-mc, poli-sci at mit-mc cc: King at KESTREL I remember reading a few months back that some private company in Princeton, N. J. was thinking of buying the fifth Space Shuttle. Does anyone out there know whether the insurance industry is capable of insuring against a single event (the crash of the Shuttle) for $1.5 billion? Dick ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 82 22:56-PDT From: mclure at SRI-UNIX To: space at mc Subject: recent L5 conference in L.A. The conference was a success and another is planned for next year in some place like Orlando or Houston. There were about 750 people. The opening night lecture was by Norm Dalkey of UCLA, on the Delphi procedures for expert polling and predicting. The highlight of the conference was a closing speech by Robert Heinlein about his nightmare of black boxes (unmanned probes) meeting and repopulating the universe after the extinction of Man who refused to probe space himself. Here's a list of the panels. The quoted story titles below refer to the Heinlein stories of the same names. "IF THIS GOES ON-" Future U.S. space plans to 2000 A.D. Space Stations and Platforms Skylab, Salyut, what next? Solar Power Satellites New technical approaches to the SPS designs Non-Terrestrial Resources Known non-terrestrial resources, methods for prospecting and surveying them, and material processing "THE LONG WATCH" Possibilities and plans for future military activities in space The Military Geography of Space G. Harry Stine discussed the new military arena, the distances and physics involved in the Earth-Moon system and the impossibility of preventing the military move into space "THE MAN WHO SOLD THE MOON" areas of development for private enterprise and the financial and regulartory tools necessary for such development to occur The Politics of Space influencing the political space process through education, information, and lobbying The Space Transportation System technical status of the Shuttle based on the results of its flights "HAVE SPACE SUIT -- WILL TRAVEL" a new fabric-reinforced, rubber-bag construction for space suit technology promises to speed space development and EVA "BLOWUPS HAPPEN" panel of development engineers who have experienced the spectacular blowups during rocket development Space Laws and Treaties Moon treaty, other laws and treaties regarding space Living in Space effect of isolation in space on humans, both psychological and sociological Exotic Space Transportation light (laser) sails, vertical mass driver, fusion bomb ships, ram jets, etc. "FARMER IN THE SKY" the potential of terraforming Mars & Venus Future Space Transportation advantages and limitations of rocket propulsion, mass drivers, light sails, etc. Solving International Problems Throught Space communication & earth-resource satellites and future opportunities Space and the Public education programs, media coverage, and grassroots space organizations with roles to play in educating the public Space Art current space art, forms possible only in space Space Industrialization industrial manufacturing in space, the economics involved "WALDO" Minsky talked about man-machine systems and remote automation in space "BEYOND THIS HORIZON" space plans for the next century and beyond ------------------------------ Date: Tue Apr 6 19:42:47 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle Back at KSC Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. After 15 days at White Sands, 3 longer than STS-2 stayed at Edwards, the Columbia touched down at the 15,000 runway at KSC today at 1528 EST. Immediately, its 747 taxied to a demating device, and, over the next 20 hours, it will be removed from the plane. It should be in its hangar by Wednesday, and then the inspections and work on it will begin, starting with the inspection of the 38 missing tiles and the rebonding of 1200 more. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 08-Apr-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #153 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 153 Today's Topics: Shuttle Experiment Ruined program of recent L5 conference Who insures the Shuttle? Shuttle Now in OPF ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed Apr 7 07:27:29 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle Experiment Ruined Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. An experiment with blood and kidney cells in space has been mostly ruined on Earth. The experiment proceeded very well in space, but when it got to Earth, its freezer malfunctioned, the cells thawed out, and most of the data was lost. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 1982 10:40:26-EST From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: space at mit-mc Subject: program of recent L5 conference If the program really did use "If This Goes On---" to cover space developments up to 2000 AD, whoever put it together didn't bother reading the story, which is set over a hundred years in the future and tells of the overthrow of a theocratic dictatorship. I don't even recall any true rockets (although someone makes a getaway in a high-performance jet at one point). ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 1982 1539-CST From: Clyde Hoover Subject: Who insures the Shuttle? To: space at MIT-MC Lloyds of London, of course! They wil insure damn near ANYTHING (and will charge premiums to fit). $1.5 billion seems a bit high, but it should be possible as soon as the STS has a good operational safety record. ------------------------------ Date: Wed Apr 7 17:42:35 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle Now in OPF Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. At 1105 EST, Columbia made it through the doors of the Orbiter Processing Facility, where it will stay about 6 weeks for refurbishment. The first item on the list is the removal and cleansing of the OMS pods, and of course, rebonding of tiles. Then the shuttle will be moved to the Vehicle Assembly Building where it will be mated with an external tank and two new SRB's. Target date for STS-4 is 27 June. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 1982 01:10:14-PST From: A.exp at Berkeley It would be easier to use solids carried up in the bay of the Shuttle to boost the external tanks alone to higher orbit, because the use of additional tanks of liquid fuel inside the Shuttle would require boosting all the dead weight of the Shuttle for each external tank. Enlarging the external tank requires a reconfiguration of the Shuttle exterior and development; so liquid fuel to boost the tank into a higher orbit should not be carried up outside the orbiter in the tank. Since the alternative of putting liquid inside the Shuttle wastes payload capacity, solids carried inside the bay and later attached to the external tank is the best way to get the external tank into higher orbit. Two studies that describe methods of converting and using the external tank are 1. In NASA SP-428 2. An OASIS document on this. It's not much harder than building an apartment. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 09-Apr-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #154 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 154 Today's Topics: Buyers for a Fifth Shuttle Unmentioned difficulty on Mission 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu Apr 8 07:23:45 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: decvax!harpo!ihnss!houxi!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Buyers for a Fifth Shuttle Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. A group of investors has proposed to NASA to pay $1 billion for cargo rights if a fifth space shuttle is built. NASA is seriously thinking about this, but they say that they must sell Congress on it first. The investors would then sell of space on their shuttle to other firms. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 1982 1943-EST (Thursday) From: jnc at mit-csr Reply-to: JNC@MIT-XX Subject: Unmentioned difficulty on Mission 1 To: space at mc CC: jnc From Av Week (April 5, p 19, article about reentry test data): "At this point in the entry, Lousma flew Columbia manually into an 80 deg right bank to establish the spacecraft on its roll reversal schedule. He flew a manual maneuver to maintain a 3 deg/sec roll rate, compared with 5 deg for the automatic system. The auto roll rate caused a bank overshoot and roll oscillation at this point on MIssion 1." Does anyone remembver hearing about this before? It sounds pretty tame, they way the put it, but that 'roll oscillation' at Mach 24 and 254,000 feet on re-entry must have been pretty wild. ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 09-Apr-82 0402 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #155 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 155 Today's Topics: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu Apr 8 10:00:50 1982 From: decvax!pur-ee!coleman at Berkeley To: decvax!ucbvax!space@Berkeley I am a sophmore E.E. @ Purdue, could you please put me on your mailing list. ! ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 10-Apr-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #156 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 156 Today's Topics: SPACE Digest V2 #153 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Friday, 9 April 1982 08:32-PST From: KING at KESTREL To: cc.clyde at utexas-20 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, King at KESTREL Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #153 My point is that the insurance company has to have a capatilization large compared to $1.5B, or they are betting the company on the Shuttle remaining safe, which Lloyds has no intention of doing. Lloyds (and other companies, on large exposures) will reinsure (i. e. they will pay parts of their premiums to other companies in return for accepting parts of the risk) but the total size of that part of the insurance industry that would consider accepting a part of the risk would have to exceed $1.5B by a factor of about a hundred. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 11-Apr-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #157 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 157 Today's Topics: Insurance ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Apr 1982 1023-PST From: JPM at SU-AI Subject: Insurance To: space at MIT-MC On King's comment: that is silly. It is routine to insure for 100 million nowadays. THe pipeline project cost on the order of $10 billion. Insurance companies EACH have capital on the order of $10 billion for the giants, so there would be no difficulty insuring something for $1.5 billion (at a price of course). Indeed, insurance companies could handle up to two orders of magnitude MORE, not less (although that would of course be really pushing the limit - one order of magnitude is more reasonable for now). Jim ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 12-Apr-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #158 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 158 Today's Topics: external tanks, cont. Indian Satellite Launch Indian satellite ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun Apr 11 04:08:16 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: decvax!cca!decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley Subject: external tanks, cont. Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Actually, neither I nor A.exp@Berkeley was entirely right about whether it's easier to use solids or the shuttle main engines to get the tank into a suitably-high orbit. It depends on how high the orbit needs to be, something I'm not sure of. The tradeoffs are like this: 1. Using the SSMEs to carry the tank higher requires carrying the orbiter higher too, which wastes fuel *unless* the orbiter is going that high anyway (say, to orbit a long-lived satellite). Remember, though, that the ET is *heavy* -- I seem to recall it weighs as much as the whole orbiter -- and thus it's not as much of a waste as it sounds at first. 2. If you cannot get enough fuel for the operation simply by filling the ET full and cutting down shuttle payload, then using the SSMEs requires more tankage somewhere. This is a pain because the cargo bay does not have plumbing for LOX/LH2, last I heard. Moreover, LOX/LH2 is much bulkier than solid rockets. 3. The SSMEs are not restartable, last I heard, so if you need more than one burn you cannot rely entirely on them. 4. The SSMEs, being very-high-pressure oxyhydrogen engines, have a much higher exhaust velocity than any solid. So it is decidedly to your advantage to use them if you can. I suspect the optimum approach, actually, is to use the SSMEs as far as possible, getting the fuel for this by reducing shuttle payload and draining the ET as dry as possible, and then use solids for the rest. The solids preferably should be attached to the ET at launch, to avoid in-orbit moving and arming and to keep the cargo bay clear. Alternatively, if the Air Force's project to put Titan engines plus tankage on the bottom of the ET to get very heavy loads into polar orbit goes well, this might be a very handy propulsion system for moving the tank to higher orbits. It is reasonable that fitting the ET out as a station would be no harder than building an apartment. But I'm not sure this is encouraging; ever seen how long it takes to accomplish the latter? It's a lot of work even in a nice helpful one-gee field. I am not quarrelling about the project being worthwhile, but NASA will have to get used to extensive in-orbit work projects before it is willing to seriously consider this. When it comes to funding such projects (as opposed to funding studies of them), NASA is very timid and conservative. Part of this, of course, is because with turkeys like Proxmire around, NASA daren't goof badly. But NASA has always been obsessed with safety and never doing anything untried when it can be avoided; arguably the space program would have gone further and faster if a bolder approach had been adopted. (It has even been suggested that the lack of long-term emotional commitment to the space program by the public was partly a result of lack of boldness: it never really looked *hard*.) ------------------------------ Date: Sun Apr 11 07:26:44 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: decvax!cca!decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Indian Satellite Launch Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. INSTAT 1A, India's fourth satellite, was launched yesterday from Cape Canaveral aboard a Delta rocket. It will provide 8000 telephone channel and also some TV channels. India's first two satellites were launched by the USSR and its third was aboard a test firing of the ESA Ariane booster. A fifth planned satellite, a second INSTAT, is planned for a July, 1983, space shuttle launch. ------------------------------ Date: 11 April 1982 15:28 est From: Walters.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Indian satellite Sender: COMSAT.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC *from: Tim Walters Local: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, cc:WALTERS:sent.po Original-date: 11 APR 1982 14:10:08 From UPI wire service: CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (UPI) _ The twice-delayed launch of India's first operational satellite, which officials say is important to the social and economic development of the world's second most populous nation, finally was carried out Saturday without a flaw. The INSAT-I satellite soared into space on schedule at 1:47 a.m. EST atop a U.S. Delta rocket. K.R. Narayanan, India's ambassador to the United States who witnessed the launch, said the satellite is necessary to "India's social and economic development." "I feel terribly excited. It was a glorious and magnificent sight to see. This is a splendid example of U.S.-India cooperation of far-reaching significance," he said. The satellite is an unusual design to provide both telecommunications and weather information to India, a nation with a population of more than 613 million, second only to China. It is the first of two INSATs that India is paying $120 million to put in orbit. INSAT-II is scheduled to be carried aloft in 1983 by the space shuttle. Professor S. Dhawan, chairman of India's Space Commission, said direct broadcasting to rural areas will begin Aug. 15, India's independence day. "The satellite will help us step-by-step in the country's development," Dhawan said. Saturday was the third attempt to launch INSAT-I with a Delta rocket, the U.S. Space Agency's most reliable launch vehicle. Small, but nagging problems twice delayed the scheduled launch _ first on Thursday and again on Friday. They were corrected quickly, but caused 24-hour delays each time. INSAT-I was programmed to go first into a highly eliptical orbit ranging from 115 miles to more than 22,000 miles above Earth. About three days after launch, remote firing of a motor aboard the satellite will position it in a stationary orbit 22,300 miles above the Equator, west of Delhi. Aboard the INSAT-I are 12 of the transponders that can handle simultaneously 8,000 telephone calls or other data transmission. Two channels will be devoted to direct television broadcasting. India wants to eventually have 100,000 television terminals in rural areas across the country. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 13-Apr-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #159 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 159 Today's Topics: (LA people) OASIS 24 April: "Mapping Far-Off Moons" shuttle aborts ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Apr 1982 1208-PST From: Tom Wadlow To: space at MIT-MC I understand that NASA is planning to put the External Tank into orbit on STS-8. This will be purely experimental, and I don't know how long the ET is expected to survive. With regard to fitting the ET out as an orbital station, I have a copy of a report on how to do that (Space Systems Development Group, #136 136 South Virgil Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90004 $10). They describe two ways that you can get things started: 1) Build a habitability module on Earth that fits over the bottom of the ET (in the gap between the SRBs). This module contains a living module that can be used as a construction shack until the rest of the ET can be outfitted. This may be trickier than was originally planned as the bottom of the ET gets a little hot during liftoff. 2) Bring along a set of inflatable walls. You would essentially blow up a big shaped balloon (manufactured on Earth, of course) and then spray quick hardening foam over them to get, in very short order, a lot of defined living space. This method should be fairly quick, and not require a construction shack. An interesting point is made in the report about the ET. The ET is actually composed of two tanks, separated by a collar (the knurled ring about 2/3 of the way up the tank). This intertank is mostly empty, and could be used as cargo space to carry supplies for outfitting the tank. This does not increase the cargo weight capacity of the Shuttle, but it does increase the cargo volume. --Tom ------------------------------ Date: 12-Apr-82 14:27:05 PST (Monday) From: Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: (LA people) OASIS 24 April: "Mapping Far-Off Moons" To: Space @ MC cc: Hamilton Time: Saturday 24 April 7 pm Place: The Aerospace Corporation, Bldg A-1 El Segundo Blvd just west of Aviation Speaker: Merton Davies, Rand Corp. Topic: "Mapping Far-Off Moons": A presentation of some of the techniques used to transform the Voyager 1 and 2 images into the detailed satellite maps issued by the U.S. Geological survey. Admission free. (213)374-1381 for more info. --Bruce ------------------------------ Date: 12 Apr 1982 at 1700-CST From: kjm at UTEXAS-11 Subject: shuttle aborts To: space at mit-mc Does anyone know what the specific procedure is during a return-to- launch site abort? I am told that the shuttle turns around under thrust-vector control and then goes to an attitude that the RCS and control surfaces can handle, but I don't understand how the tank can be safely separated in the atmosphere. ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 14-Apr-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #160 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 160 Today's Topics: ET in orbit Re: future status of {net,fa}.space future status of {net,fa}.space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Apr 1982 1035-MST From: Pendleton at UTAH-20 (Bob Pendleton) Subject: ET in orbit To: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC It has been proposed that the shuttles payload can be increased by 30 to 50% by replacing the steel solid rocket casings with carbon composite casings. This could solve the problem of placing the ET in a high orbit, not to mention other desirable results. Bob P. ------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue Apr 13 15:15:58 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: decvax!cca!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!cbosg!nscs!jpj at Berkeley Subject: Re: future status of {net,fa}.space Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. I vote for net.space - for reasons in conjunction w/djb's. Cheers... Jim Jenal BTL/CB ------------------------------ Date: Tue Apr 13 10:21:39 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: decvax!cca!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!cbosg!cbosgd!mark at Berkeley Subject: future status of {net,fa}.space Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. OK, guys, we've had enough time to try out both forms of this. Now it's time to make a decision. Do you like the digested (fa) form, or the direct (net) form better? One of them is going to go away. Which do you want to keep? Please reply on newsgroup net.news.group only, to save the people on the arpanet from being bored by all this. Mark ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 15-Apr-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #161 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 161 Today's Topics: Space in the news External tank and solids in payload bay ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Apr 1982 0653-PST Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3 Subject: Space in the news From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) To: Space at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]14-Apr-82 06:53:24.WMARTIN> Electronic Engineering Times, 12 April 82, page 28: This entire page has five items relating to space which may be of interest to people on the list; there's too much to type in -- I will mention the topics and recommend that you locate the publication (it's a newspaper) at your local library. THE SECRECY OF THE FOURTH SHUTTLE FLIGHT The columnist predicts problems for NASA resulting from the secrecy of the payload on the fourth flight, and speculates that video transmissions showing the payload bay will be prohibited. He guesses the payload will be a cryogenic infrared sensor to demonstrate technology for future surveillance spacecraft. SPACE-BASED DOLLARS Defense spending for space-based systems is likely to double in the next seven years, according to Frost & Sullivan. Much of the money will go into particle-beam and high-energy laser hardware. In constant 1980 dollars, will go from $477 million in fiscal 1981 to $959 million in fiscal 1987. They also predict a shift from defensive or retaliatory capability to offensive roles. ...AND WHERE THEY'LL BE SPENT A plan for an integrated high-energy laser weapons development effort will involve DARPA, the USAF, and the Army. DARPA will manage it initially and it may then move to a new USAF Space Command, built from the current USAF Space Division. An RFP is expected soon for studies, with $9 million in initial funding to each participating company. Expected entrants include Martin Marietta, Eastman Kodak, Lockheed, Rockwell Int'l, and TRW. These companies have repeatedly stated that laser battle stations could be demonstrated in five years, given adequate funding. MARTIN MARIETTA SPACE EFFORTS This company seems to be pushing the development of a technological base to put it at the forefront of directed-energy space weaponry development. Areas emphasized are: Acquisition tracking and pointing -- though it lost the full Talon Gold project to Lockheed, Martin has been working on a DARPA contract for this critical area. Survivability -- continued operation of spacecraft in a hostile environment. Uses Stealth technology plus thermal signature reduction to prevent infrared sensing. Contaminants -- Effects of radiation and weapon operation on spacecraft components, under contract to NASA and the USAF Materials Lab. Robotics -- Trying to get a DARPA contract to work in this area to eliminate the need for "full-time human control". Advanced Automation -- an example is the feature identification and location experiment, flown on the second shuttle mission (to be re-flown due to the shortened flight). Automatic recognition of desired features and keeping satellite observation time from being wasted on clouds. NASA:SPACE SHUTTLE ENVIRONMENT EXPERIMENTS The third payload operated "extremely well"; all but one were a success. The eight experiments involved were meant to monitor the shuttle's effect on its immediate environment and vice versa. Regards, Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 14 Apr 1982 21:02:00-PST From: A.exp at Berkeley Subject: External tank and solids in payload bay It is better to haul up solid boosters for the external tank inside the cargo bay than haul them up on the place on the tank to which they would be attached. The latter requires an reconfiguration for aerodynamics and balance because nothing is designed to be outside the present Shuttle body while it goes through the atmosphere into orbit. The former requires only some bolts on the solid boosters and on the positions they would be attached to on the external tank, and a control mechanism to keep the external tank going in the right direction, such as a gimbal on the mounts. The Shuttle arm can mount the solid boosters on the external tank after it is released from the Shuttle. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 16-Apr-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #162 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 162 Today's Topics: Christopher Kraft announces retirement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed Apr 14 19:39:12 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: decvax!cca!decvax!harpo!mhtsa!allegra!phr at Berkeley Subject: Christopher Kraft announces retirement Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. SPACE CENTER, Houston (AP) _ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft, director of the Johnson Space Center, announced Wednesday he will leave the National Aeronautics and Space Administration at the end of the year. Kraft, 58, said he has no definite plans. He said he would remain at his post until after the space shuttle Columbia completes its first operational flight in November. ``This will be a transition period for activity at the Johnson Space Center and a reasonable time to depart,'' Kraft said. Kraft's career began in 1945 with the National Advisory Council on Aeronautics in Virginia. In 1958, he was selected as one of the original members of the Space Task group to oversee the Mercury project. Afterward, he came to Houston as a flight director for the Mercury and most of the Gemini projects, and in 1972, was named as space center director. AP-NR-04-14 1251EST< ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 18-Apr-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #163 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 163 Today's Topics: discontinuity Shuttle Pictures Shuttle Work on Schedule ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Apr 1982 23:40:45-EST From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: space-enthusiasts at mit-mc Subject: discontinuity In accordance with requests from our system manager to reduce the load on our link to the arpanet, please discontinue my direct subscriptions to your digests ------------------------------ Date: Sat Apr 17 22:47:15 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: decvax!ucbvax!npois!alice!research!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle Pictures Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. On page 105 of the May, 1982, issue of SCIENCE DIGEST, there is an ad for four 16x20 pictures of the Columbia's recent flight (one of it on the pad at night, two of the launch (one with a reflection of it on the nearby river), and one of the landing) They are LASER Graphic (r) print ``from official NASA photographs'' Framed or unframed (*BIG* price difference) ------------------------------ Date: Sat Apr 17 17:41:29 1982 To: Space at MIT-MC From: decvax!ucbvax!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle Work on Schedule Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. (Back after a week's vacation...) Preparations for STS-4 are going along on schedule as of this weekend. While technicians are inspecting the shuttle in the OPF and draining its OMS and reaction control system of fuels, the external tank and two SRB's to be used in STS-4 are being mated over the weekend. It will be a 7 day flight and the last flight to land at Edwards. Future flights will land at KSC. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 20-Apr-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #164 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 164 Today's Topics: Reusable SRBs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 April 1982 08:51 est From: CLJones.Multics at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Reusable SRBs To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Does anyone know if any of the solid rocket boosters have been reused yet? I gather they've recovered all of them, but I don't believe they reuse them right away. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 21-Apr-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #165 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 165 Today's Topics: External Tank again... Shuttle return of MX's Re: Reusable SRBs Eta Carinae ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun Apr 18 19:32:53 1982 To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley Subject: External Tank again... Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Suppose we are using solid strapons to boost the ET higher, and are attaching them in orbit. How much extra delta-V are we getting out of the SSMEs in getting the tank up there? If the answer is "little or none", it goes like this. Main engine cutoff. Shuttle separates from tank, maneuvers to the right position. Cargo bay opened, arm picks up first solid booster, begins to attach it. ...and at about this moment, orbiter and tank both hit atmosphere, and wind up in little pieces on the bottom of the Indian Ocean. There is very little time available between ET separation and ET reentry; if the SSMEs are used more extensively, this will lengthen, but I suspect it would still be a severe constraint. There are other problems of designing the attachment system, and the general hairiness of handling big chunks of explosive (that's what solid-fuel rocket motors are, and they are handled with elaborate care). It does look like it's better to have the solids in place at launch. Any reconfiguration for aerodynamics and balance would probably be a minor variation of what is going to have to be done anyway for the USAF's extra-boost addition (Titan engines and tanks on bottom of ET). ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 1982 10:46:33-EST From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: arms-d at mit-mc, space-enthusiasts at mit-mc Subject: Shuttle return of MX's Cc: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX Here's a question that could be good for several weeks of wrangling before someone actually comes up with the beginnings of a factual answer. There has been a proposal that MX's could be parked in orbit in the course of an alert, then brought down on the USSR if there really was an attack, or brought back by Shuttle if it was a false alarm. The question is, is this really practicable? Breaking this down into more manageable questions: 1. How much of the MX would have to be left in orbit to assure precise aiming if it is to be used? (need both mass and dimensions) 2. How many of these [upper stages] could be fitted into a Shuttle cargo bay (need both packing and the safe landing weight of the Shuttle) 3. If we throw away the guidance section and just bring back the warheads, what does this do to (2)? Would this be reasonable in terms of the work that would be necessary on the ground to return the warheads to ready status? 4. How difficult would (3) be in zero-gee? (Figure that working with nuclear warheads requires much greater precautions than the sample construction work that has been done in earthbound tanks of water.) Have fun! ------------------------------ Date: 20-Apr-82 9:03:37 PST (Tuesday) From: Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Reusable SRBs To: CLJones.Multics at MIT-MULTICS cc: Space@MC, Hamilton.ES See (as usual) last week's AW&ST [Aviation Week] for the proposed schedule of reuse. None have been reused yet. The intent seems to be to phase in the reuse of various components (e.g. SSME's [main engines]). --Bruce ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 82 2:22-PST From: mclure at SRI-UNIX To: space at mc Subject: Eta Carinae !a034 0159 21 Apr 82 PM-Super Star,550 Star Explosion May Be Visible During Daytimer new grafs and SUBS By WARREN E. LEARY AP Science Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - A stellar event of the highest magnitude is imminent, say astronomers, who are predicting that the largest star in the Milky Way could at any moment become the next supernova observable from Earth. The rare phenomenon, signalling a massive explosion of the giant, swollen star, could be sighted at any time - today or 10,000 years from now - but astronomers say it will be ''soon'' in the cosmic scale of time. When it does, the star will suddenly appear to be up to 100 million times brighter than before it exploded and could be seen even in broad daylight for a time. Dr. Kris Davidson of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis said Tuesday that the star Eta Carinae appears to be the most likely candidate in our part of the Milky Way galaxy to become a supernova. ''It may not be the next, but we can't identify another one that will go off in the next 100,000 years,'' Davidson said in a telephone interview. Scientists estimate that a supernova occurs every 50 years among the billions of stars in our galaxy. But because only about a tenth of the galaxy is visible from the Earth, one can be observed only every couple of hundred years. The last supernova recorded occurred in 1604, however, so another is long overdue. Eta Carinae, visible only from the Southern Hemisphere, appears to be the only star of its kind discovered in the Milky Way. It is 100 times more massive than the sun and has a diameter of about 60 million miles, compared with less than a million miles for the sun. ''We call it a blue super giant and it really is unique,'' Davidson said. ''There are some stars in other galaxies that look similar, and these are among the most luminous stars there are.'' Such a star has a typical lifetime of only 2 or 3 million years, compared with several billion years for a slower-burning body such as the sun. The giant stars are so bright because they burn up their hydrogen fuel at a tremendously accelerated rate, astronomers say. Stars become supernovas when they burn up most of their fuel, swell and then explode in a burst of light and energy. The explosion of Eta Carinae would cause it to give off more light than the combined brilliance of all the other stars for a period of weeks, Davidson said. It would be visible from Earth as a bright point of light even in the daytime. Eta Carinae is about 9,000 light years from Earth. A light year is the distance light travels in space in a year at 186,000 miles per second, about six trillion miles. That means its explosion into a supernova actually may have occurred thousands of years ago but hasn't yet become visible here. The star has been known to astronomers for hundreds of years. But because a thick mass of dust and gas it previously ejected obscures direct observation, no one knew whether it was a new star forming or an old star dying. Davidson and Drs . Nolan R. Walborn and Theodore R. Gull of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland made new observations using the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory in Chile and the International Ultraviolet Explorer Satellite orbiting the Earth. Their work, financed by the National Science Foundation and published in the current Astrophysical Journal, determined that the star is nearing the end of its life. ap-ny-04-21 0459EST ********** ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 22-Apr-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #166 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 166 Today's Topics: MX missles in space Re: SPACE Digest V2 #165, Shuttle return of MX's Black Astronaut Turnaround Work on Schedule Soviets launch new Space Station LASER Graphics Ad Nuclear Power in Space Saturn V engines Weapons in Space?? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Apr 1982 at 0731-CST From: David M. Phillips Subject: MX missles in space To: space at mit-mc MX missles in space? Good god! How far is Reagan inspired war fever going to carry us? Not over the brink I hope. What ever happened to the premise of using space for peaceful purposes. And even assuming some maniac puts an MX or similar in space, how are they going to guarantee it won't happen to fall down on us instead of them. ------------------------------ Date: 21-Apr-82 11:29:49 PST (Wednesday) From: Trigoboff at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #165, Shuttle return of MX's In-reply-to: OTA's message of 21 Apr 1982 0302-PST To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC I think they weren't planning to use the shuttle to bring them back, but just command them to re-enter in a non-detonating mode. They mentioned Kwajelein as a possible recovery point. ------------------------------ Date: Tue Apr 20 17:45:07 1982 To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Black Astronaut Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. After Sally Ride becomes the first American woman in space aboard STS-7, Air Force Lt. Guion S. Bluford will become the first Black astronaut in STS-8. He will also serve as a mission specialist. ------------------------------ Date: Tue Apr 20 21:51:39 1982 To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Turnaround Work on Schedule Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. NASA today announced that the turnaround for STS-4 is proceeding on schedule, and they still are aiming for a late June launch. Officials today said that they expect to roll the shuttle to the VAB in the middle of May. There it will be mated with the external tank and two SRB's, already mated. Some 800 tiles have already been removed for improvement, and a turbo fuel pump in one of the main engines has been removed for replacement. In other announcements, NASA said that Richard Truly (STS-2) would command STS-8 and that John Young (STS-1) would command STS-9. STS-9 will be the first flight that will take the European Space Lab up into orbit. Both are Challenger flights. ------------------------------ Date: Tue Apr 20 13:36:25 1982 To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!mhtsa!allegra!phr at Berkeley Subject: Soviets launch new Space Station Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Salyut 7 has just been launched, and its systems "are functioning normally." It joins Salyut 6, which has been in orbit for 4 1/2 years. The station is apperently unmanned. French cosmonaut Patrick Baudry is expected to fly to the station in late June. France will be the tenth country to take part in a joint space mission with the Soviet Union and the first non-communist country. Tass said that the station is in an 89.2 minute, 136 by 173 mile orbit. ------------------------------ Date: Tue Apr 20 23:03:57 1982 To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!research!sjb at Berkeley Subject: LASER Graphics Ad Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. For those of you who asked for the address of the company, unfortunately, I tore out the entire ad when ordering. The only thing I remember is the name of the company: LASER Graphics, Ltd. Perhaps a local library would carry the issue (May, 1982)? BTW, the pictures are of STS-1, not STS-3, as I said earlier. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 1982 (Wednesday) 1641-EDT From: HAGAN at Wharton-10 (John Hagan) Subject: Nuclear Power in Space To: space at MIT-MC As I understood it, the U.S. had signed an international agreement that forbids nulear energy power plants and weapons in space. Due to this contract, NASA had to scrap a plan to use small atomic bombs to propel a craft to speeds like .1C, and perhaps visit planets and STARS... Any truth in this? ------------------------------ Date: Wed Apr 21 15:00:05 1982 To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!eagle!karn at Berkeley Subject: Saturn V engines Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. I recently bought one of those "laser prints" of NASA photographs, and I must say that they are very well done. One of them is a picture of the Apollo 15 launch, and I noticed something that I'd seen before on shots of Saturn V launches. If you look carefully at the end of the first stage engine nozzles, you will note that there is a region below the nozzles where the exhaust is a dark reddish color, instead of the brilliant yellow-white of the exhaust farther down. Does anyone know what causes this? I would think that the propellants would have thoroughly mixed and burned before leaving the engine nozzle. Phil Karn Bell Labs Murray Hill ------------------------------ Date: Tue Apr 20 21:09:12 1982 To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!watmath!jcwinterton at Berkeley Subject: Weapons in Space?? Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the world agree (some UN protocol) to keep the arms race out of space altogether? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 23-Apr-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #167 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 167 Today's Topics: Outer Space Treaty Penny Wise, Pound Foolish Another Saturn V query Columbia's radio problems Re: Nuclear Power in Space 17:50 PST (Thursday) From: Trigoboff at PARC-MAXC Subject: Upper Booster Laser Graphics Prints Re: LASER Graphics Ad ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Apr 1982 0712-PST From: Paul Dietz Subject: Outer Space Treaty To: space at MIT-MC Indeed, The US and Russia have signed the outer space treaty, which prohibits weapons of mass destruction in space or on planets. It does not prohibit nuclear power plants (remember that russian reactor that hit Canada?), but does prohibit even 'peaceful' nuclear explosives so project Orion type rockets are forbidden. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 22 Apr 1982 0714-PST From: Paul Dietz Subject: Penny Wise, Pound Foolish To: space at MIT-MC I hear that NASA will be shutting down Pioneers 10 and 11 and Pioneer Venus in January because of budget cuts. Once this happens the spacecraft cannot be restarted. Saving will be around $7 million. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 22 April 1982 1153-EST (Thursday) From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30) To: space at MIT-MC Subject: Another Saturn V query Message-Id: <22Apr82 115348 DS30@CMU-10A> If you look at a photograph of a Saturn V high in the atmosphere, but with the first stage still burning, it looks like the exhaust plume blossoms from quite a ways up the rocket, about from the top of the first stage. Can anyone explain this? ------------------------------ Date: 22 April 1982 1156-EST (Thursday) From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30) To: space at MIT-MC Subject: Columbia's radio problems Message-Id: <22Apr82 115657 DS30@CMU-10A> From Flight International, issue of 10 April 82: Shortly after landing it was discovered that there was nothing wrong with Columbia's radios, which had caused communications difficulties during the mission. The problem was traced to an open circuit breaker and out-of-position switch, which could easily have been put right by the crew. Nasa apparently failed to sort the problem out because of flight controller conservatism -- it was decided to leave things as they were rather than risk a complete loss of communication. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Apr 1982 09:12 PST From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Nuclear Power in Space In-reply-to: HAGAN's message of 21 Apr 1982 (Wednesday) 1641-EDT To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Lynn.es I don't know about any plans NASA had for nuclear propulsion, but all missions past Mars (2 Pioneers and 2 Voyagers) have had nuclear electric power. This is the only way we know to generate continuous power for periods of years that far from the sun. There is some treaty restriction on nuclear stuff in space, however, since an LA Times article about the MX in space said that it appeared that it would violate the treaty. /Don Lynn ------------------------------ 22-Apr-82 11:17:50 PST (Thursday) From: Trigoboff at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #166 In-reply-to: OTA's message of 22 Apr 1982 0302-PST To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC There was a news item yesterday which said that the people who proposed the "orbital basing" scheme for the MX were considering "what to do about" the no nuclear weapons in space treaties. ------------------------------ Date: Thu Apr 22 20:19:32 1982 To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!mhtsa!ihnss!houxi!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Upper Booster Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. A prototype of an upper stage rocket to be launched from the cargo bay of the space shuttle was unveiled today. It will boost satellites into geosynchronous orbit, which the shuttle cannot reach. It will be tested from a Titan booster late this year, and will make its debut on STS-6, now scheduled for January, 1983. ------------------------------ Date: Thu Apr 22 20:51:25 1982 To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!pavel at Berkeley Subject: Laser Graphics Prints Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. There is an ad in OMNI for the prints Adam mentioned of the STS-1 flight. The text of the ad follows: AMERICAN HISTORY CAPTURED... Full color Laser Graphic(r) prints from official NASA photo- graphs of America's triumphant Space Shuttle maiden flight. Reproduced by the most advanced lithographic techniques on high- quality Kromekote paper and coated for an attractive glossy finish. Outstanding clarity and fidelity in a large 16" BY 20" FORMAT. $5.95 each (unframed) Set of four $18.95 (Save $4.85) Available quality framed with color coordinated mat, contempo- rary chrome metal frame and non-glare glass. $29.95 each ($6.00 Insurance/Postage) ------------------------------------------------------------------ | LASER GRAPHICS, LTD. P.O. Box 1316, Simi Valley, CA. 93062 | | | | Yes! Please rush me the items below (Indicate Quantity) | | | | Framed Unframed | | ________ __________ LR38 Launch with picturesque reflection | | ________ __________ LR12 Shuttle on pad, colorfully nightlit | | ________ __________ LR31 Spectacular liftoff, maiden flight | | ________ __________ LR44 Columbia within feet of touchdown | | | | SPECIAL OFFER! Set of four prints $18.95 (You save $4.85)____ | | | | | __ Check | Name____________________________________________ | | | (Please Print) | | __ Money | Address_________________________________________ | | Order | | | | City_________________State________Zip___________ | ------------------------------------------------------------------ California Residents add sales tax Foreign orders add $1.50 per item ------------------------------ Date: Thu Apr 22 13:32:44 1982 To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!hplabs!faunt at Berkeley Subject: Re: LASER Graphics Ad Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. They also advertise in Aviation Leak. Laser Graphics, Inc. PO Box 1316 Simi Valley CA 93062 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 24-Apr-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #168 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 168 Today's Topics: Electromagnetic Accelerator Article Re: Shuttle Work on Schedule Some definitions of abbreviations ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Apr 1982 1514-PST From: Paul Dietz Subject: Electromagnetic Accelerator Article To: space at MIT-MC The April 82 IEEE Spectrum has an interesting article on electromagnetic accelerators. Of interest is a proposed hybrid mass driver/chemical rocket system for launching payloads into low earth orbit. Launched Vehicle: Two-stage solid-fuel rocket Mass: 15000 Kg Length: 10 m Diameter: 1 m Payload to LEO: 1000 Kg Launcher: Velocity: 2 Km/sec Acceleration: 20 g Length: 10 Km Launch time: 10 sec Launch Energy: 30 Gigajoules Force: 3.0E6 Newtons Average Power: 6 Gigawatts Peak power: 6 GW Thge system stores 50 Gj of energy for 200 seconds in a massive aluminum coil 40 meters in diameter weighing over 8000 tons. Energy input to the coil would be from the Pacific Intertie, an existing dc power line running down through California. Total cost would be $200 M to $400 M. Under reasonable assumptions about usage the cost to LEO is $3000 per kg of payload. After amortization of the launcher the cost drops to $1400 per kg. Also of interest is a single coil accelerator. Placed next to the coil is a conducting ring. When a high current pulse is sent through the coil the induction ring is accelerated to 1 km/sec in just 1 cm, an acceleration of 20 million g's. A russian has proposed accelerators capable of 100 million g accelerations. These acclerators would be as reaction engines, the induction rings being made from asteroidal material. ------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue Apr 20 07:03:07 1982 To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!ihnss!harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!sdcsvax!davidson at Berkeley Subject: Re: Shuttle Work on Schedule Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. I would appreciate it if authors of articles would avoid undefined abbreviations. In the eight line article I just read, there were four such terms I've never seen before: OPF, OMS, SRB and KSC (sounds like assember mnemonics). Use of such abbreviationsrenders an interest group opaque to new readers like me. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 1982 2300-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: Some definitions of abbreviations To: space at MIT-MC I was going to produce a glossary to help solve this and similar problems but somehow the project got delayed as might have been expected. In this case let me fill in the definitions for this case. OPF - Orbiter Processing Facility - This is the building at Kennedy where the orbiter goes after it returns from its landing and before it is remated to a new external tank (often refered to as an ET) and solid fuel rocket pair. OMS - Orbital Manuvering System - These are the small engines (using hydrazine as fuel and nitrogen tetroxide as oxidizer (this propellant combination is called hypergolic, this means that they ignite upon contact, no ignition system is needed (The ignition system is one of the hard parts about a liquid fuel rocket engine. It caused the failure of many early US rockets and probably Hudson's recent failure in Texas. The problem is that if you don't ignite the fuel immediately after it starts entering the combustion chamber it globs up in a kind of jelly (at least kerosene and LOX (Liquid Oxygen) do) which literally explodes when it does ignite.).) that the Space Shuttle uses for moving around in orbit. It also uses them to do the tail end of getting into orbit and for getting out of obrit before landing. SSME - Space Shuttle Main Engines - While I'm at it let me mention that this is the acronym that is commonly used for the big engines in the back of the orbiter that burn Liquid Hydrogen and Oxygen thats stored in the external tank. SRB - Solid Rocket Boosters - These are the solid fuel rocket engines that are straped onto the sides of the external tank for the first 2 minutes and 6 seconds of the flight. These burn a mixture of powdered aluminum and what amounts to "rubber". KSC - Kennedy Space Center - This of course is where the Shuttle is launched from. I hope these help, I may get around to the glossary project enentually. Ted Anderson ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 25-Apr-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #169 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 169 Today's Topics: Americans can Travel in Space Re: Shuttle Work on Schedule ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat Apr 24 09:48:55 1982 To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Americans can Travel in Space Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. A NASA doctor, who himself will fly on the shuttle as a mission specialist, said today that he thought any American adult in good enough physical condition to ``pass a life insurance exam'' can stand the strain of flying the space shuttle, if NASA opens them up to the public. He said that the person would have to exercise like the astronauts, to get their legs ready for weightlessness; in space, leg muscles undergo atrophy, which hampers them when the person returns to Earth. ------------------------------ Date: Sat Apr 24 09:51:14 1982 To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Re: Shuttle Work on Schedule Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. I apologize for using abbreviations a lot. I assume that if I post the real meaning once, then it's OK to use the abbreviations. In each of the cases mentioned, I did that. However, here are the meaning of those four abbreviations: OPF - Orbital Processing Facility OMS - Orbital Maneuvering System SRB - Solid (Fuel) Rocket Booster KSC - Kennedy Space Center ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 26-Apr-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #170 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 170 Today's Topics: ET IN ORBIT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Apr 1982 1453-PDT From: Terry C. Savage Subject: ET IN ORBIT To: SPACE at MIT-MC cc: tcs at USC-ECL, KATZ at USC-ISIF, PAINE at USC-ECL, RIEDEL at USC-ECL I would like to try to determine the cost of owning an ET in a fairly stable orbit (at least 10 years before decay). If anyone can provide answers to any of the following, it would be helpful: 1) How high an orbit is required to be confident of a minimum 10 year life? 2) What is the payload penalty to carry the ET to an orbit stable enough to last at least a week or so? 3) How much energy is required to boost the ET to the 10 year orbit. How much is this in equivalent upper stages (ie how many ius's would be required, for example). 4) What is the cost per ius (or other upper stage) to be used? 5) How much would it cost to insure the operation, in terms of both liability and success of the mission? 6) What other costs should be considered? I would be surprised if the cost exceeded the $35M currently charged for a full shuttle bay, and it should be a good deal less. The next question of course is what to do with it once you have it, assuming it could be obtained in a few years. T. C. Savage ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 27-Apr-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #171 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 171 Today's Topics: re: electromagnetic accelerator proposal in IEEE Another Saturn V query - why the plume is up so high Re: Another Saturn V query; Nuclear Power in Space orbital mechanics Solar Max Repair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Monday, 26 April 1982 08:56-PDT From: KING at KESTREL Subject: re: electromagnetic accelerator proposal in IEEE To: dietz at usc-ecl, space at mit-mc cc: King at KESTREL Isn't the Shuttle cheaper then $1400/KG? ------------------------------ Date: 26 April 1982 14:02-EST From: Oded Anoaf Feingold Subject: Another Saturn V query - why the plume is up so high To: David.Smith at CMU-10A cc: SPACE at MIT-MC The plume blossoms that high up because the fluid (exhaust gas) comes out at much higher pressure than the surrounding atmosphere, and expands outward. The effect is of having a spherically expanding shell of gas appearing behind the rocket. The particular angle through which the gas turns on expansion is in 3/4 powers of tangents, called the NU function, and is tabulated for various Mach numbers. Effects of the plume going that high up (sometimes past the leading edge of the rocket) are twofold (at least); 1) It changes the visual and radar signatures. Important for you IFF and missile defense people. 2) It can deposit exhaust gases (or residues) on equipment in the vehicle's nose. So you have to take account of that when designing your payload/instrumentation/whatever. Sorry for the long answer to the short question. Oded ------------------------------ Date: 26-Apr-82 12:36:58 PDT (Monday) From: Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Another Saturn V query; Nuclear Power in Space To: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30), Lynn.ES cc: Space @ MC, Hamilton.ES (1) The "exhaust plume...about from the top of the first stage" is a shock wave rather than an exhaust plume. (2) When we talk about "nuclear electric power" in space, it's important to distinguish between RTG's and reactors. As far as I know, the U.S. has never orbited a reactor such as the Soviet one that broke up over Canada. U.S. outer planet probes use Radioisotopic Thermoelectric Generators, which are completely passive devices that use the thermoelectric effect to convert heat differences directly into electricity. I'm sure they operate at far lower temperatures than does any reactor core. --Bruce ------------------------------ Date: 26 Apr 1982 at 1712-CDT From: kjm at UTEXAS-11 Subject: orbital mechanics To: space at mit-mc Can anyone recommmend a good text on orbital mechanics for the layman? ------------------------------ Date: Mon Apr 26 17:42:45 1982 To: space at mit-mc From: sjb at OuterSpace Subject: Solar Max Repair Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. NASA is proposing to use a newly developed jet powered back pack to aid in the repair of the Solar Max Satellite, damaged 2 years ago when three fuses blew out. If Congress does not accept the plan, the DoD will fund it. The plan calls for the shuttle to park 500 feet from the satellite. There, an astronaut would fly up to the satellite, prepare it from grappling by the remote arm, the arm would pull it in, the fuses would be replaced, and the satellite would be put back into space. This would be the first time a satellite has ever been recovered from space. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 28-Apr-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #172 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 172 Today's Topics: Re: Solar Max Repair via Shuttle SPACE Digest V2 #171 SHUTTLE COSTS projectile pollution in space SHUTTLE COSTS orbital mechanics Solar Max Repair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Apr 1982 09:00 PDT From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Solar Max Repair via Shuttle In-reply-to: SPACE Digest V2 #171 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Comment-- "Jet powered" is a confusing term, mainly used for air-breathing vehicles. Questions-- 1) Will the repair be done entirely in space (are the fuses "field-replaceable") ? 2) What is involved in "preparing the satellite for grappling"? 3) Is this backpack self-contained (i.e. no umbilical?) [I assume so...] 4) Any idea when (on what mission), or does that hinge on approval by Congress? 5) Since the Solar Max satellite is civilian/scientific, what's DoD's interest -- is it because the "spacewalk" would serve as training for repair of military satellites? /John ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 27 April 1982 08:59-PDT From: KING at KESTREL To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC cc: King at KESTREL Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #171 American spacecraft do, indeed,use RTG's. Our technology is much better thn the Russian's at using little power. However, why are you sure that it runs at a low temperature. I would guess that it can safely run at a HIGHER temperature than a fission reacter because there needn't be any moving parts such as control rods. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Apr 1982 1347-PDT From: Terry C. Savage Subject: SHUTTLE COSTS To: KING at KESTREL cc: tcs at USC-ECL, SPACE at MIT-MC THE RATES BEING CHARGED FOR A FULL SHUTTLE BAY (65000LBS) ARE $35M UNTIL 1985, AND $50M AFTER THAT. SINCE THE SHUTTLE IS CURRENTLY BOOKED THROUGH SEPT 87, YOU MAY AS WELL USE $50M, WHICH COMES OUT TO ABOUT $1700/KG. T.C.SAVAGE ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 27 April 1982 14:27-PDT From: KING at KESTREL Subject: projectile pollution in space To: space at mit-mc cc: King at KESTREL From time to time someone proposes electric reaction engines for deep space manouvering, based on the ejection of large numbers of small projectiles. Such a proposal recently appeared in this forum. I made back-of-the-envelope calculations on the effects of using a billion such projectiles (100 per second for several months; hardly an implausible launch schedule). This might be used, say, to move 1/e of an e-million-ton asteroid (100 meters diameter) into Earth orbit (delta-v of 10 KM/sec) using a billion 1-KG. projectiles. Making reasonable assumptions about the volume of space in the Solar System that these projectiles will spread out into, we get an exposure of 1/10e6 KM^2-yr. from this one asteroid movement. This seems like a meager increase, but it seems unlikely that this system will only be used once, to move a single relatively modest asteroid. It also seems unlikely that our space exposure will be forever limited to 1 KM^2. I rather assume that in the future our exposure will be "on the order of" thousands of square KM, and that we will move thousands of asteroids (or bigger ones). To make a long story short, do proposals for deep space propulsion by reaction motors ejecting projectiles properly consider the pollution problem? How does the artificial meteoroid concentration compare with that of the natural population? With that of the natural population in meteor showers? How nonuniform would these non-uniform meteoroid swarms be after (say) a year? I'll do more calculations unless someone can point me to a reference in which this point has already been considered. ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 27 April 1982 14:30-PDT From: KING at KESTREL To: Terry C. Savage cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, King at KESTREL Subject: SHUTTLE COSTS 1) numerous steps are underway to increase Shuttle payload. 2) the shuttle cost is AFTER it has had its cost overruns - the accelerator cost is before. 3) you get onsite work with a shuttle launch I'll like the accelerator a lot better when it can do the whole job. ------------------------------ Date: 28 April 1982 04:28-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: orbital mechanics To: kjm at UTEXAS-11 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC The best text on the subject was by Max Hunter, called THRUST IN TO SPACE, which explained rockets and orbits and like that. Unfortunatley I believe it is out of print (my copy is a xerox Max gave me). The old "PRINCIPLES OF GUIDED MISSILE DESIGN" has a very good set of equations, principles, etc. It is in 3 volumnes and availble in libraries (there was a time when anyone wha was anyone in the space business had a set of these red books on his desk; in fact, getting the company to buy you those was a way to announce to your colleagues that you were "doing space" although you were of course being paid on an aircraft budget... ------------------------------ Date: 28 April 1982 04:31-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Solar Max Repair To: SJB@OUTERSPACE at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Bill Haynes of aerospace corp proposes that Congress ought to put up a PRIZE of $200 million for the first commercial company to repair a satellite in orbit and restore it to operation; and something like $2 billion to the first company to use some reasdonable quantity, say a ton, of lunar (or any extraterrestrial material) (in situ) (ie not a fallen asteroid) in a commercially successulf product. The idea is that these capabilities are badly needed, and it costs nothing to offer the prizes--while if they are claimed we would CHEERFULLY pay over the money tax free... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 29-Apr-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #173 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 173 Today's Topics: shuttle engine blowup? Re: Projectile propulsion Shuttle costs Re: shuttle engine blowup? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 April 1982 0352-PDT (Wednesday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: shuttle engine blowup? To: Space-Enthusiasts at MC A few days ago, I heard (from a usually reliable source) that a "$30 million space shuttle engine exploded during testing and was totally destroyed." This event was supposedly within the last two or three weeks, but was kept relatively "quiet" until recently. There also apparently was difficulty in determining what caused the explosion. Does anyone have more details about this? The mass media has been silent it seems, but I have alot of faith in my source. Thanks much. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 1982 0804-EDT From: Ron Fischer Subject: Re: Projectile propulsion To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: FISCHER at RUTGERS In-Reply-To: Your message of 28-Apr-82 0602-EDT How much more would it cost (energy-wise) to vaporize the asteriod material and use the expanding vapor as exhaust? (ron) ------- ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 1982 0933-PDT From: Paul Dietz Subject: Shuttle costs To: space at MIT-MC, king at KESTREL, tcs at USC-ECL Those shuttles costs you mentioned are heavily subsidized. Actual costs are going to be quite a bit higher ($100M per launch). Also, the shuttle is booked through 87, so any launch system available before then could find users, even if it cost more. I suspect that costs overruns would be lower on the accelerator because it would use less daring technology (off-the-shelf booster, no tiles). ------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed Apr 28 13:54:28 1982 To: space at mit-mc From: smb at CCA Subject: Re: shuttle engine blowup? Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. I heard about the engine explosion via normal media channels. I suspect that it's just been crowded out by the Falklands *and* the Sinai withdrawal; I suspect that most newspapers can't handle more than one big story at a time. Anyway... It was a test engine that exploded. They were testing the engine at 109% of rated capacity, as part of an effort to increase the payload capacity. Last I heard, they didn't know why it blew, nor did they expect any effect on the Columbia. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 30-Apr-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #174 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 174 Today's Topics: Re: engine blowup Reaction Engine Pollution Saturn Plumes / Solar Max Repair Ion Engines and the like GPO for space publications LAUNCH COSTS Saturn V Plume ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Apr 1982 10:40:44-EDT From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: space at mit-mc Subject: Re: engine blowup Cc: lauren at ucla-security I did see something on this recently---in a mundane paper (as I recall) rather than something technical. They were deliberately testing it at something significantly over rated capacity and felt the blowup would not affect the current program. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 1982 1052-PDT From: Paul Dietz Subject: Reaction Engine Pollution To: space at MIT-MC The proposed MIT one coil accelerator induces very high currents in the accelerated mass; it is melted or vaporized. If vaporized, no pollution problems should occur as the particles that condense out will be very small. I wonder if it is possible to develope a kind of cross between these reaction engines and ion engines. I have in mind some kind of accelerator that induces currents in a dense plasma, accelerating the particles in the plasma collectively. This may give much higher thrust than ordinary ion engines. ------------------------------ Date: 29 April 1982 20:02 edt From: Tavares.Coop at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Saturn Plumes / Solar Max Repair To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Message of 28 April 1982 06:02 edt from Ted Anderson Bear with me-- I'm not an astro expert. 1) I thought it was a principle of nozzle design that the expansion area was made to expand the exhaust gases to atmospheric pressure, and this was a cardinal optimization. (Hence the references to "underexpanded" and "overexpanded nozzles".) Why is the Saturn V "so underexpanded" that the gases blow back (forward, actually) so far? 2) Why go through the exercise of dragging the satellite in, docking, etc. just to change three fuses? Couldn't it be done in place? ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 1982 1725-PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: Ion Engines and the like To: space at MIT-MC It should be noted since the subject of particle (large or small) accelerators as rockets comes up, that there are important energy issues that need to be considered. First, the big objection that many people have with "mass drivers as rockets" is that the specific impulse is way too low. What this means is that the propellant (in this case the mass that's driven out the back end) is not moving very rapidly, at least not very rapidly compared to the exhaust of a liquid fuel rocket. This means that the mass efficiency of the rocket is low. On the other extreme is the ion engine which has a very high exhaust velocity (approaching the speed of light in some cases) and hence a very high specific impulse and very high mass efficiency. With high mass efficiency, of course, comes low energy efficiency. Thus you trade off mass efficiency for energy efficiency. This is because the thrust is proportional to the momentum of the exhaust (speed * mass) and energy is proportional to the kinetic energy of the exhaust (speed^2 * mass). Note that this is only a rough approximation to the real state of affairs. What this says is that energy spent heating up your exhaust material (to vaporize or ionize it) is wasted since it does nothing to increase your thrust. An ion engine always has to ionize its exhaust, hence its name. The reason it can win anyway is that it spends a lot more energy accelerating the ion than ionizing it. A mass driver that vaporizes the mass it's driving must put a lot more energy into accelerating the mass than vaporizing it or its wasting its energy. Specific impulse is a good way to compare the efficency of a rocket engines of similar types. Ion engines and the various types of mass drivers are basically similar does anyone have specific impulse figures for these engines? Ion engines typically have ISPs (Impulse (SPecific)) of around 10,000 seconds. How do these various mass drivers compare? Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 1982 2146-EDT From: JHENDLER at BBNA Subject: GPO for space publications To: space at MIT-MC In the course of tracing down some specifications for some work I was doing, I found myself in the local office of the government printing office. For those of you not familiar with the GPO it covers gov't publications, usually far cheaper than corresponding literature at book stores. Included in the Dallas office were dozens of pamphlets and lithographs of the space shuttle, and some wonderful literature about the Voyager missions. Prices were fantastically cheap compared to those that similar books and posters are being offered at. I've been to the GPO stores before, but the new space stuff is better than those they used to carry. -Jim Hendler Ti Dallas ------- ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 1982 2004-PDT From: Terry C. Savage Subject: LAUNCH COSTS To: SPACE at MIT-MC cc: tcs at USC-ECL I HAVE ALSO HEARD ESTIMATES OF THE UN-SUBSIDIZED SHUTTLE MARGINAL COSTS BEING ON THE ORDER OF $80-100M, WHICH IMPLIES ABOUT $3000/KG. DES ANYONE KNOW WHAT ARIANE IS CHARGING IN TERMS OF COST/KG TO LEO? T.C.SAVAGE ------- ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 1982 2348-PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: Saturn V Plume To: Tavares.Coop at MIT-MULTICS, space at MIT-MC As I understand the Saturn V plume problem, the difficulty is that the engine has to be designed to work at some given external pressure. Thus the first stage Saturn V engines were probably designed to work at standard atmospheric pressure, so at high altitude the plume would increase. The upper stage engines, especially the LEM and Command Module engines were presumably designed to work in a vacuum. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 01-May-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #175 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 175 Today's Topics: left-handed amino acids discovered in meteorite ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Apr 1982 0856-PDT From: Stuart McLure Cracraft Subject: left-handed amino acids discovered in meteorite To: space at MIT-MC !a084 0712 30 Apr 82 AM-Amino Acids,250 Amino Acids Found In Meteorite That Crashed In Australia PHOENIX, Ariz. (AP) - Amino acids - a building block of proteins - have been found in fragments from a meteorite that crashed in Australia, a team of researchers report. Bartholomew Nagy, a geochemist at the University of Arizona in Tucson, reported in a paper published in the British journal, Nature, that the fragments contained the kind of amino acids that most commonly occur in living things. The co-author of the paper was Michael Engel of the Carnegie Institution in Washington. Nagy said he and Engel ''are not talking about extraterrestrial life.'' But a leading astrogeologist, Dr. Eugene Shoemaker, said the research ''certainly supports the idea that the starting material'' was brought to Earth by meteorites. Nagy said the specimens from the fragments contained mostly ''left-handed'' amino acids. Amino acids have turned up previously in meteorites, but Nagy said most of them contained mostly ''right-handed'' amino acids. Nagy said ''almost all'' amino acids in living organisms are left-handed. Left-handed structures turn polarized light to the left, and right-handed structures turn it to the right. Nagy said he and Engel found the amino acids in the Murchison meteorite, which crashed onto Victoria in eastern Austrailia on Sept. 20, 1969. Other researchers had looked for left-handed amino acids in the Murchison fragments, but Nagy said he and Engel were able to find them by examining a larger specimen with geochemical techniques only recently perfected. Nagy said the researchers took special steps to ensure that the specimen was not affected by earthly contaminants. ap-ny-04-30 1012EST ********** ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 02-May-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #176 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 176 Today's Topics: Handed amino acids ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 May 1982 2102-PDT From: Cabral at SUMEX-AIM Subject: Handed amino acids To: SPACE at MIT-MC cc: CABRAL at SUMEX-AIM Perhaps this is well known to most space buffs, but it struck me as fascinating that even right-handed amino acids were previously known. Most chemical processes that produce handed molecules statistically produce equal amounts of the left and right handed varieties. The notable exceptions are instances where some agent biases the formation of one type over the other. Biological systems are of course quite adept at this, but they themselves are chiral (handed) and so they are propogating their own chirality. Another potential agent could be circularly polarized light, but if that was responsible I would be curious to learn of the mechanism whereby it is produced in space. I can think of a few far-fetched schemes, but they aren't very plausible. If a meteorite with purely right-handed amino acids were found, an extension that supposed the existence of one with purely left-handed amino acids seems safe to me. Therefore the spectacular discovery would have been finding the purely right-handed amino acids. Is it possible that the original discovery of amino acids was a racemic mixture (both left and right handed molecules in equal amounts) ? Art ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 03-May-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #177 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 177 Today's Topics: handed amino acids Re: Shuttle Work on Schedule Re: shuttle engine blowup? Re: Shuttle Work on Schedule ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 May 1982 20:43:18-EDT From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: Cabral at sumex-aim Subject: handed amino acids Cc: space at mit-mc I think the whole point of this story was that amino acids had previously been found in space but only in racemic mixtures. ------------------------------ Date: Thu Apr 29 16:45:16 1982 To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!nsc!bill at Berkeley Subject: Re: Shuttle Work on Schedule Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Article-I.D.: nsc.154 OPF == Or P and F registers OMS == Output Memory Storage SRB == Shift Right Both KSC == Kernel System Call ... OMS foo,13 OPF,OPF,SRB KSC $read ; read from device 13 into foo (words address) ... ------------------------------ Date: Thu Apr 29 23:21:02 1982 To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!intelqa!murray at Berkeley Subject: Re: shuttle engine blowup? Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Article-I.D.: intelqa.110 I don't know too many details, but as I understand it one of the engines for Challenger blew up durring a test firing last week. The engine was about 1.5 minutes into a 2 minute test firing at 109% of engine thrust. (I never have liked it when people use numbers greater than 100%...) The engineers suspect one of the fuel pumps (I think) was the cause of the disaster since it was slightly hotter than expected just prior to the explosion. I heard nothing about schedule, but if I hear anymore, I will put it on the net. murray at intelqa ------------------------------ Date: Fri Apr 30 12:34:44 1982 To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!hao!gillil at Berkeley Subject: Re: Shuttle Work on Schedule Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Article-I.D.: hao.228 y ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 04-May-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #178 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 178 Today's Topics: Amino acids in meteorite Re: Ion Engines/Accelerators Re.saturn V engines Saturn 5 plume orbital mechanics ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 May 1982 0933-PDT From: Paul Dietz Subject: Amino acids in meteorite To: space at MIT-MC I'd take that amino acid story with several grains of salt. Others have done the same experiment on the same meteorite and have failed to detect L-amino acids by themselves. There is an obvious eror mechanism - contamination by terrestrial life. I know that they said that special precautions were taken, but no one's perfewct. ------------------------------ Date: Fri Apr 30 00:34:10 1982 To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!ucbvax!npois!harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!ech at CCA Subject: Re: Ion Engines/Accelerators Article-I.D.: whuxlb.228 Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. Interesting suggestion by Dietz@USC-ECl, using magnetic fields to accelerate the plasma ions. That is precisely the MAIN drive of an ion engine, however. =Ned= ------------------------------ Date: Fri Apr 30 10:52:58 1982 To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!houxi!houxg!lime!we13!ges at CCA Subject: Re.saturn V engines Article-I.D.: we13.242 Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. In reply to Mr Phil Karn of murray hill What you say about the fuel and oxidizer being completely mixed is true. The color change is coused by impurities in the ambient air. G.E.Smith 6565 we13 ------------------------------ Date: Mon May 3 19:08:58 1982 To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!utzoo!henry at CCA Subject: Saturn 5 plume Article-I.D.: utzoo.1619 Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. The underexpanded-exhaust explanation is, I think, the correct one. There are several reasons why a rocket engine may not expand its exhaust to the ambient pressure, like constraints on how long and heavy the nozzle can be, but the big limit is that any fixed nozzle is necessarily right for only *one* ambient pressure. This means that as the rocket climbs, underexpansion inevitably occurs as the outside pressure drops. In fact, I seem to recall that there was an optional nozzle extension designed for the F-1. I don't think it ever got used, but its existence suggests that the F-1 may not have been optimally expanded even at sea level. There are engine concepts that are optimally expanded over a considerable range of pressures, but they are very different from orthodox nozzles, and as far as I know none of them has ever been used "for real". ------------------------------ Date: Mon May 3 19:40:13 1982 To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!utzoo!henry at CCA Subject: orbital mechanics Article-I.D.: utzoo.1620 Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated. I strongly second Jerry Pournelle's recommendation of Max Hunter's "Thrust Into Space" as the best text on orbital mechanics (and an excellent introduction to propulsion systems, too). It is difficult to write a book on the subject which is neither so oversimplified that it insults the intelligence, nor so mathematical that it is accessible only to specialists. Hunter succeeded. "Thrust Into Space" was part of a Holt-Rinehart-Winston series of space books aimed at high schools and the like; Hunter's is the only one worth looking at twice. Using no math beyond simple algebra, he manages to discuss everything from basic rocket principles to the basics of relativistic starflight. When the math would get too hairy, he draws graphs instead. Five stars. I have one other recommendation if you want something more detailed and have some math background. Archie E. Roy's "The Foundations of Astrodynamics", Macmillan 1965, is good. You will need a good grounding in calculus and some idea of what vectors are about. Given this, the book discusses everything I have ever wanted to know about the subject. For example, about halfway through he gives a fairly detailed discussion of the three-body problem, including the Lagrange points (and such subtle items as why L4 and L5 are unstable unless the masses of the two major bodies involved are very different -- they don't work for binary stars!). This is one of the few nontrivial celestial-mechanics books I have run into that is aware that rockets exist; older books in particular spend lots of time on planets and none on things that can (gasp) *change* orbit. Unfortunately, *both* of these books are out of print, and have been for quite some time. I've never seen either of them secondhand, despite a lot of looking. I finally found libraries which had them, and took the time, effort, and expense to xerox both of them in their entirety. (Regarding the ethics of xeroxing: I would be happy to pay the authors reasonable royalties for my copies, if I knew how much and where to send the cheques, and could be sure of not being hassled by third parties like publishers.) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 05-May-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #179 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 179 Today's Topics: Aviation week excerpt orbital mechanics ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 04 May 1982 1542-PDT From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Aviation week excerpt To: space at MIT-MC Washington Roundup Space policy address by President Reagan at Edwards AFB, Calif after the landing of the fourth space shuttle mission July 4 is under consideration at the White House. One important element of the policy already decided is that support for development of a full shuttle-based operational space transportation system will be continued even if an orbiter vehicle and crew were to be lost in a major accident. Such sustained support for an operational system has never been declared previously, a factor in the reluctance of some payload sponsors to commit to long term shuttle planning. (START-BOLDFACE) President Reagan has already directed that any significant shuttle program changes must be discussed directly with him. (END-BOLDFACE) Following the Mission 4 landing at Edwards three complete shuttle orbiters, the Columbia, the new Challenger and the old Enterprise, will all be within towing distance of each other, as a possible backdrop for a presidential space policy address. From AWST May 3, 1982 ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 1982 05:12-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: orbital mechanics To: decvax!utzoo!henry at CCA-UNIX cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Re Max hunter's Book: Max was at the L-5 convention and for a present brought me a xeroxed copy of his book, it being long out of print. It ought to be back in print and if enough people wrote the publisher... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 06-May-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #180 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 180 Today's Topics: orbital mechanics out of print books shuttle talk at MIT Re: sri-unix.1403: out of print books ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 May 1982 06:30-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: orbital mechanics To: POURNE at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, decvax!utzoo!henry at CCA-UNIX oops Xerox copy of... ------------------------------ Date: 5-May-82 8:47AM-EDT (Wed) From: Bill Gropp Subject: out of print books To: Space at MIT-MC Dover is always looking for good out of print books to republish, in quality, low cost editions. It may be more productive to write them than the original publisher. ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 1982 1658-EDT From: S. W. Galley Subject: shuttle talk at MIT To: space at MIT-MC cc: science-calendar at MIT-AI From Tech Talk, 5 May: "Air Force Maj. Gen. James A. Abrahamson, associate administrator for NASA's Office of Space Transportation Systems, will discuss the NASA Space Shuttle program Wednesday, May 12, at 4 pm in Rm. 35-225. The seminar, open to the public, is sponsored by the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics." ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 82 16:37:08-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!duke!hes at Berkeley Subject: Re: sri-unix.1403: out of print books Article-I.D.: duke.2119 Via: news.usenet; 5 May 82 17:10-PDT Ann Arbor Microfilms used to have a service for copying out of print books. They would make a softbound copy (looking like one of their hard-copy copies of a thesis) and take care of all the royalty-permission details. As I remember they had a charge plus so much per page. --henry schaffer ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 07-May-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #181 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 181 Today's Topics: Los Angeles Spacefanz: OASIS at Rockwell 22 May ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6-May-82 13:04:18 PDT (Thursday) From: Hamilton.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Los Angeles Spacefanz: OASIS at Rockwell 22 May To: Space@MC cc: Hamilton.ES "The Challenge of the Space Frontier" featuring C. J. Meechan, VP Strategic Planning, North American Space Operations, Rockwell International. PLUS see the full-scale space shuttle mock-up and the Apollo 14 Command Module. TIME: Saturday 22 May 7 pm PLACE: Rockwell International, DEI Room 12241 Lakewood Blvd. Downey, CA No charge. For more info, call (213) 374-1381 Presented by OASIS, the Southern Salifornia Chapter of the L-5 Society. --Bruce ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 08-May-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #182 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 182 Today's Topics: A new name for your list ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 7 May 1982 1547-EDT Message-id: <389648838.44@MITRE> From: lazear at MITRE To: space at mit-mc Subject: A new name for your list Please add me to your distribution list. Walt Lazear ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 10-May-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #183 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 183 Today's Topics: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MINSKY@MIT-AI Date: 05/09/82 20:22:40 MINSKY@MIT-AI 05/09/82 20:22:40 To: space at MIT-MC If you could flush the deuterium from the shuttle hydrogen fuel, you'd gain .00007 in impulse. Easy way to gain a few pounds of payload. I bet you could get rid of half the deuterium pretty easily. Almost surely not worth it, though? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 12-May-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #184 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 184 Today's Topics: Administrivia unduterated hydrogen for the shuttle shuttle propulsion Specific Impulse of SSMEs group investigates space station ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 May 1982 0203-PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: Administrivia To: space at MIT-MC I guess I should refresh everyone's memory on how the digest is distributed. People occasionally complain about the funny digests that come out containing nothing but a request to be added to the list. The reason this sort of thing happens is that the digest is processed automatically every night at 3AM pacific time. Everything that has arrived by then is gathered together, massaged into digest format, and mailed out. All without a smidgen of human intervention. This has the advantage that the show goes on even if I go home early or take a day or two off or whatever. The disadvantage is that a certain amount of junk gets out. Normally, however, the density of special requests that mistakenly get sent to the digest distribution is low and most of the time I notice the mistake in time to fix it, so this isn't much of a problem. The biggest thing you can do is to make sure everyone you tell about this list, knows that requests of all sorts (as distinct from digest submissions) should be sent to SPACE-REQUEST @ MIT-MC and not to space@mc. Note that I do have the ability to hold everything that comes in and go over it personally. I usually have to use the "manual" mode when we get a spate of questionable messages. Fortunately this does not happen often. Please feel free to let me know what you think of this procedure. I'm always willing to entertain suggests and answer questions. Ted Anderson (The Moderator) ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 11 May 1982 08:43-PDT From: KING at KESTREL Subject: unduterated hydrogen for the shuttle To: space at mit-mc cc: King at KESTREL Maybe removing the Duterium from the Hydrogen fuel for the Shuttle is reasonable. Heavy water is used in many nuclear reacters. I tend to think that the Shuttle's demand FAR exceeds the amount of overlight water the nuclear industry produces, however. ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 1982 at 1645-CDT From: kjm at UTEXAS-11 Subject: shuttle propulsion To: space at mit-mc Does anyone know the specific impulses developed by the SSME's and SRB's? ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 1982 0146-PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: Specific Impulse of SSMEs To: space at MIT-MC The specific impulse of the Space Shuttle Main Engines is very close to 450 seconds. There is some variation between engines and so forth, but I think the variation amounts to less than 5 seconds. I don't know the number for the SRBs, but I'd estimate it to be between 250 and 300 seconds. Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 82 20:15-PDT From: mclure at SRI-UNIX To: space at mc Subject: group investigates space station !a268 1813 11 May 82 AM-Space Station,160 Official Says Group Will Begin Work Soon On Space-Station Plans ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) - Within a few weeks a task force will begin developing plans for an orbiting space station that would be launched by the end of the decade, a space agency official says. The group is expected to submit its first recommendations in five months as part of NASA's 1984 budget request to Congress, said Terry Finn, deputy director of industry affairs for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA's top officials consider a manned orbiting platform a ''logical extension'' of the space shuttle program, but have not decided on its design, he said. Space officials have yet to convince Congress and the Reagan administration of the need for such a station, he said. ''We can't afford not to build it,'' Finn told the Orlando Sentinel. ''If NASA doesn't think about its future, it won't have a future. ''We're still seeking approval for a go-ahead. My understanding is that we're getting some positive signals from the administration.'' ap-ny-05-11 2113EDT ********** ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 13-May-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #185 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 185 Today's Topics: NASA News Re: fund raising idea Specific Impulse of SSMEs lunar colony designs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 May 82 7:21:39-EDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: NASA News Article-I.D.: alice.559 Via: news.usenet; 12 May 82 6:45-PDT As part of the new NASA $6.6 billion budget approved by the Senate Commerce Committee suggests that the Air Force pay more for shuttle launchings than it has in the past. The precise figure for them is proposed to be $409 million, which will be distributed along for other programs. In other news, NASA announced the forming of a committee to make up plans for a space station to be launched by the end of the decade. Their first report will be submitted in five months. The agency must still convince the White House and Congress on the idea, though. ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 82 11:28:35-EDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!allegra!phr at Berkeley Subject: Re: fund raising idea Article-I.D.: allegra.374 Via: news.usenet; 12 May 82 9:57-PDT It's a good idea, but prohibited by US Federal law. If you want to contribute money to the space effort, I suggest that you join the Space Studies Institute, 195 Nassau St., Princeton, NJ 08540. This group is headed by Gerard K. O'Neill, and has funded construction of model mass drivers, automated lunar chemical processing plants, and other important ideas which haven't drawn government money. They use their funds much more efficiently than any government agency could, too. $10/year gets you a quarterly newsletter. If you want your money to go to NASA, you can contribute to Delta Vee, 3033 Moorpark Ave., Suite 27, San Jose CA 95128. They operate the Viking Fund, which so far has given NASA over $100,000 to analyze data which is still being transmitted from the Viking Landers (govt. funding for data analysis dried up years ago), and the Halley Fund. The Halley Fund originally was to pay for a political campaign to get funding for a NASA Halley probe. This turned dismal, and they now (quixotically, I think) hope to build and launch their own probe, paid for ($~100 million) by contributions, sale of data, movie and TV rights, etc. etc. They have all sorts of gizmos for sale, like astronaut jackets, Fischer space pens, and (I believe) the laser color prints of the Shuttle that were discussed in net.space recently. I should have suggested DV as a worthier cause to buy the prints from when the topic was relevant. Incidentally, NASA is not allowed to take donations for specific purposes - only with no strings attached. Horrible legal maneuvers were performed (with NASA a happy participant) to make sure that Viking Fund money was spent on Viking. Re NASA help: NASA will lend movies, and even give presentations for just about anyone who asks - they're a regular feature of many science fiction conventions. I've shown "Mars in 3-D", a stereoscopic movie filmed on location by the Viking lander, for Delta Vee a few times. Re feature length film: "A Space Movie" (that's the title) was shown in NYC for several months last summer. It's an excellent collection of NASA footage; unfortunately I've forgotten who compiled or distributes it. --Paul ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 1982 04:34-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Specific Impulse of SSMEs To: OTA at S1-A cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Jerry Kidd, who got a medal for his work on SSME, told me as we watched the first Shuttle landing out at Edwards that the engine was developing ~100 horsepower/lb. Which is a impressive number... ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 1982 04:40-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: lunar colony designs To: SPACE at MIT-MC The Lunar colony Project of the L-5 Society will shortly have a writeup on the model and preliminary design as developed at the L-5 Conference. It all looks good. David Criswell, formerly one of the lunar rocks custodians at Lunar and Planetary Institute (Rice/JSC joint thingy) was "very pleasantly surprised" at the solid work and contributions the project made. There will be more design sessins, and L-5 is hoping to have a constructable model which can actually be costed in another year or less. Count Dr. Renaldo Petrini of the American Institute of architects and professor of architecture at the University of Houston was in charge of the design project and has interested a number of other professional architects in continued work on it. For more info see u pcoming issues of L-5 News... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 14-May-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #186 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Requests-To: Space-Request at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 186 Today's Topics: Shuttle Ready by 27 June rating rockes in horsepower Specific impulse & chamber pressure Horsepower & rockets STS IV ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 May 82 7:21:11-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle Ready by 27 June Article-I.D.: alice.561 Via: news.usenet; 13 May 82 8:35-PDT NASA announced yesterday that the space shuttle Columbia will be moved to the VAB in five days and then rolled to the launch pad, for four weeks of testing, on 22 May. NASA said that the machine itself should be ready for a launch on 27 June; this is not a launch date yet however: The astronauts, the payload, the technicians, and others must also be ready. This flight, STS-4, the last test flight, will carry aboard more experiments and also a DoD package, of which nature will not be released. ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 1982 1835-EDT (Thursday) From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30) To: pournelle at MIT-MC Subject: rating rockes in horsepower CC: space at MIT-MC Message-Id: <13May82 183506 DS30@CMU-10A> Rating rockets in horsepower is mainly useful for producing impressive numbers. The horsepower equivalent of a pound of thrust is directly proportional to the velocity. When the SSMEs are firing on the pad with the holddowns on, the SSMEs produce zero horsepower. But 3 x 430,000 pounds applied at 17,000 mph comes to 58,480,000 horsepower. ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 1982 1844-EDT (Thursday) From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30) To: space at MIT-MC Subject: Specific impulse & chamber pressure Message-Id: <13May82 184444 DS30@CMU-10A> I have read a couple of times (AW&ST, not recently) that the SSMEs develop a chamber pressure of 300 bar (atmospheres). I have also read a couple of times (FLIGHT International) that the Ariane's first stage engines develop about 55 bar. Is such a difference credible? I would expect exhaust velocity and specific impulse to be directly related to the chamber pressure. Such a difference in specific impulse seems hard to swallow. ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 82 11:56:18-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!eagle!karn at Berkeley Subject: Horsepower & rockets Article-I.D.: eagle.294 Via: news.usenet; 13 May 82 20:39-PDT Can somebody explain to me how the measure "horsepower" is relevant to rockets? I guess you could look at the raw energy content of the propellants, or the kinetic energy/second imparted to the propellants, but the useful output of a rocket is force, not force*distance/time, which is power. For example, if I bolt a rocket to a test stand, it generates zero horsepower, no matter what the thrust. Of course, it would be reasonable to measure the output of fuel pump turbines, APUs, etc in horsepower, since they resemble conventional engines. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 82 22:22:08-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!intelqa!murray at Berkeley Subject: STS IV Article-I.D.: intelqa.121 Via: news.usenet; 14 May 82 2:43-PDT Does anybody have a DEFINITIVE date for launch and landing of STS 4? Has NASA nailed the date down yet? The best I've heard so far was launch on June 27th -- land on July 4th, but the article implied there was still plenty of play in those dates. murray at intelqa ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 15-May-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #187 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Requests-To: Space-Request at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 187 Today's Topics: SSME chamber pressure ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 May 1982 0958-PDT From: Paul Dietz Subject: SSME chamber pressure To: david.smith at CMU-10A, space at MIT-MC You have to be careful talking about the SSME chamber pressure because the engine has (I think) two chambers. The first is where the H2 and O2 get mixed together. They finish buringing in the second, which is connected to the nozzle. The SSME pressure is quite high; I seem to remember it being at least twice that of the Apollo engines. Also, what does the Ariane first stage burn? Kerosene? This may give a lower pressure. ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 16-May-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #188 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Requests-To: Space-Request at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 188 Today's Topics: Horsepower and rockets ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 May 1982 12:48 edt From: Tavares.Coop at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Horsepower and rockets To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Message of 14 May 1982 06:02 edt from Ted Anderson Apples and oranges, but both relevant. The specific impulse of a rocket says how much "bang" you get per unit of mass of the propellant. (For example, a stick of dynamite and a long candle may put out the same amount of energy, but the TNT has higher specific impulse.) The horsepower simply says how much total propulsion effort you get out of the rocket. You can double a rocket's horsepower by doubling the mass of fuel in it (very roughly speaking) if the net effect is to double the engine's burn time, all else remaining equal. Horsepower is the same beast as "total impulse" and consists of the same unit dimensionality as Newton-seconds or watts. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 18-May-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #189 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Requests-To: Space-Request at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 189 Today's Topics: Space News Iskra-2 (RS-9) launched! Shuttle Rollout Delayed New Soviet Amateur Radio Satellite ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 May 82 18:12:30-EDT (Mon) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Space News Article-I.D.: alice.574 Via: news.usenet; 17 May 82 15:46-PDT Two Soviet cosmonauts, launched last week in a new Soyez T-5 rocket, reactivated systems aboard the new Salyut 7 space station after linking with it 26 hours after launch. The astronauts were said to be feeling fine and the station was reported to be operating normally. In American space news, Jack Lousma, commander of STS-3 said that he and Gordon Fullerton experienced normal amounts of radiation during their flight aboard the shuttle. NASA is concerned that long exposures to space, such as might be encountered during stints on space stations, could endanger the lives of the astronauts with respect to radiation. ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 82 18:48:37-EDT (Mon) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!eagle!karn at Berkeley Subject: Iskra-2 (RS-9) launched! Article-I.D.: eagle.305 Via: news.usenet; 17 May 82 17:50-PDT I have just read an AP newswire story announcing that the Soviets aboard Salyut-7 launched an "experimental amateur radio satellite" out the door. It weighs 62 lbs and is named Iskra-2. I spoke with Tom Clark, W3IWI, Amsat president, who says that Iskra-2 is transmitting on 29.58 Mhz. There will be a special Amsat net tonight at 9pm EDT on 3850 Khz where Tom will disseminate further information. Phil Karn, KA9Q/2 ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 82 20:04:16-EDT (Mon) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle Rollout Delayed Article-I.D.: alice.576 Via: news.usenet; 17 May 82 19:06-PDT The space shuttle Columbia's rollout to the VAB will be delayed at least seven hours, while technicians replace a faulty valve in its main engines. The delay is not expected to expect other launch preparations. Officials expect the movement to the VAB to start at 1900 EDT Tuesday, followed by a roll out to the launch pad on 25 May; target date for STS-4's launch is 27 June. Meanwhile, the space shuttle Challenger is almost finished and is expected to be moved out of its hangar near 30 June. It will be towed to Edwards Air Force Base, where it will be mated atop a 747 and flown to Cape Canaveral. If all goes right, it and the prototype shuttle Enterprise will be within towing distance of the Columbia when it touches down after STS-4. In other Soviet Space news, Moscow has announced that the cosmonauts aboard the Salyut 7 space station have launched a communications satellite by shoving it out of an air lock. While Tass said that this was an ingenious new launch, it has been done before by the Soviets. ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 82 22:11:59-EDT (Mon) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!eagle!karn at Berkeley Subject: New Soviet Amateur Radio Satellite Article-I.D.: eagle.307 Via: news.usenet; 17 May 82 20:53-PDT Here's some information from the Amsat net this evening: The payload booted out the door of Salyut-7 is identifying itself as "RK02" on 29.58 mhz. [What happens when they get to RK05, 6, etc? Do they have clearance from DEC? -hi-] It is not yet known if this payload has a communications transponder. Telemetry format is similar to the RS-[3-8] series already in orbit: 5 groups of 4 characters each. The current orbital period of RK02 is 91.349464 minutes and it is crossing the equator 22.226506 degrees further west on each orbit. Due to the VERY low orbit, this period will decay rapidly. For example, the average period tomorrow will decrease to 91.345922 minutes. Equator crossing times and longitudes: 18 May 00:32:29 UTC @ 237.1 W 19 May 00:54:02 UTC @ 248.7 W Phil Karn, KA9Q Bell Labs, Murray Hill PS. I would like to get some guidance as to whether information on amateur radio satellites should be double-posted to net.space and net.ham-radio, since the amateur space program spans both subject areas . Reply directly to ME, please, and I will abide by the majority opinion; I don't want to start up a big public controversy. Thanks. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 19-May-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #190 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 190 Today's Topics: Salyut, SpaceLab, SkyLab query ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 May 82 19:07:12-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!watmath!watarts!geo at Berkeley Subject: Salyut, SpaceLab, SkyLab query Article-I.D.: watarts.1254 Via: news.usenet; 18 May 82 20:31-PDT Is there anyone out there who is in a position to explain the difference between the various orbiting platforms? Are all the previous Salyuts still up there? How do these beasts compare in size? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 20-May-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #191 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 191 Today's Topics: Shuttle in VAB Columbia to be Mated Tonight ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 May 82 7:22:08-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle in VAB Article-I.D.: alice.579 Via: news.usenet; 19 May 82 8:50-PDT The Columbia was moved to its Vehicle Assembly Building this morning at 0050 EDT, behind schedule due to miscalculations on the part of ground crews. THe delay is not expected to have much, if any, impact on the launch, now scheduled for 27 June. The shuttle spent a record 41 days in the OPF, and will spend 7 or 8 in the VAB. ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 1982 1438-PDT From: Tom Wadlow To: space at MIT-MC Aviation Week excerpts (from the May 17, 1982 issue) Piece of the Rock Space Transportation Co., which has submitted a proposal to NASA and the Administration for private funding of the fifth shuttle orbiter in exchange for space transportation system marketing rights, now has the Prudential Insurance Co. as its primary financing partner. Space Transportation Co. has told NASA and the White House it is ready to commit $150 million in private funds in Fiscal 1983 to help initiate procurement of a fifth shuttle orbiter. Page 50 contains a full page ad for Exocet missiles (the one that sunk the HMS Sheffield). How timely.... --Tom ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 82 19:58:47-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Columbia to be Mated Tonight Article-I.D.: alice.583 Via: news.usenet; 19 May 82 20:42-PDT The space shuttle Columbia will be mated with its external tank and SRB's over the night. By the time I received the AP story, the shuttle was ``within inches'' of the position in which it is kept to be mated. The mating process takes seven hours. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 21-May-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #192 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 192 Today's Topics: Mating Process Begun ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 May 82 7:21:44-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Mating Process Begun Article-I.D.: alice.584 Via: news.usenet; 20 May 82 11:05-PDT The mating process of the shuttle and her tank and boosters began yesterday at 1440 EDT and has been going smoothly since. If there were no hitches, it should have been completed around 2200 EDT last night. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 24-May-82 0301 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #193 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 193 Today's Topics: Detection of planets using VLBI Space Plants ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BRUC@MIT-ML Date: 05/23/82 14:05:13 Subject: Detection of planets using VLBI BRUC@MIT-ML 05/23/82 14:05:13 Re: Detection of planets using VLBI To: space at MIT-MC There was article in this month's Scientific American (June) describing the resolution obtainable with Very Long Baseline Interferometry, specifically about 0.0001 arc second. The example they gave was the ability to see a human hand at the distance of the moon. At a distance of 100 light years, this is a resolution of 250000 kilometers, which would be adequate to separate a radio bright planet from its sun. Does anyone know if the sensitivity of radio telescopes would be adequate to detect the earth, the sun or Jupiter at interstellar ranges, and if so, has anyone tried observing likely candidate stars which may have planets (like Barnard's star or 61 Cygni)? ------------------------------ Date: 22 May 82 7:16:43-PDT (Sat) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Space Plants Article-I.D.: alice.587 Via: news.usenet; 23 May 82 11:06-PDT Plants that rode aboard STS-3 developed 20 to 30 percent more protein than those on the Earth, biologists said yesterday. They also noted that the lignin content, which helps the plants grow upward, was not lessened by lack of gravity, as had been thought; they say that longer exposures to zero-gravity may be necessary to diminish lignin content. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 25-May-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #194 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 194 Today's Topics: radio detection of planets Advice Extremely LBI ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 May 1982 0850-EDT From: John Redford To: space at MIT-MC cc: redford at WAFER Subject: radio detection of planets Message-ID: <"MS10(2055)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11826242549.24.583.11334 at DEC-MARLBORO> Unfortunately, planets give off too little radio energy to be detected across interstellar distances. Most stars, in fact are extremely weak radio sources, which makes sense if you think about how black body radiation drops off with frequency. Unless there is a nice coherent radio beam pointing at you,say an alien's "I Love Lucy", there just isn't enough power being given off. -------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 May 1982 1021-CDT Message-id: <391101691.14@DTI> From: marick at DTI (Brian Marick) To: space at mit-mc Subject: Advice Joan and I will be going to see the fourth shuttle launch. Any advice, suggestions, or horror stories would be appreciated. brian ----- ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 24 May 1982 08:39-PDT From: KING at KESTREL Subject: Extremely LBI To: space at mit-mc cc: King at KESTREL I was reading about Very Long Baseline Interferometry in Scinetific American. It appears that it is possible to operate a group of radio telescopes, mutually very far apart, as a single unit even if they are not connected to each other. Is anybody thinking of lunar based radio telescopes? The four telescopes necessary to cancel out desynchronization problems for A. M. studies can be on the Earth, the Moon, and the two Trojan points. (But does anyone know if the distance between the telescopes must remain strictly constant? I wouldn't think so, because a clot of "thick air" moving in front of ne telescope is equivalent to it's sinking into the Earth an appropriate distance.) When we're finished with that, we can do phase studies by planting telescopes at each of the two Earth/Sun trojan points. We can't do amplitude studies in this manner, but we'll still get the resolution. Except for the fact that a target planet would probably rotate, blurring our images, it should be possible todistinguish \continents/ on Alpha Centuri's inhabited planets! ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 26-May-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #195 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 195 Today's Topics: Shuttle Inspected for Rollout Shuttle Mating Process Begun Space Shuttle Upgrade guidance programs NYT Excerpt ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 May 82 19:37:52-PDT (Mon) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle Inspected for Rollout Article-I.D.: alice.593 Via: news.usenet; 25 May 82 4:51-PDT Workers began to inspect the space shuttle Columbia today to make sure that all hookups with its external tank and SRB's are secures and that communications with other systems are active. Following that, the shuttle will be placed on its crawler tomorrow and rolled to pad 39A on Wednesday. Nine gaps of tiles remain to be filled, some to be filled tomorrow, some on the pad. The turnaround time was cut by a week from the post-STS-2 turnaround time (this is in the VAB) due to elimination and integration of some tests and the elimination of mock missions. ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 1982 16:42 edt From: Tavares.Coop at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Shuttle Mating Process Begun To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Message of 21 May 1982 06:02 edt from Ted Anderson After the seven-hour mating process was completed, Dr. Abel Resnicke, supervisor of NASA's Vehicular Husbandry team, expressed his team's hope for an offspring with daddy's wings and momma's nozzles. ------------------------------ Date: 25 May 1982 0907-MDT From: Pendleton at UTAH-20 (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Space Shuttle Upgrade To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Pendleton at UTAH-20 In-Reply-To: Your message of 25-May-82 0402-MDT I have just heard that Hercules Areospace has be given a contract to develop carbon composite cases to replace the steel cases being used on the space shuttle solid rocket motors (SRM). While the cases will be built by Hercules, Thiakol (sp?), the current contractor, will still load, assemble, and refurbish the SRMs. The use of carbon composite casings is expected to increase shuttle payload by 30 to 50 percent. I have no information on delivery dates or costs. ------------------------------ Date: 25 May 1982 at 1937-CDT From: kjm at UTEXAS-11 Subject: guidance programs To: space at mit-mc Just out of personal curiosity, is there some way I could (legally) get a copy of a guidance program for an orbital launch vehiclee? I'm mainly interested in the basic algorithm (or algorithms) used in this application. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 25 May 1982 1829-PDT From: Tom Wadlow Subject: NYT Excerpt To: space at MIT-MC [The following is an excerpt from a New York Times wire service article on the President's visit to California. The whole article can be obtained from me (TAW@SAIL) if anyone is interested. The rest of the article is not space-related, however. --Tom] n089 1800 25 May 82 AM-REAGAN President Scores Congressional Democrats c. 1982 N.Y. Times News Service . . . Tuesday afternoon, Reagan received a warm reception from several thousand workers at the plant of Rockwell International, builders of the space shuttle and the B-1 bomber. Standing before the partly completed workings of the Discovery, the third of the space shuttles, Reagan defended his economic policies and said it was essential to increase military spending ''to send a signal to the rest of the world.'' In response to questions from the audience, Reagan said to thundering applause, ''This president believes in the space program.'' And he said he also considered the B-1 bomber, which his administration is committed to build, to be a part of the space program. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 27-May-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #196 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 196 Today's Topics: Shuttle Rollout Today ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 May 82 7:19:24-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle Rollout Today Article-I.D.: alice.596 Via: news.usenet; 26 May 82 23:33-PDT The space shuttle Columbia was put on its crawler yesterday, and today it will be rolled out to pad 39A where it will undergo a month of tests before its launch, scheduled for 17 June. The rollout should start at 0800 EDT and take several hours, as the shuttle will move at a top speed of 1 mph. The tests on the pad will include a mock countdown with astronauts Ken Mattingly and Henry Hartsfield and an external tank test, in which the external tank will be filled with liquids oxygen and hydrogen. After that, a secret DoD package will be loaded aboard. No information will be given as to its nature, and pictures from the shuttle will be restricted. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 28-May-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #197 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 197 Today's Topics: lunar eclipses ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 May 1982 1043-PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: lunar eclipses To: space at MIT-MC Date: Wednesday, 26 May 1982 10:55-PDT From: KING at KESTREL Subject: lunar eclipses To: space-request at mit-mc cc: King at KESTREL Does anyone know when the Lunar eclipses will take place this year? Dick ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 29-May-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #198 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 198 Today's Topics: re: Extremely LBI ECLIPSES Lunar eclipses scheduled for 1982 [Re: SPACE Digest V2 #197, Lunar Eclipses] [Joyce Eikenberry (VLD/ATB) : 1982 Lunar Eclipse schedule (60 lines)] lunar eclipses Lunar eclipses ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 May 82 15:28:06-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!hao!pack at Berkeley Subject: re: Extremely LBI Article-I.D.: hao.249 Via: news.usenet; 28 May 82 3:19-PDT Extremely long baseline interferometry does indeed promise fine resolution pictures. The June 82 Scientific American article didn't mention some of the problems inherent in extending the system to even longer baselines. Time standards must be more accurate as spacing between telescopes increases. In addition, a higher data rate is needed to fully define these finer fringes. Present methods (atomic clocks and video tape units) would have to be reevaluated to determine their adequacy for even longer baselines such as earth-moon distances. Another point to remember is that many different baselines are needed to allow a unique inversion of fringe data and a picture to be made. The terrestial baseline's projection on the sky varies on a daily basis. A space system based on the earth-moon system would have a natural 28 day period. Finally, the limited "light" gathering power of individual dishes must be considered. If steerable dishes in an imagined earth-moon system were to be limited to about 200 feet in diameter (as present units are), the increased resolution would not be accompanied by increased signal power. Hence such a system would be limited to studying objects with small angular detail coupled with extreme radio brightness. It therefore seems unlikely that such a system could identify stellar planetary systems. --Dan Packman ucbvax!menlo70!hao!pack ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 1982 0338-PDT (Friday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: ECLIPSES To: SPACE at MC Mail-from: koolish@BBN-UNIX; 14 May 1982 0820-EDT Via: bbnp.ARPAnet; Fri May 14 05:54:15 1982 Date: 14 May 1982 8:20:32 EDT (Friday) From: Dick Koolish Subject: Lunar Eclipse To: list/astro: at BBN-UNIX ----BEGINNING OF FORWARDED MESSAGES---- Date: 10 May 82 13:55:28-EDT (Mon) From: Joyce Eikenberry (VLD/ATB) To: Arpanet-BBoards at MIT-ML Subject: 1982 Lunar Eclipse schedule (60 lines) Redistributed-by: David Mankins Redistributed-to: koolish@BBN-RSM Redistributed-date: 13 May 1982 16:51:53 EDT (Thursday) According to an article in The Mother Earth News Magazine (and probably other publications as well, but TMEN is the one I read) there will be not one, but TWO total lunar eclipses during 1982. The first will occur on July 6th, the second on December 30th; both will be visible through- out most of the United States. With volcanic dust from Mt. St. Helen's still in Earth's atmosphere, the color displays across the face of the Moon should be spectacular. And, if you miss both of these eclipses, you probably won't get another chance to see one (unless you travel a lot, and unless your travel coincides with an eclipse elsewhere in the world) until close to the end of this decade. So "...don't miss that rare and beautiful hour when the fair face of the Moon is shadowed and rose-tinted...you'll be glad you gave up your warm and comfortable bed for it." Here's the timetable: July 6 EASTERN DAYLIGHT TIME: 12:22a.m. moon enters penumbra 1:33a.m. moon enters umbra; partial phase begins 2:38a.m. moon completely in umbra; total eclipse begins 3:31a.m. mid-eclipse 4:24a.m. moon begins to leave umbra; total eclipse ends 5:29a.m. moon leaves umbra; partial phase ends *5:35a.m. sunrise *5:50a.m. moonset 6:40a.m. moon leaves penumbra December 30 EASTERN STANDARD TIME: 3:52a.m. moon enters penumbra 4:50a.m. moon enters umbra; partial phase begins 5:58a.m. moon completely in umbra; total eclipse begins 6:29a.m. mid-eclipse 6:59a.m. moon begins to leave umbra; total eclipse ends *7:20a.m. sunrise *7:35a.m. moonset 8:07a.m. moon leaves umbra; partial phase ends 9:06a.m. moon leaves penumbra *Approximate times for latitude 40 degrees north in the middle of the eastern time zone. If you're better at math than I am (and 'most anybody is) you can figure exact times for "here". Happy viewing! joycee ----END OF FORWARDED MESSAGES---- Mail-from: koolish@BBN-UNIX; 23 May 1982 1952-EDT Via: bbnp.ARPAnet; Sun May 23 17:19:43 1982 Date: 23 May 1982 19:52:07 EDT (Sunday) From: Dick Koolish Subject: lunar eclipse To: list/astro: at BBN-UNIX ----BEGINNING OF FORWARDED MESSAGES---- Date: 22 May 1982 22:57 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Lunar Eclipse To: koolish at BBN-UNIX Note that times for eclipse are absolute times, i.e. you have to add or subtract according to what time zone you're in, but within a zone the numbers are exactly correct no matter where you are. The times for sunrise and moonset however are local time. If you live 2 hours 15 minutes of longitude west, the event happens 2 hours 15 minutes later in realtime, so you have to add 2 hours 15 minutes then subtract how many hours of time zone you are different. To a first approximation the answer is zero (plus or minus about a half hour) because time zones correspond to longitude (sort of). Of course latitude also affects sunrise and moonset, but you need trigonomotry or an almanac to figure out or look up that effect. ----END OF FORWARDED MESSAGES---- ------------- --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 1982 0655-PDT Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-8 Subject: Lunar eclipses scheduled for 1982 Subject: courtesy of your local Coca-Cola bottler... Subject: [ Joyce Eikenberry (VLD/ATB) : 1982 Lun...] From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin) To: Space at MIT-MC Cc: wmartin at OFFICE-8 Message-ID: <[OFFICE-8]28-May-82 06:55:02.WMARTIN> (My host doesn't recognize "KESTREL" as a host name, so I can't send this directly to the requester, "King@Kestrel".) I pulled this off our bboard: Begin forwarded message Mail from MIT-ML rcvd at 13-May-82 1331-PDT Date: 10 May 82 13:55:28-EDT (Mon) From: Joyce Eikenberry (VLD/ATB) To: Arpanet-BBoards at MIT-ML Subject: 1982 Lunar Eclipse schedule (60 lines) Remailed-date: 13 May 1982 1617-EDT Remailed-from: Arpanet-BBoards-Request at MIT-ML According to an article in The Mother Earth News Magazine (and probably other publications as well, but TMEN is the one I read) there will be not one, but TWO total lunar eclipses during 1982. The first will occur on July 6th, the second on December 30th; both will be visible through- out most of the United States. With volcanic dust from Mt. St. Helen's still in Earth's atmosphere, the color displays across the face of the Moon should be spectacular. And, if you miss both of these eclipses, you probably won't get another chance to see one (unless you travel a lot, and unless your travel coincides with an eclipse elsewhere in the world) until close to the end of this decade. So "...don't miss that rare and beautiful hour when the fair face of the Moon is shadowed and rose-tinted...you'll be glad you gave up your warm and comfortable bed for it." Here's the timetable: July 6 EASTERN DAYLIGHT TIME: 12:22a.m. moon enters penumbra 1:33a.m. moon enters umbra; partial phase begins 2:38a.m. moon completely in umbra; total eclipse begins 3:31a.m. mid-eclipse 4:24a.m. moon begins to leave umbra; total eclipse ends 5:29a.m. moon leaves umbra; partial phase ends *5:35a.m. sunrise *5:50a.m. moonset 6:40a.m. moon leaves penumbra December 30 EASTERN STANDARD TIME: 3:52a.m. moon enters penumbra 4:50a.m. moon enters umbra; partial phase begins 5:58a.m. moon completely in umbra; total eclipse begins 6:29a.m. mid-eclipse 6:59a.m. moon begins to leave umbra; total eclipse ends *7:20a.m. sunrise *7:35a.m. moonset 8:07a.m. moon leaves umbra; partial phase ends 9:06a.m. moon leaves penumbra *Approximate times for latitude 40 degrees north in the middle of the eastern time zone. If you're better at math than I am (and 'most anybody is) you can figure exact times for "here". Happy viewing! joycee -------------------- End forwarded message Regards, Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 1982 1014-EDT From: ELF at MIT-DMS (Eric L. Flanzbaum) To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-reply-to: Message of 28 May 82 at 0302 PDT by OTA@S1-A Subject: [Re: SPACE Digest V2 #197, Lunar Eclipses] Message-id: <[MIT-DMS].233194> Lunar Eclipses: July 6th, 12:22am - 5:29am December 30th, 3:52am - 6:59am \ELF/ ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 1982 1212-EDT From: SWG at MIT-XX Subject: [Joyce Eikenberry (VLD/ATB) : 1982 Lunar Eclipse schedule (60 lines)] To: space at MIT-MC Mail-from: ARPANET site MIT-ML rcvd at 15-May-82 0248-EDT Date: 10 May 82 13:55:28-EDT (Mon) From: Joyce Eikenberry (VLD/ATB) To: Arpanet-BBoards at MIT-ML Subject: 1982 Lunar Eclipse schedule (60 lines) Remailed-date: 13 May 1982 1617-EDT Remailed-from: Arpanet-BBoards-Request at MIT-ML According to an article in The Mother Earth News Magazine (and probably other publications as well, but TMEN is the one I read) there will be not one, but TWO total lunar eclipses during 1982. The first will occur on July 6th, the second on December 30th; both will be visible through- out most of the United States. With volcanic dust from Mt. St. Helen's still in Earth's atmosphere, the color displays across the face of the Moon should be spectacular. And, if you miss both of these eclipses, you probably won't get another chance to see one (unless you travel a lot, and unless your travel coincides with an eclipse elsewhere in the world) until close to the end of this decade. So "...don't miss that rare and beautiful hour when the fair face of the Moon is shadowed and rose-tinted...you'll be glad you gave up your warm and comfortable bed for it." Here's the timetable: July 6 EASTERN DAYLIGHT TIME: 12:22a.m. moon enters penumbra 1:33a.m. moon enters umbra; partial phase begins 2:38a.m. moon completely in umbra; total eclipse begins 3:31a.m. mid-eclipse 4:24a.m. moon begins to leave umbra; total eclipse ends 5:29a.m. moon leaves umbra; partial phase ends *5:35a.m. sunrise *5:50a.m. moonset 6:40a.m. moon leaves penumbra December 30 EASTERN STANDARD TIME: 3:52a.m. moon enters penumbra 4:50a.m. moon enters umbra; partial phase begins 5:58a.m. moon completely in umbra; total eclipse begins 6:29a.m. mid-eclipse 6:59a.m. moon begins to leave umbra; total eclipse ends *7:20a.m. sunrise *7:35a.m. moonset 8:07a.m. moon leaves umbra; partial phase ends 9:06a.m. moon leaves penumbra *Approximate times for latitude 40 degrees north in the middle of the eastern time zone. If you're better at math than I am (and 'most anybody is) you can figure exact times for "here". Happy viewing! joycee ------- ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 1982 1017-PDT From: WILKINS at SRI-AI (Wilkins ) Subject: lunar eclipses To: space at MIT-MC According to an article in The Mother Earth News Magazine (and probably other publications as well, but TMEN is the one I read) there will be not one, but TWO total lunar eclipses during 1982. The first will occur on July 6th, the second on December 30th; both will be visible through- out most of the United States. With volcanic dust from Mt. St. Helen's still in Earth's atmosphere, the color displays across the face of the Moon should be spectacular. And, if you miss both of these eclipses, you probably won't get another chance to see one (unless you travel a lot, and unless your travel coincides with an eclipse elsewhere in the world) until close to the end of this decade. So "...don't miss that rare and beautiful hour when the fair face of the Moon is shadowed and rose-tinted...you'll be glad you gave up your warm and comfortable bed for it." Here's the timetable: July 6 EASTERN DAYLIGHT TIME: 12:22a.m. moon enters penumbra 1:33a.m. moon enters umbra; partial phase begins 2:38a.m. moon completely in umbra; total eclipse begins 3:31a.m. mid-eclipse 4:24a.m. moon begins to leave umbra; total eclipse ends 5:29a.m. moon leaves umbra; partial phase ends *5:35a.m. sunrise *5:50a.m. moonset 6:40a.m. moon leaves penumbra December 30 EASTERN STANDARD TIME: 3:52a.m. moon enters penumbra 4:50a.m. moon enters umbra; partial phase begins 5:58a.m. moon completely in umbra; total eclipse begins 6:29a.m. mid-eclipse 6:59a.m. moon begins to leave umbra; total eclipse ends *7:20a.m. sunrise *7:35a.m. moonset 8:07a.m. moon leaves umbra; partial phase ends 9:06a.m. moon leaves penumbra *Approximate times for latitude 40 degrees north in the middle of the eastern time zone. If you're better at math than I am (and 'most anybody is) you can figure exact times for "here". Happy viewing! joycee ------- ------------------------------ From: BRUC@MIT-ML Date: 05/28/82 21:49:39 Subject: Lunar eclipses BRUC@MIT-ML 05/28/82 21:49:39 Re: Lunar eclipses To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC There will be two total lunar eclipses this year both visible from North America. The eclipse on July 6 will enter totality at 2:38 am EDT and end at 4:24am EDT. The eclipse on December 30 with enter totality at 5:58 am EST and end 6:59 am EST. (From the 1982 Old Farmer's Almanac) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 30-May-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #199 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 199 Today's Topics: Correction to 'Shuttle Rollout Today' Shuttle at Pad Mock Lift Off ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 May 82 19:37:26-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: mhtsa!ihnss!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Correction to 'Shuttle Rollout Today' Article-I.D.: alice.598 Via: news.usenet; 29 May 82 22:33-PDT Normally I do not post corrections to articles. However, this error was more major than others. I said that the launch date for the shuttle was 17 June. I meant 27 June, as I have said before. Sorry, Adam ------------------------------ Date: 26 May 82 18:11:45-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: mhtsa!ihnss!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle at Pad Article-I.D.: alice.597 Via: news.usenet; 29 May 82 22:34-PDT The space shuttle Columbia was rolled out of the VAB today at 0700 EDT and reached its pad at 1309 EDT. The 3.5 mile trip was completed without problems, and everything is on schedule. One month of tests will be conducted on the shuttle to make sure it is space-worthy. ------------------------------ Date: 29 May 82 22:08:36-PDT (Sat) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!duke!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Mock Lift Off Article-I.D.: alice.604 Via: news.usenet; 30 May 82 1:46-PDT The space shuttle Columbia underwent a mock mission today, 4.5 hours late. Scheduled to begin at 1100 EDT, the countdown finished and the Columbia 'lifted off' at 1520 EDT; nevertheless, the mission was a success, and things are still on schedule for 27 June. Three problems were encountered: 1) A computer tried to read the hydraulic pressure inside the orbiter, but the hydraulics had not been turned on. 2) A computer simultaneously told the shuttle to open and close cargo bay vents. 3) A tracking station interrupted signals, which would have prevented the reception of data during a real flight. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 31-May-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #200 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 200 Today's Topics: Halley's Comet Comment new name to mailing list ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30-May-82 15:22:24 PDT (Sunday) From: TManley.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Halley's Comet Comment For: SPACE Digest To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: TManley.Es Summoned from the frozen infinity beyond the solar systems by cosmic forces only dimly understand, Halley's comet is already rushing precipitously toward its once-in-most-lifetimes hairpin turn around the sun in 1986. But most of us may miss the awesome sight of the great comet that has been linked so closely with human history - because light pollution from our cities now almost obliterates the wonders of the nighttime skys. Alone of the generations of people who have filled history books with the fear and awe inspired by the coming of the splendid comet every 76 years since 240 B.C., we may blind ourselves to its sight. Light pollution now prevents most city dwellers and suburbanites from seeing most of the stars at night. And it will probably keep them from getting even a glimpse of the great comet that many of our parents ans grandparents have talked about since its last flyby in 1910. It doesn't have to be so, argues Fred Schaaf, a columnist for Astronomy magazine. He's proposing that cities and towns begin planning now to dim their artificial lights for a time - perhaps only half an hour or a half an evening - on at least one of the days when the comets sweeps past so we can see the historic phenomenon and the rest of the spectacularly starry sky. Schaaf is getting support from the Light Pollution Committee of the Astronomical League, an organization of amateur astronomy clubs. And the International Halley Watch, a group coordinating data on the comet's reappearance, says reducing the artificial light on crucial nights would help in collecting scientific observations. It's such a lovely vision: the whole world turning down its lights and looking up to the stars to share a cosmic wonder - not only with each other but with eons of our ancestors. But second thoughts are only a millisecond behind: We wouldn't dare turn out the lights. It would be too dangerous. Remember the pillaging in New York City during the power failure a few years ago. Bad things happen in the dark. We can't look up because we have to keep looking out. Like the ancients who thought that comets portend war and death of kings, we have our own special fears that become more obvious in the light of Halley's comet. There's another reason for being cautious about Schaaf's proposal. Halley's comet is swinging around the sun in a slightly different trajectory in 1986 than it did in 1910, when it lighted up the night four times more brightly than a full moon. It won't come nearly as close to the earth this time and although it will be seen as much larger than a major star, it won't appear to be any brighter. But its phenomenal tail should be clearly visible to the naked eye and may seem to stretch a quarter of the distance from the horizon to the top of the sky. Halley watchers don't want people disappointed in their comet, after centuries of build-up. So they are relucant to promise a celestial superstar. And without superstar billing, it will be difficult to arrange the necessary lights-out. But there are other reasons than Halley's comet for considering turning down the lights at night. In an enrgy-short age, our cities and suburbs are wastefully over-illuminated. Studies show clear correlation between municipal lighting levels and incidences of crime. Light pollution is a growing problem for astronomers and increasingly interferes with their observations. And light pollution forces millions of us to live in earthly isolation without ever glimpsing the stars. Schaaf thinks the most likely way to get a dim-out for comet watching is for each metropolitan area and town to pick its own time and make its own plans, including arrangements for increased security. Timing, he suggests, should be based on local weather expectations. The comet will first become visible in late 1985, when it sweeps past the earth on its way toward the sun. As it speeds closer, solar winds and radiation will brighten its tail - made up of cosmic dust, ice, gases and debris left over from the formation of the universe - and stretch it out for millions of miles across the sky. Then the great comet will whip behind the sun and be flung back out across the orbits of the planets toward what scientists now theorize may be a sort of cold storage area for comets beyond the edges of the salor system. Earthling will have several weeks to look at the comet as it streaks, tail first, away from the sun in the early spring of 1986. Halley's comet won't return from the frigid dark of outer space until 2062. Each sweep around the sun comsumes perhaps 1 percent of the comet's fragile substance and eventually it will disintegrate, like several other comets were known to do, into a collection of celestial debris. It will sat something terrible about our cilization if most of us miss seeing Halley's comet this time around - because we have blotted out the nigh sky from our lives and are afraid to change and let ourselves look up. Even if Halley's comet doesn't live up to its historic billing, we owe ourselves an occasional look at the star. ...The Mad Biker... ------------------------------ Mail-From: PCO-MULTICS received by MIT-MULTICS at 30-May-1982 23:40:20-edt Date: 30 May 1982 23:33 edt From: Jarrell.FSOEP at PCO-MULTICS Subject: new name to mailing list Reply-To: Jarrell.FSOEP%pco-multics at MIT-MULTICS, RONJ at MIT-AI To: space at MIT-MC Message-ID: <820531033354.275060 at PCO-MULTICS> I don't know if it will work or not, but would you try adding the following address to the mailing list? Jarrell.FSOEP%pco-multics@mit-multics if you can send to it, please add it. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 01-Jun-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #201 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 201 Today's Topics: Lighting and crime ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 June 1982 00:12 edt From: Tavares.Coop at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Lighting and crime To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Message of 31 May 1982 06:02 edt from Ted Anderson "But there are other reasons than Halley's comet for considering turning down the lights at night. In an enrgy-short age, our cities and suburbs are wastefully over-illuminated. Studies show clear correlation between municipal lighting levels and incidences of crime." What a revelation. How about: "Studies show clear correlation between incidences of crime and municipal lighting levels"? Now that didn't hurt, did it. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 02-Jun-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #202 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 202 Today's Topics: SPACE Digest V2 #200: ``spectacular comets'' Military in Space Military & Space, DOD 82-1, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BANDY@MIT-AI Date: 06/01/82 08:26:21 Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #200: ``spectacular comets'' BANDY@MIT-AI 06/01/82 08:26:21 Re: SPACE Digest V2 #200: ``spectacular comets'' To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Anybody remember comet Kahutek (definitely a spelling error) back in '74 (I think). They said it was going to be a really big one, and I consider myself lucky that I saw it (a friend happened to have a pair of binoculars). Perhaps Halley's (this time around) will fizzle out too. - Andrew - andrew.univax at brl-bmd ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jun 82 7:21:03-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: mhtsa!ihnss!houxi!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Military in Space Article-I.D.: alice.605 Via: news.usenet; 1 Jun 82 7:40-PDT NASA and the Pentagon are working on plans for each to operate its own space shuttles. At present, four are planned (one completed, one very near to completion, one being constructed, and one's parts being scrounged) with an option for a fifth existing. Congress has said that the Pentagon and DoD are not paying their fair share in the development of the shuttle. In the $15 billion projected cost of producing the four space shuttles, the Pentagon will only pay $3.4 billion; this money will also go to making a space station at Vandenburg AFB and securing the facilities at KSC and Houston. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jun 1982 2104-PDT Sender: GEOFF at SRI-CSL Subject: Military & Space, DOD 82-1, etc. From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow Reply-To: Geoff at SRI-CSL To: Space at MC, Arms-d at MC Message-ID: <[SRI-CSL] 1-Jun-82 21:04:13.GEOFF> PM-Military and Space, Adv 01, 2 Takes,880-1550 U.S. Air Force Moves into Manned Space Program For Release Tues PMs June 1 By HOWARD BENEDICT AP Aerospace Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - In the 25th year of the space age, man and his military machines are moving to control the ultimate high ground far above the Earth. The Soviet Union already has a toehold. The United States makes its opening bid this month, when, for the first time, American astronauts will conduct military assignments in space. The space shuttle Columbia will carry a Defense Department payload to test sensors for future spy satellites - a modest beginning to a multibillion-dollar project that could develop by the end of the decade into a formidable space force of military pilots, ships, satellites and exotic weapons. Not exactly ''Star Wars'' - but heading in that direction. The force is needed, defense officials claim, to counter a strong Soviet manned military space effort aimed, they say, at dominating that new arena. For their part, the Soviets blame the United States for establishing the shuttle's military capabilities. The first defense-related shuttle flight is scheduled to lift off from Cape Canaveral on June 27, with touchdown on Independence Day, July 4, at Edwards Air Force Base in California. President Reagan is expected to greet the returning astronauts with a speech outlining America's future in space. Reagan is said to be considering establishment of a large permanent space station to be used later in this decade for military, scientific and commercial projects. The June flight, Columbia's fourth and final test mission, will see fundamental changes in NASA's hitherto open information policy. The Air Force, which manages the Pentagon's space effort, has declared the payload secret and won't disclose details to reporters. It is listed simply as DOD 82-1. The astronauts, Navy Capt. Thomas Mattingly and Henry Hartsfield, won't discuss the payload on open air-to-ground conversations, nor will they transmit television pictures of it for fear the Soviets might learn something. Nevertheless, many details about the package are known, from Air Force congressional testimony and articles published in technical papers. Robert Hermann, an assistant secretary of the Air Force, spilled the beans on DOD 82-1 in testimony last year before the House subcommittee on science and technology. ''We are planning to place a critical space test program called CIRRIS on the fourth orbital flight test mission,'' Hermann said. ''This will provide critical information applicable to future defense missions and will give both the Air Force and NASA an early opportunity to evaluate the procedures and interfaces for operations with the shuttle.'' CIRRIS stands for Cryogenic Infra-Red Radiation Instrumentation for Shuttle. It is to scan Earth's horizon with a super-cooled infrared telescope to gather background and basic target data for future spacecraft designed to detect and possibly destroy enemy missiles and satellites. The payload will not be released into its own orbit, but will remain in the shuttle cargo bay. From reliable sources it was learned other Pentagon instruments aboard the flight include a Space Sextant, being developed to give defense satellites an independent navigation capability, and a device called HUP (horizon ultraviolet program), smaller than CIRRIS but intended to do similar studies in the ultraviolet spectrum. NASA always has prided itself on the openness of its program, and some officials are not happy with the security demands. But, Brian Duff, the agency's chief of public affairs, said: ''We have no choice. The decision has been made by the president that we are to share the shuttle with the Air Force.'' Brig. Gen. Richard Abel, Air Force director of public affairs, said: ''It is imperative, as we move DOD space systems to the shuttle from expendable launch vehicles, that we protect information about those systems which would be useful to a potential adversary.'' Some observers believe CIRRIS is not all that secret and that the Air Force's real goal is to test its own and NASA's security systems to find where they might leak during truly top secret missions. The first all-up military ''blue shuttle'' flight is scheduled for the 10th launching, in November 1983, carrying a satellite to detect aircraft from orbit. After that, the pace accelerates, with 24 of the next 60 flights, extending into 1987, classified as national defense missions - to haul up satellites and as testbeds for lasers and other weapons. The General Accounting Office estimated recently that the Defense Department will require 114 of the 234 shuttle flights expected to take place through 1994. ''The Defense Department and the Air Force have solid plans for the continued expansion of space capabilities and the exploitation of space for military purposes,'' said Air Force Undersecretary Edward C. Aldridge Jr. in recent congressional testimony. ''This is inevitable, due to the military and economic advantages of space surveillance, communications and navigation,'' he said. ''We need to pursue a vigorous research and development program to give us future military options in space, such as an anti-satellite system to deny access to those considered harmful to our interests and, potentially, weapons in space for protection of satellites or defense of our forces.'' Officials of both NASA and the Air Force foresee the day, not too many years away, when each agency will operate its own shuttle fleet. Four shuttles are currently planned, with money in this year's budget to maintain an option for a fifth vehicle. The trend toward space militarization is indicated by the number of Air Force uniforms at NASA centers. Eight officers are assigned to NASA headquarters in Washington; 60 to the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral, Fla., and 66 plus 22 Air Force civilian employees at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. Early military shuttle flights will be piloted by military officers in NASA's astronaut corps, but the Air Force is training specialists at its space division in Los Angeles to handle sensitive payloads. Adding impetus to the militarization effort is the continuing Soviet activity and a recent GAO recommendation that the U.S. accelerate an early feasibility demonstration in orbit of a space-based laser weapon. The Soviets possess the only operational space weapons system - a killer satellite capable of flying alongside another satellite and blowing it up. The Air Force early next year is expected to test-fire for the first time its own anti-satellite weapon - a device that seeks out an orbiting target and smashes into it after being launched from an F-15 jet fighter aircraft. The Soviet manned space program, very active in recent years, is believed by American experts to be mostly military-oriented. The Soviets have indicated they will have a 12-to-14-man permanent space station in orbit by 1985, and the recently-launched Salyut 7 craft may be the core of that outpost. ''The Soviets recognize the historical value of dominating the space environment,'' said Sen. Harrison H. Schmitt, R-N.M., a former astronaut who is chairman of the Senate space subcommittee. ''It's the first ocean they really have a chance to dominate. They have the right perspective - that the civilization that dominates the military and non-military aspects of space is going to dominate the military and non-military aspects of the Earth.'' Schmitt said the United States ''has not fully realized the unique aspects of space for keeping the peace. We have a superior base of technology but an inferior base of will by which to use that technology.'' He urged formation of a space command within the Pentagon or Air Force to set and implement space policy. Defense officials have said they are working toward such a command and may have it in place by the end of this year. Among other things, that command would direct development of a space-based laser system for destroying hostile missiles and spacecraft. The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, says that directed-energy weapons may revolutionize military strategy, tactics and doctrine. Its recent report centers on the concept of a constellation of laser battle stations in space with the potential for credible air and ballistic missile defense for the United States ''where no defense currently exists.'' These unmanned laser stations would be carried aloft by the shuttle fleet. Lt. Gen. Kelly Burke, the Air Force deputy chief of staff for research, development and acquisition, said earlier this month that the Soviet Union could have an operational space-based, high-energy laser in orbit within five years for anti-satellite applications. Burke said it will be the end of the century before an effective space-based laser weapon system could be deployed to destroy ballistic missiles in flight. There has been some congessional criticism, led by Schmitt and Sen. William Proxmire, D-Wis., that the Defense Department is not paying its fair share for shuttle development. ''Clearly, the space shuttle has been developed largely at NASA expense,'' Schmitt said. ''Yet, DOD will be a major user.'' Of the $15 billion it will cost to build four flight shuttles and their facilities, the Pentagon's share is $3.4 billion. That includes constructing a second launching base at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., building secure facilities at Cape Canaveral and at Mission Control Center in Houston and developing a rocket stage capable of boosting all shuttle payloads - military, scientific, commercial - to high orbits. ap-ny-05-27 0945EDT *************** ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 03-Jun-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #203 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 203 Today's Topics: Simulated Problems closed ecosystems Re: SPACE Digest V2 #200: spectacular comets"" Halley fizzle? Re: `spectacular comets' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Jun 82 7:18:01-EDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Simulated Problems Article-I.D.: alice.609 Via: news.usenet; 2 Jun 82 4:42-PDT On Ken Mattingly's and Henry Hartsfield's first simulated flight last weekend, there was a simulated problem. The computers, in accordance with a pre-set script of the mission that was not known to the astronauts in advance, told them that there was a nitrogen leak in the (simulated) cabin. They dealt with it and brought it under control with no problems, and NASA is calling the 'mission' a complete success. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jun 82 22:51:39-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley Subject: closed ecosystems Article-I.D.: utzoo.2116 Via: news.usenet; 2 Jun 82 5:42-PDT One of the objections raised to the space-colony concept has been the total lack of understanding of how to run closed-cycle ecosystems. Attempts at creating simple closed systems that are self-sufficient in water and nutrients (not just oxygen) haven't been too successful so far. A report in the May issue of JBIS indicates that this situation has now changed. Fifteen months ago, JPL ecologist Joe Hanson prepared a number of small ecosystems consisting of one-liter flasks containing imitation seawater, assorted algae, numerous microorganisms, and inch-long tropical shrimp. The necks of the flasks were then fused shut, sealing the systems off completely from the biosphere: only light and heat get in or out. The little ecosystems are doing quite well. In a few the shrimp have died, but in most they are thriving. The algae are healthy even in the flasks with no shrimp left, suggesting that microorganisms are supplying carbon dioxide. There are other differences between various flasks; for example, different algae species are dominant in different flasks, although they all started with pretty much the same mix. The reasons for these differences are not well understood. Hanson is now trying to figure out non-invasive ways of measuring what is going on in the flasks. If this problem can be solved, these long-lived "microecosystems" may be a major breakthrough in the science of ecology, permitting controlled and repeatable experiments on whole ecosystems for the first time. The thing I find most interesting about his technique is that the stable ecosystems did not arise out of systematic planning, with a small number of species and carefully-planned interactions and cycles. I have long thought that the way to get a space colony's ecosystem going is just to transport a slice of Earth's biosphere and let it adjust to the new environment by itself. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jun 82 22:22:00-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #200: spectacular comets"" Article-I.D.: watmath.2514 Via: news.usenet; 2 Jun 82 5:43-PDT The spelling was Kohoutek, so you're reasonably close. Actually, the author of the original piece is distressingly correct: Halley's comet may well turn out to be very disappointing in 1985/86. It's dying. To see how a comet can die, let's examine one. A comet is fundamentally just a ball of dust and gases trapped inside ice. As the comet approaches the sun, some of the ice melts away, releasing some of the trapped gas and dust. Light pressure and the solar wind push the gas and dust away from the sun, creating the comet's "tail" (not really a tail as it always points away from the sun - a consequence of how it's made. Thus, it leads the head of the comet back into cometary belt space). Note that very little of the now-released dust and gas refreeze to the comet head: said dust and gas will not be on the same orbit. So a comet loses mass each orbit, the lost mass travelling in a similar orbit as a shower of micro-meteorites. Eventually, this is all that will reamin of the comet. In 2062, it may be all that remains of Halley's. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jun 1982 0933-PDT From: Paul Dietz Subject: Halley fizzle? To: andrew.univax at BRL-BMD, space at MIT-MC It should be pointed out that Halley's comet will not be very visible from the northern hemisphere this time. If you really want to see it you should take a vacation down under. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jun 1982 09:40 PDT From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: `spectacular comets' In-reply-to: Andrew's message of 06/01/82 08:26:21 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Lynn.es The chemical content of any given comet determines how it forms a head and tail at various temperatures (and therefore at various distances from the sun). So the first time a comet is observed, we are taking a wild stab when we predict its behavior. Kahoutek was a first timer. Halley's is not; it was recorded as having been seen at most of its appearances for 2000 years. There is little doubt that Halley's will look spectacular under the proper viewing conditions. That does not include any metropolitan areas where you cannot see even one tenth of the stars because of lights and polution. It also does not, for this particular passage, include northerly latitudes where the geometry of earth/sun/comet will keep much of the spectacular time in local twilight or daylight. Go south and away from the cities, and excepting only for cloudy weather, you can be guaranteed a spectacular comet. /Don Lynn PS - Scientifically, Kahoutek was spectacular, because it was discovered early and so allowed a long period of data gathering, even though it did not end up nearly as bright as predicted. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 04-Jun-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #204 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 204 Today's Topics: closed ecosystems The Shuttle and the Military NASA Contract Tanking Test Tanking Test a Success New UK Satellite and Comet-Sun collision disappointing Halley? Re: Military & Space, DOD 82-1, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 June 1982 07:48-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: closed ecosystems To: decvax!utzoo!henry at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC After the reported round-1 closed-ecosystem experiment, I suggest the following plan: Divide each of the round-1 successful systems in half, resealing one and conducting a detailed analysis on the other. The main thing to find out is whether any materials toxic to human life are abundant in the successful closed ecosystems. Throw out those which are toxic. For round-2, attempt to construct a large ecosystem containing exactly what was determined to be in each of the non-toxic successful ecosystems. Of course some tiny but necessary lifeform will be omitted, but if the first round-2 experiment with pure materials fails we can try again with a small amount of natural crud thrown in (i.e. throw in a small amount of what started the original experiment). With the system dominated by the analyzed result of the round-1 experment, but with crud thrown in to supply a seed crop of anything else needed, I expect each round-2 experiment will stabilize to exactly what the corresponding round-1 experiment did, rather than jumping to some other stable mix. This should be verifiable by comparing analysis of the round-2 results with the correspond round-1 analyses. Next, I guess we need to perform perturbation tests on the successful round-2 mixtures. See if we can add a foreign substance and have the mixture return to its original state after a while. We may find there are a finite number of stable mixtures, that adding foreign substances either returns to the same mixture or jumps to another, and we may find a recipe for jumping a mixture from any existing state to any desired state. Hopefully there's at least one stable mixture that has a high ambient level of oxygen (sufficient for human breathing) and is stable against moderate amounts of oxygen-removal algae-removal and human-waste-return. If so, we've solved the space-station problem. I hope they have funding for additional research! ------------------------------ Date: 3-Jun-82 9:54AM-EDT (Thu) From: David Miller Subject: The Shuttle and the Military To: Space at MIT-MC It would seem to me that any space launch vehicle is extremely vulnerable to anybody who doesn't like it. The only thing that kept all the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions from being attacked is that they were not legal military targets, and had they been attacked the attacker would have been looked upon with extreme disfavor from all of the remaining international community. Now that the Shuttle is being used for military missions, it is giving up that protection ...and it could therefore become vulnerable to attack. One does not need a cruise missile or killer satellite to destroy the shuttle, a person with a high power rifle can do an adequate job. If the DoD is going to endanger the space program in this way, I am curious what steps they are taking to add new protection; is it soon going to be illegal to park outside the Cape and watch a launch? --Dave (miller@yale) ------- ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jun 82 7:22:20-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!zeppo!wheps!eagle!mhuxt!cbosg!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: NASA Contract Article-I.D.: alice.612 Via: news.usenet; 3 Jun 82 11:05-PDT NASA yesterday announced that it had awarded a contract to Perkin-Elmer Optical Group of Danbury, Conn., for the solar optical satellite to be carried into orbit by the shuttle in 1985. The contract would be worth $57 million by 1984. NASA won't make a final decision until all costs are examined. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jun 82 17:16:56-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Tanking Test Article-I.D.: alice.610 Via: news.usenet; 3 Jun 82 11:31-PDT Workers began a tanking test of the space shuttle today at 0730 EDT, 15 minutes ahead of schedule. In it, supercold liquids hydrogen and oxygen are pumped into the shuttle's external tank, which is then put through a stress test. The tanking test then leads up to a mock ignition of the main engines, after which the fuels are unloaded and restored. Thomas (not ken, as I said before) Mattingly and Henry Hartsfield will not take part in the test. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jun 82 19:43:40-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!cbosg!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Tanking Test a Success Article-I.D.: alice.611 Via: news.usenet; 3 Jun 82 11:31-PDT Finishing 1.5 hours early, the tanking test of the space shuttle today was termed a success, as teams of technicians found nothing wrong with the tank or shuttle after the fuels were loaded. They are now being unloaded and restored for the launch later this month. Over the weekend, the DoD satellite will be stowed aboard the shuttle, and next week will see the loading of the maneuvering propellants into the Reaction Control System. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jun 82 16:40:35-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!utzoo!kcarroll at Berkeley Subject: New UK Satellite and Comet-Sun collision Article-I.D.: utzoo.2117 Via: news.usenet; 3 Jun 82 11:32-PDT Two interesting pieces of information, garnered from the March 1982 issue (Vol 24 #3) of , a journal published by the British Interplanetary Society: (1) p.124 : NEW UK SATELLITE ; This article describes a satellite to be flown by Britain as part of a 3-nation cooperative mission scheduled for Shuttle launch in 1984. The mission is called the Active Magnetic Particle Tracer Explorers (AMPTE), and the other two nations involved are Germany and the US. The purpose of the mission is to measure magnetic and plasma processes in the Earth's magnetosphere. In order to carry this out, the German satellite will periodically release barium ions into space. "One release of barium ions, planned near Christmas 1984, will create what will appear from the ground for some 30 minutes as an artificial comet, interacting with the solar wind in much the same way as a real comet. The releases will be visible mainly from North and South America where a suitable chain of ground observing stations and spotter planes can be made available." Depending on the amount of barium released and the level of magnetic activity at the time, the resulting display could be quite spectacular (especially if release occurs at night). It could also give prospective comet-watchers a sample of what's coming two years later, when Halley's makes its rounds. (2) p.125 : COMET-SUN COLLISION ; Speaking of comets... Apparently, on 30 Aug, 1979, a sun-grazing comet actually hit the surface of the Sun, scattering debris throughout the corona. The event was detected by the USAF P78-1 satellite, using a coronagraph which creates an artificial eclipse of the sun by means of an occulting disc, which blocks out the image of the solar disc while allowing the image of the corona to be detected. The energy released in the collision was estimated to have been 10**30 ergs; Naval Research Laboratory researchers are checking ground based observatories (presumably their past records) for evidence of the effect of the collision on the Sun. Although the collision occurred more than 2 years ago, it was only recently discovered, as "the relevant data has only now been released for analysis". ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jun 82 17:25:49-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley Subject: disappointing Halley? Article-I.D.: utzoo.2118 Via: news.usenet; 3 Jun 82 11:33-PDT Another reason why Halley's Comet is probably going to be disappointing this time around is that Earth is poorly placed to view it. Unlike the last time, Earth will be fairly far away from the comet. Moreover, the way the orbits turn out, the Northern Hemisphere gets an especially poor view. There is already at least one "comet tour" being organized to go down south for a better look. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jun 82 23:16:08-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley Subject: Re: Military & Space, DOD 82-1, etc. Article-I.D.: watmath.2520 Via: news.usenet; 3 Jun 82 11:35-PDT A very interesting article. But it must come as a small reminder of life's ironies to see that Sen. Harrison Schmitt(R-N.M.) agrees with Sen. William Proxmire(D.-Wis, and hasn't he been defeated *yet*?) on this aspect of space policy. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 05-Jun-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #205 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 205 Today's Topics: military shuttle Halley fizzle? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Jun 1982 0913-EDT From: John Redford To: space at MIT-AI cc: redford at WAFER Subject: military shuttle Message-ID: <"MS10(2055)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11829130340.10.583.5019 at DEC-MARLBORO> Keeping NASA independent of the military for 25 years has been a remarkable accomplishment. Does anybody out there know how it was done? Considering that the bulk of rocketry research is military, and that NASA is perpetually short of funds, it amazes me that NASA wasn't absorbed by the Air Force long ago. Now with all this talk about Space Command and the budget hawks swooping in, NASA's future as a civilian outfit looks bleak. With regard to the security of the shuttle ("someone with a high-power rifle could bring it down"), that's probably why they're building a launch facility out at Vandenberg (sp?). Some Cuban in a motor boat could probably take out a launch at Cape Canaveral. On a another subject entirely, does anyone know what the "solar optical satellite" that the UK, the US, and the Germans are putting up is supposed to do? Does it have anything to do with power generation, or is it more for solar astronomy? ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jun 1982 08:29 (Thu) From: andrew.univax at BRL-BMD To: space.mit-ai at BRL Via: UUCP (Remote Mail); 4 Jun 1982 09:32-EDT (Fri) Subject: Halley fizzle? >From dietz at usc-ecl Wed Jun 2 12:40:59 1982 remote from brl-bmd Sender: Paul Dietz Date: 2 Jun 1982 0933-PDT It should be pointed out that Halley's comet will not be very visible from the northern hemisphere this time. If you really want to see it you should take a vacation down under. But how visible will it be from down under? As visible as was stated in space, or will it be brighter? - Andy - Bandy@mit-ai ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 06-Jun-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #206 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 206 Today's Topics: Vandenberg launch facilities Upper Stage Booster New Space Center Re: The Shuttle and the Military ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 June 1982 1832-EDT (Saturday) From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30) To: space at MIT-MC Subject: Vandenberg launch facilities Message-Id: <05Jun82 183250 DS30@CMU-10A> The Air Force has long used Vandenberg for launching into polar orbits. Its advantage is that rockets can be launched straight south without the danger of raining stuff down on land if something goes wrong. From Canaveral, your rocket will overfly land if shot straight north or south. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jun 82 7:18:33-PDT (Fri) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Upper Stage Booster Article-I.D.: alice.614 Via: news.usenet; 5 Jun 82 22:36-PDT Boeing Company unveiled yesterday the first of the Upper Inertial Stage rockets to be launched from the space shuttle. They pack enough power to launch satellite from the cargo bay of the shuttle into geosynchronous orbits and also to send scientific packages to other planets. The IUS can also be used as the second stage of the Air Force's Titan booster. IUS I will be used during next January's launch of the Challenger. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jun 82 7:20:54-PDT (Sat) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: New Space Center Article-I.D.: alice.616 Via: news.usenet; 5 Jun 82 23:08-PDT The Air Force yesterday announced that it had awarded a $69.3 million contract to TRW Electronics and Defense Sector to ``design and develop technical equipment'' for their new planned space center at Colorado Springs. The new center will control satellites in orbit and the military aspects of the shuttle. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jun 82 22:13:29-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Re: The Shuttle and the Military Article-I.D.: alice.613 Via: news.usenet; 5 Jun 82 22:20-PDT This is not going to stop a well-trained saboteur, but in regards to security at KSC during a shuttle launch, I read several months ago that, during the critical stage (I am not sure when that begins), guards with rifles are ordered to ''shoot to kill'' any unauthorized person within three miles of the pad. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 07-Jun-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #207 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 207 Today's Topics: DoD cargo Lagrange points ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Jun 82 16:16:08-PDT (Sun) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley Subject: DoD cargo Article-I.D.: watmath.2544 Via: news.usenet; 6 Jun 82 18:09-PDT I've read various speculations in these newsgroups (on one occasion backed up by congressional testimony) that the DoD cargo on STS-IV isn't in fact very spectacular and that DoD is just testing NASA's security. I wonder, though, whether or not that's true. Is it just a coincidence that the President's first major address on space policy is to take place at the completion of this mission? You'd think he'd've been guaranteed a larger audience when STS-I landed. Of course, I suppose President Reagan would want a few missions to go smoothly before he committed the nation to a major space effort in the eighties. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 1982 1956-EDT (Sunday) From: "jnc%MIT-CSR" at MIT-Multics Reply-to: JNC@MIT-XX Subject: Lagrange points To: space at mc CC: jnc I am rereading an old favourite, "Fall of Mondust", and I find references to things stuck in Lagrangian points of the Earth-Moon system. Can anyone tell me who was the first person to come up with the idea of sticking orbiting things there? This book is copyright 1961, but the idea must predate that. ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 08-Jun-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #208 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 208 Today's Topics: Major address July 4 re: lagrange points DoD cargo ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 June 1982 19:56-EDT From: J. Noel Chiappa Subject: Major address July 4 To: SPACE at MIT-MC cc: JNC at MIT-MC Speaking of said address, anyone have ANY idea what he is going to say? They're being very quiet about it, but if they are going to use up July 4 (national fervour, etc..) and tow three shuttles around for a backdrop it must be something major. I can't image them doing that for a 'Gee, isn't the shuttle neat' speech or anything like that. My realistic estimate would be that he would announce a definite decision to go with a permanent manned station, but I could easily see him standing up and doing a massive PR job about how Apollo helped produce one of the few major industries in the US that is healthy, how the rest of the world is overtaking us in research, and how the nation is suffering malaise froma lack of direction, and announcing some major long range plan (a la Kennedy). Anyone know or want to comment? ------------------------------ Mail-From: PCO-MULTICS received by MIT-MULTICS at 07-Jun-1982 23:22:14-edt Date: 7 June 1982 12:30 mst From: Jarrell.FSOEP at PCO-MULTICS Subject: re: lagrange points To: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC Message-ID: <820607193058.049001 at PCO-MULTICS> i'm not sure who it is who thought of putting things there, put the idea is ancient. people have been talking about putting colonies up there for years. it's a favorite topic with sf writers. most of them at one point or another have had a colony called "l-5" or "l-4" (l-5 being lagrange point 5 , right between earth and moon, and l-4 being largrange 4, right behind the moon.) it's a great idea. i'm going to apply as soon as they build one. anyone else want to join? -Ron ------------------------------ Date: 8 June 1982 03:26-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: DoD cargo To: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I think it's quite appropriate for Reagan to make a speech at tne completion of the four-flight test program. After all, we've known for 10 years that we were going to build the shuttle, but only next month will we know (at a confidence level of whatever four flights provides) that the contraption really is going to work like we all hoped. The first flight would have been a good time to speak, but the end of the fourth flight is an excellent time too. Speaking at the second or third flight would however have been non-canonical. I hope he announces a goal of permanent manned presence in space (i.e. a continuously-manned space station, like the USSR almost has already). I hope he also announces research to prove the availability of materials in space needed for largescale industry and habitat. ......... There, I've written a postcard to Reagan to that effect, and will go mail it right after sending this message. (Every little bit helps, one card equals 10k votes.) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 09-Jun-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #209 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 209 Today's Topics: re: lagrange points Lagrange Points Loading of Propellants Begins L4,L5 Points re: lagrange points ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Jun 1982 12:19:37-EDT From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: jarrell.FSOEP at PCO-MULTICS Subject: re: lagrange points Cc: space-enthusiasts at mit-mc Sorry...L4 and L5 are the trojan points (+/- 60 degrees in lunar orbit). The ones you describe are in the set L1-L3, which are balanced but not stable; this is why all the colonies are proposed for L5 or 4, leaving the groundhogs wondering what happened to the first three. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jun 1982 1129-PDT From: Paul Dietz Subject: Lagrange Points To: space at MIT-MC I'm sure everyone else will jump on ron's error, but I might as well too. The L5 point is not between the earth and the moon. That's the L1 point (I think). L4 and L5 are in the moons orbit but 60 degrees ahead and behind (I forget which is which). I thought that it was decided that the L5 point is not where you want a space colony; rather, there is a two week orbit that can be reached from L2 (the point behind the moon) with a velocity change of as little as 30 feet per second, making lunar materials very easy to move. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jun 82 20:03:30-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Loading of Propellants Begins Article-I.D.: alice.627 Via: news.usenet; 8 Jun 82 20:07-PDT Nitrogen tetroxide and monomethyl hydrazine loading began today without a hitch, NASA announced. The toxic fuels, which react with each other to provide maneuvering power for the shuttle in flight, will be loaded into the Forward Reaction Control System over the next four days. With the commencement of the loading, NASA today officially announced that 27 June will be the launch date for STS-4. Lift off is scheduled for 1100 EDT, with landing to come a week later, on 4 July, at Rogers Dry Lake, Edwards Air Force Base, California. There, President Reagan is expected to make a speech welcoming the astronauts home, and NASA hopes he will give the go ahead for a manned space station. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jun 82 16:07:57-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!houxi!houca!lime!we13!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!fred at Berkeley Subject: L4,L5 Points Article-I.D.: inuxc.139 Via: news.usenet; 8 Jun 82 20:21-PDT Actually the L4 and L5 points are also unstable, however orbits around the L4 and L5 points are stable. ------------------------------ Date: 9 June 1982 03:10-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: re: lagrange points To: JARRELL.FSOEP@PCO-MULTICS at MIT-MC cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC Sigh. L-4 and l-5 are the STABLE (well dynamically stable) points co-orbital with the secondary body; not the points in line. But if you were a member of thhe l-5 society you'd have seen that from the little map on the inside of the magazine Welcome aboard? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 10-Jun-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #210 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 210 Today's Topics: Beggs on Making Space Pay Off Shuttle SRBs prepare to fly again Enterprise status. Russian space shuttle? Re: Enterprise status. Re: Major address July 4 Major Address July 4th Lunar Eclipse Lagrange Points ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 June 1982 06:35-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas To: SPACE at MIT-MC Note, the libration points are only points in the Earth-Moon frame of reference. In the Earth-Sun or Earth-Stars etc. frames, they aren't points, rather they're orbits around the Earth with a period of one month, the same as the moon (one synodic month if you're in the Earth-Sun system, or one siderial month if you're in the Earth-Stars system, I think, but that's irrelevant to this general point I'm making). In the Earth-Moon frame, L4 and L5 are points of minimal energy, i.e. potential wells. Thus you can either sit at the bottom of the well not moving (in that frame) or move in an orbit inside the well but around the bottom rather than exactly at it. I believe this first approximation assumes the orbit of the Moon around the Earth is circular and no other bodies purturb the potential well. Does somebody on this list have a more complete analysis that includes the non-circular motion of the Moon around the Earth (actually around the center of gravity of the Earth-Moon system) and purturbations from Sun, Venus, Mars, Jupiter etc.? ------------------------------ Date: 09 Jun 1982 1207-PDT From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Beggs on Making Space Pay Off To: space at MIT-MC James Beggs, NASA Administrator, has written a pretty good article in this week's (June 7) issue of EE Times. He talks about the economic and tecnological possibilities of using space and the Shuttle. ------------------------------ Date: 9 June 1982 1703-EDT (Wednesday) From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30) To: space at MIT-MC Subject: Shuttle SRBs prepare to fly again Message-Id: <09Jun82 170345 DS30@CMU-10A> (From FLIGHT International, 5 June 1982) The parachutes which braked the fall of spent Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) during the first Space Shuttle flight are to fly next on the fifth mission, due in November. SRB nosecones from the first flight will fly again on mission six, and aft skirts on mission seven. Lastly, the SRB main casings will be reused on the eighth mission. Nasa plans to use SRBs from the second and third Shuttle flights in a similar pattern--parachutes from mission two on mission six, and so on. Each parachute system is intended to last ten flights, and the rest of the SRBs will last for 20 flights. At this early stage, many of the SRB elements are being refurbished by the manufacturers. But eventually United Space Boosters will do most of the work at the Kennedy Space Center, Florida. The motor casings will be refilled with solid propellant by Thiokol. ------------------------------ Mail-From: PCO-MULTICS received by MIT-MULTICS at 09-Jun-1982 20:16:52-edt Date: 9 June 1982 17:07 mst From: Jarrell.FSOEP at PCO-MULTICS Subject: Enterprise status. To: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC As I understand it, there are currently 4 shuttles. The Columbia, launching this month, the challenger, launching in January, the discovery, launching some time after they finish putting it together, and the Enterprise, which is being refitted after being used as the atmospheric testing body. Does anyone know what timeslot they prject for the enterprise flying? before Discovery? How close is it to completion? ------------------------------ From: FONER@MIT-AI Date: 06/09/82 22:12:43 Subject: Russian space shuttle? FONER@MIT-AI 06/09/82 22:12:43 Re: Russian space shuttle? To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Earlier tonight I heard the tail end of an ABC News report on what looks like a Soviet effort at a space shuttle. Unfortunately, I didn't manage to actually hear the story very well due to a lot of interruptions. Does anybody know what's going on here? Does Russia actually have a bird that is anything like a Shuttle? If so, they've managed to keep the thing under wraps pretty well until recently... and have also managed to score a propaganda victory by decrying our use of the Shuttle for military missions while simultaneously building their own. Any info would be greatly appreciated. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jun 82 22:35:57-EDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Re: Enterprise status. Article-I.D.: alice.632 Via: news.usenet; 9 Jun 82 20:43-PDT The Enterprise is the prototype shuttle. It was used for drop testing during the late 70's to test the shuttle's aerodynamic performance as it falls like a rock towards landing. I don't know if they ever plan to actually launch it or not, but I don't think so, since there are now so many references to a 'fifth shuttle' which would include the four now planned (Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, and Atlantis) and seemingly forget about Enterprise. The Challenger's roll out of its hangar is scheduled for late this month, hopefully to coincide with the landing of STS-4, now scheduled for 4 July. The Discovery has just about begun assembly and will be delivered in December, 1983. Parts for Atlantis are now being scrounged, and it will be delivered in December, 1984. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jun 82 16:55:15-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley Subject: Re: Major address July 4 Article-I.D.: watmath.2557 Via: news.usenet; 9 Jun 82 22:30-PDT My bet is that whatever his message is, space fans will have reason to cheer. He is NOT going to Edwards to shoot down the program, that's for sure. I think JNC's probably right in that there'll be a major commitment. The real question is, will it be civil or military? I don't have any objection to putting the military in space per se (not that anyone gives a damn what I think), since in the face of Soviet military activities it seems incumbent on the West to respond. However, I do believe that excessive militarization of space will choke civil development of this resource, principally because the Pentagon will with some justification view LEO as a giant top-security military installation, and I haven't noticed any factories at White Sands or Edwards. On the other hand, maybe he'll say that the only way to pay for this vital national security asset is through space industry. We can hope. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jun 82 17:24:59-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley Subject: Major Address July 4th Article-I.D.: watmath.2559 Via: news.usenet; 9 Jun 82 22:54-PDT My bet is that whatever his message is, space fans will have reason to cheer. He is NOT going to Edwards to shoot down the program, that's for sure. I think JNC's probably right in that there'll be a major commitment. The real question is, will it be civil or military? I don't have any objection to putting the military in space per se, since in the face of Soviet military activities it seems incumbent on the West to respond. However, it seems clear that excessive militarization of space will choke civil development of this resource, principally because the Pentagon will, with some justification, view LEO as a giant top-security military installation. That wouldn't bode well for space industries; I haven't noticed any factories at White Sands or Edwards. On the other hand, maybe the President will say that the only way to pay for a military buidup in space (if that's what he's announcing) is through space industry. We can hope. Rick McGeer ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jun 82 9:50:13-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!we13!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!fred at Berkeley Subject: Lunar Eclipse Article-I.D.: inuxc.145 Via: news.usenet; 9 Jun 82 23:00-PDT July's Lunar Eclipse The evening of July 5-6. ECLIPSE TIMES EST(local Indianapolis time) First penumbral 11:22 pm First umbral 12:33 am Totality begins 1:38 am Mid-eclipse 2:31 am Totality ends 3:24 am Last umbral 4:29 am Last penumbral 5:40 am Jog before work 6:00 am Start work 7:45 am This will be the longest lunar eclipse than any since 1906. The moon will pass very near the center of the Earths shadow. The Moon might in fact become invisible at mid-totality but it is hard to predict how dim it will become. ------------------------------ Date: 10 June 1982 02:48-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Lagrange Points To: DIETZ at USC-ECL cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Since the founding of the L-5 Society it has long been recognized that L4 and L5 are probably not the optimum points for locating a colony; certainly not for the first one. (I should say May Not Be optimum.) But surely we shouldn't have to change the name of the outfit every year or two, so we stick with L-5. L-5 trails; L-4 leads. In the TROJAN POINTS which is the Sun-Jupiter-Trojan asteroids system, the Greeks lead and Trojans trail: that is, the L-4 points were all named for Greek heroes of the Iliad, the L-5 points named for the Trojans. Alas, the convention wasn't established before two asteroids were named wrongly: there's a Greek spy in the Trojan camp adn vice versa. When we get out there we'll hjave enough energy to swap them back./.. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 11-Jun-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #211 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 211 Today's Topics: Soviet Shuttle Russian Shuttle Russian space shuttle Second Phase of Loading Begins Why the ENTERPRISE won't fly, Thank the TREKies!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Jun 82 7:24:36-EDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Soviet Shuttle Article-I.D.: alice.633 Via: news.usenet; 10 Jun 82 6:23-PDT The USSR launched and recovered its first test of its first space shuttle, US officials say. They do not know whether or not the vehicle was manned. It went up last week and came down after one orbit, about 90 minutes. The Soviets are expected to have an operational shuttle system by the 1990's. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jun 82 10:50:42-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!ihnss!inuxc!fred at Berkeley Subject: Russian Shuttle Article-I.D.: inuxc.148 Via: news.usenet; 10 Jun 82 10:52-PDT In reguards to the ABC report about the Russian Space Shuttle, it has long been known that the Russians have been working on their own version of a space shuttle. Apparently they have just performed an unmanned test flight and they recovered their craft insight of some long range Australian recon jets. The recovery was in the ocean??, which I don't understand. Their shuttle is smaller than ours which is suppose to allow it to land and almost any large airport, a definite advantage in time of war. That is about all I know about it. Fred Mendenhall BTL- Indianapolis ------------------------------ Date: 10 June 1982 1419-EDT (Thursday) From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30) To: space at MIT-MC Subject: Russian space shuttle Message-Id: <10Jun82 141915 DS30@CMU-10A> I think it was in 1979 that Aviation Week ran a drawing of a Russian space shuttle that was said to be undergoing drop tests from a bomber. The vehicle is a lot smaller than our shuttle, and is meant as a personnel shuttle, rather than for orbiting large loads. It is to be launched by an expendable booster. It is more in the league of the Dyna-Soar and the European Hermes design. Russian cries over military use of our shuttle are just crocodile tears, even without their shuttle. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jun 82 17:27:23-EDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Second Phase of Loading Begins Article-I.D.: alice.635 Via: news.usenet; 10 Jun 82 14:51-PDT Loading of nitrogen tetroxide finished at around 2200 EDT last night, and today at 0300 EDT, workers began loading the monomethyl hydrazine into the Forward Reaction Control System. This loading is expected to be completed tomorrow afternoon, after which the pad will be closed while the tanks are pressurized. The countdown for STS-4 is scheduled to begin on 24 June with launch at 1100 EDT on 27 June. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jun 1982 1853-EDT From: USCHOLD at RUTGERS Subject: Why the ENTERPRISE won't fly, Thank the TREKies!! To: space at MIT-MC cc: uschold at RUTGERS I attended a talk by James Doohan (Scottie) at SUNY Binghamton 5 or 6 years ago. One of the questions he received from the audience was about the name of the first shuttle. He just chuckled and said "Yes, the tremendous letter-writing campaign has indeed resulted in the renaming of the first shuttle to the ENTERPRISE. It's too bad that it's never going to make it to space." A rather unfortunate irony. Would've been nice if someone used their brain and make this publicly known. I'm sure all the TREKies would have been more than satisfied to have the name "ENTERPRISE" attached to the first shuttle in -space-, instead of the first -shuttle-. I got a more detailed explanation about the ENTERPRISE when visiting the Johnson Space Center last Thanksgiving. It was indeed a prototype shuttle, adequate for aerodynamic testing, but that's about all. A number of major design changes occurred during and shortly after it was assembled. It turned out that it would have been more expensive to modify it to make it spaceworthy than to build a new one. Also, you get to have a display model... Mike P.S. NASA's original plan was to name the 1st shuttle COLUMBIA and the 1st shuttle in space the ENTERPRISE. The TREKkie campaign switched this around.. SIGH... Mike ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 12-Jun-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #212 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 212 Today's Topics: Shuttle retrieving satellites Why the ENTERPRISE won't fly, Thank the TREKies!! USSR Space Shuttle First shuttle's original name Re: Why the ENTERPRISE won"t fly, Thank the TREKies!! Re: Annendum to last msg Re: ENTERPRISE news.jokes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Jun 1982 0816-PDT Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-8 Subject: Shuttle retrieving satellites From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin) To: space at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[OFFICE-8]11-Jun-82 08:16:23.WMARTIN> I have seen references to the method of using the Shuttle to launch satellites into higher orbits than it itself achieves, by carrying up a relatively small booster which is used to move the satllite up to the desired orbit. But how is the Shuttle going to RETRIEVE satellites for repair or refurbishment or whatever from those higher orbits? Does it go up with less payload and go directly to the higher orbit, or carry a small craft which goes to get that satellite and bring it down to the Shuttle level? If the latter, is this manned or robotic? How is the repair/retrieval going to fit into the mission schedule? Do they plan on using satellite-launching missions to bring back old satellites in the then-empty payload bay? Are repair-in-space activities to be carried out when needed via EVA on otherwise-scheduled missions on a time-available basis, or are they going to be put off until some future mission with available time unassigned as yet? I would assume military satellite maintenance would have priority; how are commercial satellite repair missions charged for? (Time and materials, with some overhead costs or the like to cover Shuttle launch and use costs, flat rates, or what?) Can a commercial organization like one of the global carriers buy quicker service for some higher costs on a malfunctioning commo satellite, or will there be no provisions for private parties buying priority service? Who is going to actually perform the repairs? Will the organization involved send up its own astronaut-trained technician(s) to fix its own satellites, or do they train a NASA astronaut to be a satellite repairman? (Hmmm... AAABCO Satellite and TV Repair: "We Go Anywhere!"...) Thinking about this just leads me to more and more questions... Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 11 June 1982 12:03-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Why the ENTERPRISE won't fly, Thank the TREKies!! To: USCHOLD at RUTGERS cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I'm not sad that we don't have a flying shuttle named "Enterprise". After all, the USS Enterprise was a starship, not a shuttle. If any name from Startrek should be used for a shuttle, it should be "Galileo", not "Enterprise". Unfortunately that name is going to be used for something else. Maybe we'll name our first space station "Tribble" or something else related (did the space station on Startrek have a name?), and our first interstellar craft "Enterprise"? ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 10 June 1982 21:52-PDT From: KING at KESTREL To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: King at KESTREL Subject: USSR Space Shuttle If the Russians have flight-tested their shuttle to orbit, why is it reasonable to expect it to take them eight years to have it operational? Dick ------------------------------ Date: 11 June 1982 1349-EDT (Friday) From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30) To: space at MIT-MC Subject: First shuttle's original name Message-Id: <11Jun82 134944 DS30@CMU-10A> The prototype shuttle was originally named the CONSTITUTION, not the Columbia. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jun 82 17:28:37-EDT (Fri) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Re: Why the ENTERPRISE won"t fly, Thank the TREKies!! Article-I.D.: alice.641 Via: news.usenet; 11 Jun 82 16:26-PDT The space station seen in the episode ''The Trouble with Tribbles'' (originally to be named ''More Tribbles, More Troubles'') was named ''K-7'' ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jun 82 15:14:34-PDT (Fri) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley Subject: Re: Annendum to last msg Re: ENTERPRISE Article-I.D.: watmath.2588 Via: news.usenet; 11 Jun 82 21:05-PDT Actually, as I remember it, the original name for the test shuttle wasn't to have been Columbia; it was to have been named Consitution. I don't know if there had been any plans to name an orbiter Enterprise. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 82 22:44:49-PDT (Sun) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!hpda!fc at Berkeley Subject: news.jokes Article-I.D.: hpda.165 Via: news.usenet; 12 Jun 82 0:22-PDT ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 13-Jun-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #213 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 213 Today's Topics: Enterprise' Fate Startrek space-station (trouble with tribbles) named "K-7" RE: "loading begins" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Jun 82 11:50:04-PDT (Fri) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!utzoo!kcarroll at Berkeley Subject: Enterprise' Fate Article-I.D.: utzoo.2158 Via: news.usenet; 12 Jun 82 3:03-PDT I'd heard that the Enterprise was to be presented to the Smithsonian Institute's Air and Space Museum for display, rather than being cannibalized for parts. Of course, the Smithsonian doesn't need an operational machine for display purposes; perhaps only the shell will be presented. Kieran A. Carroll ------------------------------ Date: 12 June 1982 18:44-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Startrek space-station (trouble with tribbles) named "K-7" To: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Hmm, maybe we could name our first space station "canine" (pun). ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jun 1982 at 1805-CDT From: kjm at UTEXAS-11 Subject: RE: "loading begins" To: space at mit-mc When are the propellants for the Aft RCS systems and the OMS system to be loaded? KJM ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 14-Jun-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #214 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 214 Today's Topics: Re: Why the ENTERPRISE won't fly, Thank the TREKies!! Why the ENTERPRISE won't fly, Thank the TREKies!! Why the ENTERPRISE won't fly, Thank the TREKies!! Re: Enterprise status. Major Address July 4th Major Address July 4th Re: Enterprise status. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mail-From: PCO-MULTICS received by MIT-MULTICS at 13-Jun-1982 18:03:15-edt Date: 13 June 1982 14:56 mst From: Lippard at PCO-MULTICS (James J. Lippard) Subject: Re: Why the ENTERPRISE won't fly, Thank the TREKies!! Sender: Lippard.Scouting at PCO-MULTICS To: space at MIT-MC Just a correction: the Star Trek episode "The Trouble with Tribbles" was NOT originally to be named "More Tribbles, More Troubles". The latter is the title of one of the Star Trek animated episodes. ------------------------------ Date: 14 June 1982 03:19-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Why the ENTERPRISE won't fly, Thank the TREKies!! To: USCHOLD at RUTGERS cc: SPACE at MIT-MC The campaign to rename the Enterprise was largely headed by Mrs. Trimble, who I think did not know that the first ship was not to go to space. However, as a result of the renaming effort, the USAF orchestra played the Star Trek theme as Enterprise was rolled out of the hanger (at the rollout ceremony), and several of the show cast were there on the platform. Incidentally, although Congressman Barry Goldwater Jr and his father were both at the Shuttle Rollout, Governor Brown (who was then still hot on his "lesss is better and you have to get used to poverty real quick" kick) was not only not there, but sent neither a deputy nor a well-wishing message. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jun 82 0:20:22-PDT (Mon) To: space at mit-mc From: ucbvax!menlo70!sri-unix!POURNE at MIT-MC at UCB Subject: Why the ENTERPRISE won't fly, Thank the TREKies!! Article-I.D.: sri-unix.1744 Via: news.usenet; 14 Jun 82 0:20-PDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle The campaign to rename the Enterprise was largely headed by Mrs. Trimble, who I think did not know that the first ship was not to go to space. However, as a result of the renaming effort, the USAF orchestra played the Star Trek theme as Enterprise was rolled out of the hanger (at the rollout ceremony), and several of the show cast were there on the platform. Incidentally, although Congressman Barry Goldwater Jr and his father were both at the Shuttle Rollout, Governor Brown (who was then still hot on his "lesss is better and you have to get used to poverty real quick" kick) was not only not there, but sent neither a deputy nor a well-wishing message. ------------------------------ Date: 14 June 1982 03:58-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Re: Enterprise status. To: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC According to Rockwell engineering people, it would cost less to build a new shuttle from scratch than to retrofit the Enterprise and make her spaceworthy. Pity... ------------------------------ Date: 14 June 1982 04:00-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Major Address July 4th To: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC We can all hope, and there may be reason to be hopeful. I remind you all that one way to kill something is to leak it. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jun 82 1:01:49-PDT (Mon) To: space at mit-mc From: ucbvax!menlo70!sri-unix!POURNE at MIT-MC at UCB Subject: Major Address July 4th Article-I.D.: sri-unix.1746 Via: news.usenet; 14 Jun 82 1:02-PDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle We can all hope, and there may be reason to be hopeful. I remind you all that one way to kill something is to leak it. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jun 82 0:59:21-PDT (Mon) To: space at mit-mc From: ucbvax!menlo70!sri-unix!POURNE at MIT-MC at UCB Subject: Re: Enterprise status. Article-I.D.: sri-unix.1745 Via: news.usenet; 14 Jun 82 0:59-PDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle According to Rockwell engineering people, it would cost less to build a new shuttle from scratch than to retrofit the Enterprise and make her spaceworthy. Pity... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 15-Jun-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #215 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 215 Today's Topics: shuttle names and the drekies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Jun 1982 1135-MDT From: Pendleton at UTAH-20 (Bob Pendleton) Subject: shuttle names and the drekies. To: space at MIT-MC If I remember correctly, the StarFleet Technical Manual lists the starship Enterprise as a Constitution class battle cruiser. The Constitution, being the first ship of that type built, is the class ship. NASA, according to a faintly remembered rumor, wanted to name the first shuttle "Constitution" and a later shuttle "Enterprise" so that the space shuttle Enterprise would be a Constitution class space shuttle in the same way the starship Enterprise is a Constitution class starship. This would have been a very nice parallel, but the drekies, not knowing or caring about the pseudo history of their favorite starship, fouled it up. This leaves us with an Enterprise class space shuttle, the Columbia, as our first operational space shuttle. This class naming convention follows the nautical tradition, which is quite different from the naming schemes used for aircraft and previous US spacecraft. Hoping My Memory Is Correct Bob Pendleton ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 16-Jun-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #216 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 216 Today's Topics: Re: The Dyna-Soar Landing Push up 1.5 Hours Re: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours Trojans shuttle names and the drekies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Jun 82 18:52:46-PDT (Mon) To: space at mit-mc From: ucbvax!ARPAVAX.CAD.teklabs!tekid!jm at UCB Subject: Re: The Dyna-Soar Article-I.D.: tekid.69 Via: news.usenet; 15 Jun 82 18:52-PDT For a more detailed view of the Dyna-Soar project and the early space program in general, I HEARTILY recommend Tom Wolfe's book 'The Right Stuff'. Although Toyota (gag) has perverted this phrase for commercial purposes, that should not be taken as an indication of the content of the book. It is facinating reading and makes you wonder if you could cut it as a fighter-jock too (if only I didn't wear glasses...*SIGH*). jeff mizener (...!teklabs!tekid!jm) ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jun 82 7:24:24-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: ucbvax!decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at UCB Subject: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours Article-I.D.: alice.657 Via: news.usenet; 15 Jun 82 19:08-PDT The landing of the Columbia on 4 July has been pushed from 0738 EDT to 0913 EDT in the hopes that there will be more crosswinds then. No delay so far has been encountered in the launch preparations, and things are on schedule or ahead of schedule in some cases. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jun 82 8:21:57-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: ucbvax!decvax!harpo!ihnss!ihuxl!larry at UCB Also-From: ucbvax!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!allegra!honey at UCB Subject: Re: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours The local news said that the "official" reason for landing one orbit later was listed as weather related, but (someone they named, but I forgot) had speculated that it was really to let Ronnie R. sleep an extra hour! ==Sleep tight lil' Ronnie!! Larry Marek I understood the extra orbit was to give a certain cowboy his beauty rest. Peter Honeyman ------------------------------ Date: 16 June 1982 04:06-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Trojans To: SPACE at MIT-MC A couple of people asked about the Trojan Asteroids. The leading (l-4 point) Greeks: Achilles, Hector (the Trojan spy), Nestor, Agamemnon, Odysseus, Ajax, Diomedes. The trailing (l-5 ) group: Patroclus (the Greek spy), Priamus, Anaeas, Anchises, Troilus They do tend to wander a bit, and some are highly inclined (Troilus is 33.7 degrees), but they're all pretty well co-orbital with Jupiter (inclined 1.33). Eccentricities (relative to Sun) vary from .024 to .148; for comparison, Jupiter eccentricity is .048 ------------------------------ Date: 16 June 1982 04:12-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: shuttle names and the drekies. To: Pendleton at UTAH-20 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC What matter if your memory is correct, since you are obviously so superior to any group you call "drekies"? Even if you were wrong they couldn't possibly be right, could they? They're probably not even human. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 17-Jun-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #217 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 217 Today's Topics: Re: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours More crosswinds Re: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Jun 82 22:02:38-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley Subject: Re: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours Article-I.D.: watmath.2687 Via: news.usenet; 16 Jun 82 3:09-PDT In the hopes that there will be *more* crosswinds? I don't doubt alice!sjb, but why in Heaven would heavier crosswinds be more conducive to a landing - I would have thought the reverse would be true. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 1982 0557-PDT From: Hans Moravec Subject: More crosswinds To: space at MIT-MC The first four flights are TEST flights, to check the handling in reality against the models. Experience with landing in a strong crosswind is necessary to decide if the shuttle really can be kept on the straight and narrow under such conditions, as the design says it should. A deflection is tolerable on the vast expanse of the Edwards lakebed, but would be a potential disaster when landing on the narrow runway at Cape Canaveral. If it doesn't handle right, they'd better find out now. There was supposed to be a crosswinds landing in the last flight, but the weather got a little TOO wild. ------------------------------ Date: 17 June 1982 02:19-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Re: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours To: ucbvax!decvax!harpo!ihnss!ihuxl!larry at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Suppose that the purpose of the dealy is INDEED to allow the President of the United States to arise at a more congenial hour. Is there some crime to that? Have not all of us hoped, wished, prayed that the President would come to a Shuttle landing? Hell, I wanted Governor Brown to come to the Shuttle Rollout, but he didn't, even though that was scheduled for the convenience of the VIP's. I fear I do not understand why there is some kind of resentment over making what nearly everyone agrees is the world's most difficult and demanding job a bit easier. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 18-Jun-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #218 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 218 Today's Topics: Final Countdown Preparations on Schedule Re: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Jun 82 7:57:04-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Final Countdown Preparations on Schedule Article-I.D.: alice.666 Via: news.usenet; 17 Jun 82 14:17-PDT Final preparations for the countdown of STS-4 are right on schedule, and no problems have yet been encountered. Yesterday, space suits, to be used in emergencies only, were loaded aboard the orbiter, and heat protective shields were installed on the SRB nozzles. Later in the week, the Columbia's computers will be loaded with their flight software. In other news, NASA announced that the price of renting the shuttle will triple in 1985, from $30 million to $90 million, due to ridiculously low initial costs and soaring inflation. However, since the shuttle can carry four satellites at once, compared to one and two by America's Delta and ESA's Ariane, companies can split the cost evenly and come out spending less money than on the one-shot boosters. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 82 7:59:48-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Re: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours Article-I.D.: alice.667 Via: news.usenet; 17 Jun 82 14:23-PDT The reason for hoping for heavier crosswinds is that NASA still have not tested the landing performance of the shuttle in crosswinds, which prevail at the strip at KSC. Due to this, they have pushed the first landing at KSC from next November to April of next year in order to gain enough data from the strip at Edwards, where it is much safer to land, since you have a wider margin on error. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 19-Jun-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #219 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 219 Today's Topics: Shuttle landing time? Re: computers aboard Russian shuttle Re: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours Re: Shuttle landing time? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Jun 82 21:18:10-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!intelqa!gsp86!murray at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle landing time? Article-I.D.: gsp86.122 Via: news.usenet; 18 Jun 82 3:32-PDT Has the official landing time for the shuttle been set yet? Forgive me if I missed it, we have not been receiving news for a couple weeks. murray at intelqa ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 82 21:09:06-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!intelqa!gsp86!murray at Berkeley Subject: Re: computers aboard Russian shuttle Article-I.D.: gsp86.120 Via: news.usenet; 18 Jun 82 3:33-PDT In regards to russian computers and ease of aquisition from the U.S., that really is not the true issue. The design of the five major computers in the shuttle predate the 68000, the 8086, and probably the 8085. Processing power is not really that big a dal in this situation, An 8080 or two would propaply be more than enough power for the syncronization demands of the shuttle. The problem is reliability! Both the hardware and the software must be reliable to the nth degree when you are staking mens lives and more importantly (I'm sorry to say) national prestige on whether or not your shuttle comes down intact. Based on the propaganda I've heard, the Russians simply do not have the programming expertise to write that kind of program. No matter who manufactures the hardware, that hurdle has to be covered first. Shucks, I have my doubts that the people in this country have that kind of skill.... look what happened on the attempted first launch of the Columbia. Also, those five main computers are not the only computers in those shuttles. I am led to believe that there are many (100s?) of micro processors onboard. (I admit the numbers I have heard are based only on conjecture and heresay). Stealing a couple thousand 8080's (or 68000's) for all the ancillary functions would probably not be easy, even for the Soviet Union (although I think it would be entirely 'do-able'). One last point and I will stop flaming, if you were a high Russian mucky-muck, and the only place you could get high technology computer parts for your space flagship was those capitalistic self- centered, western dogs who (whom?) you have been taught since child- hood to despise and distrust, would steal the parts? In summation, I do not believe the russians have a shuttle comparable to ours, but not for the reasons outlined in the article for which I am posting this followup. murray at intelqa ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jun 82 20:08:57-PDT (Fri) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!intelqa!gsp86!murray at Berkeley Subject: Re: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours Article-I.D.: gsp86.125 Via: news.usenet; 19 Jun 82 0:35-PDT The article stating that the landing at KSC will occur 5 months later than originally planned, and other sources I have heard both suggest that there will be another landing at Edwards. Can anyone conirm or deny this (please state your sources)? murray at intelqa ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jun 82 20:03:22-PDT (Fri) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Re: Shuttle landing time? Article-I.D.: alice.678 Via: news.usenet; 19 Jun 82 1:51-PDT References: gsp86.122 Landing is scheduled for 4 July at either 0913 or 0928 EDT (I forget which) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 20-Jun-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #220 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 220 Today's Topics: Re: Shuttle Delay and Pres. July Skies Re: computers aboard Russian shuttle Re: computers aboard Russian shuttle ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Jun 82 9:26:54-PDT (Fri) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!duke!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!we13!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!fred at Berkeley Subject: Re: Shuttle Delay and Pres. Article-I.D.: inuxc.157 Via: news.usenet; 19 Jun 82 2:47-PDT I think there is no question that we would all like to see the President of the United States come to a Shuttle Launch or Shuttle Landing in a supportive position. However, past experiences have indicated that a Presidential "presents" usually results in a lot of cheap words, that are politically expedient while the space program is being raped generally by Presidential policies. With such a feeling I find it easy to understand a certain amount of resentment at having the landing rescheduled just for the benefit of the President. However, your point is well taken, a positive impression made on the President might do much to help our cause, and if that means letting him get a good nights rest I'm all for it. Fred Mendenhall BTL Indianapolis inuxc!fred ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jun 82 12:40:29-PDT (Fri) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!we13!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!fred at Berkeley Subject: July Skies Article-I.D.: inuxc.159 Via: news.usenet; 19 Jun 82 2:52-PDT Main Events in July Sky 1982 July 4 Venus near Aldebaran in Taurus, pre-dawn sky Earth at Aphelion 94.5 million miles Moon at apogee 252,377 miles July 5-6 Full Moon and Lunar Eclipse July 13 Moon last quarter July 19 Moon at perigee 222,549 miles July 20 New Moon July 21 Mars lies about 1/2 degree north of Spica in Virgo July 26 Moon is near Mars between Jupiter and Saturn July 27 Full Moon July 29 Peak activity for the Delta Aquarids Meteor Shower July 30 Peak activity for the Capricornid Meteor Shower Enjoy the warm summer observing while it lasts! Remember Last November! Fred ------------------------------ Date: 19 June 1982 15:43-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: computers aboard Russian shuttle To: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!intelqa!gsp86!murray at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC More than the crew's lives or national prestege is at stake. Ten years investment in building the shuttle! Imagine what would happen to our space program if after 10 years work designing and building the four orbiters each of them crashed within the first year of testing! It would be years before we could fix the fatal bugs and tool up for making a replacement fleet, and with Stockman as budget director I doubt we'd even try. Those synchronization programs, and everything else, have to be damn reliable! ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jun 82 13:50:11-PDT (Fri) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!berry at Berkeley Subject: Re: computers aboard Russian shuttle Article-I.D.: zehntel.337 Via: news.usenet; 19 Jun 82 18:08-PDT Steal, hell! all the Russians have to do is send someone down to the Radio Shack in Washington D.C. next to their embassy and buy the darned 8080's! Have you ever had to prove citizenship and fill out a form promising not to send your stuff outside the US at Computerland? Come on! ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 22-Jun-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #221 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 221 Today's Topics: re: computers on russian shuttle please let me know Rocket Planes vs. Rocket Ships ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mail-From: PCO-MULTICS received by MIT-MULTICS at 21-Jun-1982 14:29:47-edt Date: 21 June 1982 11:26 mst From: Jarrell.FSOEP at PCO-MULTICS Subject: re: computers on russian shuttle Reply-To: Jarrell.FSOEP%PCO-Multics at MIT-MULTICS To: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC Well, you may not have to prove citizenship, but try getting it out of the country. Recently the customs department confiscated a computer chess game that a professor was trying to take with him to a european computer chess tournament. They are cracking down on technology. Unless they are planning on shipng it out in the diplomatic pouches, and i don't know what kind of customs that has... ------------------------------ Date: 22 June 1982 01:24-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: please let me know To: SPACE at MIT-MC cc: POURNELLE at MIT-MC Since I am no longer on the SPACE mailing list, but remain interested, please let me know if there are things I should know of. Jep ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jun 82 23:25:10-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!fortune!kiessig at Berkeley Subject: Rocket Planes vs. Rocket Ships Article-I.D.: fortune.69 Via: news.usenet; 21 Jun 82 2:42-PDT Well, in a way you could say the "Rocket Planes" of the late fifties and early sixties DID beat the "Rocket Ships" into space. In August 1960, (I think the Vostok I Sputnik was launched April 12, 1961) Bob White went up in the X-15 and set a new altitude record of 136,500 feet (slightly more than 25 miles). The conditions had been almost precisely those of space flight. He took the ship up in a ballistic arc, like the Mecury-Redstone was supposed to go on. He experienced 5G's (astronauts were to get 6G's). He was weightless for two minutes as he came over the arc (astronauts were to get five minutes). The air is so thin at that altitude, that there was no aerodynamic control. He landed the plane back at Edwards, on the dry lake. [There is a good account of this whole story in "The Right Stuff" by Tom Wolfe]. This strikes me as being very close to a shuttle-like operation. Certainly we must have learned things from these missions 22 years ago that have helped perfect the Shuttle. If only we had gone on to the X-20 (the X-15 with the XLR-99 engine had 57,000 lbs. thrust, and finally made it to 354,200 ft. [67 miles -- 17 miles into space] and 4,104 miles/hour [mach 5.92]). The Mercury-Redstone had 78,000 lbs. The Mercury-Atlas had 280,000 lbs. The X-20 was to have 2,800,000 lbs. of thrust, and would have taken a man into orbit, allowing him to land anywhere he wanted. And this was in 1963!! Imagine where we could be now had we followed that line of research..... Rick P.S. Does anyone out there know what happened to the prototype X-20 that was being built by Boeing in 1963, before the project was cancelled? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 23-Jun-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #222 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 222 Today's Topics: rocket planes Re: Shuttle Delay and Pres. Shuttle Ready for Countdown "The launch countdown is now in progress." Microprocessors and so forth Re: computers aboard Russian shuttle Hans Bethe on Vulnerability Rocket Planes vs. Rocket Ships ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Jun 1982 1301-EDT From: John Redford To: space at MIT-AI cc: redford at WAFER Subject: rocket planes Message-ID: <"MS10(2055)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11833890492.15.583.3700 at DEC-MARLBORO> The 4000 mph that the X-15 could do is a long way from the 18,000 mph needed for earth orbit. At that speed the X-20 would have faced the same problem that the shuttle has: how to protect the craft from the heat of re-entry. The Boeing designers could have used Von Braun's solution, ablative shields, but with expendable shields and expendable boosters the only reusable part of the craft would be the cockpit. The only advantage I can see to that sort of design is being able to land it at different locations. This was more useful for military programs than civilian ones, which is probably why they ultimately decided not to bother. ------------------------------ Date: 23 June 1982 01:33-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: Shuttle Delay and Pres. To: decvax!duke!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!we13!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!fred at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC That's one of the reasons I sent a card to Reagan advising him on what I'd like him to say at the speech. Now if he says a lot of bullshit, and doesn't propose any programs such as spacestation or SEPS or prospecting for Hydrogen&Carbon I can write him a followup card or letter castigating him and have copies published in newspapers, and he can't reply "why didn't you say what you wanted in the first place". Not that my voice is so important, but each letter counts. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 82 18:02:24-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!cca.decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle Ready for Countdown Article-I.D.: alice.695 Via: news.usenet; 22 Jun 82 22:31-PDT The Columbia was readied for its countdown today, which, if all went well, should have started about an hour ago. The countdown is 10 hours longer than previous shuttle countdowns, due to the need for loading a telescope in the DoD's "secret" package with liquid helium. Thursday is scheduled for the joint Soviet-French space flight to launch. If all goes according to plan, this will be the third time that U.S. and Russian astronauts have been in orbit at the same time. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 82 19:44:59-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!cca.decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: "The launch countdown is now in progress." Article-I.D.: alice.696 Via: news.usenet; 22 Jun 82 22:46-PDT That word from KSC tonight signaled the beginning of a 114 hour countdown that, hopefully, will climax Sunday morning at 1100 EDT with the lift off of Columbia's fourth and last test flight. The start came right on schedule, at 1700 EDT. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 82 19:07:45-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!cca.decvax!harpo!duke!bcw at Berkeley Subject: Microprocessors and so forth Article-I.D.: duke.2261 Via: news.usenet; 22 Jun 82 22:44-PDT The recent excitement about the microprocessors for the Russian space shuttle (and for the "security leak" of the chess machine) is much overblown. It would not be at all difficult to smuggle something like that out, as the following example should illustrate. During the Vietnam war, the North Vietnamese directed their defense of Hanoi with some *Americen-made* computers. Now this was some 10 years ago and computer technology wasn't quite as compact as it is today. Not only that, but we were effectively *at war* with the North Vietnamese and would have all the more incentive to stop the flow of such things to Hanoi. I understand they used IBM-1130's which as anyone who's seen one knows are not exactly things you can hide in a suitcase like one of the modern microcomputers (although its processing power was probably a fraction of a 68000). It's just not possible to stop *all* of the flow of such things to countries considered less than desirable; the most that the authorities can do is to make it harder and consequently *reduce* the flow. Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jun 82 13:50:11-PDT (Fri) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!cca.hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!berry at Berkeley Subject: Re: computers aboard Russian shuttle Article-I.D.: zehntel.337 Via: news.usenet; 23 Jun 82 2:05-PDT Steal, hell! all the Russians have to do is send someone down to the Radio Shack in Washington D.C. next to their embassy and buy the darned 8080's! Have you ever had to prove citizenship and fill out a form promising not to send your stuff outside the US at Computerland? Come on! ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 82 23:14:10-PDT (Mon) To: space at mit-mc From: G.asa at Berkeley Subject: Hans Bethe on Vulnerability Article-I.D.: populi.210 Via: news.usenet; 23 Jun 82 2:33-PDT THE INFERIORITY COMPLEX Hans A. Bethe [_T_h_e _f_o_l_l_o_w_i_n_g _i_s _P_r_o_f_e_s_s_o_r _B_e_t_h_e'_s _t_e_s_t_i_m_o_n_y _t_o _t_h_e _S_e_n_a_t_e _F_o_r_e_i_g_n _R_e_l_a_t_i_o_n_s _C_o_m_m_i_t_t_e_e _o_n _M_a_y _1_3.] I have been a Professor of Physics at Cornell University since 1935. In 1967 I was awarded the Nobel Prize for studies of nuclear reactions in the stars. I was leader of the Theoretical Division of the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory from 1943 to 1945 when that laboratory developed the first atomic bomb. I have consulted for the Los Alamos Laboratory at least once a year. I was a member of the President's Science Advisory Committee from 1957 to 1960, and remained a member of its Strategic Military Panel until 1969 when the panel was dissolved. In 1958 I participated in the Experts Conference in Geneva which discussed the verification of a ban on nuclear weapons tests, and led to the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963. I am testifying on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists of Cambridge, Massachusetts, but the ideas expressed in my testimony are my own. Several members of the government have stated repeatedly that we are inferior to the Soviet Union in strategic weapons, and that we need to build up our weapons. In my opinion there is no such inferiority. . . . We are told that there is a window of vulnerability because the Russians might use their large ICBMs to destroy our land-based ICBMs. . . . I claim that such a first strike would give no significant military advantage to the Russians. The reason is that ICBMs make up only one-fourth of our strategic nuclear forces, as measured by the number of warheads. One-half of our force is on invulnerable nuclear-powered submarines, and another one-fourth is on bombers, many of which can take off from their widely dispersed airfields in case of an alert. We would therefore have ample striking force left even if _a_l_l our ICBMs were destroyed. . . . [A] hypothetical first-strike against our ICBMs would have practically no effect on our war-fighting ability. Therefore the window of vulnerability does not exist. . . . The most important addition to our arsenal is the cruise missile, which is being deployed on our B-52 bombers. The cruise missile can penetrate into the Soviet Union. No defense system against it exists. The elaborate and costly Russian air defense system has been made obsolete by the cruise missile, 3,000 of which are to be installed on our bombers. In short we have, and will continue to have into the foreseeable future, two completely independent and essentially invulnerable strategic forces. Because the cruise missile can penetrate the Soviet Union as no bomber can, and because it has extreme accuracy, we do not need a new bomber, the B-1, and even less its follow-up, the STEALTH. Perhaps the B-52 will eventually have to be replaced, but I cannot see why this replacement should have elaborate electronic equipment to penetrate into Russia, equipment which accounts for the enormous cost of the B-1 and the STEALTH. Penetration can be achieved much more effectively and cheaply by the cruise missile. The government has stated that we need parity in strategic forces in every category. If this means that we need parity also in ICBMs, I disagree. With the increasing accuracy of missiles, on both sides, all land-based weapons will become vulnerable. I cannot think of any deployment on land that will be secure, and in my opinion the deployment of MX is a futile expenditure of money. We should maintain the emphasis on submarine and bomber forces; this makes our forces largely invulnerable, and thereby superior to those of the Soviets. If anyone has a window of vulnerability, it is the Soviet Union. As I have said, several of our weapons programs are unnecessary: the B-1, the STEALTH, and the MX. But the submarine program deserves our full support, especially the further improvement of secure communication links to our submarines, as has been rightly emphasized by this administration. Also, if we wish to decrease our dependence on nuclear weapons in Europe, a goal which I strongly support, our conventional forces must be built-up, especially by exploiting our available high-technology in anti-tank weapons. We are not inferior to the Russians in strategic armaments. But we, the Russians, and Western Europe are severely threatened by the possibility that the enormous arsenal of nuclear weapons on both sides may some day be used. Our only hope lies in substantial reduction of these armaments. A good first step would be the ratification of the SALT II agreement by the Senate. The advantages of doing so have been persuasively demonstrated by Senator Gary Hart in _T_h_e _N_e_w _Y_o_r_k _T_i_m_e_s of May 2. . . . Negotiations with the Russians are difficult and lengthy in any case. The SALT II treaty took six years to negotiate. We cannot wait that long. We must stop the arms race by measures which are not subject to such long delay. I find most attractive the proposal by George Kennan, the famous expert on the Soviet Union, which has recently been revived by Admiral Noel Gayler in _T_h_e _N_e_w _Y_o_r_k _T_i_m_e_s _M_a_g_a_z_i_n_e of April 25. The plan calls for similar reductions by both superpowers, let's assume by 5 percent of the existing force per year. Each side would choose the weapons it wants to retire, and compliance could easily be verified by our satellites. This plan is so simple that it might be agreed on with very brief negotiation, like the Limited Test Ban in 1963. But it would, in fact, not require any agreement; we could make such a reduction, and challenge the Russians to do the same. If they do so, we would make another similar reduction the following year, and so on. This would not require any treaty, and it would enhance our security. Such mutual reductions could not replace a negotiated treaty, which has a permanence far beyond the bilateral reductions that I just proposed. Furthermore, a treaty could optimize the balance and invulnerability of the two strategic forces. This would remove the threat of pre-emptive strikes, and the current hair-trigger readiness that could lead to nuclear war by accident or miscalculation. To summarize: --our strategic forces are, if anything, superior to the Soviets'; --our national security, and that of our allies, is most threatened by the grotesque size and continuing growth of both nuclear arsenals. These are the basic facts. Once they are recognized, the essential features of a sound national security policy become apparent. [From _T_h_e _N_e_w _Y_o_r_k _R_e_v_i_e_w _o_f _B_o_o_k_s, June 10, 1982, p. 3.] ______________________________________________________________________ If you want a copy of the unabridged text (162 lines, 10,175 characters, or about 20 blocks), send Mail to ...ucbvax!G:asa. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jun 82 23:25:10-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!cca.fortune!kiessig at Berkeley Subject: Rocket Planes vs. Rocket Ships Article-I.D.: fortune.69 Via: news.usenet; 23 Jun 82 2:40-PDT Well, in a way you could say the "Rocket Planes" of the late fifties and early sixties DID beat the "Rocket Ships" into space. In August 1960, (I think the Vostok I Sputnik was launched April 12, 1961) Bob White went up in the X-15 and set a new altitude record of 136,500 feet (slightly more than 25 miles). The conditions had been almost precisely those of space flight. He took the ship up in a ballistic arc, like the Mecury-Redstone was supposed to go on. He experienced 5G's (astronauts were to get 6G's). He was weightless for two minutes as he came over the arc (astronauts were to get five minutes). The air is so thin at that altitude, that there was no aerodynamic control. He landed the plane back at Edwards, on the dry lake. [There is a good account of this whole story in "The Right Stuff" by Tom Wolfe]. This strikes me as being very close to a shuttle-like operation. Certainly we must have learned things from these missions 22 years ago that have helped perfect the Shuttle. If only we had gone on to the X-20 (the X-15 with the XLR-99 engine had 57,000 lbs. thrust, and finally made it to 354,200 ft. [67 miles -- 17 miles into space] and 4,104 miles/hour [mach 5.92]). The Mercury-Redstone had 78,000 lbs. The Mercury-Atlas had 280,000 lbs. The X-20 was to have 2,800,000 lbs. of thrust, and would have taken a man into orbit, allowing him to land anywhere he wanted. And this was in 1963!! Imagine where we could be now had we followed that line of research..... Rick P.S. Does anyone out there know what happened to the prototype X-20 that was being built by Boeing in 1963, before the project was cancelled? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 24-Jun-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #223 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 223 Today's Topics: Russian computers Shuttle computers, and the military in space Re: Russian computers 3RD TIME IN ORBIT? Technology "theft" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Jun 82 20:09:07-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley Subject: Russian computers Article-I.D.: watmath.2799 Via: news.usenet; 23 Jun 82 2:59-PDT Hmm. Point taken (this is in ref. to zehntel.335(?)). And, of course, once they buy the 8080's, they can send the damned things off in the diplomatic pouch and *how in the hell do we stop them*? The short answer, of course, is that we can't - short of breaking off diplomatic relations with the Soviets and all of their satellites, and not permitting mail or any form of communication with any nation that maintains traffic with the Soviets. That would be a very moral stand, or course, but not too practical... Rick. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 82 14:58:10 EDT From: cobb at NBS-VMS Subject: Shuttle computers, and the military in space The following is fuzzily remembered information from an unknown source, but for what it's worth: I seem to remember that the shuttle computers (five per shuttle, built by IBM) were originally designed for Hughes to use in their sooper-dooper radar/fire-control system for the F-15 fighter plane. The design was frozen in 1973. They probably use MSI TTL technology, which is old and grundgy but has proven reliable in practice, especially when built to MIL specs. EXIT INFO MODE; ENTER FLAME MODE: A partnership between NASA and the military isn't necessarily such a bad thing. After all, we've had one 'de facto' for the last twenty years, and it hasn't hurt us that much. If you doubt that, consider: -well over half the astronauts (at least, up 'til the current crop) started out as military jet jocks... -a great deal of NASA's hardware is derived from military equipment (examples: the Shuttle computers \and/ the software reliability methodology for them; NASA's boosters, which are all derived from ICBM's (Redstone, Atlas, and Titan \are/ ICBM's); also the space suits, the tracking stations, etc... -there is stuff out there which needs protecting. Losing a bunch of comsats would play hell with domestic communications. Losing some of our recon or early-warning satellites would undoubtedly put the military on red alert. While the Soviets can't (yet) shoot down a group of satellites at once, they are getting better at it. And think what a beautiful target a space factory or colony would make for some random terrorist! No, I'm not trying to spread the Cold War into space. But the military-NASA partnership has been beneficial to both sides in the past; the reflexive distaste that this list seems to have for the military is a little strange. No matter how fast and how far the pioneers moved west in the last century, there always came a time when they yelled for the cavalry, and were damned glad the cavalry was right behind them. We will be (we hope to be) building some big, expensive, and useful installations in space in the next few years, and there will undoubtedly be those who want to take them away from us. It doesn't make sense to go out unprotected. Sorry for flaming so much, Stewart ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 82 15:19:49-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!pdh at Berkeley Subject: Re: Russian computers Article-I.D.: hplabs.481 Via: news.usenet; 23 Jun 82 18:14-PDT Somebody touched on the important issue in the hig-tech security discussion some time ago, and then it seems to have been forgotten. As any serious- thinking engineer will testify, all the hardware in the world, however sophisticated, is useless without good software, AND vice versa! The con- glomeration of 68000's and 6809's, etc., etc., that I have sitting at my house probably totals to the equivalent of a system 370. However, it will probably take me (and several others along with me) years to get them all working efficiently together (not to mention individually). You can bet that the Russians *already* have enough American technology sitting somewhere behind the Iron Curtain to fill a good sized machine room. Now if only it were quite so easy to smuggle (or coerce) humans out of the U.S. Then we'd have something to worry about. Peter ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 1982 1938-PDT From: Terry C. Savage Subject: 3RD TIME IN ORBIT? To: SPACE at MIT-MC cc: TCS at USC-ECL Someone made the comment that the launching of STS-4 will be the 3rd time that U.S. and Soviet astronauts and cosmonauts will be in space at the same time. Other than the Apollo-Soyuz mission, when else have Americans and Soviets been in space at the same time? T.C.Savage ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jun 1982 0101-EDT From: JHENDLER at BBNA Subject: Technology "theft" To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Your message of 23-Jun-82 0602-EDT Another example of the high technology smuggling was discovered during the Yom Kippur war between Egypt and Israel. The Israelis captured a large number of soviet made missiles, and discovered that the guidance systems were made by Texas Instruments. However, things are tighter now than they were then. The government's restrictions (Called the "Bucy laws" after TI president J. Fred Bucy) severely limit what technology is allowed out of the US. We recently had a long battle with TI management over whther some of our natural language group could go to the COLING (Computational Linguistics) conference in Praque. We were finally allowed to go, once it was determined that the Russians would have very little use for an English language syntactic parsing scheme, but I think the unwillingness of US business to send people to Iron Curtain countries is becoming manifest. Their unwillingness to sell chips, etc. to the Russians is even starting to overcome their greed for the Russian marketplace. -Jim Hendler Texas Instruments, Dallas. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 25-Jun-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #224 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 224 Today's Topics: Next week in space X-20 reentry Radio Shack 8080's escaping in Soviet diplomatic pouches... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Jun 1982 10:28:13-EDT From: clements at NRL-CSS (P. C. Clements) To: space at mit-mc Subject: Next week in space With six cosmonauts and two astronauts orbiting next week, there will be eight people in space. Is that a record? ------------------------------ Date: 24 June 1982 1338-EDT (Thursday) From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30) To: space at MIT-MC Subject: X-20 reentry Message-Id: <24Jun82 133841 DS30@CMU-10A> The X-20 wasn't called Dyna-Soar (Dynamic Soaring) for nothing. It was to be fully reusable, and didn't use ablative heat shields. The method of atmospheric entry was to come in at a shallow angle until it got hot, then to aerodynamically pull up, leaving the atmosphere to radiate the heat away. It would skip off the atmosphere many times as it slowed. When it was going slow enough, it would come on in. About ten years ago, I saw a drawing of a proposal North American Aviation had made for a Super-X-15. It was bigger than the existing ones; I don't know what they proposed to do for a heat shield. The drawing showed it being launched on top of an Atlas. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jun 1982 0510-PDT From: Allan M. Schiffman Subject: Radio Shack 8080's escaping in Soviet diplomatic pouches... To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Schiffman at SRI-KL In-Reply-To: Your message of 24-Jun-82 0302-PDT It's interesting that a group of people ostensibly informed about computer technology should spend so much time discussing locking the barn door after the horse has escaped. The Soviets have had substantial IC production capability for many years. In 1979 CDC, in supplying information in support of an export licence application (to sell machines to the USSR) revealed that they had done a "strip job" on Soviet electronic equipment obtained in Eastern Europe. There were several "reverse-engineered" IC's found; the CDC experts paid careful attention to soviet-manufactured 8080s and 16K dynamic RAMs. The DRAM seemed to have been a copy made by a photographic process {generating masks from photographs of carefully scraped layers}. The 8080 was a new design -- it had an 8085-type bus, but an 8080 type clock generator {i.e. no clock generator}. I believe it is the case that 8085s have been in production in CHINA since 1981. There is every reason to believe that anything you can buy in Radio Shack, the Soviets can make. Of course, possibly due to their notoriously inefficient central planning, they lack the infrastructure to do so CHEAPLY. This is slightly less important for military applications. There is absolutely no reason to believe that theoretical computer science is similiarly backward. However, it's a good bet that their trained manpower is miniscule compared to the U.S., computers are more like rarities there. I hope to find a reference to that CDC study within a few days; in the meantime: "Database Management Systems Development in the USSR" - A.G. Dale; ACM Computing Surveys V11#3 9/79 "The Soviet Bloc's Unified System of Computers" - N.C. Davis, S.E. Goodman; ACM Computing Surv. V10#2 6/78 "Computing in China 1980" - H.D. Huskey; IEEE Computer V14#10 10/81 -Allan ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 26-Jun-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #225 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 225 Today's Topics: Lagrange Point Satellite - (nf) Enterprise status Neptune Rings Russian shuttle? Space Search Re: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours Re: Rocket Planes Re: Radio Shack 8080's escaping in Soviet diplomatic pouches... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Jun 82 14:26:48-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!cca!decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!truchon at Berkeley Subject: Lagrange Point Satellite - (nf) Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.181 Via: news.usenet; 25 Jun 82 6:21-PDT Reply-To: s #N:uiucdcs:12700001:000:305 uiucdcs!truchon Jun 10 13:47:00 1982 In an issue of Astronomy magazine from a couple of years back, there was a small article which told of a satellite which had been put into orbit about a lagrange point between the Earth and Sun. I do not remember which issue it was but I am pretty sure that it was from 1979 or 1980. Lee Truchon ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jun 82 17:15:02-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!cca!decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley Subject: Enterprise status Article-I.D.: utzoo.2140 Via: news.usenet; 25 Jun 82 6:35-PDT Last I heard, the Enterprise is not considered as a flyable shuttle any more. Basically, it's overweight and below flight standards in other minor ways. This is why the static test prototype, orbiter 099, is being refurbished to become a real orbiter. Originally the Enterprise was to be the second orbiter and the static-test article was never to be a complete orbiter. Now the Enterprise's official fate is to be cannibalized for parts, I think. Mind you, if NASA suddenly needs another orbiter badly (if one of the existing ones crashes, say) after the production line is closed, it might be Real Handy to have this almost-orbiter sitting in storage... ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jun 82 9:08:03-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!cca!decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Neptune Rings Article-I.D.: alice.628 Via: news.usenet; 25 Jun 82 6:36-PDT Scientists have announced the possible discovery of two rings around the planet Neptune. The discovery came from examination of data obtained in 1968 (and lost until now) from an eclipse of a star by Neptune, the same way in which Uranus' rings were discovered. They have not yet confirmed the finding, though, and are asking other observatories which have data from that event to reexamine it. In the next couple years, stars will again be in a position where the occultation will take place, and scientists will have another chance to observe the possible rings. The real sight will come in 1989, if Voyager II makes it all the way to Neptune and is able to send pictures back. Neptune would join Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus in having a ring system. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jun 82 23:13:53-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!cca!decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley Subject: Russian shuttle? Article-I.D.: watmath.2577 Via: news.usenet; 25 Jun 82 6:47-PDT Canadian news tonight had more on the story: Apparently the Soviet shuttle is smaller than Columbia, but winged. The latest flight was unmanned, and took place from a secret rocket base in the Ukraine, splashing down in the Indian Ocean. It was picked up by Soviet ships in the area. The pickup was observed by Australian seamen in the area. Several things occur to me: (a) either we've been snowed, or the Soviets just can't build a Columbia-like shuttle. Dammit, Columbia can't fly without those IBM minis to control the attitude jets, and (we were told) a simpler attitude jet system won't work: remember Yeager's NF-104 near-disaster. Their most advanced computers are old 370/158's - they won't work, and you can't build today's minis out of 370-level technology. Second, they can't have anything like Columbia's tile system - no materials industry. (b) Given (a), and preliminary descriptions of the vehicle, isn't it more likely that the Soviet "shuttle" is really more an X-20 or a DynaSoar? After all, the only people who've seen the thing are Australian seamen, from a fair distance. Maybe a top-flight aerospace engineer could tell the difference between an X-20 and a shuttle from that distance, but I couldn't. (c) Why did it splash down? The Soviets pioneered hard landings. Why was this one different? Is it just because the Soviets wouldn't splash spacecraft down in the early 1960's, when the West had navies and the Russians didn't? Aside from the editorials, only one more thing: Canadian news (Global news in Toronto, for you Canadians on the net) quoted unnamed US officials as saying that the Soviet shuttle had flown several times, and that this was merely the first landing Westerners had observed. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jun 82 19:54:23-PDT (Fri) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!cca!decvax!duke!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Space Search Article-I.D.: alice.677 Via: news.usenet; 25 Jun 82 7:31-PDT Scientists at the Ames Research Center are now talking more than ever about another body of some sort in our solar system. They say that Pluto is too small to be affecting the orbits of Uranus and Neptune as much as they had earlier expected. So, Pioneers 10 and 11 are now searching around to find the object. They hope that the two spacecraft, launched ten years ago and now on opposite sides of the sun, will be affected by the gravitational pull of the object and will yield the approximate position of it. Possibilities are a tenth planet (though it would have to be very dark to have evaded observation), a brown dwarf star (one that never ignited), a dark star that is just passing through the solar system, or even a black hole, and many others. A black hole is considered unlikely though, since the energy usually found around it has not been detected. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jun 82 10:21:29-PDT (Sat) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!cca!decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Re: Landing Push up 1.5 Hours Article-I.D.: alice.680 Via: news.usenet; 25 Jun 82 7:54-PDT References: gsp86.125 It is true that NASA is considering pushing back the first landing at KSC to either STS-6 (January, 1983) or STS-7 (Spring, 1983) instead of STS-5 (tentatively scheduled for 11 November, 1982). This is in order to gain more crosswinds landing data for the shuttle. At KSC, corsswinds prevail, and they would rather have the bird fly off the side of the runway at Edwards, where there is just desert, than at KSC, where there are alligators. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 82 11:56:37-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!ech at Berkeley Subject: Re: Rocket Planes Article-I.D.: whuxlb.307 Via: news.usenet; 25 Jun 82 13:28-PDT True, we did NOT have the technologies in the early 60s to build the shuttle. But some of us who were around at the time got very upset with NASA/DoD for cancelling the DynaSoar (X-20) and going with non-reusables. Maybe that requires background. I cut my teeth on the visions of Willy Ley and others, who expected us to ENGINEER the conquest of space: build strong technological foundations as you went. Those visionaries expected the development of reusable low-earth-orbit technology followed by permanent manned LEO stations followed by (manned) exploration of the moon and the rest of the solar system, incorporating (are you ready?) APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY as it became available (ion jets, atomic engines, non-aerodynamic vehicles, etc.). The fact is largely forgotten now, but the initial NASA plan was for the Saturn V to be a SMALL PROTOTYPE for an order-of-magnitude larger booster designated Nova. Nova would have delivered a 75-ton Apollo package (command module, service module, lunar takeoff module, lunar landing module) directly from earth surface to lunar surface; that plan was scrubbed only when Gemini demonstrated that we really could accomplish rendevous. I don't retell this to ridicule, merely to illustrate the atmosphere at NASA in the early 60s: brute force was the default method, and the objective was not "get into space" but simply "beat the russians to the moon." Ah, water over the dam. My best hope now is that enough corporations will find LEO an enticing manufacturing environment that funding the shuttle, its successors, and permanent space facilities will simply be good business. Maybe I should learn Japanese... =Ned Horvath= ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jun 1982 1045-PDT From: Tom Wadlow To: space at MIT-MC n543 0347 25 Jun 82 BC-STATION-06-25 By Richard Gilluly (c) 1982 The Baltimore Sun (Field News Service) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has revived the idea of a permanent manned space station. In outlining the idea, NASA chief James M. Beggs said the space station would be the next logical step after the agency's shuttle spacecraft becomes fully operational - which could be soon if the fourth and final shakedown mission of the shuttle, scheduled for liftoff Sunday, is successful. The space station ''would be small at first, assembled in orbit with modules carried to space by the shuttle,'' he said. The cost of establishing the first small station, perhaps by 1990, would be from $3 billion to $5 billion, according to a NASA fact sheet released in connection with Beggs' announcement, which was made Wednesday before a joint session of the Economic Club of Detroit and the Engineering Society of Detroit. The idea of a permanent space station was proposed in connection with the shuttle in the early '70s, but was deferred along with other space proposals when the program was cut back. Beggs said the space station could greatly improve mankind's ability not only to assess the impact of Earth activities, but to launch probes of Mars and Venus that could lead to a better understanding of the future evolution of the Earth and how it developed from the solar nebula, the diffuse mass of hot gases from which the planets are thought to have condensed. A space station also would improve commercial applications of space technology, including the gravity-less processing of materials and the servicing of communications satellites, he added. He said the stationwk5r tpe shuttle because the shuttle is an ideal vehicle with which to construct it. The shuttle lifts off like a rocketship and then returns to Earth to land like an airplane, and is able to carry large cargoes into space. It is man's first almost wholly reusable spacecraft. NASA spokesmen say the first space station would have a crew of three or four astronauts and scientists, but eventually as many as 12 crew members could be accommodated. The crew might spend as long as three months in space, and they would be taken to and from the station via the shuttle. Beggs emphasized that the station would not be a successor to the shuttle - which, he said, is a transportation system - but rather a successor to Skylab, a manned station launched in 1973 for scientific experimentation. Skylab finally re-entered the atmosphere and disintegrated because NASA had no way to boost it into a permanent orbit. The proposed space station would be equipped with maneuvering rockets which would allow it to stay in orbit indefinitely. Besides Skylab, the Soviets have operated a space station, Salyut 6, since 1977, which has accommodated five Soviet crews as well as 11 visiting crews from Soviet bloc nations. Salyut 7, recently launched, is now occupied by cosmonauts and, according to Biggs, may ''represent a larger, more sophisticated system that would move the Soviet Unon another step forward in its dominance in near-Earth space.'' Sen. William Proxmire (D, Wis.), a frequent critic of NASA proposals, wasn't available for comment, but a spokesman said it would be safe to say he would be ''negative'' toward the proposal. The spokesman, Tom VanDerVoort, said that now is a particularly inappropriate time for NASA to propose a space station in view of what he said is the uncertainty of the shuttle garnering enough commercial payloads to become a paying proposition. In connection with earlier suggestions that NASA might propose a space station, Proxmire has said the space agency ''has a bias toward huge and very expensive projects. It proceeds regardless of real need.'' Terence Finn, a member of NASA's space station task force, a group studying the possibility of deploying such a station, said Proxmire's criticisms are not necessarily valid. He admitted that NASA is starting with the idea of a space station and then working from there to specify its exact purposes, but he said this approach is preferable. The reason, he said, is that all the potential users will have ''input'' into how it is constructed. It will be a station designed from the very start to serve the purposes of its users instead of the other way around, he said. Among the potential users now being approached are military, scientific and commercial interests. But he stressed that the space station is not yet at the proposal stage. The next step, he suggested, would be more intensive studies than the preliminary ones now being conducted. These more intensive studies might cost $10 million to $15 million as contrasted with the $3 million or so now being spent on the preliminary studies. Finn said the European Space Agency, the Japanese and the Canadians had expressed interest in participating in a U.S. space station program. END nyt-06-25-82 0644edtt *************** [I understand that some of the various space groups are trying to do a mail campaign to Reagan and Keyworth to support this station --Tom] ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jun 82 12:00:15-PDT (Fri) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!pdh at Berkeley Subject: Re: Radio Shack 8080's escaping in Soviet diplomatic pouches... Article-I.D.: hplabs.487 Via: news.usenet; 25 Jun 82 18:31-PDT Think not just of Radio Shack when you talk about what technology the Soviets can make or obtain. Right now, today, ANYONE can go out and buy, say, a SUN Workstation and a disk, which would give the user lots of power (68000 10MHz), very high level graphics (1K x 1K, and FAST), network capability (3Mbit ether), and all of this in a very portable box! I'll wager that about 10 or 15 of these toy, all linking and talking on their network, could do justice to 95% of the applications on a shuttle. All it would take is a little beefing up of the durability of the system and (her's the catch) the right software, and poof... all the power you could ask for for about $300K.... Granted, it's probably more than a notion to get 15 SUN stations out of the country, but you can bet that it's possible, if difficult. Again, as I said in an earlier message, though, it's the software in this case that counts... Peter ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 27-Jun-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #226 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 226 Today's Topics: Planetary system formation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Jun 1982 1332-EDT From: J. Noel Chiappa Subject: Planetary system formation To: space at MIT-MC cc: JNC at MIT-XX This was prompted by the business about the brown dwarf; it's probably completely harebrained, but here goes: as I understand it, the current theory among geo-whatevers (I may be out of date here, corrections/updates requested) is that the reason the inner planets aren't gas giants has to do with the fact that a) they are smaller, and b) they are at a higher temperature; the combination (varying frlmo planet to planet) of the smaller potential energy well and the higher particle speed allows all the light gasses to escape. Now, I might believe this for Mercury, but it seems a bit dim for Mars, which is pretty cold; it requires some mechanism to explain why all the inner planets are much smaller than the outer ones. What crossed my mind is the possibility that at some point in the past the sun was somewhat larger and cooler than it is now for a brief period. The inner planets might have actually been inside the tenous outer layers of the sun briefly, and would have had most of their light gasses boiled off, which would explain why the switch to gas giants is so abrupt. Now, according to classical stellar evolution theory, the sun's headed there anyway as a red giant, but couldn't have been there yet and will take a while to get there. I can, however, conceive of several possible ways for this to happen very briefly in ways that would not show up on the long term scale. One would be a massive flare or instability of some sort, of short duration (of the sort that some people used to think killed the dinosaurs, but on a larger scale), but this seems far-fetched. That sort of energy output should have affected the outer planets as well, although I suppose if it was brief enough it might be possible. The other one (that I like better) is that the proto-sun stage would also have been about red giant size and somewhat lower temperature, but very short-lived as the material coalesced inward heating up until the sun entered the main sequence with gravitational and radiation pressures equalized. Anyone know if this is in fact part of the current explanation, or if it's reasonable? ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 29-Jun-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #227 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 227 Today's Topics: USSR IC production Technology "theft" Military & NASA in space space shuttle launch Political Opposition to Space programs re: formation of the planets Enterprise & Columbia & Star Trek record number of humans in space Mobile Large Space Telescope proposal Re: Space Search (V2 #225) New Flies Twist Re: 3RD TIME IN ORBIT? Re: Microprocessors for Russian Shuttle, etc Listening into Shuttle talk Dial Shuttle 900 number Countdown on Schedule ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Jun 1982 1414-PDT From: Jim McGrath Subject: USSR IC production To: schiffman at SRI-KL cc: space at MIT-MC You are probably correct in saying that such copying of US ICs is an expensive process. However, it should also be a buggy one - ie you are working with a copying technique (using photos as a guide) that would seem to decrease yeild sharply. This is important in military applications, since reliability is an extremely important goal. Jim ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 1982 1705-PDT From: Jim McGrath Subject: Technology "theft" To: jhendler at BBNA cc: space at MIT-MC I am glad that some of our capitalists are getting their act together and denying the Soviets some of the fruits of our labors. However, people should remember that there is a lot of difference between the Soviets knowing that something works, knowing how it works, having a working model, and developing the capability to manufacture and maintain that product. The conflict we have here is mainly in the first and second areas, ie the research phase (I know of no one who seriously advocates us becoming a supplier of the Soviets or building high-tech plants for them, although some of our Western European "allies" come close). In particular University research meant for publication probably should not be restricted by the government, since the incremental benefits the Soviets gain are far outweighted by our gains in promoting a free flow of information throughout the community. The same sort of issues surface when discussing links between Universities and industrial research labs. As for the distinctions between military and non-military technology, they are only really possible in those last two stages - and even here, commercial technology can often be easily adapted to military ends. Although a blanket ban is not justified, completely free trade is hardly possible either. Jim ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 1982 1732-PDT From: Jim McGrath Subject: Military & NASA in space To: cobb at NBS-VMS cc: space at MIT-MC, arms-d at MIT-MC I have no objections to the Military and NASA cooperating in space - security is needed for space facilities, space is a natural area of military interest because it is such "high ground," and, quite frankly, NASA can do with some help from the DoD lobby on Capital Hill. What I object to is the military mistreating NASA - such as not paying a proper proportion of the space shuttle costs, or the costs of a space station that will be used by the military. If anything, DoD, being richer than NASA, should be paying a greater that "just" share of the costs. I also want to make sure that the military uses of space do not prevent commercial exploitation of space. Given DoD's track record, I do think it is proper to continue to exert pressure on behalf of NASA on DoD. Jim ------------------------------ Mail-From: PCO-MULTICS received by MIT-MULTICS at 27-Jun-1982 23:19:06-edt Date: 27 June 1982 20:16 mst From: Jarrell.FSOEP at PCO-MULTICS Subject: space shuttle launch Reply-To: Jarrell.FSOEP%PCO-Multics at MIT-MULTICS To: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC The launch went great, with only on exception. The SRB's, which usually float on the surface after splashdown until the recovery tug can get to them, sank, costing NASA (and us) some 25 million dollars. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 1982 2144-PDT From: Jim McGrath Subject: Political Opposition to Space programs To: space at MIT-MC What I cannot understand is why people such as Proxmire continue to, simply put, lie about the space program. How he can possibly contend that there is no demonstrated demand for the shuttle is beyond me. And now he is attacking the space station concept on the same grounds. Is this simple political expediency, or is there even a semi-rational reason for attacking these programs on pragmatic grounds? Jim ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 1982 0933-EDT From: VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO To: space at MIT-AI cc: redford at WAFER Subject: re: formation of the planets Message-ID: <"MS10(2055)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11835425400.32.583.3428 at DEC-MARLBORO> As I understand the current theory of planetary composition, it has little to do with flares or instabilities in the sun. Rather, it's based on the makeup of the original nebula that the sun and planets condensed out of. As the nebula contracted there would be a temperature gradient from the center to the outer fringes. The very center would be too hot for any compounds whatsoever to solidify. As you went a little farther out the refractory metals like tungsten would condense, because the temperature (and pressure) would have dropped below their freezing point. As you keep moving out more and more solids become possible. By the time you get to the orbits of the gas giants, substances like methane and ammonia will liqueify. Since there is a great deal more carbon and nitrogen than there is tungsten and iron, the outer planets wind up being a lot bigger. The gaseous methane and ammonia around the inner planets gets blown away once the sun ignites. Now, we know roughly what the original elemental composition was. We know the boiling points of the common compounds and so can figure out what the order of condensation should be. Given the mass of the original nebula we can figure out how much energy is released in contraction. If we know how much of this radiant energy is reabsorbed by the cloud, and if we assume certain models for mixing, we can calculate what the temperature and pressure gradients should be. This should tell us the chemical compostion of the inner planets. J. S. Lewis of MIT predicts that: "Mercury has a massive Fe-Ni alloy core surmounted by a small mantle of Fe+2-free magnesium silicates. Refractory oxides are present but only traces of alkali metals, sulfur, FeO, etc. Venus has Fe_ni core, a massive mantle of Fe+2 free magnesium silicates, and a silicate rich crust similar to earth's. Sulfur is probably absent. The earth has an inner core of Fe_ni and an outer core of Fe-FeS melt. Cetain chalcophile elements are deficient in the mantle and crust but enriched in the outer core. The mantle contains 10% FeO. Deficiencies of S, K, Rb, and Cs in the crust and upper mantle are due to their extraction into an FeS-rich melt. Mars is almost devoid of free iron, may contain a core of FeS, and has a mantle rich in FeO. Hydrous minerals were probably retained. The crust should be more iron-rich than the earth's." The densities calculated agree with those observed, but I don't know if info from the Viking, Voyager, and Venera probes confirm the theory. The theory also explains the composition of meteorites, though I get the impression that it doesn't explain it all that well. I'm kind of awed that this can be done at all. I learned all this from a book called "Frontiers of Astrophysics" edited by Eugene H. Averett. -------- ------------------------------ Date: 28 June 1982 10:14 edt From: CLJones.Multics at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Enterprise & Columbia & Star Trek To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC According to the "Star Fleet Technical Manual", Enterprise is a Constitution-class starship, not a Columbia-class starship as was earlier stated. The only reference to Columbia I can find in the SFTM is to a scout/diplomatic starship. ------------------------------ Date: 28 June 1982 10:08 edt From: CLJones.Multics at MIT-MULTICS Subject: record number of humans in space To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC With the launch of the shuttle, there are now seven (not eight) people in space. There are two Soviet cosmonauts who have been up there for a while, two more Soviets and a Frenchman who just recently joined them, and two Americans. This is the third time that there have been seven people in space at the same time. The first was the Soyuz 6-7-8 mission, and the second was during the ASTP, when the Soviets had, in addition to the ASTP Soyuz, a crew occupying a Salyut. ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 28 June 1982 08:25-PDT From: KING at KESTREL Subject: Mobile Large Space Telescope proposal To: space at mit-mc cc: King at KESTREL I was reading about the possible discovery of rings aroung Uranus and Neptune. It seems to me that it would be handy to have a Large Space Telescope clone equipped with a solar sail so that when an astronomer wanted to engineer an occultation (very useful for studying stars as well as planets) (s)he could order the Mobile Large Space Telescope to trundle to the appropriate place, rather then waiting for the shadow to happen to reach the Earth. When we got tired of that we could send it to the vacinities of each of the planets in turn and have a really close look... Comments? Dick ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 1982 12:14 PDT From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Space Search (V2 #225) In-reply-to: sjb at Berkeley's message of 25 Jun 82 7:31-PDT To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Lynn.es Some of the possibilities to explain outer planet perturbations are very speculative, to say the least. Tombaugh (discoverer of Pluto) and other astronomers knew in the 30's that Pluto was too small to explain the perturbations, if the estimated accuracies of positions for Uranus and Neptune were correct. That is why Tombaugh continued his search of all parts of the sky except the polar regions for more than an additional decade. He pretty well ruled out the possibility of a planet with any reasonable brightness within a reasonable distance of the sun (several times Pluto's distance). The alternative, of course, is that the accuracy of positional measurements of Uranus and Neptune was just not that good. Both the discoveries of Neptune and Pluto near the places predicted by perturbation analysis have been called lucky coincidences, since the perturbations being analyzed were nearly indistinguishable from errors in positional measurement. The orbits and masses of the predicted planets didn't agree very well, only the positions at discovery time did. One thing that has sparked new hope for another planet/object is the discovery in Galileo's notes of his sighting of an object that has to be Neptune. The position is somewhat off from predictions, but again is of questionable accuracy. The newly derived mass of Pluto from measurements of its satellite was claimed to have prompted excitement, but even its old erroneously large mass estimate was far too small to explain the perturbations. Jupiter has been called a near-star that never ignited, so I am not sure there is any difference between a large planet and a "brown dwarf". Anyway, don't hold your breath till an object is found. I think the odds are against it, but that does not mean we should not analyze the Pioneer spacecraft data for perturbations. It just might lay to rest the speculations on another planet. Then there is always a chance ... /Don Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jun 82 7:21:51-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: New Flies Twist Article-I.D.: alice.704 Via: news.usenet; 28 Jun 82 23:27-PDT Remember Todd Nelson? He designed the experiment aboard STS-3 that observed flies flying around in their weightless environment. Well, a new twist has been discovered. It seems that the flies laid 57% fewer eggs than their Earth-bound counterparts. This was unexpected but nevertheless confirmed by a team of the University of Houston biologists. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jun 82 9:27:19-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!rabbit!jj at Berkeley Subject: Re: 3RD TIME IN ORBIT? Article-I.D.: rabbit.559 Via: news.usenet; 28 Jun 82 23:59-PDT References: sri-unix.1861 Of course, the THIRD time that both the US and the USSR are in space at the same time doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the shuttle is carrrying a military cargo, does it? I hope not. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 82 8:28:04-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!pur-ee!iuvax!kjl at Berkeley Subject: Re: Microprocessors for Russian Shuttle, etc Article-I.D.: iuvax.110 Via: news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 0:02-PDT References: duke.2260 I remember going through an issue of SOVIET EXPORT magazine about two years ago and finding an artice on the latest in Soviet computer technology. The machine that they were touting was extremely similar in both basic design and appearance to the PDP-11. Of course, I wouldn't ever suggest that the similar- ity was anything but a coincidence..... Ken Lebowitz (iuvax!kjl) ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 1982 2304-PDT From: Jim McGrath Subject: Listening into Shuttle talk To: space at MIT-MC You can listen into the transmissions between ground control and the shuttle directly by dialing (900) 410-6272. This service costs $0.50 for the first minute, $0.35 for each additional minute. Jim ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jun 82 13:39:49-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!houxi!houxc!9212osd at Berkeley Subject: Dial Shuttle Article-I.D.: houxc.218 Via: news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 0:24-PDT AT&T is offering a number you may call on Sunday June 27 starting at 10:00am (EDT) so that you can listen (only) the conversations between the shuttle and ground control. The number is 900-410-6270. The rates are $0.50 for the first minute and $0.35 cents for each additional minute. You can be connected up to two and half hours. I just heard the above thru the AT&T news line (noisy recording) so you may want to verify it before acting. It should be advertised somewhere. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jun 82 13:32:22-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!we13!prg at Berkeley Subject: 900 number Article-I.D.: we13.295 Via: news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 0:42-PDT I tried the "900" number listed several times during the last shuttle and always got a recorded shuttle message. Did anyone really get to listen in on the ground to air?? Phil Gunsul ..lime!we13!prg ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jun 82 13:53:51-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Countdown on Schedule Article-I.D.: alice.706 Via: news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 0:33-PDT Everything has been going smoothly up until today. Today, workers are to check the Columbia's computers and fuel cells and also open the cargo bay doors to fill the infrared telescope in the DoD's package with liquid helium. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 30-Jun-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #228 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 228 Today's Topics: 900 number NASA Director meets Joan London Re: SPACE Digest V2 #227 Oberg on Russian Shuttle Re Proxmire [political opposition to space programs] Re: Mobile Large Space Telescope proposal (V2 #227) sinking boosters STS-4 orbital info Shuttle Update Re: New Shuttle Abort Site - (nf) Shuttle Update Re: New Shuttle Abort Site - (nf) Re: A Few Minor Problems and Sinking of Boosters Paranoia (rabbit.559) Re: A Few Minor Problems and Sinking of Boosters SRB Update Re: New Shuttle Abort Site - (nf) Lost Shuttle Boosters Challenger Unveiling Re: Russians in Radio Shack Re: SPACE Digest V2 #227 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Jun 82 2:43:16-PDT (Fri) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!zeppo!wheps!eagle!karn at Berkeley Subject: 900 number Article-I.D.: eagle.395 Via: news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 5:45-PDT The correct "dial-it" number for the shuttle missions is 900-410-6272. (This is different from an earlier message, but I experimented with different numbers during the last mission and the last digit didn't seem to matter). The service is, by default, a recording containing a status report which repeats indefinitely until updated. Whenever there is activity on the communications channels, a voice-actuated switch turns off the recording and turns on the real-time audio. When they stop talking, a long-time-constant switch gradually brings back the recording. There are large fractions of the orbit during which the shuttle is not in view of a ground command station; also, the astronauts DO sleep occasionally, so there can be long periods of just the recorded message. I find the service quite useful for verifying an orbit model (which I also use to pick good times to call), and for just listening to the conversations without the trigger-happy news reporters talking on top of them. Phil Karn Bell Labs, Murray Hill [Thanks also to Tony Hansen for providing similar info. -Ed (decvax!harpo!npois!houxi!houxs!hansen at Berkeley)] ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jun 82 8:56:47-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: mhtsa!ihnss!inuxc!fred at Berkeley Subject: NASA Director meets Joan London Article-I.D.: inuxc.166 Via: news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 6:29-PDT On Good Morning America today they had an interview between Joan London and NASA Director Biggs. Maybe the Director was just nervous but it really worrys me when Joan London does a better job of discussing space issues then the Director of NASA. The interview pointed out that in the last three years the Russians have had men on board space stations for one and a half of those years, and they certainly must be learning something from all that flight time. When pressed as to what were the Americans doing and should we be concerned about the Russian activities the Director simple stated that NASA has been studying space platforms since the 1960's and that we should be carefully watching the Russians. I think that it is a good sign that the press is starting to report on the Russian activity. It is a message the the general public needs to hear more often and it hints that indeed the US may be in the space station business if the press and the general public begin to support the idea. Fred ihnss!inuxc!fred ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 1982 09:27 PDT From: Suk at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #227 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Suk I received my brilliant pink NASA vehicle pass yesterday, and am planning to drive down to Edwards AFB for the shuttle landing. Can anyone tell me for what time Sunday morning the landing is scheduled? Stan ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 1982 09:50 PDT From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC Subject: Oberg on Russian Shuttle In-reply-to: OTA's message of 29 Jun 1982 0303-PDT To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC James Oberg, a follower of Soviet space efforts, spoke on National Public Radio's Morning Edition program today. His assessment of the recent "mysterious" launch and Indian Ocean splashdown of a Soviet vehicle was that it was probably *not* a shuttle. He cited several reasons for his opinion; the main one was that the Soviets, by launching more hardware ("a million pounds a year") into space, had achieved a cheaper cost-per-pound than the USA. Economics simply doesn't presently require a shuttle to achieve their objectives, which he said centered around a space station presence. He further said the space station is important to them because the reliability of their satellites is far lower than that of the U.S.; they need the repair capability. /John ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 1982 13:34:56-EDT From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: space at mit-mc Subject: Re Proxmire [political opposition to space programs] Cc: csd.mcgrath at su-score As I understand it, Proxmire was once burned by being on the other end of the sort of [investigation]s he now pulls off and getting severely condemned for being on the side of wastefulness. It's a real pity he doesn't concentrate so much on the big money-wasters---but then, that would take work and wouldn't produce such spectacular results. I don't know how much longer he'll last, though, since he seems to be getting people from all parts of the political spectrum annoyed with his clowning. It should also be noted that, as far as "demonstrated interest" goes, it will be interesting to see what happens in about 5 years, when the shuttle's rates are expected to triple ($30 million -> $90 million for sole use of a flight, roughly). It would also be interesting to see what would happen at $30 million (?) per flight if the military weren't taking up something over half of them. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 1982 11:13 PDT From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Mobile Large Space Telescope proposal (V2 #227) In-reply-to: KING at KESTREL's message of 28 June 1982 08:25-PDT To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Lynn.ES A small space telescope would probably be adequate to observe occultations. Much occultation work on earth is done with amateur telescopes of 4 - 8 inch range. Even maneuvering in earth orbit would give a good deal of flexibility in getting to the right spot for occultations. There are hundreds of occultations of stars by minor and major planets that strike some point on the earth every year. These are ones that could be observed with a fairly small telescope with a sensitive detector (such as CCDs), and would be scientifically quite valuable. There are some problems with a solar sail to maneuver a telescope. First would be the weeks or months it might take to get to the right place for a single observation. Considering the launch expense, you would want to keep a space telescope busy almost constantly. But then other programs than occultations could probably take up this time. Second, sails are no good by the time you reach Jupiter, since the sunlight to drive them diminishes at that distance. But a solar sail mission with not just telescopes, but all kinds of sensors, would make a very good mission to the inner planets, asteroids, or comets. PS. The discovery of rings around Neptune was "possible", but about Uranus is pretty well confirmed. /Don Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 82 9:25:54-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!eisx!pyuxbb!mkg at Berkeley Subject: sinking boosters Article-I.D.: pyuxbb.149 Via: news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 18:17-PDT CBS news reported last night that certain parts of the boosters are reusable. For the first time, parts were reused---the parachutes!!! The parachute manufacturer denied in an interview that they (the parachutes) were at fault. Marsh Gosnell BTL Piscataway (201) 981-2758 npois!pyuxbb!mkg ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 82 17:40:17-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!eagle!karn at Berkeley Subject: STS-4 orbital info Article-I.D.: eagle.413 Via: news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 18:30-PDT The following is a set of Keplerian elements for STS-4 derived from numbers obtained from the Johnson Space Flight Center: Satellite: sts-4 Epoch time: Tue Jun 29 06:30:49 1982 EDT 82180.43807870 Inclination: 28.4038 deg RA of node: 320.2049 deg Eccentricity: 0.0008500 Arg of perigee: 54.5130 deg Mean anomaly: 351.8915 deg Mean motion: 15.89212148 rev/day Semi major axis: 6682.63 km Period: 90.61 min Apogee: 313.38 km Perigee: 302.01 km An orbit model using these numbers is giving pretty good prediction times for passes over the various NASA tracking stations. As I mentioned in an earlier article, the low inclination results in low maximum elevations as seen from most of the US. Here in northern NJ, maximum elevations of about 6 degrees occur during passes in the middle morning, e.g., 8:30AM EDT. There are some visual passes for observers in the south, e.g, Florida. If you are in the southern US and interested, send me your latitude, longitude and height above sea level, and I'll run my program to see if there are any visible passes at your location. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 82 18:10:44-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle Update Article-I.D.: alice.740 Via: news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 18:36-PDT With Utah State University's Getaway Special still not working, astronauts Ken Mattingly and Henry Hartsfield wound up their third day in space today. They did successfully turn on (and later off) a package from McDonnel Douglas that tested the separation of compounds in micro gravity. McDonnel Douglas spokesmen said that the tests had gone very well and, depending on analysis of the data, they may want to put up an orbiting pharmacy. Meanwhile, the RMS (Canadarm) went through its hardest test to date, lifting and carrying a contamination monitor around the cargo bay; during the test, Mattingly fired steering jets to see how the arm reacted, just like in STS-3. In other news, NASA has said that ships are now above the spot where the SRB's lie on the ocean floor. The ships will send down remote TV's to take pictures of the empty boosters. While NASA has said that the shuttle will not fly until they know why the boosters sank, a spokesman today said he envisioned no delay for STS-5. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 82 22:49:15-PDT (Mon) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!pur-ee!ks at Berkeley Subject: Re: New Shuttle Abort Site - (nf) Article-I.D.: pur-ee.377 Via: news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 18:40-PDT #R:alice:-71300:pur-ee:3800001:000:354 pur-ee!ks Jun 27 15:23:00 1982 Is the shuttle's flight inclination the reason for the change, or is it the security? I was told several months ago that the DoD package required extra security, thus the emergency landing sites had to be at fully defended U.S. bases. This came from a reliable source (an astronaut). Any comments? Am I missing some important detail? Kirk Smith ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 82 7:30:05-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle Update Article-I.D.: alice.735 Via: news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 19:26-PDT The space shuttle is still soaring around the Earth today, and the Getaway Special still has not been activated. Astronauts Hartsfield and Mattingly are to try again today to start it; apparently, there is a problem with a remote control system that is preventing them from doing so. Meanwhile, NASA has attributed the sinking of the SRB'S to malfunctions in their decelerator systems (i.e. parachutes) They say that unless they can find out what happened and correct it in the next pair, STS-5 may have to be delayed. They do not want to lose another pair. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 82 7:45:01-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Re: New Shuttle Abort Site - (nf) Article-I.D.: alice.737 Via: news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 19:29-PDT References: pur-ee.377 Could well be. All the AP story said was that it was for the inclination. No mentioned was made of the DoD package. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 82 7:43:44-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Re: A Few Minor Problems and Sinking of Boosters Article-I.D.: alice.736 Via: news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 19:30-PDT References: watmath.2848 The problem with doing that is all the water (or ice) is left there. This adds weight. NASA says it's the extra weight from the water which may have caused the shuttle not to attain its expected orbit. Also, it could cause some handling problems, or maybe other things. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 82 3:14:37-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!watmath!jcwinterton at Berkeley Subject: Paranoia (rabbit.559) Article-I.D.: watmath.2862 Via: news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 19:22-PDT Russians and Americans and military hardware orbiting concurrently is a worry? My god, what a paranoid thought! There is all kinds of military hardware up there. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 82 18:27:55-PDT (Mon) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!watmath!atbowler at Berkeley Subject: Re: A Few Minor Problems and Sinking of Boosters Article-I.D.: watmath.2848 Via: news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 19:17-PDT References: alice.730 Why is it neccessary to bake out the water by facing the sun? IN that vacuum won't the tiles simply be "freeze dried"? There should be enough heat leakage from the rest of the shuttle to supply the energy, and any spot that the water could leak into is obviously exposed to vacuum. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 82 22:11:36-PDT (Mon) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: SRB Update Article-I.D.: alice.734 Via: news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 19:48-PDT NASA has said that the sinking of the two SRB's was apparently caused by the failure of their decelerator systems. They are supposed to impact on the water at around 60 mph; without the decelerators working, they hit much harder, over their design limit. As part of an investigation into the accident, remote underwater TV pictures will be taken. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 82 11:03:03-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!rabbit!jj at Berkeley Subject: Re: New Shuttle Abort Site - (nf) Article-I.D.: rabbit.575 Via: news.usenet; 29 Jun 82 19:57-PDT References: pur-ee.377 alice.737 Out of curiousity, what happens when the shuttle starts to land with wet felt, the water boils, and the tiles all come off? Could it be that this is the reason for making sure that the tiles are dry? Considering the heat that is generated during re-entry, it seems to me that any moisture left in the tiles would boil, very rapidly in fact, and and blow the tiles off the ship. I don't like the sound of that. ------------------------------ Date: 29 June 1982 2323-EDT From: Lars Ericson at CMU-10A Subject: Lost Shuttle Boosters To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC It seems to me that it would cost significantly less than $25 million to salvage the shuttle boosters (they are 3000 feet down). I am assuming that we have research-vessel type subs (like ALVIN) that can go down that far. Am I wrong on either count? ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 82 20:04:00-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Challenger Unveiling Article-I.D.: alice.741 Via: news.usenet; 30 Jun 82 0:06-PDT The space shuttle Challenger, second in the planned fleet of four, will be dedicated in a short ceremony this Wednesday. After the unveiling, the shuttle will be towed to EAFB where it will be joined by Columbia on Sunday. At that time, the Enterprise, the prototype shuttle, will also be at EAFB, and President Reagan will make his speech in the presence of three space shuttles. [To avoid confusion now, there are no plans to change the name of this newsgroup!] ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 82 15:56:39-PDT (Mon) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!ihnss!ihuxn!djmolny at Berkeley Subject: Re: Russians in Radio Shack Article-I.D.: ihuxn.162 Via: news.usenet; 30 Jun 82 0:10-PDT The closest Russians have come to VLSI technology is a slow, hot, poorly packaged 8080! Remember when the feared Foxbat MIG landed in Japan? Japanese and US teams took it apart, and found that all the electronics were based on vacuum tubes! You call that computer technology? Phooey. -- DJ Molny Bell Labs IH ihnss!ihuxn!djmolny ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 82 20:09:37-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #227 Article-I.D.: alice.742 Via: news.usenet; 30 Jun 82 0:29-PDT References: sri-unix.1954 Columbia is scheduled to land at 0854 EDT this Sunday. It was originally supposed to land at 0915, but a lower orbit due to heavier than expected fuel consumption (possibly due to the extra weight of the water in the tiles) cut the flight down by 19 minutes. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 01-Jul-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #229 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 229 Today's Topics: Salvaging the SRBs. Vacuum tubes in Foxbat MIG Solar Sails at Jupiter distances Mobile Large Space Telescope proposal --> mobile small scope cost per pound electronics in Foxbat ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 June 1982 10:15 edt From: York.Multics at MIT-MULTICS (William M. York) Subject: Salvaging the SRBs. To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Message of 30 June 1982 06:02 edt from Ted Anderson While we do have the capability to salvage the SRB's from 3000 feet down (I am pretty sure the Alvin has made trips down as far as 9000 feet), it is probably just not worth the effort. If they hit the water with no parachutes (excuse me, decelerators), they are probably damaged beyond the tolerances necessary for further launches. The technology in the SRB's is also probably not interesting enough to worry that the Russians will get them if we don't. ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 30 June 1982 09:18-PDT From: KING at KESTREL To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Subject: Vacuum tubes in Foxbat MIG I know we enjoy laughing at the idea of vacuum tubes in a hot fighter, but wasn't that designed to make the fighter EMP-resistent? ------------------------------ From: MINSKY@MIT-ML Date: 07/01/82 01:11:35 To: space at MIT-MC Subject: Solar Sails at Jupiter distances I don't see why solar sails don't work at Jupiter distance; the light pressure is inverse square but so is the sun's gravity. Everything gets slower, of course, and one must not get too close to Jupiter itself, to maintain navigational control. But light-sailing is not for people in a hurry, in the first place. ------------------------------ Date: 1 July 1982 02:23-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Mobile Large Space Telescope proposal --> mobile small scope To: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC Hmm, let's propose development of SEPS and using it to move a small space telescope around to observe occultations? It'd be fun to develop the computer software to optimize the number of occultation experiments during a fixed time without using up all the SEPS propellant or exceeding its maximum thrust. Probably elliptical Earth-orbit with high eccentricity would be optimum, because at perigee a little thrust will move apogee a lot, and observations at apogee will involve mimimum motion of the telescope allowing best picture-taking conditions. Perhaps one occultation can be obtained at each apogee with a polar-elliptical orbit (apogee over a pole or thereabouts, to be orthogonal to the plane in which the planets and asteroids move, so that varying the apogee gives the maximum cross-section for getting an occultation). ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jun 82 19:02:47-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley Subject: cost per pound Article-I.D.: utzoo.2229 Via: news.usenet; 30 Jun 82 23:39-PDT Does anybody know what NASA's original projection for *eventual* cost per pound for Saturn 5 launches was? Remember, the original plans envisioned mass production of the boosters, three or even four launch pads in use at complex 39, possibly an extension to the VAB to add two more bays (there are internal provisions for this), and I think there were at least studies being done on making the lower stages recoverable and reusable. The Saturn 5 was originally going to be the standard NASA heavy launcher well into the 1980's, launching not only lunar missions but also planetary probes and low-earth-orbit cargo. All of this went down the tubes in (I think) 1967, when the decision was made (by Congress) to halt production after the first fifteen. I wonder if the shuttle would really be any cheaper if this hadn't been done. In case anyone is interested, here is what happened to the fifteen that were built: - two unmanned tests - ten used for Apollos 8-17 (Apollo 7 used a Saturn 1B) - one used to launch Skylab #1 (#2 was also intended to fly, but wound up in the Smithsonian after budget cuts) - one rusting on the lawn at Houston - one rusting on the lawn at Kennedy (Yes, the ones on display at Houston and Kennedy were flight-ready boosters, intended for Apollos 18 and 19. Budget cuts.) ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jun 82 19:21:04-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley Subject: electronics in Foxbat Article-I.D.: utzoo.2230 Via: news.usenet; 30 Jun 82 23:43-PDT People who criticize the Foxbat's electronics as primitive obviously saw only the mass-media reports on it. After the first wave of contempt, the people studying it were much impressed with what they saw. True, the stuff was much inferior to what the West can do, but it was an impressive use of the available technology. In particular, it is far cheaper to build than it would have been if it had been designed in the West, even to equivalent specifications. Remember, the total number of Mach 3.0 (or even Mach 2.8) combat aircraft in service in the West is *zero* -- and the Foxbat prototypes started flying nearly twenty years ago. That last point is worth emphasizing: the Western fighters that were being tested and built when the Foxbat started flying were among the first combat aircraft to use transistors instead of tubes. At the time, using tubes in the Foxbat was the only sensible approach -- Russia was of course behind in semiconductor technology, while tubes were cheap and available in quantity. It's also noteworthy that the Foxbat's electronics are (by design) much easier to maintain than those of its Western contemporaries, or even those of more recent Western aircraft. And while that radar may be crude, its power output is so high that it's virtually unjammable. The Foxbat obviously could do with more modern electronics, and there is considerable speculation that just this is in the works. Bear in mind that the Russians seldom hold up production of something that works just because something better is on the way (a habit that tends to plague Western defence purchasing). It would not surprise me if the computers on a hypothetical Russian shuttle were crude, barbarous, and primitive by Western standards, but worked well enough to do the job, and were carefully used so as to minimize the impact of their shortcomings. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 02-Jul-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #230 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 230 Today's Topics: Re: USSR IC production Shuttle Pictures for sale? - (nf) Galileo saw Neptune REAGAN SPACE SPEECH Getaway Special Re: Russians in Radio Shack (Mobile Large Space Telescope proposal --> mobile small scope) proposal Re: Re Proxmire [political opposition to space programs] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Jun 82 22:21:06-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!intelqa!gsp86!murray at Berkeley Subject: Re: USSR IC production Article-I.D.: gsp86.129 Via: news.usenet; 1 Jul 82 4:23-PDT Copying IC's does not reduce yields that significantly, the Japanese have been doing it for years, and look at the position they are in now. (This is not a cut at the Japanese, it is a FACT.) murray at intelqa ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 82 16:28:03-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!krishnan at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle Pictures for sale? - (nf) Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.220 Via: news.usenet; 1 Jul 82 4:30-PDT Does anyone know the address of Laser Photo Art? They have some great shuttle pictures for sale, but I lost their address and I want their catalog. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 82 19:15:41-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley Subject: Galileo saw Neptune Article-I.D.: utzoo.2220 Via: news.usenet; 1 Jul 82 4:32-PDT Actually, Galileo's position for Neptune is considered quite accurate, partly because it is given with respect to the accurately-known position of Jupiter and partly because the way Galileo recorded his observations tended to cancel out some important observational errors. In fact, if Galileo had had setting circles on his telescope, he might have been the discoverer of Neptune. It is clear from his notes that he recognized Neptune as an anomalous object. But he got only a few chances at observations during the time when he could get Jupiter and Neptune in his telescope simultaneously, and without setting circles he had no way of finding a non-naked-eye object without a naked-eye object like Jupiter as a reference. The interest in Galileo's position is because his fairly-accurate position in fact is not quite consistent with the "standard" orbital elements of today. The orbit of Neptune is not really known terribly accurately, and the Galileo sighting (plus some later ones) strongly suggests that either the standard orbital elements are wrong or else an undiscovered planet is perturbing Neptune's orbit. For more details on all this, there was an article in Scientific American in the last year or so. The authors were the people who discovered the Galileo sighting. Sorry, I don't have the exact date handy. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jun 82 11:05:48-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.els at Berkeley Subject: REAGAN SPACE SPEECH Article-I.D.: pur-phy.352 Via: news.usenet; 1 Jul 82 5:39-PDT When is it? The networks seem to be scheduling only minimal coverage of the landing. Will the speech be made after Columbia is safed (I believe that's the term) and towed to the hangar area? If so, why all the fuss about his nibs beauty rest? Doesn't this process take some time? els Purdue (Physics) ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jun 82 20:08:37-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Getaway Special Article-I.D.: alice.745 Via: news.usenet; 1 Jul 82 6:04-PDT Astronauts Ken Mattingly and Henry Hartsfield fixed the Getaway Special today, after receiving instructions from Mission Control on how to complete the circuit that activated the unit. Because of the delay, two of the experiments inside would not work, but the other seven began accumulating data as expected. In other news, the Hartsfield and Mattingly had trouble closing the cargo bay doors all the way, possibly due to some warping from the extreme heat and cold they were subjected to in test; however, after a while, they succeeded in closing them. It is essential that they be closed for reentry. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jun 82 14:35:29-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!duke!mcnc!unc!smb at Berkeley Subject: Re: Russians in Radio Shack Article-I.D.: unc.3637 Via: news.usenet; 1 Jul 82 6:11-PDT Yes, the Foxbat used vacuum tubes, but I've seen speculation that that was deliberate, to give much greater protection against EMP (electro- magnetic pulse) from an atmospheric nuclear blast. ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 1 July 1982 10:14-PDT From: KING at KESTREL To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Subject: (Mobile Large Space Telescope proposal --> mobile small scope) proposal With this proposal, in order to minimize the size and mass of the solar power plant we would need an energy storage facility, so the MLST can gobble up enough energy during 3/4 of its orbit (by distance) and 7/8 of its orbit (by time) and deliver that energy to the propulsion system during the short perigee portion of the orbit. Any ideas? I read the Ames report on Radiation in Space (this was NOT about cosmic rays but about devices such as space-based lasers). They were talking about having two satellites a few dozen KM apart sharing a high energy electron beam. This beam would go back and forth between the two satellites, each of which would contain a 180 degree bending magnet. One of the satellites would also contain hardware for generating and using the beam (there were various designs in the book). A problem is that the distance between the two satellites would not remain constant in an elliptical orbit. I don't know whether this is important. I recommend this book. It's part of a series of about 50 books, each of which contains about two dozen academic papers on one aspect of agressive use of space. I would imagine that the whole series is of such quality. I would definitely recommend that all who have access to a decent university or corperate science library take a look at the series. By the way, what IS the advantage of remaining in Earth orbit. Easy maintainence, I suppose... Dick ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jul 1982 1903-PDT From: Jim McGrath Subject: Re: Re Proxmire [political opposition to space programs] To: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX, space at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Your message of 29-Jun-82 1034-PDT The military is NOT paying $30 million - they are paying in the high teens. I am sure they would need about the same volume if the price was $30 milllion, so this is essentially a gift of NASA funds to the military. I have no doubts at all that the shuttle will do well. Hell, having five years of paying customers in advance is simply OVERKILL. They SHOULD raise prices to decrease demand, since clearly they have the market they need to support the increases. Jim ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 03-Jul-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #231 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 231 Today's Topics: Ooops! Doors Still Not Closed Doors Closed Re: Russians in Radio Shack Times in Antarctica? LUNAR ECLIPSE Shuttle Song Doors Closed -- Challenger Moved Re: Light Sailing Near Jupiter neophyte seeks telescopic expertise press coverage Re: Ooops! Doors Still Not Closed ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Jul 82 7:44:02-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Ooops! Doors Still Not Closed The doors of the cargo bay are still not closed all the way, as had been reported earlier. The problem came when the belly of the ship was exposed to the extreme heat of the sun while the top was exposed to the deep cold of space (all these adjectives!) This caused the edge of one door to warp slightly, preventing the latched that hold the doors closed from hooking together. As with the last flight, the astronauts put the ship in top-side-toward-sun format before going to bed; the night of heat is expected to alleviate the problem. If not, they are prepare to put on pressure suits and take a little space walk to fix the problem manually. It is possible to land with the doors open, but it is likened to doing so in a jet plane; they'd rather not. It would unbalance the aerodynamics of the craft (then a rock) and also expose the inside to the heat of reentry. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jul 82 10:28:51-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Doors Closed Baking the doors in the sun worked again. After a few hours of 250 degree heat, the cargo bay doors are now closed, and no problems were encountered. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jun 82 14:05:10-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!microsof!fluke!amyh at Berkeley Subject: Re: Russians in Radio Shack For those unfamiliar with the problems of producing radiation-hard (radiation resistant) electronics, the Russian plane dismantled by the US was not so "backward" just because it contained lots of vacuum tubes. Vacuum tubes are harder (radiation-wise) than the ic's used in US planes. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jul 82 14:49:09-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!rcmcc at Berkeley Subject: Times in Antarctica? Does anyone know what time-of-day is observed at each of the Antarctic bases? Do any observe Daylight Savings Time? I believe some ( most? ) use GMT. Ron McConnell BTL Whippany ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jul 82 11:57:30-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!we13!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!fred at Berkeley Subject: LUNAR ECLIPSE As a last reminder to everyone interested in the Eclipse. July's Lunar Eclipse The evening of July 5-6. ECLIPSE TIMES EST(local Indianapolis time) First penumbral 11:22 pm First umbral 12:33 am Totality begins 1:38 am Mid-eclipse 2:31 am Totality ends 3:24 am Last umbral 4:29 am Last penumbral 5:40 am Jog before work 6:00 am Start work 7:45 am This will be the longest lunar eclipse than any since 1906. The moon will pass very near the center of the Earths shadow. The Moon might in fact become invisible at mid-totality but it is hard to predict how dim it will become. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jul 82 12:07:17-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!we13!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!fred at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle Song In honor of STS-4.... In April 1981 the world was in a mess The lousy Russian communist were flying in space the best We got to raise Columbia was the cry throughout the land It is time for free men everywhere to make their final stand. We got to raise Columbia cause the world depends on us We got to raise Columbia and squash a Russian fuss So hit the gantry running boys and swing those rockets down Its time we got Columbia up off the bloody ground Out of the dark and lonely night came a mighty man John Young And with his faithful copilot Bob Crippen the story's sung They climbed aboard Columbia the rest is history They paved a way to the stars so mankind can be free. We got to raise Columbia cause the world depends on us We got to raise Columbia and squash a Russian fuss So hit the gantry running boys and swing those rockets down Its time we got Columbia up off the bloody ground With apologies to J. Horton (sung to the tune of Sink the Bismark) Fred !ihnss!inuxc!fred ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jul 82 19:50:21-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Doors Closed -- Challenger Moved The doors are closed. After they were closed, mission control said that the ship could not land with them ajar (as I had said earlier) Wind turbulence, they said, would have torn the ship apart. The astronauts were then told that, if they had to make an emergency landing at any time, they should turn the ship top-towards-the-sun to bake the doors for as long as possible to ensure that they could close. The space shuttle Challenger was formally given to NASA yesterday, and today it made its first voyage: from its hangar to EAFB. There it will meet its sister, the Columbia, on Sunday. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jul 82 23:01:28-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!ech at Berkeley Subject: Re: Light Sailing Near Jupiter Minsky remarks that light pressure is inverse square, but so is the force of gravity; that, to a first approximation, is of course true. However, the force of the sun's gravity is NOT the issue: delta-v is. Using the light sail to KILL momentum (so you can come back) is just as important as using it to gain momentum, and the change in momentum is exactly proportional to the force applied, which remains inverse-square. =Ned Horvath= ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jul 82 19:58:20-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!pur-ee!rdu at Berkeley Subject: neophyte seeks telescopic expertise In the course of my unschooled browsing for a first telescope I have encountered a curiosity: two telescopes whose specifications seem roughly equivalent and yet whose prices are disparate. The two are the Celestron C90 and the Questar 3 1/2. According to their brochures they have the same design (Maksutov-Cassegrain), aperture (3.5 inches) and approximate resolution (1.0 arc seconds for the Questar vs. 1.3 for the C90). The C90 even achieves a higher "maximum useful" power (210x vs. 130x) and yet the Questar costs about four times as much. Why? I would be interested in others' knowledge or opinions on what makes a good amateur telescope, because apparently my original intuitions (light- gathering, resolution, power) are inadequate. How do different designs compare? (Here I would consider actual experience more telling than theory.) How important are special lens coatings? How real are qualitative considerations like sturdiness and workmanship? Sign me In the Dark in Indiana [ Mark Raabe (pur-ee!rdu) Purdue Library Systems ] ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 1982 at 1558-CDT From: kjm at UTEXAS-11 Subject: press coverage To: space at mit-mc Do wire sevices originate from somewhere in left field? Today, the Austin American-Statesman (the local rag) carried a wire service report which contained the following sentence: "Then they fired one of Columbia's three main engines briefly to raise their orbit to 195 miles..." Gee, today orbital rendezvous and mating with an ET (boosted clandestinely by a top-secret USAF heavy-lift vehicle, no doubt); tomorrow, who knows? (Haw!) Ken Montgomery ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 82 8:39:36-PDT (Fri) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!sdcsvax!davidson at Berkeley Subject: Re: Ooops! Doors Still Not Closed "the deep cold of space" indeed! I hope that was facetious, but anyway, I feel I should remind people that space at the distance the Columbia is flying is a much better vacuum than that of a Thermos bottle. Other than in esoteric measures (the temperature of the background radiation, or the "temperature" of the solar wind), space can be thought of as not having any temperature. The only way you can lose (or gain) heat in space is through radiative transfer. Does anyone have any data on to what extent the Columbia's coloring is due to the intended effects on its albedo, how much is has to do with other desired properties of the materials, and how much is due to esthetics? Greg Davidson usenet: ...!ucbvax!sdcsvax!davidson arpanet: davidson@nprdc ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 06-Jul-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #232 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 232 Today's Topics: Shuttle landing and Reagan's speech RE: Americans , Soviets and military hardware in space. Re: Science in the Soviet Union - (nf) Shuttle Meets Garbage Re: Science in the Soviet Union - (nf) Heater Failure not Serious Boosters STS-5 May Come Early Challenger and Astronauts in Houston **LANDING** Foxbat/Russian shuttle electronics Eclipse & phase of the moon ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: REM@MIT-ML Date: 07/04/82 14:53:00 Subject: Shuttle landing and Reagan's speech Reagan spoke of an increased presence in space, thus adopting the terminology we've been using to advocate a space station, but didn't specifically mention a space station or platform. My guess is he's leaning towards a space station but doesn't think it has enough public support for him to be willing to stick his neck out and advocate it. Reagan also spoke of encouraging private investment in space. I don't have any idea whether he's entertaining the idea of letting a private company (or consortium) purchase their own shuttle, or building more government-owned orbiters to satisfy commercial demand, or what. Otherwise I didn't hear anything new, just the old stuff about opening space to everyone, manufacturing chemicals and biological materials, etc. The timing was good, with the 747+Challanger taking off (at the President's command) at the beginning of his speech and then it doing a flyby at the end of his speech during the singing. His speech was also technically much better than his speeches and news conferences usually are. For example, he referred to space as having nearly zero gravity and a nearly perfect vacuum (thus avoiding the slight mistruth about zero gravity but avoiding the current jargon of "micro-gravity" that most of the listeners wouldn't understand), and he referred to our space program as having the technological lead in the world (thus avoiding saying we are the leader in use of space which would be false since the USSR has a space station already that has been occupied 50% of the time in recent years and thus leads us in actual use of space and in training for permanent habitation). Thus I applaud his slick speech in which he expressed no reservations about a continued space program, but I'm disappointed that he proposed none of the programs we need (LEO station, SEPS, exploring for Hydrogen&Carbon, a 5th and 6th orbiter). I'm also disappointed that no network had good coverage of the landing&speech. NBC had no coverage at all. ABC and CBS covered the landing but ABC had technical trouble, putting on video for a comercial ad on top of shuttle audio. Only ABC covered the President's speech live at all. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 82 6:51:08-PDT (Fri) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Berkeley Subject: RE: Americans , Soviets and military hardware in space. This would appear to be the first time that so many people are in space at the same time. However , the fact that there are soviets and americans in space at the same time , and that the americans are caryying a military payload , does not neccassarily mean that it is some sort of destructive weapon. It is probably some sort of surveilance device. If it isn't ,oh well. if the USA and USSR decide to start military eptification in space , then it is very sad. Perhaps they should not be in space at all. Raymond S., ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 82 19:26:29-PDT (Fri) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!kolstad at Berkeley Subject: Re: Science in the Soviet Union - (nf) Come close to western standards? I have an explorer post and a computer club: 40% of the kiddies in the explorer post have their own microcomputers (w/disks, s/w, etc). The computer club runs 40 kiddies on plato -- 4 CDC 6400 mainframes, 40Mb of swapping MEMORY, 13000Mb of disk. These kids range from 7th to 12th grade. I don't believe Soviet technology comes close to this one particular western standard. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 82 7:30:57-PDT (Fri) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Shuttle Meets Garbage The Columbia passed within 7.7 miles of an old, spinning Soviet rocket booster bottom stage last night; NASA says there was no cause for danger, but the astronauts would have taken evasive action if there was a chance of the two, both moving at 17,000 mph, colliding. They never even saw it. Meanwhile, Challenger is now at EAFB, waiting for her day on Sunday. There is still a possibility of the Enterprise being there, but it is not definite. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jul 82 15:26:42-PDT (Sun) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!grunwald at Berkeley Subject: Re: Science in the Soviet Union - (nf) The problem remains that you look at soviet technology from the context of american technology when the two are not comparable. The USSR came out of WWII with a large number of it's production facilties (what little they had) blow to shreds. They had famaine and large numbers of dead. Many of the dead were the people who would be needed to rebuild their country. To not realise the great strides made by the Soviets is to do them and yourself a disservice. Underestimating their ability and determination to never have these things happen to themselves has caught the USA with it's pants down several times -- when the USSR detonated its first atmoic weapon, when they lanuched Sputnik, when they detonated the hydrogen weapons and when they earnestly got involved in a space program. It bothers me for some reason that people are so unwilling to see that despite their obviously uncool political setup, the USSR has made more advances in the time given then most other countries. To ignore said point is to open the door to contempt, something that can not be afforded between two superpowers who have enough power to destroy life as we know it. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jul 82 9:26:49-PDT (Sat) To: space at mit-mc From: npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Heater Failure not Serious A second heater in Columbia's fuel cell system failed yesterday, but officials switched to a backup, just as they did a couple days ago when the first one failed. Each full cell has two heaters, which control the pressure of liquid hydrogen flowing into the cell. Officials said that even if the backup heaters were to fail, there would be no problem with generating power. Columbia is scheduled to land tomorrow at 1210 EDT. CBS will begin coverage from EAFB at 1200; ABC will show the landing from 1200 to 1215, Reagan and the astronauts from 1245 to 1300, and Reagan's space policy speech from 1345 to 1405. NBC does not plan to have any live coverage of the event. A White House spokesman said yesterday that Reagan's speech will call for a greater American presence in space, but he will stop short of endorsing either a fifth space shuttle or a manned space station. [Funny, I wonder how he plans to have a greater presence if he doesn't want to give us anything to do it with!] ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jul 82 21:27:04-PDT (Sat) To: space at mit-mc From: npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Boosters Article-I.D.: alice.770 Via: news.usenet; 4 Jul 82 12:35-PDT Navy ships today photographed one of the two SRB's that are lying on the bottom of the ocean. The films revealed that the booster was intact, and that is prompting NASA officials to debate whether or not to salvage at least some of it to help find out why its parachutes did not open. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jul 82 19:57:34-PDT (Sun) To: space at mit-mc From: npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: STS-5 May Come Early The Columbia returned to Earth in such good shape today that James Abrahamson, director of space transportation systems for NASA, said that STS-5, now scheduled for 11 November, could come up to 4 weeks early, depending on whether or not the two companies that are to have satellites aboard will be ready by then. He also said that NASA has decided to go ahead and recover as much as they can of one of the two SRB's that sank. They hope that tape recorders on the booster will help decide what caused their parachutes to fail and subsequently them to hit the surface of the ocean at over 300 mph. He said that one theory was that the lightening that accompanied the prelaunch storm may have damaged the boosters. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jul 82 9:29:22-PDT (Mon) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Challenger and Astronauts in Houston The Challenger and astronauts Mattingly and Hartsfield arrived in Houston yesterday and spent the night there. Today, Challenger will go on to KSC, where it will be prepared for January's launch. The astronauts now have a few weeks of paperwork and debriefings to do. The Columbia will be prepared for its ferry back to KSC during that time, and it should be ready for a launch in October or November. [I'll miss a week's news at USENIX, but I'm very glad that I got to see both the launch and the landing!] ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jul 82 12:19:42-PDT (Sun) To: space at mit-mc From: npois!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: **LANDING** Article-I.D.: alice.773 Via: news.usenet; 5 Jul 82 20:14-PDT The Columbia sailed in to a perfect landing just a few minutes ago on runway 22, the concrete runway at EAFB. Unofficial flight time was 7 days, 1 hour, 9 minutes, and 40 seconds. In about 30 minutes, Reagan will greet the astronauts as they come out of the ship and after that, he will deliver his speech. When that is over, the Challenger will take off for KSC, but before it clears EAFB air space, the 747 it is attached to will perform some turns and other maneuvers for the President. ------------------------------ Date: 3 July 1982 1204-EDT From: Lars Ericson at CMU-10A Subject: Foxbat/Russian shuttle electronics To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC "..crude, barbarous and primitive.." Hmm. Do suppose they might be running 5 PDP-8/S's networked with asynchronous line interfaces? ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 6 July 1982 05:22-EDT From: Vince Fuller To: SPACE at MIT-MC Subject: Eclipse & phase of the moon Does anyone out there have algorithms for a) Calculating times of eclipses and b) Calculating relative totality at a point in time during the eclipse (e.g. how much of the moon is visible, how much is visible due to refraction, etc.) I have a program here which calculates and displays the phase of the moon, and a rather serious bug became evident starting at around 1:30 (EDT) this morning.... --vaf ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 07-Jul-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #233 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 233 Today's Topics: Lawn chairs and killer shuttles Shuttle OMS and RCS Here! HERE! Shuttle Meets Garbage A Celestial?? Object--A request for ID shuttle/booster miss Mailing-list for "List of lists" update notices ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 July 1982 16:49 edt Subject: Lawn chairs and killer shuttles Sender: COMSAT.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS To: space at MIT-MC From: Tim Walters Two UPI articles of interest. No, he's not a relative of mine... (UPI) LONG BEACH, Calif. -- Look, up in the sky. Is it a bird, a plane, the space shuttle? No. It's Larry Walters at 16,000 feet in his lawn chair. Walters, 33, a truck driver, spent nearly two hours in the air Friday in an aluminum lawn chair suspended from a 50-foot cable attached to 45 helium-filled weather balloons. Among other things, he threw a scare into a couple of airline pilots who happened across the path of his weird flying contraption. "I know it sounds strange but it's true," said a Long Beach police officer. "The guy just filled up some balloons with helium, strapped on a parachute, grabbed a BB gun and took off." But everything didn't go as planned and Walters had a few dicey moments as he started getting numb in the cold atmosphere at 16,000 feet and decided to descend -- which he accomplished by popping some of the balloons with the BB gun. As he neared the ground he saw power lines. "That's when I got scared," he said. "Those things can fry you." He didn't get fried, the balloons draped themselves across the wires, leaving Walters dangling in his chair a few feet off the ground and he dropped to earth. The landing knocked out power in the neighborhood for 20 minutes. "I have fulfilled my 20-year dream," said Walters, a truck driver for a company that makes TV commercials. "I'm staying on the ground. I proved to myself that the thing works." In addition to the BB gun and the parachute, Walter carried several one-gallon water jugs for ballast, a life vest and a CB radio. "But the best piece of equipment was the lawn chair," Walters said. "It was a Sears. It was extremely comfortable." Walters told authorities he was trying to drift to the Mojave Desert, site of Sunday's scheduled space shuttle Columbia landing, but the winds didn't cooperate. "I wasn't trying to upstage the space shuttle," Walters said. "I would have landed well away from there. I just wanted to lay back and enjoy it all, but I had to do something when my toes started getting numb." Police said they probably would not file charges against Walters. But the Federal Aviation Administration was investigating, mainly because of the scare Walters gave the airline pilots who came across him at 16,000 feet in his flying lawn chair. LOS ANGELES (UPI) -- The United States has detected a Soviet test of what some analysts believe may be "the world's first fighter spacecraft," The Los Angeles Times reported today. U.S. sources said the delta-winged, one-ton craft -- believed to be an unmanned model of a previously detected Soviet space shuttle weighing about 20 tons -- was launched from a site near the Caspian Sea and dropped by parachute into the Pacific, below the Equator, where a seven-ship Russian fleet waited to recover it, the Times said. The test caught the United States "off guard," the newspaper said, because "U.S. intelligence agencies expected the flight one day later." But the United States did obtain some telemetry data and photos of the craft, the Times said, which "some Pentagon officials believe could become the world's first fighter spacecraft." The prototype Soviet shuttle is far smaller than the 86-ton U.S. shuttle craft, scheduled to complete a fourth mission Sunday. But U.S. officials believe it is big enough to carry five or six persons to a space station and its successors could be used on "purely military missions, such as reconnaisance in space, command posts or as weapons carriers," the Times said in a story from Washington. "These officials believe the Soviet shuttle could be used to inspect U.S. or other nations satellites in orbit and, if equipped with weapons, destroy them on command." The Times quoted an unnamed U.S. official as saying this would be "more of a political demonstration during this decade than an effective weapon system ... but it could grow into an effective weapons system in time." The Soviets have been testing, with mixed results, a ground-launched anti-satellite system, using a rocket-launched warhead designed to close in on a satellite in orbit and explode, shredding the satellite with shrapnel. The United States has designed, but not tested, an anti-satellite rocket that would be launched at high altitude from a jet fighter, soar into orbit and ram the target. The current shuttle flight includes its first military use, transportation of a device the Pentagon has refused to discuss, but technical publications have described as sensors for early warning satellites, designed to detect missile launches. [Maybe the US should consider trade restrictions on Sears lawn chairs to keep the Russians from building up a civilian antisatellite defence force...TW] ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jul 1982 at 1716-CDT From: kjm at UTEXAS-11 Subject: Shuttle OMS and RCS To: space at mit-mc Does anyone know the specific impulse developed by the shuttle's OMS and RCS engines, or where to find these figures? KJM ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jul 82 9:34:14-PDT (Mon) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!ralph at Berkeley Subject: Here! HERE! Here! Here! to uiucdcs!grunwald's comments. There is nothing wrong with nationalistic pride, but let us not put down the USSR. They have done much since WWII, and there is much we could learn from them. Why don't we opt for the adage "Know your enemy". If we know them better we can learn from them. If we know them well enough, we can become friends. It would be nice to replace all spy satellites and killer satellites with comsats and weather satellites. ralph hill ...!decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!ralph ------------------------------ Date: 6 July 1982 16:25-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Shuttle Meets Garbage To: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!sjb at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC If both the shuttle and the old booster were traveling at 17,000 MPH in the same direction, their relative velocity would be zero and they could safely bump aside each other without damage, in fact we could grapple the booster with the canadarm and remove it from space. But the way the message was presented here (SPACE) and on comercial television made it sound like they were traveling in opposite directions, giving 34,000 MPH relative velocity, where even a loose dishrag could do considerable damage to a spaceship. But I consider that very unlikely since the shuttle was orbited in an eastward direction to take advantage of the Earth's rotation, just like most other satelites. In fact I've never heard of anything being orbited in a Westward direction. Polar orbits are possible, but the odds are against the booster being in a polar orbit. Mostly likely is that the booster and the shuttle were both going approximately the same directon, with their velocity difference being (in magnitude) some small fraction of their orbital velocity (like perhaps 170 MPH) which would still be dangerous in the event of of a collision between shuttle and booster but not as bad as the scare stories of 17,000 MPH each seem to imply. Does anybody know the correct relative velocity of this near-collision? ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jul 82 0:21:08-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npois!alice!rabbit!jj at Berkeley Subject: A Celestial?? Object--A request for ID This is a requst for ID of an object seen at 10PM EDT on 7/5/82. The object was located at the following point: Standing in Murray Hill, NJ, and facing exact south(that much I can do.) the object was about 10 degrees south of overhead and about 15 degrees east of overhead. It was bright, variable, and of a blue/violet shade that varied/seemingly periodically. There were no other bright objects near it, but it seemed to have a motion toward the west/southwest. (Let's say 10 degrees south of west, more or less). The object caught my eye because of its variable nature.(Could be atmospheric, but didn't seem that way) and it's seeming motion relative to stars/other bodies. My observations were over about 10 minutes, and not very accurate, but it seemed to move about 5 degrees in 10 minutes, which is a bit faster than earth rotation, to put it mildly. If there is a planet near there and it was mere atmospheric junk that cought my eye, sorry. Mail me. If it isn't a planet, any really convincing guesses will be summarized. I haven't the least idea. Mail me, don't clutter the net. ------------------------------ Date: 6 July 1982 19:05-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: shuttle/booster miss To: SPACE at MIT-MC I found the info I was requesting. The closing speed of the shuttle and booster was 6,100 MPH. Since each craft was going 17,000 MPH, I conclude they were both in roughly eastward orbits but at an angle of roughly 20 degrees at the point of crossing. The figure of "17,000 MPH each" that was blasted by the TV was misleading without the closing speed also listed, but 6,100 MPH would still have been catastrophic if they had collided. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jul 1982 2327-PDT From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich) Subject: Mailing-list for "List of lists" update notices To: All mailing-lists: cc: ZELLICH For those of you not previously aware of it, I maintain a master list of ARPANET mailing-lists/digests/discussion groups (currently 756 lines or ~29,000 characters) on OFFICE-3 in file: INTEREST-GROUPS.TXT For ARPANET users, OFFICE-3 supports the net-standard ANONYMOUS login within FTP, with any password. To keep people up to date on the large number of such lists, I have established a mailing list for list-of-lists \update notices/. I do not propose to send copies of the list itself to the world at large, but for those ARPANET users who seriously intend to FTP the updated versions when updated, I will send a brief notice that a new version is available. For those counterparts at internet sites who maintain or redistribute copies for their own networks (DECNet, Xerox, etc.) and can't reach the master by ARPANET FTP, I will send out the complete new file. I do \not/ intend to send file copies to individual users, either ARPANET or internet; our system is fairly heavily loaded, and we can't afford it. There is no particular pattern to the update frequency of INTEREST- GROUPS.TXT; I will occasionally receive a burst of new mailing-lists or perhaps a single change of address for a host or mailing-list coordinator, and then have a long period with no changes. To get on the list, send requests to ZELLICH@OFFICE-3, \not/ to the mailing-list this message appears in. Cheers, Rich ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 08-Jul-82 0301 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #234 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 234 Today's Topics: Re: shuttle photos Short Wave Fequencies for Shuttle ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Jul 1982 1218-EDT From: J-MILLER at CMU-20C Subject: Re: shuttle photos To: space at MIT-MC The address for Impact laser photo prints is: Impact 125 Mason Circle, unit J Concord, California 94520 They do have some really good shuttle photos. I think a catalog costs $2. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jul 82 2:16:58-PDT (Sun) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!fortune!kiessig at Berkeley Subject: Short Wave Fequencies for Shuttle Article-I.D.: fortune.98 Via: news.usenet; 8 Jul 82 2:29-PDT I heard recently that in addition to the shuttle's communications being available via that 900 number, that they can also be heard on certain short-wave frequencies. Does anyone know WHICH frequencies? Rick ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 09-Jul-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #235 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 235 Today's Topics: ephemerides programs Anybody heard of S.S.I. ? STS-4 Questions lawn chairs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Jul 82 11:14:34-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!ihps3!ihuxl!rjnoe at Berkeley Subject: ephemerides programs Does anyone know where I can get an algorithm (and/or code) for calculating ephemerides (tables of the apparent positions of the planets and the moon)? While I understand most of the basic underlying astrodynamic principles, I know there are some programs in use which are plenty accurate for my uses and I do not want to bother developing a program which already exists. Please respond to ihuxl!rjnoe Roger Noe ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 82 12:35:30-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!npois!houxi!u1100a!rick at Berkeley Subject: Anybody heard of S.S.I. ? I have a letter requesting funds from a group calling themselves Space Studies Institute. They are based in Princeton, NJ. Their letter comes with an endorsement by Isaac Asimov stating that "S.S.I. is the major organization working to make space manufacturing and space colonies possible". My question is this: Does anybody know anything about them? Do they deserve anything more than to have their letters thrown out with the dirty diapers? I have thought seriously about sending money to the L5 Society, because I have heard of them and I know that they are doing useful stuff. But I have never heard of S.S.I. Please reply by mail. Thanks, Rick Thomas houxi!u1100a!rick ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jul 82 1:06:19-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!npois!houxi!houca!lime!we13!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!ralph at Berkeley Subject: STS-4 Questions Columbia and crew did it once again!!!! Great!!!!! However, was it just my imagination or was the network news coverage poorer this time around? I'm not only referring to the landing but it seemed to me that I could find very little information about the flight on either the morning or evening news. Question two, has anybody read the report the President was talking about at the landing? Is there anything really meaningful in that report? I heard a lot of words with the right sounds to them but he could have picked them up by reading one L-5 News or the jacket to the High Frontier. He seemed to stop short of making any commitment. So, what is the story, is he going to back a sound space program or our we being given the shaft again? It sure was nice seeing three shuttles together in one place. Made Edwards look like a for real space port. REACH FOR THE STARS Fred- BTL Indianapolis ------------------------------ Date: 9 July 1982 01:54-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: lawn chairs To: SPACE at MIT-MC The suggestion of restricting export of lawn chairs to USSR because they might be used in anti-satellite warfare, is absurd. A lawn chair has many uses, including lounging out in the pateo or on the lawn. It's a general-purpose device like a CPU chip that can be used for both military and non-military purposes (mostly the latter). Hey you all, let's stop trying to restrict trade of general-purpose devices, ok? Restrict weapons, not lawn chairs! ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 10-Jul-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #236 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 236 Today's Topics: Re: lawn chairs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Jul 82 11:08:18-PDT (Fri) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!houxe!houxi!hou5d!elr at Berkeley Subject: Re: lawn chairs Article-I.D.: hou5d.114 Via: news.usenet; 9 Jul 82 19:35-PDT References: sri-unix.2043 While I agree that the suggestion of restricting export of lawn chairs to the USSR for their use in anti-satellite warfare is absurd; they still could be used as weapons. For instance; they could convert them to the deadly beach chair and use them to line their coast. So when our troops storm their beach they will trip on the chairs, sprain their ankles, and be sitting ducks for the Russian Lifeguards to take them hostage. Another military application for these lawn chairs is to place them under a shade tree at the front line with the country you are battling with. The tired enemy troops (us) will see them and sit down to rest. Almost immediately they will fall through the weavings becoming hopelessly stuck and taken prisoner. Therefore we should all write our congress-creatures and get them to pass legislation restricting the sale of lawn chairs to the USSR for national security reasons. Elliot Rappaport BTL - Holmdel ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 11-Jul-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #237 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 237 Today's Topics: unauthorized vehicles ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Jul 82 12:10:24-PDT (Sat) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxa!mhuxh!lute at Berkeley Subject: unauthorized vehicles Article-I.D.: mhuxh.1016 Via: news.usenet; 10 Jul 82 23:15-PDT I heard this a couple of nights ago on NBC's Nightly News. As many of you know, the fellow that took that lawn chair on a ride to see the Columbia's touchdown had the bare minimum of equipment for such a ride. He had: several dozen weather balloons, a lawn cahir(as a cockpit), several one-gallon jerry jugs filled with water for ballast, two pairs of glasses (in case he lost a pair, which he did), a BB gun to blast balloons for descent and a CB radio to keep in contact with his girlfriend on the ground. Well, he didn't make it to the Shuttle landing area, but he did reach an altitude of 16,000 feet. In so doing, he scared the daylights out of the pilots of two seperate commercial aircraft that spotted him while they were flying their normal routes! As it turns out, although this guy landed safely and is now preparing to become a rich man from selling the story rights about his joyride, the FAA has stepped in, presenting the man with criminal charges. The charges are (or is I should say): FLYING AN UNAUTHORIZED VEHICLE IN A CONTROLLED AIRSPACE. This is probably the first time in the history of aviation that a lawn chair has been considered an unauthorized vehicle! Jim Collymore mhuxh!lute ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 12-Jul-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #238 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 238 Today's Topics: Re: Lawn Chairs in Controlled Airspace Brazil in Space Do you believe this? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 July 1982 2155-edt From: C. D. Tavares Subject: Re: Lawn Chairs in Controlled Airspace To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Actually, it won't be the lawn chair that's considered the "vehicle", but the weather balloons. The relevant chapter concerns manned and unmanned kites, balloons, and rockets. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 1982 2325-PDT From: Jim McGrath Subject: Brazil in Space To: space at MIT-MC cc: arms-d at MIT-MC That nation has announced that they will try to put a man in space on their own by the end of the decade. Since we plan on providing space for spacers of most other nationalities on the shuttle, their promise that the technology will be "used for peaceful purposes only" does not ring true with me. Jim ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 1982 0027-PDT From: Ron Goldman Subject: Do you believe this? To: space at MIT-MC n511 2257 11 Jul 82 BC-SAUCER-07-12 EDITORS: The following is from the London Telegraph and is for use only in the United States and Canada. By David Brown Daily Telegraph, London (Field News Service) LONDON - British Rail, beleaguered by more earthly problems, has abandoned a bizarre project to build the world's first flying saucer. A patent for the disc-shaped, nuclear-powered spacecraft was taken out nine years ago but the idea has been quietly shelved in the struggle to sustain Britain's nationalized rail transit system. The saucer was designed by the British Rail research and development staff, which visualized a saucer-shaped vehicle capable of carrying 22 passengers into space at speeds far in excess of existing aircraft. But British Rail could not afford the development costs, which would have run into billions of dollars. Specifications and drawings for the patent, number 1310990, now lie gathering dust in the Patent Office in London. No prototype of the spacecraft as built and not even a scale model exists. Plans show a disc-shaped vehicle about 120 feet in diameter, powered by a nuclear reactor and a series of laser beams. It would have been propelled by highly charged particles of energy deflected around and below the craft by an array of electro-magnets. Its capacity for acceleration and sustained high speeds would have been so great that it was hoped artificial gravity would be created inside the spaceship to eliminate the problems of weightlessness for passengers. According to British Rail, the project was a spin off from existing research work at Derby, where research is being done on lasers and on high-speed trains in the 1960s. END nyt-07-12-82 0157edt *************** ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 13-Jul-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #239 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 239 Today's Topics: Robins Air Force Base Brazil in Space Brazil's Space Program Re: Brazil in Space lawn chairs & flying saucers Dial-A-Shuttle ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Jul 82 23:10:56-PDT (Sun) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Robins Air Force Base Robins AFB is going to start playing a part in the shuttle system. It will maintain computers that enable military systems around the world to communicate with each other. Nine of the eighteen satellites that will make up its Navstar Global Positioning System will be placed in orbit by the shuttle with seven to be launched aboard Delta F boosters. ------------------------------ Date: 12 July 1982 09:09-EDT From: Gail Zacharias Subject: Brazil in Space To: CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE cc: ARMS-D at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC Date: 11 Jul 1982 2325-PDT From: Jim McGrath To: space at MIT-MC cc: arms-d at MIT-MC That nation has announced that they will try to put a man in space on their own by the end of the decade. Since we plan on providing space for spacers of most other nationalities on the shuttle, their promise that the technology will be "used for peaceful purposes only" does not ring true with me. Indeed, why would they conceivably want to do something on their own if they can be dependent on us instead! ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 1982 1156-EDT From: David C. Feldmeier Subject: Brazil's Space Program To: space at MIT-MC cc: dcf at MIT-XX My uncle used to live in Brazil and he would be in the US a few days every other month. On these occasions we talked about Brazil. Brazil is a military dictatorship run by the army (my uncle, once as a 'guest of the army' got priority on an air force transport over two air force officers!). Brazil is also fairly technologically advanced and has a 500% import tax on most items to encourage you to buy Brazilian. They manufacture almost anything. The have been engaged in a peace-time rocketry program for a few years. Also they happen to be engaged in peaceful nuclear research with Argentina last I heard. They need power, but their hydroelectric capacity is incredable and they hardly need nuclear power. With the high level of technology, research into nuclear power (supposedly capable of atomic weapons by the 1990's) and now this rocketry program, it's not hard to guess what they might be up to. Dave. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 1982 1728-PDT From: Jim McGrath Subject: Re: Brazil in Space To: GZ at MIT-MC cc: ARMS-D at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC Subject: Brazil in Space From: Gail Zacharias Indeed, why would they conceivably want to do something on their own if they can be dependent on us instead! Indeed, why would they? For commercial transport they should depend upon us (or rather hopefully US companies) just as people do for most high tech services. The only real justification for having an independent capability, especially one developed at a cost of billions of dollars, thousands of man-years of scarce scientists and engineers, and decades behind other nations, is for military reasons (national pride does NOT justify such a fantastic outlay - a smaller one dedicated to joint missions with the US or the USSR is another matter of course). In particular such technology can be used for ICBM development. Given that Brazil is ruled byy a military government, I really doubt they are going to expend all those resources and expect no new militaryy capabilities in return. Jim PS note that the same can be said of the US auto and steel industries, although here at least we make no bones that a major reason for having such large domestic capacity is to supply the military in times of crisis. I object to Brazil's blatant falsehoods about "peaceful" uses of space (along with India's about "peaceful" atomic "devices"), since misinformation is something that should be reduced whenever possible. ------------------------------ Date: 12 July 1982 23:49 cdt From: VaughanW at HI-Multics (Bill Vaughan) Subject: lawn chairs & flying saucers Sender: VaughanW.REFLECS at HI-Multics To: space at MIT-MC not all lawn chairs should be forbidden export licenses to the Soviet bloc -- only those high-technology lawn chairs which the Russians can't make themselves. Of course, we should immediately consider exporting our most sophisticated lawn chairs to Israel, so they can be tested under real battle conditions. ----- ----- ----- on a more serious note, the british railways flying saucer sounds a lot like the magnetohydrodynamic (mhd) flying saucer that was discussed some years back in a fact article in analog science fiction magazine. the article was later reprinted with other fact articles in something called (i think) the analog reader. i remember almost nothing about it, but the author was quite serious. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 82 0:15:43-PDT (Sun) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!duke!mcnc!unc!smb at Berkeley Subject: Dial-A-Shuttle According to AT&T, more than a million calls were made to the special "dial-a-shuttle" number during STS-4. The busiest time was during landing, with over 8000 calls in the final nine minutes of the flight. This was the first time the number was publicly available, though journalists (and readers of this list....) had access to the line during the first three flights. NASA says that some callers were disappointed by the paucity of communications between the astronauts and Houston. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 14-Jul-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #240 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 240 Today's Topics: Europe in Space Dial-A-Shuttle High Frontier ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Jul 1982 0933-EDT From: David C. Feldmeier Subject: Europe in Space To: space at MIT-MC cc: dcf at MIT-XX Perhaps pride is enough reason to embark on a space program, or certainly profits. Look at the European Ariane for example. I find it hard to believe that Europe is looking for military space capability. As for profits, the vehicle was designed as an inexpensive way to orbit payloads (and compete for business with the shuttle). This week's "Aviation Week & Space Technology" has an article "Europe Considers Future Manned Role in Space". In this article is mentioned ideas for a European manned orbital vehicle, including France's Hermes (a small winged vehicle). It seems to me that with joint Soviet missions and Spacelab missions with the US that the only reason to do it yourself is patriotism. It will be interesting to see whether Brazil ever launches a manned space vehicle... Dave. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jul 82 13:28:10 EDT From: cobb at NBS-VMS Subject: Dial-A-Shuttle The reason you don't hear all that much on the Dial-A-Shuttle number is that Houston and the Shuttle can only talk to one another when the shuttle is over a ground station, which doesn't happen all that often. The Shuttle is in such a low orbit that the horizon is only a few hundred miles, and it's moving so fast that it covers that distance fairly quickly. Twenty minutes talking to the same ground station is a long pass. You have to know when the shuttle is over a ground station in order to get anything out of the phone number besides the recording. Unfortunately, the ground stations are pretty randomly scattered, and the shuttle doesn't cover the same ones on successive orbits because the Earth rotates under it. In order to predict ground station passes, you need either: - a fairly sophisticated orbital trajectory program, or - a copy of NASA's flight plan, which has (among other goodies) a map of the shuttle's ground track, including markers indicating which ground stations are in communication with the shuttle at what times. Once you correct for the difference between planned and actual liftoff times, the map is very accurate. The flight plan is included in the Shuttle Mission Press Kit (at least it was in the one for STS-3), so pester your friendly neighborhood newspaperman. Second topic: The article I read said that AT&T had collected $1.2 million dollars on that number during the last mission. That's not peanuts! That's quite a few percent of the cost of the mission. What are the chances of NASA collecting some royalties here? After all, they're \providing/ the signal; Ma Bell is just moving it around. Even if NASA can't get any of the money directly, that sure shows that there's a helluva lot of popular support out there for the space program. Probably more than most congressmen realize... Stewart PS - Does anyone have a program for calculating ground tracks/ground station coverage? Can anyone provide pointers to the appropriate algorithms? (Supposedly they fly an HP-41 calculator on the Shuttle that's programmed to display upcoming ground stations, so it can't be that hard.) ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 1982 1342-PDT From: Tom Wadlow Subject: High Frontier To: space at MIT-MC The July 14 issue of ELECTRONICS magazine has a Washington Commentary (pg. 70) on the Reagan space policy and Project High Frontier. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 15-Jul-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #241 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 241 Today's Topics: Re: Brazil in Space Shuttle Communications Europe vs Brazil Re: Brazil in Space Supersonic flight, X-20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Jul 1982 12:52 EDT From: PATTERSON.Henr at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Brazil in Space In-reply-to: OTA's message of 13 Jul 1982 0302-PDT To: SPACE@MIT-MC c: PATTERSON.Henr at PARC-MARX Although I agree with Jim McGrath on the point that the Brazilian Government is likely to get military benefit from their space program, I must also support Gail Zacharias' point (Space Digest V2 #239). We (the good old USA) have once again proved how well our friend in South America can count on us, I.E. the Falklands' War. Richard ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 82 14:56:49 EDT From: cobb at NBS-VMS Subject: Shuttle Communications (I tried the number during STS-3 but not during the last mission, so my info may not be current.) NASA doesn't include the ground station schedule because they only update the tape every 4 to 6 hours. That's two or three orbits! A list of ground stations for that far in advance would double or triple the length of the recording, and it wouldn't be all that useful (try picking the useful information out of several minutes of phrases like "Goldstone at twenty-oh-eight for six minutes"). To the best of my knowledge, NASA doesn't broadcast the "900 number" signal on shortwave radio (although they should -- it couldn't cost much, and they'd be reaching mostly technologists, who are their biggest supporters), so I assume you're talking about picking up the signals direct from the shuttle and Houston. The same problems that ground stations have also apply here, and in spades. You can only hear the shuttle when it's over you, which isn't often. The ground track of the shuttle doesn't cover all that much of the USA (we're too far north). Also, I seem to remember that the frequencies NASA uses to talk to the shuttle are up around 2Ghz. Common ham radio gear only goes up to about 450Mhz. So you're talking about buying or building an expensive piece of gear, waiting for the precise moment when the shuttle's overhead (repeat query: you need a program for that -- anobody got one?), and then listening to a couple of minutes of conversation before the shuttle moves out of range (that's assuming there's a ground station close enough to your location that NASA's talking while you can hear), and only being able to do even THAT just a couple of times a day. It's not as simple as just tuning in the dial. That's why they have the 900 number. However, if you do manage to call the number when Houston and the shuttle are on, you can find out the right time to call back when they go off. The key words here are LOS (Loss Of Signal) and AOS (Acquisition Of Signal). There's always a thirty-second warning before LOS, after which they generally say something like "Okay, see you at Dakar in twenty-one minutes". If they mention the next AOS, that means the same thing. You're right, there should be a cheap (free) way to find out what's going on on the shuttle. But AT&T isn't charging exorbitantly for their circuits -- 35 cents a minute is close to the standard long- distance rate. Broadcasting is always cheaper than point-to-point. What NASA really should do is put their signal on one of the ham bands used by stations like Voice of America and Radio Whatever (hey! why not put the shuttle right next to Radio Moscow?). It might help to include a ground-station schedule in the 900-number recording, but it probably wouldn't help all that much. Remember, the format of that number was designed for journalists, not the general public. Maybe when direct broadcast satellite TV gets started, NASA could give themselves a channel... Stewart PS - Speaking of satellites, it will only be a couple of years before we no longer have to worry about ground station coverage. NASA will soon be launching a set of geosynchronous satellites called TDRSS (Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System, I think). The shuttle talks to whichever TDRSS it can see, and that one relays to the one over Goddard, and Goddard relays between its TDRSS and Houston. No more ground-station windows. Godspeed TDRSS! -SC ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 1982 1150-PDT From: Jim McGrath Subject: Europe vs Brazil To: space at MIT-MC Actually, European civilian space developments ARE used for military purposes, just like NASA advances are used by our military. However, Europe is quite different from Brazil in that the former has a large economic and technological surplus. Brazil has enough to do feeding its people and developing their own resources. Europe need not worry about such basics (at least northern Europe), so can afford to invest in space. This case appears identical to India's drive for a "peaceful" nuclear "device." Sure there is an element of national pride involved - but I cannot believe that the direct military uses of the technology are not uppermost in their minds. Jim ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 1982 16:49 EDT From: PATTERSON.Henr at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Brazil in Space In-reply-to: OTA's message of 13 Jul 1982 0302-PDT To: SPACE@MIT-MC c: PATTERSON.Henr Although I agree with Jim McGrath on the point that the Brazilian Government is likely to get military benefit from their space program, I must also support Gail Zacharias' point (Space Digest V2 #239). We (the good old USA) have once again proved how well our friend in South America can count on us, I.E. the Falklands' War. Richard ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 1982 1701-PDT From: Paul Dietz Subject: Supersonic flight, X-20 To: space at MIT-MC These discussions of the X-20 and other rocket launched gliders reminds me of this bit of trivia: Q: What was the first winged vehicle to fly faster than sound, and when did it fly? If you say the X-1, you're wrong. The X-1 was the first *manned* winged vehicle to fly faster than sound. The first unmanned vehicle was a glider launched by the Germans on a V-2 in January 1945. It glided at Mach 4. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 17-Jul-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #243 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 243 Today's Topics: eclipse info wanted Columbia to go Back Home Brazil in Space Sunspots Re: Crippling the Russian economy - (nf) Getaway Special Info Request - (nf) Re: British Rail Saucer Re: Dial-A-Shuttle shuttle comm Columbia at KSC Crippling the Russian economy Robot to Get SRB Recorders Columbia Piggyback Re: meteor sighting Ghost Satellites in the Sky...??? getaway specials Space Station Already Ahead of Schedule TDRSS New Application for Space Brazil in space, etc. Re: Crippling the Russian Economy Orbit tracking programs Re: copper emission lines Re: Sunspots Photographing Lunar Eclipse ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 242 Today's Topics: eclipse info wanted ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Jul 82 11:49:23-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!intelqa!gsp86!murray at Berkeley Subject: eclipse info wanted I have lost the times for the eclipse at the end of this month. Could someone who still has it sent it to me. I was under cloud cover for the one on July 5th. murray at intelqa 15-Jul-82 0433 menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.piner@BerkSubject: Meteor Query Meteor Query Date: 13 Jul 82 0:29:30-PDT (Tue) To: space@mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.piner@BerkSubject: Meteor Query Subject: Meteor Query Early this morning I observed a rather common event from a rather uncommon distance. While driving from Lafayette to Muncie, Indiana, I saw a meteor and it was very close. My best estimate is that it struck the earth less than five miles from my car. It is unusual to see one that close, and it is also unusual to see one for several seconds. Meteors usually pass high over head and are visible for only a fraction of a second. This one was very low in the sky and moving relatively slowly. When I first saw it, I thought it was a left over rocket from the fourth of July. It took me a while to realize what it was. The colors were unlike any meteor I have ever seen before. Usually a meteor leaves a bright red or orange trail. This one left a trail of green, blue, orange, yellow, and red. The colors were very bright. The trail was very distinct. It was so close, I could see parts of it coming off as it fell. This brings me to my question. Was this indeed a meteor, or was it space junk? My astronomy is a little weak, but I thought meteorites were mostly iron, and sometimes carbon, and very little else. These elements never glow green! Copper will, when burned in air, make a green flame. Other elements will make other colors. This is how they make those pretty rockets for the Fourth in fact. Does anyone know if a meteor can make such unusual colors or does this mean what I saw had to be space junk? Any comments? Richard Piner Physics, Purdue ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 82 20:38:42-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.mhtsa!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Columbia to go Back Home The Columbia will fly back to KSC tomorrow, beginning at 0800 EDT, when it will take off from EAFB aboard a 747. There, it will be refurbished for STS-5, now moved up to a tentative launch date of 29 October. Challenger is already at KSC, and its electrical systems were turned on for the first time today as engineers tested things out. ------------------------------ Date: 15 July 1982 20:10-EDT (Thursday) Sender: FEINBERG at MIT-OZ From: Chiron To: PATTERSON.Henr at PARC-MAXC Cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Subject: Brazil in Space Howdy! Date: 14 Jul 1982 12:52 EDT From: PATTERSON.Henr at PARC-MAXC Re: Brazil in Space Although I agree with Jim McGrath on the point that the Brazilian Government is likely to get military benefit from their space program, I must also support Gail Zacharias' point (Space Digest V2 #239). We (the good old USA) have once again proved how well our friend in South America can count on us, I.E. the Falklands' War. Richard I really don't think the Argentines should have counted on us during the Falklands' War. Clearly these people were the aggressors in this action, and I think the US was rather restrained in its actions. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 1982 2012-EDT From: USCHOLD at RUTGERS Subject: Sunspots To: space at MIT-AI cc: uschold at RUTGERS I heard once long ago that sunspots are visible with the naked eye in the right conditions. Right now I'm looking out my window and wondering if I'm seeing one. Sun is dim orange, allowing me to stare right at it, (oh how I wish I had binoculars... Description of spot: Time: 7:55 pm. Place: Piscataway N.J; Dist above horizon: 1.5-2 inches at arm's length (or 6-10 sun diameters) Relatively long black "slit" in lower right quadrant near center. The slit starts almost at center and starts to split that quadrant into two octants. It's not long enough, of course, (approx 1/5 of a sun radii) and it's curved downwards slightly and more 'black' near the center. Can anyone out there verify this sighting? Is there a huge sunspot "going on" at this time. (Yes, I cleaned my glasses and opened the window as a first check...) Thanx, Mike ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 82 18:27:21-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!grunwald at Berkeley Subject: Re: Crippling the Russian economy - (nf) Right, that'll let us get back to abusing innoncent customers, raping the land with no thought of preservation and all those other things that made american buisness so strong. No thanks, I think I rather have a clean environment and products which are actually safe and designed to work well. I'm sure that the Soviets would appreciate such things, since they have a lot of pollution caused by their attempts to match western industrial might. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 82 19:40:34-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!pur-ee!pugas at Berkeley Subject: Getaway Special Info Request - (nf) Does anyone know why the Getaway Special is having problems? We are keenly interested in any details anyone can pick up. Purdue University GetAway Special {decvax,harpo,ihnss,ucbvax}!pur-ee!pugas ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 82 11:07:02-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.els at Berkeley Subject: Re: British Rail Saucer It might be instructive to actually see the patent papers concerning this machine. I know that such things may be obtained from the US patent office (if you know the patent number), but how does one go about this with a British patent? Several years ago, I tryed to get the address of the British patent office from the British embassy in Washington, but they never returned my letter. Perhaps some of the Canadians on the net might know what to do. This info might be quite useful to many on this net (and on others, too!), so the procedure ought to be posted to this net and any other that might use it. Thanx in advance. els [Eric Strobel] pur-ee!physics:els ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 82 13:23:47-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxa!mhuxh!mhuxm!pyuxjj!pyuxl!cook at Berkeley Subject: Re: Dial-A-Shuttle What is (was) the actual Dial-a-Shuttle number and how can I find out what it will be for the next mission? Is it available across the US? Mike Cook, BTL PY ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 1982 2234-PDT From: Barry Megdal Subject: shuttle comm To: space at MIT-MC The communication between the shuttle and ground stations is actually done both at 2 Ghz and at 296.8 Mhz, the latter frequency being in the UHF military aircraft band. A number of surplus receivers are available for that band, the most common being the URR-13 or URR-35. Using one of these with a small specially made ground plane on the roof of my house I was able to copy the communications on every pass of STS-2 over Southern California. A typical day in the mission had more than 5 listenable passes. Of course all of that effort was made somewhat useless by the fact that the JPL amateur radio club was broadcasting communications w/ all of the ground stations over local 2 meter amateur repeaters.... ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 82 14:08:11-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Columbia at KSC Article-I.D.: alice.789 Via: news.usenet; 15 Jul 82 22:24-PDT The Columbia landed at KSC today at 1033 EDT. It will be detached from its jumbo jet and taken to the Orbiter Processing Facility, where it will sit aside the Challenger for about eight weeks, as both are prepared for space flight simultaneously. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 82 22:40:34-PDT (Mon) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Berkeley Subject: Crippling the Russian economy Article-I.D.: watmath.3000 Via: news.usenet; 15 Jul 82 23:18-PDT If we're really interested in crippling Tsar Leonid's economy, why don't we just ship him Nader, Fonda et. al.? They seem to have done wonders for ours... Rick. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 82 7:46:17-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Robot to Get SRB Recorders Article-I.D.: alice.784 Via: news.usenet; 15 Jul 82 23:21-PDT A robot called SCARAB, for Submersible Craft Assisting Repair and Burial will be sent out from Baltimore today to the UTC Freedom off the coast of Cape Canaveral to help in the recovery of the recorder aboard one of the Columbia's sunken SRB's. It will arrive Thursday or Friday. From there, it will be sent down and commanded from the ship to pick up the recorder, like a plane's black box, and bring it back. NASA hopes the recorder will help determine the exact cause od the sinking of the boosters. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 82 7:26:00-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Columbia Piggyback Article-I.D.: alice.786 Via: news.usenet; 15 Jul 82 23:32-PDT The Columbia may make its last piggyback trip to KSC today. NASA may allow the ship to land on the concrete runway at KSC for STS-5 because they got some good data during this landing, the first on a concrete runway. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 82 10:07:03-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!eagle!karn at Berkeley Subject: Re: meteor sighting Article-I.D.: eagle.420 Via: news.usenet; 15 Jul 82 23:38-PDT In response to Richard Piner's uncommon meteor sighting, I think it's very likely that he identified some reentering space junk. A number of years ago, I had the good fortune to observe a similar occurance while in western Pennsylvania. The object was a brilliant blue-green - an unmistakable set of copper emission lines... It trailed orange and red "sparks", but did not appear to fragment. This object was bright enough to illuminate some scattered clouds (at night). The trajectory was nearly horizontal, taking about five seconds from first appearance until it disappeared. I know of no natural meteors with a spectrum such as the one I saw. I assume that this was space junk. In closing, it might be interesting to note the particulars of such sightings (time/date, direction). There might be a chance that it could be identified. Perhaps the data could be obtained from NORAD... Steve Robinson Environmental Medicine, NYU ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 82 16:24:03-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!ihps3!ihuxl!ignatz at Berkeley Subject: Ghost Satellites in the Sky...??? Article-I.D.: ihuxl.217 Via: news.usenet; 15 Jul 82 23:46-PDT I've got an interesting sighting, and wonder if anyone could help me out... A few weeks ago, I went on a canoe trip in the Great White--er, Green-- North. Specifically, we were in the southern section of Quetico Provincial Park, at 48 degrees, 12' 28" North by 91 degrees, 08' 40" West (Give or take a few seconds). We had just finished dinner at this campsite when we sighted two objects travelling Northwest to Southeast with a *high* apparent velocity. They followed parallel paths, separated by approx. 10 degrees; had an apparent brightness on the order of, or somewhat greater than, say, Saturn; and appeared to have an azimuth of 75-80 degrees normal to their flight path. This was on June 14th at some time between 10:10 and 11:00 PM Central Daylight Savings Time. What were they? The suggestions offered at the time was that they might be surveillance satellites, since the Falklands thing was (we assumed) in full swing. Mail to me directly; I will forward responses to interested parties, and onto the net if I get a) answers and b) enough requests. Thanks! Dave Ihnat ..!ihuxl!ignatz ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 82 23:38:48-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.mhtsa!allegra!phr at Berkeley Subject: getaway specials Article-I.D.: allegra.424 Via: news.usenet; 16 Jul 82 4:48-PDT This has been on the net before, but in case any of you missed it: There's a CBBS devoted to the Getaway Special program called GASnet located in Maryland. The 300 baud number is 301-344-9156. It was fairly stable over the past couple years; I haven't tried it in several months but I assume it still works. I'm not sure which problems pur-ee!pugas are referring to, but this would probably be the best place to check or inquire. Paul Rubin ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 82 7:25:22-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.mhtsa!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Space Station Article-I.D.: alice.788 Via: news.usenet; 16 Jul 82 4:55-PDT NASA and the DoD are now putting together a plan to erect a space station that would serve as a midway fueling stop for the space shuttle and satellites carried by it. The space shuttle could dock at the facility, which would be built in stages and manned by four people with a possibility of 12 in the future, and satellites in its bay could be fueled for a trip into higher orbits or even space. Satellites would also return to the station for later return to Earth. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 82 13:34:44-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.mhtsa!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Already Ahead of Schedule Article-I.D.: alice.787 Via: news.usenet; 16 Jul 82 5:00-PDT The Columbia is already ahead of schedule for STS-5, leaving four minutes before its planned departure time, 0800 EDT, from EAFB this morning. ------------------------------ Mail-From: CMUFTP host CMU-ZOG received by CMU-10A at 16-Jul-82 10:56:41-EDT Date: 16 Jul 1982 10:51:16-EDT From: Bob.Zimmermann at CMU-ZOG at CMU-10A Subject: TDRSS Actually, TDRSS has been running for years and years. The good folks at a company called TRW have even won a Golden Fleece award for its construction Robert A. Zimmermann ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 1982 1050-PDT From: Paul Dietz Subject: New Application for Space To: space at MIT-MC It occurs to me that experiments on magnetic monopoles may only be possible in 0-g, if current theories are correct. They predict monopoles with very large masses (10^16 Gev) and unit magnetic charge. The forces of an atom on a monopole will be much smaller than the force of gravity, so monopoles will fall out of any matter containing them. Perhaps we can find monopoles in the centers of asteroids? ------- ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 1982 at 1738-CDT From: kjm at UTEXAS-11 Subject: Brazil in space, etc. To: space at mit-mc Would the reaction have been any different had Brazil (like Japan) begun a space program based on U.S.-designed boosters built under license? Will the first private company (whether foreign or private) to announce a space-launcher venture be greeted by this same kind of attitude? Ken Montgomery ------- ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 82 16:21:28-PDT (Fri) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!hao!woods at Berkeley Subject: Re: Crippling the Russian Economy Article-I.D.: hao.266 Via: news.usenet; 16 Jul 82 23:20-PDT That Ralph Nader is harmful to our economy is 1) A matter of opinion, not fact, and 2) Not relevant to this newsgroup. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 82 23:29:02-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.mhtsa!eagle!karn at Berkeley Subject: Orbit tracking programs Article-I.D.: eagle.421 Via: news.usenet; 16 Jul 82 23:28-PDT The person who asked about orbit tracking programs for the shuttle (cobb@nbs-vms) hit one of my favorite topics. You asked for it! I have been working off and on with various orbit tracking programs for several years, primarily to track the amateur radio satellites built by the Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation (AMSAT) and the USSR radio clubs. The best general purpose orbit tracking program available for free public use was originally written in BASIC by Dr. Thomas A. Clark, W3IWI, president of AMSAT . A listing of his program appears in the AMSAT publication ORBIT magazine issue #6. You can get a copy of this issue by sending $2 to AMSAT PO Box 27 Washington, DC 20044 (This address is also good for general inquiries about AMSAT and its programs) Tom's program has been translated into a number of dialects of BASIC, PL/1, HP-41C, etc, and are available from Amsat Software Exchange (ASE) Box 338 Ashmore, IL 61912 for small donations ($5-$15) to cover costs. One of the guys running the ASE, Bob Diersing, N5AHD, runs a CBBS on (512) 852-8194 where you can read some info about the available programs and get Keplerian elements for a number of satellites. Tom's article includes a very good discussion of the theory behind his program, which is a general one handling elliptical orbits as well as circular ones. It uses the "Keplerian Element" sets derived by the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) that are available free from NASA. These numbers describe the size and shape of the orbit and the orientation of the orbit plane at a specified time (the epoch), as determined from optical and radar observations. There is another satellite tracking program available, more comprehensive than the Clark program, in that it has a solar ephemeris for checking observer and satellite illumination. This is very useful for finding passes in which the satellite is illuminated and the observer is in darkness; under these conditions even a small (2 foot) amateur radio satellite can be spotted with a pair of binoculars. Something as large as Skylab or the Shuttle is very easy to spot if you know when and where to look. It was written and is being sold by Sat Trak International in Colorado Springs for about $80. I have taken their software (originally in FORTRASH), and am converting it to a set of modular subroutines in C for use both in tracking and for orbit determination (deriving the Keplerian elements from transponder ranging measurements, which AMSAT will need to do for Phase III-B). Since these program cost money and belong to someone else, I can't place my versions in the public domain, but it might be alright to give them to persons who have already purchased the SatTrak software. (Sort of like paying your dues to AT&T to get a Berkeley Unix tape). During the last shuttle mission, I tracked down a set of elements by phone (mail would have been too slow) through a public relations person at Johnson Space Flight Center. He had some trouble obtaining them, mentioning that I was the only person to ask for them, but he was quite helpful. I later posted them to net.columbia after verifying that they were reasonably accurate. By looking up the locations of the NASA tracking stations and running the tracking program with the Keplerian elements, I could verify its accuracy with the 900 410-6272 number. I found it very convenient to know when the shuttle was in range before calling the Dial-It number. I suspect that if there is enough demand for them during future flights, they would be more readily available. Unfortunately, the shuttle performs many maneuvering burns during a flight. For example, STS-4 increased its orbital altitude and eccentricity 2 days after I got the Keplerian elements, throwing off my predictions. For those of you without computers (are there such people here?), approximate predictions can be made with a Mercator map and an acetate overlay. The overlay must contain a sine wave with an amplitude equal to the orbital inclination (28.5 degrees for STS-4, larger for the earlier flights). The trace period is such that equator crossings occur at the correct spacings, remembering that the earth is rotating under the orbit, so that each equator crossing occurs farther to the west. On the Mercator map, draw "range circles" around each tracking station, with the radius being given by r * acos(r/r+h) where r = radius of the earth h = height of the satellite above earth surface (same units) When the spacecraft enters a range circle, it is above that station's horizon. Note that the map methods for tracking satellites are workable only when the orbits are reasonably circular. Satellites in elliptical orbits (e.g., the new Phase-IIIB spacecraft that will be launched in January) follow weird S-shaped ground tracks; for these, a computer is really the only practical answer. On the topic of listening in, NASA uses a domestic satellite to distribute a service called "NASCOM", which is how the networks get their feeds. I called the public relations departments at both the Johnson and Goddard space flight centers and got two different answers as to which satellite and transponder is used. Since I am not rich enough to have a home satellite TV receiver (spending my money instead on ham satellite gear), I could not verify which is correct (I was trying to get the info to get my local CATV company to carry it). Anyway, maybe somebody with a dish can check these out: Satcom I, Transponder 9 (JSC answer) Satcom II, Transponder 13 (Goddard answer) Rumor has it that unmanned launches (e.g., Delta) are also covered on NASCOM. Neither of these was on Satcom III-R, so my local CATV company couldn't carry it. Hope this info helps. Phil Karn, KA9Q/2 Bell Labs Murray Hill, NJ ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 82 8:16:06-PDT (Fri) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.decvax!harpo!ihps3!ihuxv!lew at Berkeley Subject: Re: copper emission lines Article-I.D.: ihuxv.184 Via: news.usenet; 16 Jul 82 23:29-PDT Taken from: A Field Guide to the Stars and Planets, by Donald Menzel. The colors of meteors range from reddish yellow to brilliant green. The latter shade is due to the presence of magnesium (an abundant constituent of many meteors), which glows green when heated to incandescence. Lew Mammel, Jr - BTL Indian Hill ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 82 7:31:48-PDT (Fri) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.mhtsa!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Re: Sunspots Article-I.D.: alice.791 Via: news.usenet; 16 Jul 82 23:40-PDT Well, there is big solar flare activity going on this week. These (at least in part) cause sunspots to occur... ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 82 2:34:07-PDT (Fri) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.piner at Berkeley Subject: Photographing Lunar Eclipse Article-I.D.: pur-phy.397 Via: news.usenet; 17 Jul 82 0:33-PDT I got back my photos of this months eclipse today, and from the results can offer a little advise to anyone thinking of trying to take pictures of the next one. 1) Live in a state with cleaner air than Indiana. The summer haze was much more of a problem than I had thought it would be. 2) It looks like a 400mm lens or longer is needed. My best guess is 1000mm would be "best". 3) You will need an f stop of about 2 with ASA 400 film! With a 1000mm lens this is going to cost a bundle! I found on close examination, that the stars had moved quite a bit during my 4 sec. exposer. This blurred the lunar image. To hold exposer time down, you will need an f2 lens. This really is not very practical of course. The only real solution is a clock drive. If you have a clock drive, then a 4 sec. exposer at f4 is practical. In other words, to get a really good close shot, you will need a clock driven telescope with a camera attached. 4) If you want just a long shot, you can get by with a 200mm lens, with an f4 stop, 2 sec. exposer, and ASA 400 film. But this will not be a shot that can be blown up in an enlarger. A final note, it sure was red. I got good color with Ektacrome. All values here are approximate, the amount of haze, affects both quantity and quality of the light from the moon. So take several shots at different settings. If your camera has a timed shutter release, use it to cut down vibrations, otherwise use a cable shutter release. Richard Piner ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 18-Jul-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #244 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 244 Today's Topics: Brazilian Space Program Launched Pushed Back Re: Brazil in space, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Jul 82 15:36:54-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!mhtsa!allegra!psuvax!simon at Berkeley Subject: Brazilian Space Program Article-I.D.: psuvax.1064 Via: news.usenet; 17 Jul 82 9:36-PDT Some of the 'facts' about Brazil given by David@sri-unix are wrong, some are only half true. Clarifications for those who are interested: 1) Brazil, at the moment, is some items, mostly on luxuries likeAlthough the current president was elected in very indirect elections, where theopposing candidate could not have won, his oponent got a higher percentage of votes than any Mexican opposition candidate in recent history. More importantly,there is a formal comittment, and a high probability that the next presidential elections will be free, direct elections. Meanwhile, there is freedom of the press, and free elections for local government, and for the two houses of Congress.2) There are large import surcharges ones of Congress.2) There are large import surcharg ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 82 20:07:21-PDT (Fri) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.mhtsa!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Launched Pushed Back Article-I.D.: alice.792 Via: news.usenet; 17 Jul 82 23:43-PDT NASA now says that the target date for the launch of STS-5 is now back to 11 November. The change is not due to problems with the shuttle, which came back in better shape than on any previous mission, but to the two companies that are furnishing satellites for launch. The Columbia was demated from its 747 yesterday night and was towed into the Orbiter Processing Facility today, where it was parked next to the Challenger. The deep sea robot SCARAB was lowered into the water today in search of the recorder from one of the two SRB's that sank after the launch of STS-4. NASA has said that it will not launch the shuttle again until it learns why they sank. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 82 6:57:22-PDT (Sat) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!pdh at Berkeley Subject: Re: Brazil in space, etc. Article-I.D.: hplabs.544 Via: news.usenet; 17 Jul 82 23:46-PDT The reaction to Brazil's announcing its space program was one of outrage, primarily because Brazil (unlike Japan) is governed by the military. I suspect that those who, for the sake of pure thought, threw national ties to the wind, and considered just the humanitarian aspect, were upset by the Brazilian move, no matter whose boosters they are using. Peter Henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 19-Jul-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #245 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 245 Today's Topics: Crippling the Russian economy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sunday, 18 July 1982 15:14-EDT From: Jon Webb To: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70 Cc: space at MIT-MC Subject: Crippling the Russian economy If we're really interested in crippling Tsar Leonid's economy, why don't we just ship him Nader, Fonda et. al.? They seem to have done wonders for ours... Hold on there! Even as a joke, this isn't very funny, and definitely INAPPROPRIATE as a submission for the Space bboard. Why don't you content yourself with letters to the editor of your local newspaper, maybe supplemented with graffiti or something? I'd like to tell you what's wrong with your opinion, but that would just perpetuate unfortunate political discussion on this bboard, and anyway you should be able to figure it out yourself. Jon ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 20-Jul-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #246 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 246 Today's Topics: Re: eclipse info wanted (#243) Re: Photographing Lunar Eclipse (#243) Re: Meteor Query SPACE Digest V2 #245 Request for access to Mailing List Space Week Good News for Comet Watchers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Jul 1982 09:09 PDT From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: eclipse info wanted (#243) In-reply-to: murray at Berkeley's message of 13 Jul 82 11:49:23-PDT To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Lynn.es I suspect that you were thinking of the end-of-year eclipse, not end-of-month, so here are all eclipses for 1982: January 9, Total Lunar, visible from eastern hemisphere and arctic. January 25, Partial Solar, visible from New Zealand and Antarctica. June 21, Partial Solar, visible from southern Africa. July 6, Total Lunar, visible from North America, South America, Pacific. July 20, Partial Solar, visible from western Europe, arctic, northeast Asia. December 15, Partial Solar, visible from Europe, northeast Africa, western Asia. December 30, Total Lunar, visible from North America, arctic, Pacific. Time (PST) 12:52 am to 6:05 am. Middle 3:29. Totality lasts 61 minutes. Obviously this is a great year for lunar eclipses and a crummy one for solar (the quantities are roughly average, but the qualities are not). /Don Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 1982 09:18 PDT From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Photographing Lunar Eclipse (#243) In-reply-to: piner at Berkeley's message of 16 Jul 82 2:34:07-PDT To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Lynn.es A number of members of the astronomy club I belong to took lunar eclipse pictures, with varying degrees of success, and in general, your findings were substantiated. That is, use a long focal length lens on an astronomical drive. However, a few spectacular shots were obtained with shorter lenses (on astronomical drive) showing much milky way as a backdrop for a rather small image of the eclipsed moon. Also, some multiple exposures of the moon changing "phases" were made with shorter lenses, some even without a drive (since they were exposed for the bright side, using much shorter exposures). The exposure times you quote are only good for that eclipse. Unfortunately, each eclipse is a different brightness, depending on how close the moon is to the center of the earth's shadow (this varies from eclipse to eclipse, and varies during a given eclipse as it progresses) and how much junk (primarily clouds and dust) there is in the earth's atmosphere to block light from refracting around to the moon. It varies A LOT -- factors of 100 or more -- from eclipse to eclipse. Conclusion: take lots of different exposures and some will come out. /Don Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 19-Jul-82 9:57:32 PDT (Monday) From: Trigoboff at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Meteor Query In-reply-to: Your message of 17 Jul 1982 0303-PDT To: SPACE@MIT-MC Sometime around 1970, I was standing outside in New York City. For some reason I looked up, and saw a brilliant turquoise light moving across the sky. Shooting out of the rear (defined by its direction of motion) of this light was a stream of red-orange sparks, which left a smoke trail behind the object as it moved across the sky. After it had disappeared below the horizon, I heard the sound of its passage following the same path it had taken. The next day, I read in the newspaper that a large meteor had come in down the east coast, and had crashed into the Atlantic Ocean. ------------------------------ Date: 19 July 1982 13:30-EDT From: Stewart Cobb Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #245 To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC Some current space happenings that probably won't make the news: - A company called Space Services, Inc. (not to be confused with Gerry O'Neill's Space Studies Institute) is preparing to launch their rocket on an island off the Texas coast. The rocket is called Percheron (after the draft horse) and is suborbital (you have to start somewhere). The company is totally privately funded. They tried to launch one last year, but it blew up in an engine test a couple of weeks before the scheduled launch. They're hoping for better luck this year. Way to go, private enterprise! - Last Friday afternoon, NASA launched the fourth LANDSAT. It contains a Multi-Spectral Scanner (MSS) like the others, but with the addition of a new channel which sees blue. They can now get true-color images from LANDSAT, as well as the false-color infrared ones. LANDSAT-IV also contains a new instrument, the Thematic Mapper (TM). I don't know the details of this, but I vaguely remember that it's something like the MSS. I think it has better resolution (50-meter vs. 200-meter squares) and a channel which sees thermal infrared, as well as the near infrared channels of the MSS. Stewart (cobb@nbs-vms) ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 1982 1543-CDT From: ELDER at GUNTER-ADAM Subject: Request for access to Mailing List To: space at MIT-MC cc: elder Please include ELDER@GUNTER-ADAM to the SPACE mailing list. Thank you. Greg Elder ------- ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 1982 0923-PDT Sender: WARD at USC-ISIF Subject: Space Week From: Craig E. Ward To: BBoard at USC-ISIB Cc: Ward at USC-ISIF Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF]15-Jul-82 09:23:40.WARD> Redistributed-To: Space at MIT-MC, SF-Lovers at MIT-AI Redistributed-By: WARD at USC-ISIF Redistributed-Date: 19 Jul 1982 For those interested in the space program: The California Museum of Science and Industry and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics are sponsoring Space Week July 17 - 25 to commemorate the anniversaries of the first landing on the moon by Apollo 11 and the Viking I landing on Mars. Activities include: July 17-25 Museum Theaters--NASA Space films will be screened daily 12-4 pm. The film "The Making of Star Wars" will also be shown. July 19 7:00pm OMNI Magazine will present "Careers in Space--Your Guide to the Future". This multi-media program will be hosted by NASA consultant Stan Kent. July 20 Anniversary Day luncheon featuring Dr. Hans Mark, NASA Deputy Director, and former astronaut Pete Conrad. Call 670-6642 for more information. July 17 Children's Space Program at the Kidspace Museum, 390 S. El Molino, Pasadena, 449-9143 July 24 & 25 The museum will have special space and aircraft displays, Moon Models, space pictures and movies. Live recreation of the Apollo moon walks will take place throughout the day with astronauts in space suits, a replica of the Lunar Lander and a simulated moonscape. All events except the luncheon are free. For more information call (213) 744-7438. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 82 12:23:27-PDT (Mon) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!duke!harpo!zeppo!wheps!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxa!mhuxh!mhuxm!pyuxjj!pyuxcc!djj at Berkeley Subject: Good News for Comet Watchers Article-I.D.: pyuxcc.311 Via: news.usenet; 19 Jul 82 20:24-PDT Summarized from the Newark Star Ledger 7/19/82 pg. 33 Astronomers await bright August comet ------------------------------------- by Patrick Young -- Newhouse News Service Astronomers tracking a newly discovered comet as it hurtles toward a late August sweep around the sun say it could be the brightest comet in six years. Based on early observations, Comet Austin is expected to reach a fourth-magnitude brightness in early August and remain at that level until about Aug. 20. Comet Austin is named after Rodney R. D. Austin, an amateur astronomer in New Zealand who discovered it on June 18. Currently, it is about 102 million miles out from the sun. The only earth-based telescopes that can see it now are in the Southern Hemisphere. Early calculations of its orbit suggest Comet Austin may be making its first pass around the sun. The comet should make its closest approach to earth on Aug. 11, passing within 28 million miles of the planet, and come within 59.5 million miles of the sun of Aug. 24. In the northern hemisphere, Comet Austin should be visible just before sunrise beginning in early August. It will appear in the southeast sky near Sirius. The best viewing should come in the evenings at the end of twilight beginning Aug. 12 or 13 and lasting about a week. The comet will be below the bowl of the Big Dipper in the northwest sky. The comet should appear bigger than a star. It will be one arc minute in size (moon is 30 arc minutes). Comet Austin may be visible with the naked eye, but binoculars are recommended. Happy viewing, Dave Johnson BTL - Piscataway ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 21-Jul-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #247 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 247 Today's Topics: Re: Sunspots (#243) NASA audio/video via satellite The August Comet Space walk Apollo Day ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Jul 1982 10:55 PDT From: Lynn.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Sunspots (#243) In-reply-to: USCHOLD at RUTGERS's message of 15 Jul 1982 2012-EDT To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Lynn.es A co-worker of mine enquired about a similar naked eye sunspot sighting June 15. I verified that there were TWO sunspot groups (each group appears as a single spot to the naked eye) visible to the naked eye on the next clear day here, June 19, though one group was just barely visible. The rotation period of the sun is about 27 days at the place where the largest spot group was. It appears that the same group has come around again. I checked it out yesterday with solar filter, both naked eye and with binoculars. The spot group is right where you described it, but was just too faint for me to see it without binoculars. It has dissipated considerably since June. Caution: If you try viewing the sun, even at sunset/sunrise when it is considerably dimmed by our atmosphere, get a filter made for solar viewing; otherwise you are risking eye damage. /Don Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 1982 at 1820-CDT From: kjm at UTEXAS-11 Subject: NASA audio/video via satellite To: space at mit-mc What is the minimum amount of equipment required to recieve the signal from the comsat and then condition it so the TV set can understand it? Can this equipment be built at home? Ken Montgomery ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 82 13:10:57-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.els at Berkeley Subject: The August Comet Article-I.D.: pur-phy.402 Via: news.usenet; 20 Jul 82 23:46-PDT Has anyone heard anything more specific, such as what the rough parameters are? If someone has this, I'm sure those of us with telescopes would like to have at least an approximate RA and Decl. to point at, perhaps at weekly intervals. els [Eric Strobel] pur-ee!pur-phy!els ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 82 18:18:35-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: Space walk Article-I.D.: alice.801 Via: news.usenet; 21 Jul 82 0:14-PDT Astronauts Vance Brand and Robert Overmyer will make the first space walk from the space shuttle during STS-5, due to be launched 11 November. During their 3 hour walk, they will float about the cargo bay and practice procedures that could be used in 1984 to repair the Solar Maxim satellite that failed due to a power mechanism breakdown. NASA considers it a space even though they will not leave the spacecraft because they will be exposed to the vacuum of space. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 82 16:37:43-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!allegra!phr at Berkeley Subject: Apollo Day Article-I.D.: allegra.429 Via: news.usenet; 21 Jul 82 0:23-PDT Happy Apollo Day (20 July 1969) to all of you. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 22-Jul-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #248 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 248 Today's Topics: Re: The Austin Comet [Dick Koolish :~Comet Austin] Comet Austin particulars Second Most Memorable Fourth Satcom I & II reception ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Jul 1982 0717-CDT From: ELDER at GUNTER-ADAM Subject: Re: The Austin Comet To: space at MIT-MC Mail-from: ARPANET host BBNP rcvd at 14-Jul-82 1604-CDT Date: 14 Jul 1982 16:46:42 EDT (Wednesday) From: Dick Koolish Subject: Comet Austin To: list/astro: at BBN-UNIX The following is the predicted ephemeris for Comet Austin. The RA and Dec positions are for 0hr UT on the date given. Position at 0hr UT Position at nautical twilight. date RA Dec Az Alt ---- -- --- -- --- Aug 15 9h 20.4m +33d 18m 17 9 54.5 37 55 316 8 19 10 25.3 41 02 21 10 52.0 42 59 312 19 23 11 14.2 44 07 25 11 32.4 44 41 310 23 27 11 47.2 44 53 29 11 59.1 44 50 31 12 08.6 44 37 307 27 Sep 2 12 16.3 44 17 4 12 22.5 43 52 307 27 6 12 27.5 43 25 The comet will be an evening object. It will be almost exactly northwest (azimuth 315 degrees) after sunset. It is estimated to be magnitude 4 on Aug 15, decreasing by .1 per day. Here's some coordinates for the Austin comet. I got the information from the Astronomy mailing list. Greg Elder ------- ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1982 1102-EDT From: S. W. Galley Subject: [Dick Koolish :~Comet Austin] To: space at MIT-MC, decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.els at UCB-C70 Mail-from: ARPANET site BBNP rcvd at 14-Jul-82 1707-EDT Date: 14 Jul 1982 16:46:42 EDT (Wednesday) From: Dick Koolish Subject: Comet Austin To: list/astro: at BBN-UNIX The following is the predicted ephemeris for Comet Au-in. The RA and Dec positions are for 0hr UT on the date given. Position at 0hr UT Position at nautical twilight. date RA Dec Az Alt ---- -- --- -- --- Aug 15 9h 20.4m +33d 18m 17 9 54.5 37 55 9( 316 8 19 10 25.3 41 02 21 10 52.0 42 59 312 19 23 11 14.2 44 07 25 11 32.4 44 41 310 23 27 11 47.2 44 53 29 11 59.1 44 50 31 12 08.6 44 37 S 307 27 Sep 2 12 16.3 44 17 4 12 22.5 43 52 307 27 6 12 27.5 43 25 The cometmaill be an evening object. It will be almost exactly northwest (azimuth 315 degrees) after sunset. It is estimated to be magnitude 4 on Aug 15, decreasing by .1 per day. ----p4- ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1982 08:50 PDT From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC Subject: Comet Austin particulars To: Space at MIT-MC cc: Ciccarelli [The following is a forwarded message from the Astronomy^.PA mailing list at Xerox PARC] /John Ciccarelli --------------------------- Mail-from: Arpanet host BBNP rcvd at 14-JUL-82 1401-PDT Date: 14 Jul 1982 16:46:42 EDT (Wednesday) From: Dick Koolish Subject: Comet Austin To: list/astro: at BBN-UNIX The following is the predicted ephemeris for Comet Austin. The RA and Dec positions are for 0hr UT on the date given. Position at 0hr UT Position at nautical twilight. date RA Dec Az Alt ---- -- --- -- --- Aug 15 9h 20.4m +33d 18m 17 9 54.5 37 55 316 8 19 10 25.3 41 02 21 10 52.0 42 59 312 19 23 11 14.2 44 07 25 11 32.4 44 41 310 23 27 11 47.2 44 53 29 11 59.1 44 50 31 12 08.6 44 37 307 27 Sep 2 12 16.3 44 17 4 12 22.5 43 52 307 27 6 12 27.5 43 25 The comet will be an evening object. It will be almost exactly northwest (azimuth 315 degrees) after sunset. It is estimated to be magnitude 4 on Aug 15, decreasing by .1 per day. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1982 14:49 PDT From: Suk at PARC-MAXC Subject: Second Most Memorable Fourth To: SPACE@MIT-MC cc: Suk In 1982 I enjoyed the second-most-memorable Fourth of July of my life (second only to 1976), when I journeyed to Edwards AFB to watch Columbia return. The actual landing itself was only slightly more spectacular than previous (I'd seen STS-2 land), because we saw smoke from the tires this time instead of blowing sand. We were all closer to the actual touchdown this time too. However, the actual highlight of the day came later. After the landing, NASA opened the restricted viewing area near the runway to the general public, so thousands of people gathered down in front of the Enterprise to wait for the president's speech. (You all have your own opinions on the speech -- I won't comment.) When Reagan was half way through talking, he gave the command for the 747 to take off with Challenger on its back. Then he talked for a few more minutes, and soon this GIANT silver bird buzzed over almost directly above the crowd. Thousands of flags waved and thousands of people cheered. It was truly an impressive sight! But that was not all by a long shot. As the 747 kept going, I commented to my wife that it sure took a long time for it to gain any altitude. Reagan kept talking. Well, of course you all know, it was planned that way. The monster made a huge circle above the dry lake bed at an altitude of a few hundred feet, and several minutes later it lumbered over us a second time, this time much closer to the crowd. I was busy taking snapshots and advancing film, while the rest of the crowd was again busy waving flags, cheering, and exclaiming "fantastic," "great," "terrific," "what a sight," and similar. Then, when he was right next to the President, the pilot dipped his wingtip, giving Reagan and the entire crowd a beautiful closeup view of Challenger on the back of the 747. I cannot fully put into words the feeling I experienced at that moment. I will remember it forever. My only regret is that I did not have my movie camera with me that day. I had taken it along on my previous trip, and it proved to be just excess baggage at that time. So I can't share the feeling with others. At least I will have it in my own mind for a long time to come. Stan [I apologize for the delay in sending this, but I've been out of the office for quite some time, and this is the first chance I've had to send this in.] ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1982 at 1627-CDT From: kjm at UTEXAS-11 Subject: Satcom I & II reception To: space at mit-mc Where can I find out the coordinates of and the frequencies used by Satcom I & II ? Ken Montgomery ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 23-Jul-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #249 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 249 Today's Topics: SPACE Digest V2 #248 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 July 1982 08:21-EDT From: Stewart Cobb Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #248 To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Where can I find a transcript of President Reagan's July 4 speech? Stewart ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 24-Jul-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #250 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 250 Today's Topics: Getaway Special Info Request Re: monopoles in space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Jul 1982 08:25 PDT From: penalver.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Getaway Special Info Request To: SPACE@MIT-MC cc: penalver.es I have been trying to send a message to one of the space digest's users regarding a message that appeared on digest #243, but have been unsuccessful. The address given in the original message was decvax!pur-ee!pugas at Berkley But sending mail to this address only generates invalid address messages. What is the correct address I should be sending this mail to? Tony..... ------------** Subject: Getaway Special Info Request To: decvax!pur-ee!pugas@Berkley.ArpaGateway cc: penalver.es Hello were any of you out at Melbourne for the ISS conference?? well I remember at least 3 of you.... This is Tony from OXY... As far as I know the problems with the Utah state Getaway Special were all electrical. They had some reather bad problems with the NASA interface wireing during the final chekout and had to re-do many of their electrical connections at the "last minute", when ever that was. When I hear anything out of JPL I will pass it along. Tony ** please return the correct address to Penalver.es at PARCMARXC ... thks ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 82 7:16:27-PDT (Mon) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Berkeley Subject: Re: monopoles in space Article-I.D.: utzoo.2288 Via: news.usenet; 24 Jul 82 1:56-PDT Actually, it is possible to construct reasonable monopolar magnets right here in a gravitational field. Granted, their preformance is not to great, but may be better in 0-g. Interesting thing is, although monopolar magnets are not exactly the same as a monopole say in an asteroid (if they exist ), they do work, when really they shouldn't. From Raymond S. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 25-Jul-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #251 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 251 Today's Topics: Re: Brazil in Space FTL:(faster than light travel) SRB Search Continues re: monopoles in space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Jul 82 7:16:21-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Berkeley Subject: Re: Brazil in Space 'From decvax!cca!Jim@sri-unix Indeed why would they? For commercial transport they should depend on us(or rather hopefully US companies)just as other people do for most high tech services. The only ... ' WHY??? Those Brazilians had better apologize for the blatant lies and misconceptions that they have been spreading. Really, do they think us so stupid as to not see their reasons for opening up their own space program. Their prmary purpose must be military. That idea is mostly BS , to Jim@sri-unix , please furnish me with conclusive proof or evidence of Brazils intentions in space. I hope you can. Why should Brazil or any other people depend on the US. Most transportat -ion devices that the US makes are not all that great. Most european countries make better stuff than the US does. i.e. Cars,trucks,boats,tins,... Many high tech systems from outside the US rival US high tech if not actually better. The only advantage the US has is that they can come up with more, faster. The only other advantage that the US has is that they are the only country that does have some sort of reusable space system. Just because they do, is it really so inconcievable that another country might want to do it themselves? By the way, Shuttle tech is not all that high. From Raymond S. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 82 13:22:24-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Berkeley Subject: FTL:(faster than light travel) From decvax!miles!utzoo Is there anyone out there interested in discussions in the field of FTL, on a realistic basis not on a sci-fi basis? R.S. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 82 10:01:49-EDT (Sat) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: SRB Search Continues The Long Lines, usually used to lay trans-Atlantic cables, will embark for SRB water next week. Hired by NASA, it is being fitted with special equipment to enable it to haul the boosters out of the water, assuming that SCARAB finds them. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jul 1982 0013-EDT From: John Redford To: space at MIT-AI cc: redford at WAFER Subject: re: monopoles in space Message-ID: <"MS10(2055)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11842401258.30.583.6084 at DEC-MARLBORO> Think I missed something. Is it really "possible to create monopolar magnets in a gravitational field"? What does gravity have to do with it? How can you possibly make a monopolar magnet without magnetic monpoles? On a slightly related subject, there was a Larry Niven story about prospectors in the asteroid belt searching for monopoles (I think it was the opening to "Protector"). Niven claimed that instruments using monopoles had a sensitivity that dropped off as the radius R rather than as R squared. That sure doesn't sound right to me. Does anyone know if there is anything to it? I would think that the field from a monpole would drop off with R^2 in just the same way as the electric field from a charge. -------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 26-Jul-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #252 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 252 Today's Topics: On magnetic monopoles and FTL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: FONER@MIT-AI Date: 07/25/82 16:24:10 Subject: On magnetic monopoles and FTL FONER@MIT-AI 07/25/82 16:24:10 Re: On magnetic monopoles and FTL To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Scientific American recently had a very good article on the mathematical basis and current status of magnetic monopoles. One of the major conclusion of the article was on the apparently tremendous masses of such particles---a monopole was theorized to weigh about as much as an amoeba. Unfortunately, I can't find the article, though I'm prtty sure it was within the last year. If anyone can provide a reference, I and presumably others would be grateful. On the subject of faster-than-light drives (and the apparent violations of causality and other important physical laws that such things imply), I too would be very interested to find out if anyone has done anything that shows any sort of support for such drives. Alas, such research looks like it will be another Dean Drive affair. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 27-Jul-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #253 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 253 Today's Topics: Magnetic monopoles Holes in the Radio Sky ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Jul 1982 09:50 PDT From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Magnetic monopoles To: SPACE@MIT-MC There was a pretty long piece in the "Science and the Citizen" section of Sci Am maybe 3 months ago. If I remember right a recent experiment seems to have detected a monopole. They left current flowing in an isolated superconducting loop of wire for a couple of months, after which the current had changed by the amount that someone's theory predicted would occur if a monopole had drifted through the loop in the interimn. I think the article also said that finding one monopole in that time period with that size loop was not far from what you'd expect if there were enough of the buggers around to make up the "missing mass" that worries astronomers. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 1982 1050-PDT From: Robert Amsler Subject: Holes in the Radio Sky To: space at MIT-MC I was wondering whether geosynchronous satellites are causing radio astronomers any dilemmas. What effect does such a satellite have on the appearance of the radio-sky? Are we blotting out the visibility of whatever is behind these satellites? ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 28-Jul-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #254 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 254 Today's Topics: Holes in the Radio Sky ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 July 1982 08:46-PDT (Tuesday) From: KING at KESTREL To: Robert Amsler Cc: space at MIT-MC Subject: Holes in the Radio Sky I doubt that geosynchronous satellites cause any problems for radio astronomers. First, I assume designers of satellite systems would have made the downlink frequencies ones that were quiet for their own sakes. Second, the satellites are low enough so that if one radio astronomy setup is disturbed, another will be able to pick up the signal. Third, radio astronomers' targets are not stationary in the sky. Nor (as I understand it) does their equipment necessarily require long, uninterrupted exposures. It may merely be necessary to snip out (say) seven second segments every four minutes. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 29-Jul-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #255 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 255 Today's Topics: space activism Tracking space junk Re: Gravitational Information Re: On magnetic monopoles and FTL parse date string SCARAB Photographs Boosters ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Jul 82 10:22:06-PDT (Mon) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.foster at Berkeley Subject: space activism Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8120 Via: news.usenet; 28 Jul 82 5:23-PDT I'm tired of watching the US space program slowly waste away... Any space activists out there with info on L5 or similar groups? Gregg Foster UCB ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 82 17:05:17-PDT (Mon) To: space at mit-mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.mhtsa!eagle!karn at Berkeley Subject: Tracking space junk Article-I.D.: eagle.424 Via: news.usenet; 28 Jul 82 5:30-PDT >From the July 26, 1982 issue of Amsat Satellite Report: NEW SATELLITE TRACKING TELESCOPE ON LINE Ever wonder how various government agencies keep track of all the satellites and assorted refuse floating around in orbit? The following news item from the "Washington Report" column of the July 8, 1982 issue of Electronic Design Magazine allows a glimpse. "A computer-driven telescope designed to track satellites as far out as 22,000 miles has been put into operation at the White Sands Missle Range near Socorro, N.M. The scope, which can detect objects as small as a soccer ball in space, was developed by TRW, Inc. (Newbury Calif.) Called Ground-based Electro-Optical Deep Space Survey (GEODSS), the system is controlled by four Digital Equipment Corp. PDP-11/70's. One hundred images per minute are recorded by a television camera and converted into digital pulses by a custom video processor from Itek Corp. The mainframes then filter out the surrounding stars and display the satellites as streaks of light on CRTs. The telescope is one of five planned around the globe. Korean and Hawaiian sites are to be operational by late summer, and others in the Indian Ocean and eastern Atlantic regions should be up and running by the mid-1980s". Reproduced with permission. Thanks Electronic Design, KB2M. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 82 14:23:29-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!ech at Berkeley Subject: Re: Gravitational Information Article-I.D.: whuxlb.360 Via: news.usenet; 28 Jul 82 22:10-PDT Take 2 objects A and B. B moves away, When does object A feel the loss in gravitational attraction? Current theory (and it's been current a LONG time) is that this information travels at the speed of light. By the way, the "speed of light" is a deceptive term: think of it as "the maximum speed at which information can propagate." It is also the speed at which particles of rest mass zero must travel to be "real." Thus, whether you view gravity as a geometrical abstraction (per A. Einstein) or as mediated by massless gravitons, you "know" about an event (such as the acceleration of a nearby object) when the information arrives (at the speed of light). Note that that is a LOWER bound on when you notice; if gravitons somehow turn out to have nonzero rest mass, then they cannot travel at the speed of light, so obviously the information takes longer to propagate. =Ned Horvath= ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 82 9:44:58-PDT (Tue) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!duke!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxa!mhuxh!mhuxm!3951bb at Berkeley Subject: Re: On magnetic monopoles and FTL parse date string Article-I.D.: mhuxm.1004 Via: news.usenet; 28 Jul 82 22:37-PDT Was is new and what kinds of research is being done on the transport of gravitational information. Take 2 objects A and B. B moves away, When done object A feel the loss in gravitational attraction? More to ponder... ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 82 7:27:14-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Berkeley Subject: SCARAB Photographs Boosters Article-I.D.: alice.814 Via: news.usenet; 29 Jul 82 0:38-PDT SCARAB yesterday took pictures of the SRB's that sank after launch on STS-4. NASA officials will decide after inspecting the pictures whether or not to try and salvage some or all of the boosters; they would like to obtain at least the recorders aboard. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 30-Jul-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #256 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 256 Today's Topics: Re: Holes in the Radio Sky monopole articles Re: NASA Student Rat Project Questioned - (nf) Re: Holes in the Radio Sky ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Jul 82 21:39:06-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!harpo!duke!unc!smb at Berkeley Subject: Re: Holes in the Radio Sky Article-I.D.: unc.3752 Via: news.usenet; 29 Jul 82 6:57-PDT Certain frequency bands are allocated by WARC (World Administrative Radio Conference) for use by radio astronomers. I seem to recall that there is starting to be some problem about encroachment on these bands, though. Steve Bellovin duke!unc!smb smb.unc@udel-relay ------------------------------ Mail-From: CMUFTP host CMU-750R received by CMU-10A at 29-Jul-82 10:07:18-EDT Date: 29 Jul 1982 09:15:38-EDT From: Greg.Toto at CMU-750R at CMU-10A To: space@mit-mc Subject: monopole articles The Science and the Citizen article in Scientific American is in the July '82 issue (p. 70). There is also an article in the April '82 issue (Superheavy Magnetic Monopoles) on p. 106. I think they are worth a look for general interest. Greg Toto (gmt@cmu-750r) ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 82 21:27:08-PDT (Wed) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!grunwald at Berkeley Subject: Re: NASA Student Rat Project Questioned - (nf) Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.287 Via: news.usenet; 29 Jul 82 7:49-PDT #R:ihima:-10600:uiucdcs:12700009:000:267 uiucdcs!grunwald Jul 28 21:07:00 1982 I think they should send them out -- if nothing else, that's 16 less rats that'll be on the earth. Good science is hard to come by. I don't think that it would be fair to the kid who designed the thing to have his experiment rejected at the last minute, so to speak. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 82 11:35:58-PDT (Thu) To: space at mit-mc From: decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.hal at Berkeley Subject: Re: Holes in the Radio Sky Article-I.D.: pur-phy.416 Via: news.usenet; 29 Jul 82 23:07-PDT References: sri-unix.2287 A geosynchronous satellite is stationary with respect to the Earth, NOT with respect to the stars! Thus, a given satellite will block a radio telescopes view of a given area of the celestial sphere for a limited time (once per day). Hal Chambers pur-ee!Physics:hal ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 31-Jul-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #257 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 257 Today's Topics: Gravitational attraction and shifts Space Law Re: SPACE Digest V2 #256 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 July 1982 1117-EDT (Friday) From: Arpanet.Guest at CMU-10A To: space at mit-mc Subject: Gravitational attraction and shifts CC: decvax!harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!ech at UCB-C70 Message-Id: <30Jul82 111746 GS0T@CMU-10A> Concerning the question of objects A and B, and the time it takes B to realise that A is gone, consider the following (lightly though!) Given that recently (50+ years) we have compiled some accurate astronomical data, does it not follow that we could take a known event of stellar proportions such as a nova or supernova and track it out to it's corresponding actions on the red/blue shift of a nearby star and thus measure the time delay? Since the distance to nova A is known, and the distance to star B is known, and thus the distance between them, the earth-object times are known and thus of no importance, and the object-object time becomes the control. If the change is very slight, which is very likely, do we have a means of accurate measurement? Would the space telescope provide the nessecary level of discretion? This is my first attempt at net communication, and I can only hope that somehow it will get through. Greg Maples n900gs0t@cmua gmm@mit-mc,ai ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jul 1982 1017-PDT From: Paul Dietz Subject: Space Law To: space at MIT-MC REASON magazine had a very interesting August issue. I've already mentioned one article in arms-d; there is another one pertinent to this digest. Keith Henson (a founder a first president of L5) and Arel Lucas start their article on "Star Laws" with the following piece: With tears in his eyes, the commander of the US moon base spoke to the woman begging for asylum. "Sonya, my personal sympathies are with you. But I have my authorities above me. I have to do what is required. You will have to return to your base." "Please!" pleaded Sonya. "They will kill me. I will not go back." The commander reluctantly left his office and admitted the Russians. Dr. Gale Roberts, one of the civilian scientists at the base, later recounted the incident to the press. "We could hear the woman's cries for help. She was on her knees, praying and crying, 'Oh God help me.' The Russians came in. Sometimes I couldn't see her, but I could hear her screaming. Then she ran to the upper deck. Her face was all bloody. "She hid for a while, but three more Russians were let in. They found her, beat her unconcious. Then they tied her in a blanket and carried her out the airlock. "We're not even sure they put a suit on her in the airlock," said Dr. Roberts. "Nobody was permitted to look." Change "Sonya" to "Simas", and "moon base" to "Coast Guard Cutter Vigilant" and you have an incident that occured in November 1970. (See Dec. 14 TIME.) A Lithuanian radio operator defected to the Vigilant, but the captain was ordered to return him. He was beaten, suffering kidney damage, and was sent to Siberia. But the US has signed a treaty REQUIRING us the return defectors. Article VIII of the 1967 Space Treaty states "A State ... shall retain jurisidiction and control over such object [spacecraft] and over any personnel thereof"; Article IV of the Rescue Agreement, which enjoins signers to return personnel, willing or not; Article XII of the Moon Treaty says that "States... shall retain jurisdiction and control over their personnel." The article continues by explaining how the treaties would eliminate (in space) the rights of privacy and private property. It ends by urging the President to formally reject the Moon treaty as he has rejected the Law of the Sea treaty. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jul 1982 1039-PDT From: Alan R. Katz Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #256 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: KATZ at USC-ISIF In-Reply-To: Your message of 30 Jul 1982 0302-PDT Am I imagining something or are we (on the ArpaNet) see only some of the message from the Berkeley people (the ones with all the !'s in their address)??? There seems to be many messages which talk about previous messages I havn't seen. Examples include the one about the rats, and the first message which mentioned some bizarre thing about generating a monopolar field with out monopoles if you are in a gravitational field (or some such nonsense). If this is indeed happening, can something be done by somebody somewhere to remedy the situation?? Alan ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jul 1982 1319-PDT From: Ted Anderson To: space at MIT-MC I assume that the reason for these appearent violations of causality are caused by people responding to messages that appear on their local (or at least more local) Sapce BBoards, and the "luck of the draw" causes them arrive first. Since the transit times through the Usenet seem to vary wildly this seems emminently plausible. Another cause of the problem is that the Unix people seem the messages directly without going through the digestification process. Thus there is no central "clock" which keeps all the discussions causally related (synchronous). I suspect that the original question that prompted the "rat" reply will filter in. An alternatice suggestion is that the person accidently misdirected his reply to the Space digest. Fortunately this is not a serious problem so the best thing to do is probably to ignore it. -Ted Anderson ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 01-Aug-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #258 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 258 Today's Topics: Re: Gravitational Information Space Law ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 31 Jul 82 16:17:19-EDT (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!rhm at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Gravitational Information Article-I.D.: alice.824 Via: Usenet; 31 Jul 82 15:48-PDT References: whuxlb.360 Are you suggesting that the gravitational force acting on a planet acts in the direction that the sun was one light time ago? If so, all of orbit theory has to be revised. Or perhaps you suggest that object B suddenly "decides " to move? Exactly how can this occur, please? ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jul 1982 1648-PDT From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) Subject: Space Law To: space at MIT-MC cc: dietz at USC-ECL Reply-To: SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI Paul Dietz But the US has signed a treaty REQUIRING us the return defectors. Article VIII of the 1967 Space Treaty states "A State ... shall retain jurisidiction and control over such object [spacecraft] and over any personnel thereof"; Article IV of the Rescue Agreement, which enjoins signers to return personnel, willing or not; Article XII of the Moon Treaty says that "States... shall retain jurisdiction and control over their personnel." There is NOTHING wrong with these provisions - indeed, they should be DESIRED by us (and are). Under them American citizens must be under the jurisdiction and control of Americans. Otherwise the Soviets could enforce THEIR laws against our personal and control their actions if in Soviet territory. Of course this means we cannot meddle in Soviet affairs (something THEY wanted), but it protects OUR people - which is the first priority. I have no problems about these provisions - our citizens will have a reasonable degree of self government. It is not good for the Soviet citizens, but what can you do? The ultimate answer is to allow individuals in space to form their own independent governments - but that is not possible in the short term. Jim ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 02-Aug-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #259 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 259 Today's Topics: Shuttle Gravitational propagation and the general theory Is acceleration relative? The answer: No Relativity vs. grativitational effects of Supernovae Finite rate of information travel, and orbits. re: space law Gravitational attraction and shifts STS-5 visibility Re: Finite rate of information travel, and orbits. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Jul 82 8:18:57-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!ARPAVAX.CSVAX.mhtsa!eagle!harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Shuttle Article-I.D.: alice.816 Via: Usenet; 1 Aug 82 3:37-PDT A high NASA official said yesterday that the fifth flight of the space shuttle will probably land at KSC. Though they do not yet have cross winds landing experience, NASA people feel confident that the shuttle can land there, after they saw how well it performed on EAFB's concrete runway. In other news, the same official said that the failure of the parachutes may have been caused by a malfunctioning sensor that cut half of the lines leading to the main parachutes, preventing the others from opening, as it opened instead of upon impact with the water. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 82 13:18:08-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!tekmdp!dadla-b!dadla-a!steve at Ucb-C70 Subject: Gravitational propagation and the general theory Article-I.D.: dadla-a.216 Via: Usenet; 1 Aug 82 3:48-PDT One time I went down to one of our local universities and dug up a PH.D candidate in physics and asked him, in a much more complex fashion, the question asked by whuxlb!ech (that is, what is the propagation delay of gravity). The answer was also complicated, but it went something like this: The question you ask is meaningless. How can body A measure his response to what body B is doing? For any given observed behavior at body A there are an infinite number of places in the universe that body B could be that could cause the effects. Yes (I responded), but we are not dealing with an infinite number of places, but rather the end points of a well defined line. When body B goes from one place to another, then what is the precise observed effect at body A when B reaches its end point? How much longer does the change in effect occur at A when B reaches his end point? (he responded) Now you are falling into another trap. There is no such thing as "simultaneity" in a relativistic universe. To ask any question about "the same time at two different places" is meaningless. And so on... This was all with respect to the General theory of relativity, which has apparently fallen into ill-repute in recent years (due to its conflicts with quantum theory). Around and around I went with him, and every question I asked came down to "That is meaningless - the effects you are looking for either do not exist or cannot be measured." Sigh..... Steve Den Beste Tektronix ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jul 82 18:35:15-PDT (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!tekmdp!dadla-b!dadla-a!steve at Ucb-C70 Subject: Is acceleration relative? The answer: No Article-I.D.: dadla-a.217 Via: Usenet; 1 Aug 82 3:54-PDT It is a common misunderstanding that acceleration is a relative thing in Relativity theory. One aspect of the Special Theory is that there are "real" frames of reference, and "artificial" frames of reference. A "real" frame is one that is not accelerating. An "artificial" frame *is* (no prize) accelerating. In other words, velocity, position, time, and mass are all relative, but acceleration is absolute. Measurements taken in an artificial frame (which by the theory can be deduced by the individuals living in that frame) can determine that it *is* an artificial frame. Were this not the case, there would be an ambiguity in the classic "twin" problem: a pair of twins are born on Earth. One stays home, and the other gets on a ship which accelerates to short-of-light-speed out to a certain point, then returns. When they meet again, which has aged more? Were acceleration relative, the theory would be ambiguous. Since the twin in the ship has accelerated (4 times) he (she?) is the one in the artificial frame, and therefore he/she has the incorrect observation. In other words, the theory unambiguously predicts that the one that stayed at home ages and the one on the ship does not. When they meet, the one who stays home has aged more. It turns out that the twin on the ship can predict the difference, but only by assuming that his (her?) observations (except for the observations of acceleration) are fallacious. In other words he (she?) computes the problem as the other twin wuld observe it - thus coming up with the "true" answer. (Well, close enough for government work, and a damn sight closer than if based on observations from the ship!) It turns out that by definition an object that is rotating is accelerating, and therefore is in an artificial frame of reference. Therefore, the ant on the phonograph cannot make Andromeda move faster than light simply by rotating - because his (her?) observations are fallacious. (Of course, in theory this invalidates every observation of modern physics because the Earth rotates, but this can be corrected for. Lucky for us!) It is an aspect of the *General* theory, not the Special theory that there is no way to differentiate between an gravitational attraction and an acceleration. (I am a hell of a lot fuzzier about this than I am about the Special Theory, so don't quote m) This is manifestly false, as I will demonstrate: One can measure "down" from two points. This defines two mathematical lines. If they intersect "below" the two points, then the observers are in a gravitational field. If they intersect "above" then they are in a centripetal field (say, Niven's "Ringworld" or some such artifact, probably much smaller). If they do not intersect at all, then they are in an accelerating frame, and all of their measurements are fallacious. (Further, since *all* accelerating frames are fallacious, this particular one has the distinction of being one in which the individuals cannot correct their observations.) I once read a science fiction story in which the idea that acceleration is absolute was espoused as proof of the falsity of the Special Theory. As with most science fiction, the author was not attempting to be scientifically correct, but rather to come up with a plausible rationale for changing the status quo for his (her?) story. No slur is intended on the author: there is no mandate on science fiction authors to stay within current capabilities - indeed there is a mandate on them to exceed such limits (otherwise it wouldn't be science fiction. NO FLAMING!). I hope this clears up the question of the ant on the turntable. Steve Den Beste Tektronix ------------------------------ Date: 31 Jul 82 18:51:53-PDT (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!tekmdp!dadla-b!dadla-a!steve at Ucb-C70 Subject: Relativity vs. grativitational effects of Supernovae Article-I.D.: dadla-a.218 Via: Usenet; 1 Aug 82 3:55-PDT I hope all you folks out there understand that when I argue the orthodox point of view, that I don't necessarily believe it. Re: the effects of a SuperNova on nearby stars, over the short run (say a million years or less) the gravitational attraction of the Supernova would not be measurable on nearby stars since the center of gravity of the Supernova would not change. Only when the closest mass from the Supernova was (say) a quarter of the distance of the farthest mass would the inverse-square aspect of the law of Gravitation make a difference. However, you have a problem with all the mass in between the nearest and farthest. I don't think you could come up with any observations that were meaningful - even if it weren't the case that the movement of the star in question would be measured in inches rather than parsecs. So it goes... ------------------------------ Date: 1 August 1982 14:33-EDT From: John G. Aspinall Subject: Finite rate of information travel, and orbits. To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC cc: JGA at MIT-MC Date: 31 Jul 82 16:17:19-EDT (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!rhm at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Gravitational Information Article-I.D.: alice.824 Via: Usenet; 31 Jul 82 15:48-PDT References: whuxlb.360 Are you suggesting that the gravitational force acting on a planet acts in the direction that the sun was one light time ago? If so, all of orbit theory has to be revised. Exactly. Perhaps you have heard of A. Einstein? Or perhaps you suggest that object B suddenly "decides " to move? Exactly how can this occur, please? Seriously, this is exactly the effect that causes the perihelic shift of the planets, notably Mercury, that Einstein explained in 1915. There are many ways to "explain" it, but one way to look at it is to regard the motion of any object as being controlled by the local space-time metric. Then the geodesic in a central force field (the Schwarzschild metric, for you jargon fans), gives the orbit of a mass that is negligibly small compared to the central mass. The solution of the geodesic gives you something that looks like Kepler's Law, but with an extra term that contains 1/c^2 . This term disappears in the limit that c approaches infinity, which is what you'd expect in the classical limit. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 1982 1139-EDT From: John Redford To: space at MIT-AI cc: redford at WAFER Subject: re: space law Message-ID: <"MS10(2055)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11844361250.22.583.6032 at DEC-MARLBORO> As I understand it, the US rejected the Law of the Sea treaty because of the provisions about sharing the income from seabed mining operations with the Third World. This was thought to be both unfair and a disincentive to the mining companies. However, the proponents of the treaty argued that it was even more unfair for any one nation to benefit exclusively from resources which they had no prior claim to. And mining companies might be even more reluctant to undertake major programs in a complete legal vacuum. The technology for dredging up manganese nodules from the deep sea floor is not cheap. Suppose that while you are working in the North Atlantic England suddenly extends her territorial waters to cover your area, sends in its own harvesters, and politely evicts you. What do you do? Call in the Marines? The same argument applies to space resources. Say that both the US and Japan find a precious lode of ice on the Moon. Who gets it? The ones who can hole the others spacesuits? A businessman would be mad to invest in an operation without a legal framework for orderly development. Such a framework must be agreed upon internationally, and that means that we must pay attention to other countries' interests. If their demands are unreasonable, well then let's negotiate that. It's not as if there's any rush about the issues. But doing without a treaty would surely kill civilian development of space. -------- ------------------------------ Date: 1 August 1982 18:25-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Gravitational attraction and shifts To: Arpanet.Guest at CMU-10A cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, decvax!harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!ech at UCB-C70 It is my understanding that most supernovas are rather symmetrical. Since an object that is symmetric has the same gravitational force at a given distance from its center of mass regardless of the radial distribution of the mass, providing the distance is greater than the radius of the object (distance from center to furthest part of its mass), a supernova would cause no gravitational effect on another object until after the outer parts of the star that exploded had passed the other object, by which time that object would be knocked about by physical impact, masking the change in gravitational force. An asymmetrical explosion would cause a net change in gravitational force at distances beyond the radius of the explosion, but computing just what this change might be as we look at a 2-dimensional telescope image of the supernova from a distance of many light years, would be too difficult. We might see the gravitational effect on the other object and not know whether our observed supernova did it or not (perhaps a dark star collided with it, perhaps some other gravitational wave did it, ...). I doubt we can predict the gravitational change accurately enough to confirm or refute it by our observations of that other object. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 82 15:49:01-PDT (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: STS-5 visibility Article-I.D.: eagle.436 Via: Usenet; 1 Aug 82 20:17-PDT I am wondering if anybody knows the sequence of events planned for STS-5. This is the first operational mission of the shuttle, and the first to use a solid-fuel upper stage for the payloads (SBS-C and a Telesat satellite). I would expect that the exhaust plumes from the solid upper stages, which use essentially the same fuel as the shuttle boosters, will expand rapidly in vacuum and reflect sunlight. If the upper stages are fired within view of an observer in darkness, they should be very visible for a short time. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 82 23:34:47-EDT (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!duke!unc!smb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Finite rate of information travel, and orbits. Article-I.D.: unc.3777 Via: Usenet; 1 Aug 82 22:57-PDT And presumably, gravity waves -- which should in principle be detectable, especially from detonation of a supernova -- are a manifestation of the propogation time of gravity (I think). --Steve Bellovin duke!unc!smb smb.unc@udel-relay ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 03-Aug-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #260 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 260 Today's Topics: SPACE Digest V2 #259 space treaty Re: Space Law Re: Finite rate of information travel, and orbits. Re: Infinite Propogation Speed gravitons ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 August 1982 08:46-EDT From: Stewart Cobb Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #259 To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I too am fuzzy on General Relativity (is there anyone out there who isn't?) but I don't think Steve Den Beste's method for telling apart acceleration and gravitational fields will work. His method was to compare the direction of DOWN in two different locations. Unfortunately, GR says (among other things) that space is curved. There's no such thing as an absolute direction, just as there's no such thing as an absolute time reference (simultaniety) in SR. In fact, the amount that straight lines bend (a straight line is, of necessity, defined as the path that a beam of light will take) is directly related to the local strength of the gravitational field. I think a professor once told me that a method such as Steve's will work in most simple cases (here on Earth, for example) but is not guaranteed to work in all cases. General Relativity remains relative. Stewart Cobb (cobb@nbs-vms) ------------------------------ Date: 2 Aug 1982 14:23:08-EDT From: dee at CCA-UNIX (Donald Eastlake) To: dietz at USC-ECL Subject: space treaty Cc: space at mit-mc Your theory that a piece of paper with signatures on it would protect a US citizen on the moon who wanders into a Russian (or Moselm or whatever) base given that the other country is willing to offend the USA by foreceably detaining that person is silly. I don't see any difference between lunar bases and countries on earth in the law and customs that should apply to citizens when entering areas physically under the control of another country. Donald E. Eastlake, III (dee@cca-unix) ------------------------------ Date: 2 Aug 1982 1057-PDT From: Paul Dietz Subject: Re: Space Law To: SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI, space at MIT-MC cc: DIETZ at USC-ECL In-Reply-To: Your message of 31-Jul-82 1648-PDT There is EVERYTHING wrong with the space treaties. They are based on the awful idea that citizens of a country are the property of that country's government. Essentially, you are saying that if the US government does not claim possession of its citizens then the USSR can collect them like wild animals. A far better solution would be for US citizens in space to be allowed to defend themselves against coercion. It is neither necessary nor desirable for the US government to fulfill this function. The government won't allow this, of course, because the people in space could defend themselves against US government coercion too. And why is forming governments in space the ultimate answer? I thought governments are the whole problem. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Aug 82 10:23:05-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!floyd!rhm at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Finite rate of information travel, and orbits. The Aspinwall theory of gravitation is incorrect. The gravitational force acting on body A at time t (measured at A) depends precisely on the distance and direction of body B at time t (also measured at A). Relativity did not do away with the measurement of time and distance. The perihelion shift of mercury and other planets is a tiny and essentially unrelated effect. Simply stated, the claim that the gravitational force on body A depends on the position of body B one light-time ago is flatly incorrect. It is not and never has been a disputed question. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Aug 82 11:40:24-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!ech at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Infinite Propogation Speed floyd!rhm's statement that: The gravitational force acting on body A at time t (measured at A) depends precisely on the distance and direction of body B at time t (also measured at A). Relativity did not do away with the measurement of time and distance. is absolutely correct. However, he proceeds to draw (or imply) the erroneous conclusion that the position of B, measured at A at time t, IS the position of B. Sorry, not so. The emphasis is on the phrase "as measured at A," and the information AVAILABLE at A is always retarded by (at least) the speed of light limit. By analogy, imagine that you are chasing a train, in the dark, by the sound of its passing; you are "attracted" by the sound, but will always move toward the point the train was at WHEN THE SOUND WAS EMITTED. Obviously, if sound had an infinite propogation speed, you'd be headed directly for the train, but a finite propogation speed implies that you will head for where it's BEEN. The same applies to the gravitational problem in question: A is attracted to B based on "best information available". That is the actual location of B ONLY if gravitation propogates at infinite speed. By the way, infinite propogation speed of gravity implies the ability to build an infinite-speed "radio:" just vibrate a mass and measure the position of the mass at some arbitrary distance. By modulating the vibration you can transmit a signal at infinite speed. The existence of such a "radio" would blow all omodern cosmology right out the door, by the way, destroying relativistic causality... =Ned Horvath= ------------------------------ Date: 2 August 1982 23:00 edt From: Tavares.Coop at MIT-MULTICS Subject: gravitons To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Message of 29 July 1982 06:03 edt from Ted Anderson Common oversimplification? Relativity supposedly says you can't procedd through the speed of light from either side; it doesn't say nothing can exist on the other side of the hump (e.g., tachyons). From the data so far presented, why must there be a lower bound on detection time at all? Maybe there's a good reason that gravitons aren't "always-FTL" objects, but that ain't it. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 04-Aug-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #261 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 261 Today's Topics: FTL using Supernovas to measure gravity's speed FTL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Aug 82 13:33:20-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Ucb-C70 Subject: FTL Quite a few people are interested in FTL discussions. So where do we start? Any suggestions? ------------------------------ Date: 3 August 1982 10:01-PDT (Tuesday) From: KING at KESTREL To: SPACE at MIT-MC Subject: using Supernovas to measure gravity's speed A supernova explosion, per se, would have no effect on nearby stars because the gravity of any spherically symmetric mass is the same as the gravity of an equal point mass at its center, provided that the measurement is made farther from the center than any of the symmetric mass. H O W E V E R A supernova suddenly unleashes radiation, decreasing the mass of the object. (Anyone know by how much? I would assume a few tenths of a percent.) This doesn't help, however, because the radiation wouldn't be beyond the target star until the gravitational effects of the explosion should have gone that far. What we really want is an object that shoots off mass in an asymmetrical manner. I seem to recall reading something about gas jets in Scientific American... ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 82 12:55:42-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!kcarroll at Ucb-C70 Subject: FTL Article-I.D.: utzoo.2331 Via: Usenet; 4 Aug 82 1:17-PDT Poul Anderson had a nice-sounding method of faster-then-light travel in (I believe) his Polesotechnic League stories. It involved installing a device on a ship that causes the entire ship to make a microscopic "quantum jump", the way that an electron does in a tunnel diode--moving from one location to another without occupying the intervening space, and presumably in zero time. Each jump is quite small, but the device triggers at a high frequency, so that the ship ends up moving a large distance in a given time--faster than light, in Anderson's universe. One interesting feature of the drive is that when it is turned off, the ship need not have any intrinsic velocity. It could be sitting dead in space between jumps. Of course, it need not sit still between jumps; you could go a bit faster by accelerating in the direction of the jumps, using a normal reaction-drive. HOWEVER...if you have no intrinsic velocity, there's no time- dilation, and no Doppler-shifting of the starlight as seen by the ship, making for easier astrogation. I'm not suggesting this as a realistic form of FTL travel, but then, if we limit ourselves to realistic forms of FTL travel, the discussion won't last for very long... Kieran A. Carroll ...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 05-Aug-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #262 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 262 Today's Topics: Re: Infinite Propogation Speed Re: SPACE Digest V2 #261 Space policy legislation Filament-wound SRBs FTL Space Digest ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Aug 82 9:18:46-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.hal at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Infinite Propogation Speed With respect to the finite propogation time of gravitational information, I have always thought it would be an interesting experiment to do the following: Position yourself at the center of the sun, (without burning up, preferably) Destroy the sun in some non-cataclysmic, instantaneous way. Watch the Earth continue to orbit for ~16 minutes. This would all be done for the sake of Science, of course!! Hal Chambers decvax!pur-ee!Physics:hal ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 1982 1234-PDT From: Alan R. Katz Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #261 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: KATZ at USC-ISIF In-Reply-To: Your message of 04 Aug 1982 0303-PDT IT IS NOT TRUE that in a tunnel diode the electrons move from one place to another without occupying the intervening space. The electrons DO occupy the intervening space (their wave functions do). I have heard this in many science fiction stories (and pseudo-science books) and it shows a complete misunderstanding of quantum mechanics (although it sounds neat in an SF story). Classically, it would be impossible for an electron of a given energy to cross a certain barrier, however, quantum mechanically, there is a finite (but small) probability that the electron does cross it. Since there are many electrons, some of them do get through even though according to classical mechanics (which is wrong in this regime) they should not. The electrons that do get through had their wave function transmitted through the barrier (its like a similar effect with light waves). Alan ------- ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 1982 1305-PDT Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-8 Subject: Space policy legislation From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin) To: space at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[OFFICE-8] 4-Aug-82 13:05:36.WMARTIN> From the "Professional Pipeline" column, by Carole Patton, in the Aug 2, '82, issue of ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING TIMES, page 32, in a discussion of engineering-related legislation: "Two 'space policy' bills, one sponsored by Rep. George Brown, Jr. (D-CA) and the other by Rep. Newton Gingrich (R-GA), are an attempt to establish a long-range space program. STATUS: Both HR 3412 (Rep. Brown's bill), and the Gingrich bill are tentatively scheduled for hearings in August." ***End extract *** I recall recent plaintive messages wanting to know how to influence the future of the space program. This seems an excellent opportunity. I suggest those concerned write these congressmen for copies of the bills and express their views. Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 4 August 1982 1747-EDT (Wednesday) From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30) To: space at MIT-MC Subject: Filament-wound SRBs Message-Id: <04Aug82 174743 DS30@CMU-10A> Thiokol is working on lightweight SRB casings for the Shuttle, made of filament-wound Kevlar. Supposedly, these casings will be reusable, like the present ones. I recently spoke with a manufacturing engineer who works for Thiokol. He told me that the design engineers all agree that no matter what anyone says, it won't be possible to reuse the lightweight casings -- that the reusability is just a fiction to get the funds appropriated. He agreed with my response that the project sounded like a waste of money. Is this an instance of Nasa paying for the development of something that only the Air Force wants? ------------------------------ Date: 4 August 1982 20:25 cdt From: VaughanW.REFLECS at HI-Multics Subject: FTL To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Since when is quantum tunneling instantaneous? I see no reason why it should not take finite time... everything else does. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 82 15:26:34-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!ucbvax!G.wing at Ucb-C70 Subject: Space Digest Article-I.D.: populi.277 Via: Usenet; 4 Aug 82 23:37-PDT In contrast to Article 742, could somebody put me ON the Space Digest mailing list. Path in From statement. Thanks... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 06-Aug-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #263 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 263 Today's Topics: Re: using Supernovas to measure gravity"s speed FTL: re: Poul Andersons method. cancel utzoo.2330 re:supernovae & gravity waves FWCs for the SRBs FTL by quantum leaps relativity Re: using Supernovas to measure gravity"s speed ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 August 1982 06:34-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas To: SPACE at MIT-MC My understanding of general relativity slightly contradicts what was said in this digest by menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!tekmdp!dadla-b!dadla-a!steve at Ucb-C70. Accelleration and gravity are indistinguishable locally, i.e. if a single measurement is made at a point. But if measurements are made at different points then indeed a global picture may be obtained which can possibly separate gravity and centrifugal force from true delta-vee/tee. Note that this global analysis isn't trivial, for example mascons can create gravity measurements that look more like non-gravity, and there's no such thing as absolute space and absolute time so you can't arrange measurements to be "simultaneous" so if forces are changing with time you may have trouble getting any consistent global picture at all. But at least with multiple measurements you can distinguish the simple cases from each other. Re sf, I see no reason sf has to contradict known and well-established scientific theories. What's wrong with sticking to known science and postulating new engineering uses for these, such as black-hole mass-to-energy conversion, Dyson spheres, encyclopedia gallactica, etc.? I'd rather see a good story about how to maintain a stable economy when major shipments of precious metals arrive from the asteroid mining colonies once every 14 months, bigger each time, sort of like the bonus armies in the game of Risk; than read somebody's idlebrained speculation about how if we could only go faster than light we could ... ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 82 13:32:59-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: using Supernovas to measure gravity"s speed Article-I.D.: watmath.3193 Via: Usenet; 5 Aug 82 3:56-PDT References: sri-unix.2416 A supernova, as I recall, blows away something like NINETY percent of the stellar mass.... ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 82 7:42:57-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Ucb-C70 Subject: FTL: re: Poul Andersons method. Article-I.D.: utzoo.2337 Via: Usenet; 5 Aug 82 4:07-PDT The functional device is not to realistic. But the whole idea sounds kind of nice. The part about having no intrinsic velocity has interesting possibilities. But would that mean that one is using the motion of that which is around him to get from one point to another? Of course, where they not, if i remember correctly,(if the same story) utilizing the fact that space is supposedly curved, and instead of travelling around the sphere of space, they travelled through it? Not to long ago, and i will have to check where, a university in the States came up with pretty good evidence that space is not curved. The idea being, that were space curved then all the stars would be be perfectly spherical. Einstein himself said so. But, using very accurate and precision equipment, the univ. made measurements of the spherosity of the sun, and found it to deviating from a perfect sphere around the equator, by a small percent of about 0.00019%. I am not sure of that value, but it was small, and that number seems to be what i remember it to have been. I will check and see if i can't dig up the article. Perhaps someone else read it. Anyhow, the error is small, but large enough to "destroy" the theory of curved space, which would pose interesting problems with quantum physics. Just the same, Andersons method is interesting, and not to be forgotten, out of sci-fi have come many technical developments that were once put down as sci-fi only. Raymond S. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 82 7:26:08-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Ucb-C70 Subject: cancel utzoo.2330 Article-I.D.: utzoo.2336 Via: Usenet; 5 Aug 82 4:17-PDT ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 82 13:46:06-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!kcarroll at Ucb-C70 Subject: re:supernovae & gravity waves Article-I.D.: utzoo.2338 Via: Usenet; 5 Aug 82 4:37-PDT A supernova's gravitational effect on nearby stars might not be negligible, for at least two reasons. The first is that the supernova need not produce a spherically-symmetric nebula; hence the center of mass of the supernova remnant would be slightly different from that of the pre-nova star. It might even be significantly different, as I beleive that the amount of the star blown off by the S-N would be on the order of 50%, rather than 0.1% or so.(although this is based on a rather hazy recollection of some Asimov article(how's for an example of pleading higher authority?)). Working out the ncenter of mass of the nebula would be tricky, as not all the gas in it would be radiating (ie. we wouldn't be able to see much of it); hence it would be hard to correlate the mass-center shift with effects on other stars, in any useful manner. The other possible effect is based on the presumed wave nature of gravity (appropriate, as this experiment is designed to measure the gravity-wave propagation speed, which can only be done if gravity wavelike). From what I've read of supernovae, they are quite rapid events, and involve large masses being shuffled about very quickly. This ought to generate a rapid change in the local gravity-wave medium, perhaps analogous to a shock wave in air. The effects of the passage of this wave are what we would look for in nearby stars and nebula. I can imagine it causing a ripple through a nebula, or a sudden shift in the period of a variable star. (of course, as far as astrophysics goes, I have more imagination than real knowledge) The place where this experimaent might really fall down is the use of "known" distances between stars as part of the calculation of the speed of gravity. To my knowledge, it's only for the very near stars that we have any precise idea of distance. The farther stars are too far to use parallax as an accurate distance-measurement, and so relative magnitude of the stars must be used. Except, the ABSOLUTE magnitudes of the stars are not really known, so this isn't all that accurate, either. As a result, I'd be surprised if the distance of a star more than (say) 10 parsecs away was known to better than (say) 5% accuracy. (can anybody out there in net.space-land confirm or refute this?) Kieran A. Carroll ...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 1982 1010-MDT From: Pendleton at UTAH-20 (Bob Pendleton) Subject: FWCs for the SRBs To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Pendleton at UTAH-20 In-Reply-To: Your message of 5-Aug-82 0403-MDT Thiokol is working on kevlar SRB casings? Very curious! Hercules Aerospace has been awarded a contract to start BUILDING carbon fiber cases for the SRB. According to the Hercules in house paper, the tooling needed for production of the FWC ( Filament Wound Case ) has already started arriving. I have been told by engineers at Hercules that FWCs "might" be reusable. The FWCs are based on technology developed for the MX transporter launch tube, whose development costs were paid for by the Air Force. These tubes have stood up very well in testing. The engineers I have talked to claim that the cost of expendable FWCs vs. the improvement in payload gives a lower cost per pound in orbit. I haven't seen figures to back this up, but a 30 to 50 percent increase in payload is expected. Bob Pendleton ------- ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 5 August 1982 17:31-EDT From: Jon Webb To: decvax!utzoo!kcarroll at UCB-C70 Cc: webb at CMU-20C, space at MIT-MC Subject: FTL by quantum leaps No, I think this is an OK form of FTL travel. It is allowed in Einstein's theories to travel faster than light; what you can't do is send information faster than light. So you could have, say, an electron taking an FTL Brownian-motion path through the universe as long as the speed from its starting point to its ending point is less than c. The only problem with this method for FTL travel is that you can't predict where you'll end up, and you tend to get all your molecules scrambled up pretty fast. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 5 August 1982 17:21-EDT From: Jon Webb subject: relativity Cc: space at MIT-MC, webb at CMU-20C 2 observations: (1) General relativity isn't in disrepute lately; (2) the whole thing about distinguishing between accelaration and gravitational attraction is bogus, because the principle of equivalence applies only at a point; you can distinguish between the two effects but only by measuring the accelaration at different places. Jon ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 82 12:05:24-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!floyd!rhm at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: using Supernovas to measure gravity"s speed Article-I.D.: floyd.422 Via: Usenet; 5 Aug 82 20:28-PDT References: watmath.3193 Re watmath!pcmcgeers comment about loss of supernova mass, let us be a bit more precise. To wit, A supernova blows away NONE of the stellar mass... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 07-Aug-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #264 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 264 Today's Topics: SPACE Digest V2 #263 Space in the News Supernovas & Mass Ejection FTL: re: Poul Andersons method. Supernova, Gravity, Etc Star Trek newsgroup FTL? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 August 1982 09:28-EDT From: Stewart Cobb Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #263 To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC In regard to decvax!utzoo!miles's comments, I too remember an article which stated that the sun was not a perfect sphere. Someone had finally found a way to measure the eccentricity of the sun, and found that it was indeed eccentric, by some small percentage (miles says 0.00019%). The point of the article I saw, however, was that the extra belt of mass around the fatter sun produced some heretofore unsuspected gravitational effects. Specifically, the extra mass provided another explanation for the precession of Mercury around its orbit. The explanation of the precession of Mercury, remember, was one of the great triumphs of General Relativity. I'm not going to give up GR until there's another theory that explains other phenomena as well as GR does, but we might all keep in mind that one of the classical tests of GR may have been invalidated. Stewart (cobb@mit-mc) ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 1982 0758-PDT Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-8 Subject: Space in the News From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin) To: Space at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[OFFICE-8] 6-Aug-82 07:58:29.WMARTIN> From the July 19, '82 issue of Electronic Engineering Times, p. 37: PENTAGON CREATES USAF SPACE COMMAND (extracts) The Department of Defense has created the US Air Force Space Command in response to the increasing use of space for military purposes. The new command, to be operational Septemeber 1, will be part of the Air Force. The Space Command was established ... to counter advances in Soviet space systems and strategic weapons via a single operational command that can carry out US military space policy. The Pentagon's move follows a long debate with Congress over whether to rename the US Air Force the US Aerospace Force. Congress wanted to change the name to sharpen DoD's focus for space activities, which it felt were lagging behind the Soviet military effort in space. ... Creation of the Space Command is viewed as the first step toward establishing a unified command involving all other branches of the military. This, according to Pentagon sources, is an issue presently being hotly contested among the various branches of the service. The headquarters for the new part of the Air Force will be located with the Aerospace Defense Command at Colorado Springs, CO. Commander of the Space Command will be Lt. Gen. James V. Hartinger, presently commander-in-chief of NORAD as well as head of the Aerospace Defense Command. ... "The purpose of the new command is to provide a focus initially for operational planning, coordination and consolidation of activities relating to space-mission areas." ... The operational and development portions of the Defense Dept. have often been too far apart, with the users of the systems not communicating fully with the developers. More emphasis will be given ... to incorporating operational concepts into space-system developments -- systems previously thought to contain one-of-a-kind characteristics. Standardization is also a goal of the Space Command. The desire to standardize space military systems is a strong one within DoD, and one which helped to get the Space Command approved. [Latter portion extracted from comments by retiring USAF chief of staff General Lew Allen, Jr.] ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 1982 1230-CDT From: Jonathan Slocum Subject: Supernovas & Mass Ejection To: space at MIT-AI First of all, I'm not sure what "Supernovas blow away NONE of the stellar mass" was supposed to mean. Second, let me apologize in advance for the length of this msg; but we're dealing with a complicated subject which folks have been discussing at different levels without realizing it. So... The debate about how much mass is ejected was originally inspired by the question of how much mass was left behind, compared to the original mass, in an effort to guesstimate the observable gravitational effects. Bearing that in mind, and bearing in mind that astronomers recognize FIVE different types of supernovas, we have the following generalization: A small, small portion of the original star's mass is converted into energy in a couple of weeks' time; the star may radiate more energy than several times 10^9 suns. (Planets within a hundred light-years or so will become [almost] sterile.) The radiation pressure of this conversion is what compacts the central mass, and blows away the rest. The "central" remnant of a supernova will usually be a neutron star -- this is how these things get created. A supernova ejects a large portion of the star's original mass -- somewhere in the region of 85% give or take plenty. Therefore, in theory, a change in gravitational WAVE effects will be measurable one light-time after the event (some mass has been lost; far more, shuffled around). However, the gravitational ATTRACTION exerted by the star at that time is altered only according to the amount of mass that was lost by virtue of being converted into energy (and which has passed the observation point), and according to any asymmetry that may have developed in the ejecta shell. These changes are, practically speaking, negligible. Only over a LONG period of time will the attraction change -- depending on the asymmetry of the ejecta shell and whether any of it has passed the measurement point. Now, these babies tend to go off a LONG way away (thank goodness!) -- so far away that there is no hope of measuring the very, very slight displacements that take place. If I remember right, none have occured in our galaxy since 1754. And, to add more context, the "official" distance of the Andromeda galaxy was in recent history doubled -- from 1 to 2 million light years -- due to revised measurement techniques. Even in theory, measuring the displacement requires -- need I say it? -- that one know the ORIGINAL position AND velocity vector of the object being observed; therefore, it thus requires that one have a LONG time baseline, since the supernova's shell expands [by interstellar standards] very slowly. Ergo, we will not be observing any such displacements very soon. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 6 August 1982 13:42-PDT (Friday) From: KING at KESTREL To: decvax!utzoo!miles at Ucb-C70 Cc: space at Mit-Mc Subject: FTL: re: Poul Andersons method. It's not that non-spherical stars refute the assertion that space is curved. It is that possible imperfections in the Sun's shape could provide an alternate hypothesis as to why Mercury's orbit wasn't a closed ellipse. I seem to remember that he discovered some imperfections in the Sun's shape, but they were'nt enough and his apparatus's accuracy is subject to question in the scientific community. Dick ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 82 15:16:18-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!eagle!harpo!ihps3!ihnss!knudsen at Ucb-C70 Subject: Supernova, Gravity, Etc Article-I.D.: ihnss.126 Via: Usenet; 6 Aug 82 17:27-PDT HOLD IT! Basic hih-school physics states that the center of mass of an object cannot change (or its net momentum change) merely thru action of forces generated WITHIN that object -- rather, OUTSIDE forces are required. The example often used is a hand grenade flying thru outer space; if it explodes, the center-of-gravity/mass of all the fragments (& gases, etc) continues to move as before. Substitute a star for the grenade, comes the supernova explosion, and, presto, the center of mass stays ewhere it was . I think someone was wondering how much mass of the star would be changed into ENERGY a la E=mc^2, which *would* cause an instant change in mass. This change is radically different from the percentage of star matter that is merely blown away into space -- probably the 50~90% guesses are close. PS: If matter and energy are the same thing, and you have a volume of space with a VERY high energy flux, does it exert gravity (ie, distort space around it)? --mike knudsen ihnss!knudsen ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 82 14:43:31-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!eagle!harpo!ihps3!ihuxl!rjnoe at Ucb-C70 Subject: Star Trek newsgroup Article-I.D.: ihuxl.243 Via: Usenet; 6 Aug 82 17:37-PDT Two months ago, the motion picture "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" was released. As a result of this, the net.movies newsgroup was deluged with articles on "Star Trek", many (though not all) primarily concerned with this particular movie. This condition persisted for about one month. Quite a few complaints were registered on net.movies (and elsewhere) regarding the fact that this one movie could so rapidly overwhelm that newsgroup by the sheer volume of articles submitted. It occurred to me that it was not really the movie itself but the familiar "'Star Trek' phenomenon" which was responsible for this effect. Since the early 1970s, "Star Trek" has had a large and loyal following, of which a significant portion is by nature interested in mathematics, the sciences, engineering, computer science, space exploration, and science fiction. The exact number of people who would describe themselves as "Star Trek" fans (trekkies, trekkers, or otherwise) is of course unknown, but the number of ACTIVE members of "Star Trek" fan clubs nationwide is measured in the tens of thousands and probably exceeds one hundred thousand. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Taking these facts into consideration, I postulated that there should be a relatively large audience among netnews readers for "Star Trek". I have spent recent weeks communicating with others across the country in an effort to determine whether or not this audience would be sufficient to justify establishing a new newsgroup exclusively concerned with "Star Trek". By all indications this would seem to be the case. Because my samplings have been so encouraging I am now taking the step of soliciting opinions from the entire body of netnews readers on the existence of a "Star Trek" newsgroup. In replying, please consider the following: 1) Paramount Pictures has planned a minimum of eight more "Star Trek" motion pictures to be released at intervals of one year or so. 2) While fan activity is certainly highest around the time a film is released, it does not disappear between pictures. The years 1980 and 1981 witnessed some of the largest "Star Trek" fan club enrollments in history. 3) The "Star Trek" following appears to be virtually per- petual. In the decade between the production of the last "Star Trek" television episode and "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" this following GREW by leaps and bounds even though no original "Star Trek" stories were being filmed with permission of the copyright owner. This following sus- tained and strengthened itself through discussion of existing "Star Trek" episodes ONLY! 4) Negotiations for an eventual return of "Star Trek" to a television format of some sort are again underway. 5) "Star Trek" fans, like their questions and comments, will not disappear. Unless another outlet is supplied, net.movies will experience similar congestion with the release of each "Star Trek" movie. I can be contacted by net mail, telephone, or Bell Labs paper mail, whichever is most convenient for you. I invite your opinions on the existence of a "Star Trek" newsgroup as well as what it should be called (I myself am divided between net.trek and net.startrek), topics you would like to see discussed on the newsgroup, and any other comments you feel are relevant. I will of course summarize to the net (net.news.group, where I think further discussion should be confined). Those on the net whom I have already contacted personally need not resubmit comments to me (except to amend them). Roger Noe ...!{ihps3,harpo,ihnss,ucbvax,duke,houxi,eagle}!ihuxl!rjnoe (312) 979-6537 BTL - IH 5B-413 ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 82 14:25:57-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!rabbit!ark at Ucb-C70 Subject: FTL? Article-I.D.: rabbit.668 Via: Usenet; 7 Aug 82 0:58-PDT I thought "FTL" meant "Food, Transportation and Lodging" (I see it in airport directories frequently) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 08-Aug-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #265 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 265 Today's Topics: Re: re:supernovae & gravity waves - (nf) Re: Supernova, Gravity, Etc oblate central masses and orbit precession Comments on Supernova, Gravity, etc. FTL etc. SRB Recovery Plans mass vs. energy quantum and FTL Bell inequality Space in the News Space in the News FTL general: FTL vs causality ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Aug 82 16:32:01-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!duke!harpo!gdw at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: re:supernovae & gravity waves - (nf) Article-I.D.: harpo.928 Via: Usenet; 7 Aug 82 4:18-PDT #R:utzoo:-233800:harpo:11700001:000:290 harpo!gdw Aug 6 16:21:00 1982 I thought that distances were measured using "red shift", viz. the Doppler shift (toward longer wavelengths) of it's spectrum due to it's velocity away from Earth caused by the expanding universe. This velocity times the Hubble constant equals the distance of the star with good accuracy. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 82 16:09:11-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!duke!harpo!floyd!rhm at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Supernova, Gravity, Etc Article-I.D.: floyd.426 Via: Usenet; 7 Aug 82 5:09-PDT Re ihnss!knudsen comment. Again, during a supernova explosion, the change in mass is zero, both instantaneously and long term. Photons do just as good a job of causing gravitation as anything else of the same mass. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 82 16:58:31-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!duke!harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: oblate central masses and orbit precession Article-I.D.: eagle.451 Via: Usenet; 7 Aug 82 5:18-PDT It is a well-known (and utilized) fact that a satellite in orbit about an oblate central body does NOT follow classic two-body motion. This is because the gravitational field around an oblate body is dependent on position as well as radius distance from the body's center. For example, the earth's oblateness causes the "regression of nodes" in which the plane of a satellite precesses (rotates) about the earth's axis; the exact rate is a function of the orbital inclination (angle with the equator) and the orbit period. The so-called "sun synchronous" orbit, in which the NOAA and LANDSAT satellites are launched, along with amateur radio Oscars 6-9, consists of an orbital inclination and period such that the plane precesses eastward exactly once around the earth each year. This compensates for the earth's movement around the sun, hence the satellite's orbit plane remains in a fixed angle with the day/night side terminator. This means that the satellite cameras always see the same sun angle on the earth below. ALL earth satellites except those in EXACTLY polar orbits (inclination = 90 degrees) will precess in this manner. In addition, the "line of apsides" (orientation of the semi-major axis of the orbit ellipse WITHIN the orbit plane) rotates as a function of inclination, orbital period and eccentricity. The only way the line of apsides will remain fixed in earth orbit (other than by using a perfectly circular orbit, in which case the "line of apsides" is undefined) would be to set the inclination exactly equal to 63.4+ degrees. This is used by the Russian Molniya satellite series, in order to fix apogee at a high latitude over northern Siberia. In the case of the planet Mercury, its line of apsides would also rotate if the sun is indeed oblate, and I suspect that it is simply due to its slow rotation (~25 day period.) Phil Karn Bell Labs Murray Hill ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 82 17:11:54-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!duke!harpo!ihps3!ihuxn!gjphw at Ucb-C70 Subject: Comments on Supernova, Gravity, etc. Article-I.D.: ihuxn.172 Via: Usenet; 7 Aug 82 5:47-PDT When you consider the substance of spa ------------------------------ Date: Saturday, 7 August 1982 21:30-EDT From: Jon Webb To: space at MIT-MC Subject: FTL etc. Cc: webb at CMU-20C, REM at MIT-MC I agree. Let's stop talking about faster-than-light devices, attempts to disprove relativity and quantum mechanics, and so on. I suspect that people suggesting such things know very little of the math behind the theories, and are relying on vague popularizations for their information. Please, let's talk about the shuttle and serious attempts to develop our local space, like colonization of the moon and the L-5 points, and stop sounding like fools. Jon ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 82 15:52:51-PDT (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!duke!harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: SRB Recovery Plans Article-I.D.: alice.840 Via: Usenet; 7 Aug 82 18:26-PDT NASA officials have decided to go ahead and recover parts of the two SRB's that sank after the launch of STS-4. Underwater cameras showed that the boosters had broken up on impact. One of the pieces is a 40-foot long section that contains a flight recorder. The other booster was more broken up, the biggest piece being a 6-by-8 foot section containing a stiffener ring and at least two parachutes. NASA says that they do not expect any of the parts to be reusable, but they hope they will shed some more light on why the SRB's sank after hitting the ocean. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 82 15:18:08-PDT (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!duke!harpo!floyd!rhm at Ucb-C70 Subject: mass vs. energy Article-I.D.: floyd.428 Via: Usenet; 7 Aug 82 19:17-PDT This is a sample of recent mail. I am *almost* at a loss for words. I suppose I could continue pointing out there is no loss of mass (and by the way no change in center of gravity, despite assymetries) during a supernova explosion, ad infinitum. Others will insist that, despite Einstein, mass is not equivalent to energy and that the notion of mass is identical to the notion of rest mass, and that the energy of a photon is not "really" mass for some unspecified reason...... From harpo!duke!phs!jfh Sat Aug 7 13:21:31 1982 Date-Sent: Sat Aug 7 11:35:16 1982 To: duke!harpo!floyd!rhm Subject: Re: floyd.426: Re: Supernova, Gravity, Etc Surely you jest!! Photons have NO mass. If this were not true, then they could not travel at the speed of light. Fran Heidlage duke!phs!jfh ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 82 10:31:20-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!donald at Ucb-C70 Subject: quantum and FTL Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.499 Via: Usenet; 7 Aug 82 20:47-PDT I hate to bring up the old quantum mechanics debates again, but quantum tunneling IS instantaneous, at least in some sense of the word. A particle which appears on one side of a potential barrier at a particular instant can be detected on the other side at some future instant which is arbitrarily close to the first instant. (for you diehard quantum theorists out there, I know I'm over- simplifying, but bear with me...) There is no "transmission" across the barrier in the usual sense of the word, not even of "wave function" waves (!) as was suggested in a previous article. However, it would appear that as a real FTL mechanism this is useless because no information can be transmitted. Sometime ago a French physicist named Aspect was planning an experiment to test the Bell inequality which might demonstrate the existence of "correlated space-like events" (sorry for the technese). This might be interpreted to represent superluminal (FTL) information transfer between two points. Does anyone know how it turned out? (What do supernovas and gravity propagation have to do with FTL???) Don Chan ------------------------------ Date: 07 Aug 1982 2120-PDT From: Hans Moravec Subject: Bell inequality To: space at MIT-MC The July 30, 1982 Science answers Don Chan's previous question. p 435: "Quantum Mechanics Passes Another Test" - French photon polarization correlation experiment finds strongest violation yet of Bell's inequality. Score: Quantum Mechanics - 1, Relativity - 1, Realism - 0 the relativity part nixes faster than light communication. ------------------------------ Date: 8 August 1982 00:29-EDT (Sunday) Sender: CARTER at RU-GREEN From: Robert A. Carter To: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin) Cc: CARTER at RUTGERS, Space at MIT-MC Subject: Space in the News Date: Friday, 6 August 1982 10:58-EDT From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin) The Department of Defense has created the US Air Force Space Command in response to the increasing use of space for military purposes. The new command, to be operational Septemeber 1, will be part of the Air Force. The Pentagon's move follows a long debate with Congress over whether to rename the US Air Force the US Aerospace Force. Congress wanted to change the name to sharpen DoD's focus for space activities, which it felt were lagging behind the Soviet military effort in space. ... "[L]ong debate with Congress"? Does anyone have any citations to support that? I doubt the suggestion was ever really taken very seriously. _Bob ------------------------------ Date: 8 August 1982 00:47-EDT (Sunday) Sender: CARTER at RU-GREEN From: Robert A. Carter To: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin) Cc: CARTER at RUTGERS, Space at MIT-MC Subject: Space in the News test ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 82 6:26:02-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Ucb-C70 Subject: FTL general: Article-I.D.: utzoo.2342 Via: Usenet; 8 Aug 82 0:56-PDT How long is instantaneous time? ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 82 15:50:29-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Ucb-C70 Subject: FTL vs causality Article-I.D.: utzoo.2350 Via: Usenet; 8 Aug 82 2:07-PDT The problem with any FTL transmission of information is that when one has cause and effect connected by such transmission, from a frame of reference moving at a suitable speed in a suitable direction the cause and the effect appear to be reversed. Instantaneous transmission is not required. Any form of FTL information transmission requires either substantial revision of Special Relativity (which, alas, is on much firmer ground than the somewhat-dubious General Relativity) or else a renunciation of the principle that all observers should see cause and effect working the same way. Perhaps this principle can be abandoned, but it is not easy to construct a replacement. If different observers can see different series of events when watching the same phenomena, it's hard to arrange things so that any specific observer is guaranteed to see a self-consistent series of events. This has been attempted, by the tachyon theorists, but the results are somewhat unsatisfying so far. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 09-Aug-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #266 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 266 Today's Topics: re: Causality and FTL: Re: Re: quantum and FTL Causality and FTL Re: quantum and FTL quantum and FTL, reply Re: FTL etc. Shuttle Landing Equivalence of Mass and Energy Re: Equivalence of Mass and Energy Re: FTL etc. Re: FTL etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Aug 82 6:35:32-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Ucb-C70 Subject: re: Causality and FTL: Lets try the mathematical approach. According to Einstein, re General Relativity, E=mc^2, as many know. In itself, this is a very simple equation. c^2 is a constant of 9.00e20 cm/s^2, while the energy function is in direct proportion to the mass. The bigger the mass, the greater the energy. (E == ergs , m == g , c == cm/s^2 ). No matter what the starting mass is, as its speed increases its "mass increases". The increase or dilatation is given by, m'=m/(1-v^2/c^2)^.5 . As you can see, if v=c, the function of the two = 1, therefore you get m'=m/0= infinite mass. If you plug this infinite mass back into the equa. E=mc^2, you get an infinite amount of energy. But this energy is all the energy in the universe, so if one dare to travel at the speed of light, or even close to it, (or just a bit faster, not really because then m'=(-n)^.5 which is undefined to date), then all the energy in the universe would be used up, and the universe would "blink" out of existance. This is the primary basis by which physisists base the "fact" that FTL travel is impossible, and that anything close to FTL, well the energy requirements are much to great to be created artificialy. Of course a complete explanation is not as simple, but i hope this is more appropriate. (note: the explanation given above is the accepted standard to date, Raymond S. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 82 10:59:23-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!donald at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Re: quantum and FTL Argh. Here comes a rehash of net.misc of a few months ago. Quantum tunneling of a particle through a potential barrier does not involve "transmission" in the usual sense of the word (I am addressing Raymond, utzoo!miles) because it does not involve *any* movement of matter or energy through the gap. All that happens is that at one moment you see the particle *here* and the next moment you see it over *there*. My use of the phrase "instant of time" has mislead Raymond; it has nothing to do with instantaneous, it just means "moment in time". As for my claim that the process of tunneling is instantaneous in some sense, note that there is no implicit "transit time" in the appearance of the particle on the other side of the barrier. The collapse of the wave function is instantaneous. In other words, the events of disappearance and reappearance are space-like events. Once again I must apologize for an oversimplified description of quantum processes. On the topic of FTL, an interesting philosophical note: Why are people so hopeful about the existence of FTL and indifferent about the law of conservation of energy? It seems to me that people will bend over backwards to try and find a loophole in physics or some specious argument that will al- low FTL to exist, but when it comes to violating energy conservation (e.g. perpetual motion machines), anyone suggesting it is labelled a crank! Don Chan ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 82 1:10:12-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!bstempleton at Ucb-C70 Subject: Causality and FTL Does anybody out there have a nice explanation of exactly why FTL travel of information blows our ideas of causality out of the water? I remember the explanation given to me in Relativity class years ago, but I was never entirely satisfied with it. Admittedly instantaneous transmission of information destroys the lack of simultanaity in the universe, but why can we not have something propogating at finite but FTL speed. I do have some idea of why this is true, but does anybody have an explanation that is more straightforward than a couple of years of physics courses? ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 82 7:31:30-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: quantum and FTL Quantum tunneling is NOT instantaneous in any sense of the word. "A particle which appears on one side of a potential barrier at a particular instant in time...", the instant in this is a completely different instant as in 'instantaneous'. The word instant in this statement should be replaced by 'point in time'. And as for the instantaneous travel, which would be suggested by no "transmission"... , it does take the particle finite time to cross the barrier, the measur e of time is to small to measure by conventional, standard timing devices, so out of convenience one says it is "instantaneous", although it is not. It could be measured, but one would need a very,very acurate timing device. And yes, there is transmission. The particle is not prese nt at one barrier, and then just appears at the other barrier. Raymond S. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 82 12:52:40-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Ucb-C70 Subject: quantum and FTL, reply To DC., note, "point in time" and "moment in time" are interchangable. "instant of time" did not mislead me. If you meant "moment in time", then why did you not say so. Could you tell me, and any others that might be interested, the date or article number, within close proximity of the article on quantum tunneling that was on net.misc a few months ago. Raymond S. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 82 23:50:58-PDT (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: FTL etc. Am I to believe my ears?! Are you people serious?! What in the world would happen if we all took that view? What would have happened if people said, ``Hmmm, let's stop talking about this silly theory that the Earth revolves around the sun and get back to thrashing people who rock the boat''! Jes, if we just stopped talking about things that aren't possible now, where in the world where we be in 100 years?! Come on, people! ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 82 9:09:38-PDT (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Shuttle Landing The new director of the STS program, Thomas E. Utsman, said yesterday that the shuttle would probably not land at KSC until STS-7, now scheduled for April, 1983. He said that everyone would like to go with KSC starting with STS-5, but ``we don't want to get caught in the euphoria and do something foolish with a national resource.'' ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 82 17:56:57-PDT (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!duke!phs!jfh at Ucb-C70 Subject: Equivalence of Mass and Energy I wish to respond to Bob Morris' comments (floyd.428). First, however I want to say that the first sentence of my reply ("Surely you jest!!") was unwarranted, and I apologize to him for it. I have no quarrel with either the assertion that the center of mass does not change during a supernova explosion (within limits of asymmetries), or with relativistic mechanics. However, I believe that Morris has made some erroneous assumptions. "Again, during a supernova explosion, the change in mass is zero, both instantaneously and long term." Consider the fusion of four hydrogen atoms to form helium. (I know the overall reaction is much more complicated than this makes it sound, but please bear with me. This is an approximation for illustration only.) The mass of a hydrogen atom is 1.00797 atomic mass units (amu), so four of them comprise a total mass of 4.03188 amu. However, a helium atom has a mass of only 4.0036 amu. (data from Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 46th edition) This leaves a difference of 0.02828 amu, which is converted to energy in accordance with Einstein's equation. Surely no one will argue that the mass of four hydrogen atoms is equal to the mass of one helium atom. "Photons do just as good a job of causing gravitation as anything else of the same mass." This is the statement to which my original reply was directed. Photons have no REST mass; hence the are able to move at the speed of light. I believe that this is a requirement for any entity which can attain this velocity, since it can be demonstrated that any massive body would require infinite energy input to reach light speed. I certainly do not deny that photons possess energy, and that this energy is equivalent to a certain mass. However, while I acknowledge that energy and mass are equivalent, it appears to me that Morris is claiming that energy and mass are the SAME. It is not at all clear to me that this is a defensible position. Does a body composed of a certain number and type of particles become more massive if it is strongly heated (vibrational energy is presumably also equivalent to mass)? The crux of the matter seems to reside in the (paraphrased) question asked by Mike Knudson (ihnss.126), "Does energy exert gravity?" Specifically, is it possible for photons to emit gravitons, or is this property reserved to those particles with non-zero rest mass? It is equally unclear that I have illuminated the situation at all. One could presumably argue in the fusion example that as long as you were able to contain all the energy in a closed system things haven't really changed. Does the ability to emit gravitons "define" mass? Comments on these questions or on my interpretation of the arguments are welcome. Although I saw the announcement of net.physics a few minutes ago, I am also posting this to net.space also, just in case. Fran Heidlage duke!phs!jfh ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 82 22:19:39-PDT (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!duke!harpo!floyd!rhm at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Equivalence of Mass and Energy Article-I.D.: floyd.429 Via: Usenet; 9 Aug 82 0:56-PDT O.K. I will reply specifically to duke!phs!jfh 1. If four hydrogen atoms conspire somehow to form a helium atom, then the mass of the helium is exactly that of the hydrogen atoms. 2. Mass and energy are the same. 3. Yes, the mass of a collection of particles increases if they are heated. 4. Energy exerts gravity. Altogether, rest mass doesn't have much do with anything. These positions may or may not be defensible, but I will let any physics text do the defending for me. They are hardly disputed questions. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 82 23:18:45-PDT (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!pyuxbb!mkg at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: FTL etc. Article-I.D.: pyuxbb.189 Via: Usenet; 9 Aug 82 1:36-PDT References: sri-unix.2539 I have two comments for those who think FTL is "impossible" 1) Someone once said that if man was meant to fly, God would have given him wings. 2) "The only things that are impossible are those which have not yet been perfected" ( forget where I heard this). Please, lets not be so narrow minded. Marsh Gosnell BTL Piscataway (201) 981-2758 npois!pyuxbb!mkg ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 82 13:39:38-PDT (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!donald at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: FTL etc. Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.507 Via: Usenet; 9 Aug 82 2:36-PDT References: alice.842 There is a big difference between informed discussion and wild speculation. The recent slew of articles on FTL fall into the latter category: the people out to "get" relativity and quantum mechanics have very little knowledge of how they work. They merely seem to take notions gleaned from SF and popular science magazines to try a find a loophole in physics so that their pet peeve (FTL travel) is "possible". No attempt is made to formalize their arguments mathematically or replace the physical theories that they demolish. THAT is the diffence between Galileo and Erich Von Daniken, or between Einstein and Velikovsky. The scientific crank's favorite defence is a comparison between himself and Copernicus and a plea for "free inquiry" or "open minds". Sorry for the flames, but I don't wish to see net.space go the way of net.misc (you people with the persistence to stick with net.misc should know what I mean!) Don Chan ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 10-Aug-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #267 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 267 Today's Topics: Slower Than Light Travel and SF Philosophical note on disproving theories Supernova, Gravity, Etc Re: Equivalence of Mass and Energy Re: SPACE Digest V2 #266 red-shift & distance measurement Re: Equivalence of Mass and Energy Re: Equivalence of Mass and Energy - (nf) Perseids Re: FTL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Aug 1982 0338-PDT From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) Subject: Slower Than Light Travel and SF To: space at MIT-MC Reply-To: SF-LOVERS at MIT-AI There's a novel (Rails Accross the Galaxy) being serialized in ANALOG magazine that discusses a means of interstellar transportation I have never heard of before. It violates no known laws of physics, although it does require fantastic engineering developments. Say you are a million year civilization that wants to trade with its interstellar neighbors. The costs of using convention spaceships are too large to substain the volume of traffic you want (either you have to spend a fantastic amount of energy getting up to lightspeed or you wait forever). So what do you do? You build a railroad! Lasers apparently can be made self focusing if the power densities are sufficiently high. "Sufficiently high" means the power output of a star. Given that, you simply project a set of beams accross space. These are your "rails." They "terminate" at black holes, which can bend them sufficiently so that each rail actually forms a closed loop. Now your ship simply draws power from the rails by interacting with the raditaion of the rails. Do it right, and balance the traffic, and you can do the skyhook trick - ships take power out of the rails when they accelerate, then give it back while decelerating. Your energy loses are the only cost you have to pay, and its a lot cheaper than using a reaction drive! Of course, the capital costs are high (you have to convert whole stars into energy to set up the rails), but you can depreciate over a million years and a thousand stars. Any studies done of this interesting concept? Jim ------------------------------ Date: 9 August 1982 10:36-EDT From: John G. Aspinall Subject: Philosophical note on disproving theories To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC cc: JGA at MIT-MC (From SPACE Digest V2 #266 ) On the topic of FTL, an interesting philosophical note: Why are people so hopeful about the existence of FTL and indifferent about the law of conservation of energy? It seems to me that people will bend over backwards to try and find a loophole in physics or some specious argument that will al- low FTL to exist, but when it comes to violating energy conservation (e.g. perpetual motion machines), anyone suggesting it is labelled a crank! Don Chan This is an interesting point you raise. I believe the difference is in the utility of the two theories. Conservation of energy is used over and over by chemists, biologists, engineers, and many others to design and analyze large parts of our daily lives. It works. It works, for many, not because it is "proved" in Chapter 1 of Goldstein [ask anyone who took a basic classical dynamics course], but because they (chemists, etc.) see their results confirmed every day. From the miles-per-gallon estimates for your automobile to the recommended caloric intake of a marathon runner; from the wattmeter measuring your utility usage to the "R" value of the insulation that you install to cut those bills down: conservation of energy enters the analysis. If conservation of energy was broken, violated, or even relaxed, there would be a hell of a lot of unexplained things going on. Faster Than Light travel (FTL), on the other hand, doesn't impact our daily lives in nearly the same way. Oh, there are a few examples: I work on a Cray-1, and I've been told that its speed is limited by the speed of light transmission time, but frankly, that is of intellectual interest only. The theory has much less utility in my daily life. A good counter example to reinforce the point - I bet if you talk to physicists who really depend on the speed of light in their work, you'll find them as ardent defenders of the speed of light as they are of conservation of energy. John Aspinall. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 1982 11:13 PDT From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Supernova, Gravity, Etc To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: knudsen at Ucb-C70, Wedekind.es This is in response to Mike Knudsen' comment that a supernova's center of mass (more precisely, the path that the center of mass follows) remains unchanged by the explosion. This doesn't mean that the gravitational force on external bodies remains unchanged. The gravitational force DOES stay the same in the special case where the exploding mass retains a spherically symmetrical density, as Newton first showed. In particular, it's the same as if all the mass were at the CM. But in the general case it can get bigger or smaller, and change direction too. You can see all this if you imagine simple cases (where the star splits in half, for instance, and one half lands on your doorstep!). The galaxies where we see jets shooting off across the line of sight - they're not pulling on us quite as hard as they used to. This isn't surprising, since CM is linear with position and gravity force isn't. cheers, Jerry ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 1982 at 1241-PDT From: Andrew Knutsen To: decvax!duke!phs!jfh at Ucb-C70 cc: space at Mit-Mc Subject: Re: Equivalence of Mass and Energy In-reply-to: Your message of 8 Aug 82 17:56:57-PDT (Sun). Sender: knutsen at SRI-UNIX Actually I seem to recall even the energy of a gravitational field is supposed to exert gravity... this produces some hairy math in gravitational theory. ------------------------------ Date: 9-Aug-82 13:37:16 PDT (Monday) From: Trigoboff at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #266 In-reply-to: OTA's message of 09 Aug 1982 0303-PDT To: Space at MIT-MC I also think it's time to take this faster-than-light/quantum-physics science fiction discussion off of the Space distribution list. Mike ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 1982 1448-CDT From: Jonathan Slocum Subject: red-shift & distance measurement To: space at MIT-AI Using red-shift to compute distance does not work within the Local Group (= Milky Way, Andromeda, Magellanic Clouds, etc.) -- in other words, not anywhere close to here -- because these galaxies are gravitationally bound, pursuing orbits around a common center, and hence are not expanding in the sense defined by Hubble. Cepheid variables (whose intrinsic luminosities are mathematically related to their periods of variation) are used to calculate distances in these ranges. The discovery that there are two different types (technically, "populations") of Cepheid variables is what led to the revision of the "measured" distance to Andromeda, among others, some years ago. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 1982 15:37 PDT From: BollenG.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Equivalence of Mass and Energy In-reply-to: floyd.429 of 09 Aug 1982 0303-PDT To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: BollenG.es It's very difficult to discuss issues in quantum physics via pontification, and even more difficult when one neglects to define one's terms. I found Floyd's four-point message not only unnecessarily high and mighty, but equally difficult to understand. When fusion takes place, all of the constituent atoms must be in high kinetic states in order to get close enough together to fuse. The end products of the fusion must then also be in high energy states. The end products of this reaction are He, plus some very fast moving neutrinos. The neutrinos shoot off into oblivion, carrying some of the mass of the constituent 4 Hydrogen atoms, while the exited He sits and radiates photons until it gets down to its ground-state energy. So, the mass of the final product is equal to the sum-mass of the constituents minus the equivalent energy that leaves with the radiated photons, minus the relativistic mass of the neutrinos that are also produced in the fusion. It is neither accurate nor complete to simply say that the mass of the Helium is exactly the mass of the 4 Hydrogens. The above may add a bit of clarity to the first of floyd's four axioms, the other three seem to me to be even less meaningful than the first. So i won't comment unless queried..... but may i suggest that for a complete discussion of these and myriad other physical phenom's (as well as some very entertaining reading) that the physics text to look at would be Feynman's Lectures in Freshman Physics. Feynman was a Pontiff extraordinaire! Gregfish. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 82 10:16:08-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!gdw at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Equivalence of Mass and Energy - (nf) Article-I.D.: harpo.933 Via: Usenet; 9 Aug 82 18:57-PDT #R:phs:-64800:harpo:11700002:000:259 harpo!gdw Aug 9 09:59:00 1982 I'm lost! I thought 4 hydrogen atoms do have MORE mass than a helium atom. That is how hydrogen bombs work, isn't it? So perhaps those arguing the mass issue could be more specific; are we talking rest mass or "dialated" mass if the helium is more energetic? ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 82 17:52:09-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: cbosgd!djb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Perseids Article-I.D.: cbosgd.2511 Via: Usenet; 10 Aug 82 1:06-PDT Just a reminder to all of you out there that the Perseids meteor shower will be peaking this week. Grab your blankets or lawn chairs and check it out. Now for the bad news. First, peak activity is calculated to be during the daylight hours of the 12th (Thursday). Second, the moon will be last quarter on the 12th, making serious observation after midnight impossible. Nonetheless, if the weather is good, and you have dark skies around, enjoy the display. Best bet should be Wednesday or Thursday night, although if you're out this weekend, keep your eyes open... David Bryant cbosg!djb Hint: Point your blanket or chair toward the northeast. With good conditions you could see 15 to 25 meteors an hour (maybe more, you never know about these things). ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 82 10:42:51-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.els at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: FTL Article-I.D.: pur-phy.430 Via: Usenet; 10 Aug 82 2:27-PDT I have heard some serious scientific talk about FTL. I am currently trying to track down something definite, as so far all I've heard has been just enough to whet my appetite. Someone mentioned an article in Science Digest. That article was written by Alan Holt, who if memory serves, recently left NASA's Johnson Space Center to run his own consulting firm. When I find something, I'll post it. I'd like to see *serious* discussion about FTL, not things that should be on sf-lovers, and also I'd like these to see some restraint used by the supposedly educated people who have been treating the whole idea of FTL with the same attitude as the Inquisition treated Galileo. The one thing education (esp. physics) should teach is that cherished, time-honored ideas fall by the wayside as our understanding of the Universe expands. There is no way of telling where the new ideas will come from. If all that comes of the study of FTL is that it is proved conclusively that it can't be done, then something valuable has still come of it. Along the way, perhaps we'll learn something valuable about the laws of physics. Perhaps we should move the truly serious discussion of FTL to net.physics. els[Eric Strobel] pur-ee!pur-phy!els ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 11-Aug-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #268 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 268 Today's Topics: Re FTL, "slew of articles" Looping holes through FTL?? laser "railroads" using black holes we know how to go FTL more subjects for discussion FTL, etc. physics discussion Re: Equivalence of Mass and Energy - (nf) Arianespace Moves to Corner Market Re: Equivalence of Mass and Energy Re: Relativistic travel and time dilation Shuttle Costs FTL -- A Paper ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Aug 82 12:55:18-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re FTL, "slew of articles" In reply to Don Chan's message from Sun Aug 8, What slew of articles. There have been some, but not to many. I assure you, (is it neccessary?) FTL is not my pet peeve, and i am not trying to disprove it or relativity in any way. If i have given that impression, i apologize. Raymond S. p.s. I am not at all unknowledgable to the theories and mathematics involved! ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 82 21:43:06-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!duke!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!houti!trc at Ucb-C70 Subject: Looping holes through FTL?? Something I have wondered/speculated about, with regard to the arguement that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit due to the fact that the mass side of the equation becomes infinite at C. Is it possible that a time factor needs to be considered? The sort of thing Im thinking of is that, so many factors are going to extremes at the S.O.L., a cancellation effect similar to, say, an integral of X/f(X) as X and f(X) both approach infinity, but the ratio of X to F(X) becomes nearly zero. For example, the Infinite Mass effect might be related to relative passage of time slowing towards zero as the S.O.L. is approached. I realize that this is very vague and fuzzy, so please, no flames - responsible replies would be appreciated. houti!trc ------------------------------ Date: 10 August 1982 0447-PDT (Tuesday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: laser "railroads" using black holes To: Space-Enthusiasts at MC I understand that Amtrak was working on a project like this for implementation around 2300 A.D. or so, but, budgets being the way they are, the project was terminated recently. --Lauren-- P.S. Just as an aside, I recently had the funding pulled for my matter transmission/reception project. The transmitter works great, but now I don't know how I'll ever get all of the flies... uh, bugs out of the receiver. --LW-- ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 1982 21:12:02 EDT (Monday) From: John Redford Subject: we know how to go FTL To: space at MIT-AI Cc: vlsi at dec-marlboro Interstellar travel is not difficult because of special relativity; it's difficult because space is big. In fact, special relativity makes things easier, not harder. Although the ground observer never sees the spaceship go faster than c, time dilation makes the person on board think he's going much faster than light. An Earth-perceived velocity of .99c is seen on-ship as going seven light-years/year. Now, the real critierion for space travel is how much energy you have to put in to go a certain speed. By Newtonian mechanics that's En = (1/2)mv^2 In SR the kinetic energy goes into the difference between the moving mass and the rest mass. Ee = (c^2)(Mmoving - Mrest) = (c^2)(Mrest)((1/[(1 - (v^2/c^2))^0.5]) - 1) = (c^2)(Mrest)([(1 + (V^2/c^2))^0.5] - 1) where v = the Earth measured velocity and V = the spaceship's perceived velocity (I know this is nearly unreadable without subscripts and superscripts). If you work out how energy each takes to accelerate a unit mass you get: V/c | .1 | .3 | 1 | 3 | 10 | 30 | 100 | -------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Ee/En | .99 | .97 | .82 | .46 | .18 | .06 | .02 | So the faster you go the more the time dilation helps you. You only need a fiftieth of the energy to go a 100c in SR than you do in ordinary mechanics. Of course the folks at home are getting old and gray while you're out cruising the galaxy, but that shouldn't stop true pioneers. America was settled by people who never expected to see their homeland again. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 1982 1130-MDT From: Pendleton at UTAH-20 (Bob Pendleton) Subject: more subjects for discussion To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, Pendleton at UTAH-20 In-Reply-To: Your message of 10-Aug-82 0403-MDT While I enjoy the FTL discussion I would rather see messages about things like single stage shuttles, small business in space, the space related activities you folks out in net land are involved in, what the local chapters of your professional societies did for space week this year, and what space related activities are going on in your local high schools, colleges, and universities. Bob Pendleton ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 1982 1157-PDT From: Alan R. Katz Subject: FTL, etc. To: space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: katz at USC-ISIF It seems to me that the usenet people are completely unaware that this digest also goes to the Arpanet. They refer to this digest as net.space and talk about moving discussions to net.physics and net.misc. The FTL/quantum physics discussion SHOULD be moved to one of these lists because it is not appropriate to the Space mailing list (at least the Arpanet version). When the Space digest was set up, there was concern that we would start discussing FTL or other "Science Fiction" ideas instead of space. The general consensus seemed to be at that time that we ought to stick to space related topics. I am extremely interested in FTL and quantum mechanics "philosophy." I am in my 6th year of graduate school in Physics, and am working in Quantum Field Theory. I have TA'd upper division quantum mechanics courses. The trouble is that there is a large amount of misunderstanding about the subject when you deal with it in a non mathematical way. In my opinion based on my knowledge, greater than 90% of the discussion on the subject in this digest has been total nonsense, or at best extremely ill defined and misleading. So, even though I am intensely interested in the subject, I have very little desire to discuss the topic "at the layman level" in a digest form, and certainly not in the Space digest. It is important to keep ones mind open. It is even more important to approach new ideas skeptically. There is no shortage of "crackpot" ideas which sound OK to very intelligent people, if they do not have the technical knowledge with which to analyze it. In particular, the stuff Alan Holt has written is very probably nonsense. I say very probably, because in the two papers I have read by him, he spends a long time leading up to his idea for FTL, then mentions that it exists without giving any real justification, then spends a long time telling why we should fund such a project. So I guess its possible he has something, and is keeping it very secret, but I doubt it. Sorry for the long message, but being involved in the field (which I am actually in in the hope of maybe finding a FTL drive or something like it someday) I am concerned with the way certain "facts" have been thrown about even to "prove" that ESP exists! So please, lets move this kind of discussion off the Space mailing list. Alan (Katz@ISIF) ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 1982 at 1448-PDT From: Andrew Knutsen To: space at Mit-Mc Subject: physics discussion Sender: knutsen at SRI-UNIX If any arpanet people would like to participate in the physics discussion, which has been moved to net.physics on usenet, send me a note and Ill put you on a list. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 82 8:56:47-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: G.wing at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Equivalence of Mass and Energy - (nf) I would like to add another note to the other response to this set. (This should be titled Re: Re; Equivalence of Mass and Energy - (nf)) I thought it took only TWO deuterium or triterium (what ever) atoms to create one helium atom, with the extra neutrons flying off to make a fusion torch? ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 82 12:48:32-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!duke!harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Arianespace Moves to Corner Market [From the August 9, 1982 issue of Amsat Satellite Report] Arianespace is the European consortium formed to market the launch services of the Ariane rocket developed by ESA, the European Space Agency. An intense competition has evolved between Arianespace and the US Space Shuttle. The competition is for customers. Satellite builders/users are highly critical of the Shuttle claiming that they can place their payloads in orbit far less expensively using Ariane than the shuttle. This despite the fact that the Ariane is expendable (not reusable) and the shuttle can be reused at least a hundred times or more. U.S. authorities counter that massive government subsidies in terms of very favorable financing agreements are the main factor in tilting the balance toward Ariane. What ever the real reason may be Arianespace has been enormously effective in marketing its launch services despite the setback on LO2 and the current delays resulting from a payload design problem. The problem with the payloads is not a result of any factor in the launch vehicle itself but rather the so-called "plasma sheath" problem which arose on MARECS-A (See ASR #30). Evidently the commercial satellite folks are confident enough in Ariane to place hundreds of millions of dollars in hardware and launch fees on the line. In just the first five months of 1982 Arianespace booked 10 new launches bringing their bookings to 24. The business boom has caused Arianespace to redouble their efforts at Kourou, French Guiana to complete the second launch pad. Current plans call for operations from the second pad to commence in 1985. Recent additions to the Ariane bookings include Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Corp., Telesat Canada, Swedish Space Corp., INTELSAT, CNES United Satellite Limited (UK). Thanks KA1M. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 82 14:30:21-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!duke!harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!ech at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Equivalence of Mass and Energy I find it amazing that this correspondence continues: not because of the exchange itself, but because of the amazing willingness of netnews correspondents to make "ex cathedra" statements based on little information and less understanding. There is simply no way for the interested but naive reader to separate the statements of those who understand what's going on from those who glibly state misinformation as fact. Naivete with regard to relativistic physics is, perhaps, something we can expect in the netnews community: only a small fraction are physicists. Indeed, were I a professional physicist I would be either outraged or fatally amused at some of the drivel we have seen recently; as a mere interested layman I feel a little of both. What I find frightening is the same kind of behavior within the computer science domain, where we might expect some measure of professional competence. The network has great potential for educating us all; we (the users) are a diverse lot: we have highly varied backgrounds and avocations, as demonstrated by the proliferation of non-cs interest groups. The net can be a fine resource, especially for the kind of queries we so often see for information about a specific topic. The net is also, in the words of one of my colleagues, "the world's largest graffitti wall." So, this is the plea: if you have genuine, reliable information, please contribute it to the net. If not, stop talking and start listening: you might learn something. =Ned Horvath= ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 82 17:17:06-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Relativistic travel and time dilation John Redford's comments about special relativity and space travel gave me a chuckle. While the folks back home WILL be getting old and grey, the 'true pioneers' who are 'cruising the galaxy' at a perceived velocity of 100c will get something, too... That tenuous interstellar hydrogen will be perceived to them as high energy (relativistic) protons! Anyone got a solution to keep those pioneers from being 'crispy-crittured'? You might set up a magnetic shield (like the magnetic "mirror" of fusion reactor fame) to stop CHARGED particles, but you won't stop the starlight that's doppler-shifted up into the x-ray or gamma-ray region! - Steve Robinson NYU ..!eagle!ajll11!robinson ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 82 17:54:48-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Shuttle Costs NASA says that it won't break even on the STS program until at least 1989. The problem is that, due to soaring inflation, shuttle flights now cost over $200 million, while they charge customers a little over $30 million to rent space on board. Adding to that cost is $30 million to replace an engine that blew up this past April in a test and the fact that each flight can only carry 40,000 pounds of cargo, not 55,000, and this will be even less when it is launched from California. The GAO told Congress that the entire shuttle program is expected to top $21 billion. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 82 11:11:43-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.els at Ucb-C70 Subject: FTL -- A Paper Article-I.D.: pur-phy.431 Via: Usenet; 11 Aug 82 2:47-PDT As promised, here is something that I've come up with. The Science Digest article by Alan Holt was based on a paper he presented in 1980. The citation is: Holt, A.C., "Prospects for a Breakthrough in Field Dependent Propulsion", AIAA-80-1233, AIAA/SAE/ASME 16th Joint Pro- pulsion Conference, 1 July 1980. So far I have been unable to obtain a copy of this. If anyone has any ideas on getting it, please mail to me. els[Eric Strobel] pur-ee!pur-phy!els ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 12-Aug-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #269 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 269 Today's Topics: recent FTL discussion FTL etc. comments on the finite propogation speed of gravitation A little less than FTL Hard radiation and interstellar flight FTL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wednesday, 11 August 1982 10:46-EDT From: Jon Webb To: space at MIT-MC Subject: recent FTL discussion Cc: webb at CMU-20C The last issue of Space@MC contained one comment that FTL etc. should be removed from Space@MC, one note about the Perseid shower, and all the rest about quantum mechanics/FTL/(etc.) stupidity. In other words, there was just one message related to what Space@MC is supposed to be about, and all the rest irrelevant. A lot of these useless messages seem to be forwarded from people at UCB-70, which I think means they're coming from USENET (Net.Space), probably automatically forwarded. I've tried replying directly to these people but the messages don't seem to go the other way. Can we stop the automatic forwarding of messages from Net.Space until the current discussion dies down, or at least publish a way of sending messages the other way, so we can flame directly at the generators of these messages? Jon ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 11 August 1982 15:38-EDT From: Jon Webb To: space at MIT-MC Subject: FTL etc. Cc: webb at CMU-20C BTW, if you really want to understand relativity, there are two good books to start with: Relativity and Common Sense, by Hermann Bondi The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by Lillian and Hugh Lieber Neither book uses much math beyond calculus. I suspect that anyone, after reading these books, can make sense out of the original papers with some effort. I don't have a reference for quantum mechanics; I suspect the math is quite a bit harder. Jon ------------------------------ Date: 11 August 1982 19:01-EDT From: Richard Pavelle Subject: comments on the finite propogation speed of gravitation To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC cc: RP at MIT-MC It seems the necessary arguments have been given for the finite propogation speed of gravity. Let me add some comments: (I am purposely oversimplifiying some things below so no nit-picking please) As in the electromagnetic case, gravitational radiation has two modes. There is a radiative field and an inductive field. The kind of radiation supposedly measured by Joe Weber and company is radiative caused by some non-spherically symmetric large scale event and predicted by Einstein's general relativity. Weber's detectors were sufficiently sensitive to detect the inductive field caused by the gravitational field of trucks passing by. Both fields propogate with velocity C. On a related matter, in the 1890's there was a high school teacher in Germany by the name of Paul Gerber. He theorized that the gravitational potential was velocity dependent. He was interested in explaining the anomalous advance of the perihelion of Mercury (the 43 seconds/century unaccounted for by Newtonian theory). He reasoned as follows: Suppose that in an elliptical orbit such as Mercury's the gravitational force increases more than the 1/r^2 factor when the planet is approaching the sun owing to a velocity dependent potential. Then the planet speeds up more than one expects at perihelion and slows down more at aphelion. He published several papers on this and came up with a remarkable differential equation from the equations of motion. Standard general relativity gives the orbital equation as u'' + u - m/h^2 = 3 m u^2 where u=1/r and r is radial component, ' is differentiation with respect to the angular variable in polar coordinates, m is the gravitational mass of the attracting body, and h is angular velocity of the planet. Gerber found the following: u'' + u - m/h^2 = - 6 m u u'' The left hand sides are the classical Newtonian equations for the inverse square law while the right hand sides represent the theories "perturbing term". An interesting point is that both differential equations give precisely the same value for the advance of the perihelion of Mercury (to order m^2 the solutions are identical). And note, Gerber gave this some 20 years before Einstein! Pauli (Theory of Relativity, Page 169) dismisses poor Gerber in 6 lines. One bad aspect of Gerber's theory is that it cannot predict an anomolous (non-classical) effect for a circular orbit whereas general relativity does. However, for anyone who is interested, Gerber's papers have alot of equations that look like those of special relativity and general relativity. Any interested persons can contact me directly for references, etc. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 82 8:24:51-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: G.wing at Ucb-C70 Subject: A little less than FTL Just as a computational question, how fast does the fellow in the "Discovery" ad go when he says he goes at the speed of light, which is impossible. Seems that he is going pretty close to it though. Please respond by mail and ... NO FLAMES, PLEASE!!! ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 1982 0053-PDT From: Jim McGrath Subject: Hard radiation and interstellar flight To: space at MIT-MC Of course X-Rays and gamma rays are no problems - they are electromagnetic radiation, do can be deflected. The physical particles are the hard ones- especially the uncharged ones. You probably need two feilds - one to charge them and another to deflect them. Jim ------- ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 1982 0055-PDT From: Jim McGrath Subject: FTL To: space at MIT-MC Right. People who do not know much about realitivity really should not act like they do. We would not stand anything similar if it were computer related. Jim PS if people really want to divide things into "fact" and "speculation" (although I am not sure the distinction is very meaningful), then people may want to send the speculation to SF-LOVERS@SRI-CSL. ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 13-Aug-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #270 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 270 Today's Topics: Content Controversy Quantum mechanics for those who don't really want to know physics discussion Recent flames about recent discussions Content Controvercy Shuttle Operations ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: space at MIT-MC Date: 12 August 1982 1423-PDT (Thursday) From: m.andrews at UCLA-Security (Richard Andrews) Subject: Content Controversy I'd just like to respond to a lot of the comments flying around on this digest concerning what belongs and what does not. I've only been on this mailing list for about a month, and in that time there have been an awful lot of messages supposedly explaining scientific theories and phenomena, many of them contradictory. For example, I recall messages stating explicitly that it IS possible to tell gravitation from acceleration, and that it IS NOT possible to tell gravitation from acceleration. Now I've had a couple of semesters of physics, but I'm a computer scientist with a strong interest in the topics that this digest is supposed to be addressed to. I can't follow a lot of the physics presented here, but I think I could learn something if it is presented clearly by someone who knows what they're talking about. Speculation is fine if it is presented as such. Rich Andrews andrews@ucla-security ------------------------------ Date: 12-Aug-82 16:58:59 PDT (Thursday) From: Karlton at PARC-MAXC Subject: Quantum mechanics for those who don't really want to know To: space at MIT-MC Reply-To: Karlton at PARC-MAXC A nice introduction for those who are too lazy to do any mathematics may be found in "Taking the Quantum Leap", by Fred Alan Wolf. PK ------------------------------ Date: 12 August 1982 20:03-EDT From: Steven A. Swernofsky Sender: SASW0 at MIT-MC Subject: physics discussion To: knutsen at SRI-UNIX cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, SASW at MIT-MC Please add me to any discussion and/or mailing list which covers FTL topics. Even though I think that most of the messages on this topic have been nonsense, this is @i(exactly) the sort of topic which SPACE should cover! -- Steve ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 82 13:00:08-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: G.wing at Ucb-C70 Subject: Recent flames about recent discussions Article-I.D.: populi.290 Via: Usenet; 12 Aug 82 17:58-PDT It does seem a little mundane that theory can not be discussed on net.space. It's getting kind of warm around here from the amount of flaming about the discussions about things that are not possible at this time. The items being batted about DO NOT belong in net.sf-lovers because the discussions are philosophy and theory, not pure imagination. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Aug 1982 0133-PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: Content Controvercy To: space at MIT-MC I guess its time to put in my Editorial Two Cents. I think the Meta-Discussion on the relevance of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is probably complete. It seems (to me at least) that these topics are of sufficient relevance and of sufficiently general interest that they are appropriate topics for discussion on Space Enthusiasts. Its possible that they may be more appropriate on net.physics. But in any case, it is definitely not my intention to start censoring such articles from Space-Enthusiasts. It is a valid point that has already been made that disproving Relativity and Quantum in this sort of a forum is almost certainly misguided. For the most part these theories are so well grounded in experiment that they are not really open to question at the level that this List can reach. This is should not be construed as a closed minded attitude, but simply a realistic one. If you are going to question the validity of such firmly established theories it very much behooves you to know them inside and out. It should be clear that this List is not a reasonable forum for the detailed, rigorous and mathematical arguments that would be necessary to seriously question one of these theories. The observations of several people that the "statements" on these topics have been mutually contridictory are correct. I've never known a discussion between real (non-idealized) people to be free of such problems. I doubt that the Space List will break new ground in this area. Still it doesn't hurt to chastise the people who seem to be spreading incorrect information and to ask for clarification, confirmation, AND REFERENCES. I will join others in asking people to check on their information before sending it off to Space. The last few messages that point to good introductory texts in these areas are a very welcome item. I should clarify here that I do not mean to suggest that all messages about quantum mechanics etc. are unreasonable. General questions and answers, and interesting applications and results are all appropriate. As a practical matter allowing these also means allowing the whole raft of claims, conflicting counter claims, denouncements, and the general confusion that inevitably results. Unless we want to outlaw the discussion of all complicated subjects we have to put up with this. It seems to be the price we pay for interacting in such a public forum. On the issue of Usenet and net.space etc, I'm afraid I can't say much. It is appearently well known that usenet addresses to not work forwards and backwards. That is to say you can't always reply to usenet messages. I don't really have any suggestions in this regard. I ASSUME that the usenet people are working to correct this deficiency. The Moderator, Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 82 18:07:03-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Shuttle Operations Article-I.D.: alice.854 Via: Usenet; 13 Aug 82 1:37-PDT The space shuttle Columbia is well on its way to its scheduled 11 November launch, a NASA spokesman said today. Work being done on it, including removing the RMS (it won't be used this flight), installing two more seat, fixing up some 400 tiles, fixing the toilet, etc. is scheduled to be completed on 10 September, at which time it will be rolled to the VAB for attachment to its external tank and SRB's. The preparations for Challenger's first flight are not going so smoothly. For one thing, there have been delays in getting the main engines and other parts from their manufacturers. Officials are hopeful that they will have it ready for launch in January, but they are not sure. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 14-Aug-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #271 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 271 Today's Topics: Content Controversy Re: Shuttle Costs Re: SPACE Digest V2 #270 oops on previous msg, plus physics list administrivia Perseid Question physics discussion Yager Days ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Friday, 13 August 1982 06:11-EDT From: Vince Fuller To: space at MIT-MC Subject: Content Controversy Hmm. Not knowing a lot about physics, I must admit that I don't really follow some of the discussions and agree with m.anderws about how nice it would be if those who know would be so kind as to explain simply to those of us who don't. I don't mind reading the speculations, tho, and really don't think that they should be eliminated - I mean really, this list gets pretty slow when no one has any random topic to discuss and there isn't a shuttle launch pending, so why not a little speculating to make things more interesting? ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 1982 at 2300-CDT From: kjm at UTEXAS-11 Subject: Re: Shuttle Costs To: space at mit-mc $30 million for one SSME? Really?! ------- ------------------------------ Date: 13 Aug 1982 at 1201-PDT From: Andrew Knutsen To: Space-Enthusiasts at Mit-Mc Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #270 In-reply-to: Your message of 13 Aug 1982 0302-PDT. Sender: knutsen at SRI-UNIX I received about 20 requests, so the list "Physics@SRI-Unix" now exists. Hopefully this will redirect some of the not-entirely- relevant material. Requests to Physics-request@SRI-Unix. The problem with replies to usenet sites is somewhat of a mystery to me too, since it works for me (except in pathological cases caused by a bug which resulted in very long routes). It is possible that some originating mailsystems dont handle the address strings correctly, or that the gateway at UCB (which I dont know much about) is doing something odd. In any case if you send me your undeliverable mail, Ill see if I can figure it out. Regarding FTL travel, it seems to me that the subject is very closely tied with time travel. Time dilation at relativistic speeds results in the people aboard the ship seeming to travel FTL; its just that when they get back to their original reference-frame everybody they knew is dead and buried. If they could go back in time, everything would be fine, right? This makes the causality problems a bit clearer once youve accepted time dilation, which has been pretty well proven experimentally using decay rates of slow and fast particles. Hubble's red-shift can also be interpreted as a time-dilation effect I think. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Aug 1982 at 1632-PDT From: Andrew Knutsen To: space at Mit-Mc Subject: oops on previous msg, plus physics list administrivia Sender: knutsen at SRI-UNIX Id like to modify the "I think" at the end of my last message to be a bit less definite. Red-shift is caused primarily by the Doppler effect, which can also cause blue-shift. Since a red shift caused by time dilation shouldnt depend on direction (right?) the doppler shift is an independent effect I guess. However it still seems as if time dilation might have an effect on EM radiation... does anybody know? Also, would the people who requested "SASW0@MC" and "TK.FONER@MC" be added to the physics list please contact me? MC doesnt like you, and I deleted your original message which might provide clues... ------------------------------ Date: 13 Aug 82 8:25:43-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70 Subject: Perseid Question Article-I.D.: inuxc.301 Via: Usenet; 13 Aug 82 19:56-PDT Several observers in the Indianapolis area have reported a fairly active Perseid meteor shower, about 10 per hour, while viewing in heavily light polluted area's. This is somewhat surprising considering all the recent information claiming that the last quarter moon would hinder observation, the shower peaked during the day, and that the Persieds shower itself is on the decrease. So what is the opinion of other OBSERVERS, was this a good meteor shower? Fred inuxc!fred ------------------------------ Date: 14 August 1982 01:14-EDT From: Steve B. Waltman Subject: physics discussion To: knutsen at SRI-UNIX cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Please add me to your list for net.physics. Thank you, Steve Waltman ------------------------------ Date: 13 Aug 82 14:29:54-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!pyuxbb!eisx!rg at Ucb-C70 Subject: Yager Days Article-I.D.: eisx.357 Via: Usenet; 14 Aug 82 0:47-PDT I am looking for some good reading material on the early days of our country's space program. Actually, the per space program days of test planes and rockets at what is now Edwards. Mail any references you have. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 15-Aug-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #272 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 272 Today's Topics: Military Payload Failure FTL etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Aug 82 22:42:24-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Military Payload Failure Article-I.D.: alice.861 Via: Usenet; 14 Aug 82 5:47-PDT It was disclosed today that the main part of the military's experiments on board STS-4 failed. The failure was due to a cover over the infrared telescope not opening. Officials debated the possibility of a space walk (into the cargo bay) but decided against it due to time constraints. ------------------------------ Date: Saturday, 14 August 1982 16:16-EDT Sender: KWH at MIT-OZ From: KWH at MIT-MC To: Jon Webb Cc: space at MIT-MC Subject: FTL etc. Another very good treatment of relativity (special) is Taylor and Wheeler's "Space-Time Physics". Ken ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 16-Aug-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #273 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 273 Today's Topics: Skyrail proposal ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15-Aug-82 18:50:28 PDT (Sunday) From: Hamilton.es at PARC-MAXC Subject: Skyrail proposal To: Space @ MC cc: Hamilton.es Reply-To: Hamilton.es @ PARC-MAXC An interesting variation on the skyhook proposals that were discussed in this forum some months ago has been published in the August issue of Spacewatch. Briefly, the proposal is for a continuous rail in LOW earth orbit. Two stations on opposite sides of the earth would maintain themselves in LOW geosynchrony (and the rail in stable orbit) using standard magnetic levitation techniques. Power could be supplied either by high-voltage cables from earth, or by laser or microwave from SPS. Cars traveling the rail could cheaply catapult payloads into higher orbits. Spacewatch is published by: The Chicago Society for Space Studies 4 N. 186 Walter Drive Addison, IL 60101 CSSS is an independent space education and advocacy group, loosely affiliated with O'Neill's Space Studies Institute. $15/yr gets you membership and their newsletter, Spacewatch. The author of the article is: Kenneth A. Brakke Mathematics Dept. Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47907 Maybe he's on this list? --Bruce ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 17-Aug-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #274 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 274 Today's Topics: Skyrail Proposal FTL vs Causality ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Aug 1982 1850-PDT From: Jim McGrath Subject: Skyrail Proposal To: space at MIT-MC Also appeared in the L5 News. Jim ------------------------------ Date: 16 August 1982 22:41 edt From: Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS Subject: FTL vs Causality To: Space at MIT-MC From decvax!utzoo!henry at Ucb-C70 "The problem with any FTL transmission of information is that when one has cause and effect connected by such transmission, from a frame of reference moving at a suitable speed in a suitable direction the cause and the effect appear to be reversed." Isn't it the case that they can only appear reversed if the observers are using light-speed-limited means to make the observations? Suppose that the observers are using whatever FTL transmission technique were used to connect the two events. Would it then be possible to see cause and effect reversed? It has always seemed to me that many of the effects of approaching light speed are perceptual difficulties caused by trying to use light to observe. You would see a lot of very similar effects if you tried to use sonar to observe objects moving near the speed of sound. I do not understand, though, why the speed of light in particular, should be sacred, any more than the speed of sound. Perhaps someone who understands could explain. Paul ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 18-Aug-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #275 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 275 Today's Topics: Comet Austin query Re: Skyrail proposal - (nf) Re: Perseid Question - (nf) Re: SPACE Digest V2 #268 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mail-From: CMUFTP host CMU-ISL received by CMU-10A at 17-Aug-82 09:14:50-EDT Date: 17 Aug 1982 09:12:40-EDT From: Brad.Allen at CMU-780D at CMU-10A To: space@mit-mc Subject: Comet Austin query Has anyone seen Comet Austin yet? It should now be visible just after sunset north of the sun in Leo Minor, but it's been too hazy here in Pittsburgh for me to find it. How about you West Coast folks? ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 82 12:01:33-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!hp-pcd!jay (Jay Phillips) at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Skyrail proposal - (nf) An article on the 'skyrail' idea also appears in the July issue of the L5 news, a publication of the L5 society. Jay Phillips ...ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!jay ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 82 18:01:43-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!hp-pcd!charlie (Charlie Amacher) at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Perseid Question - (nf) We observed the Perseids from 9:45 to 12:40 PDT on August 12 from the top of a nearby mountain (Mary's Peak for you locals) in Oregon. They were really superb. I may be biased by having had the best seeing conditions for a shower in many years, but we saw about 20 FIREBALLS (leaving luminous trails) an hour, along with many smaller meteors. Our watching terminated with local moonrise, but from what we saw I have no trouble believing that someone in Indianapolis could see ~10 an hour. I have a question in relation to the Perseids. When we were watching them we noticed what appeared to be a secondary shower with a radiant in the southeast. These meteors were slower, mostly yellow, and smaller than the Perseids. Can anyone in net.space land identify this other shower? ...hplabs!hp-pcd!charlie ------------------------------ Date: 17-Aug-82 15:01:07 PDT (Tuesday) From: Pugh.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #268 In-reply-to: OTA's message of 11 Aug 1982 0303-PDT To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Pugh.ES I have some info on tracking down a copy of Holt's paper. The local chapter of the AIAA here in LA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) informs me that someone at the address below can help in obtaining copies of the paper: AIAA TIS LIBRARY 555 W. 57th Street New York, New York 10019. The above address is the place to go for technical papers MORE THAN 12 MONTHS OLD. The paper by Holt certainly qualifies. For more recent papers the address below is the one to use: AIAA Order Dept. 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10104. Be sure to mention the author, title, paper number (AIAA-80-1233 ?), place, and date. I understand the "16th Joint Propulsion Conference" is important. Please let me know what you find. /Eric ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 19-Aug-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #276 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 276 Today's Topics: Perseid Shower Space In The News Comet Austin - Found! Where is Austin????? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Aug 1982 09:39 PDT From: DMRussell at PARC-MAXC Subject: Perseid Shower To: Space@MIT-MC cc: DMRussell.PA I watched the shower for about an hour from the middle of the Stanford campus from 10:30-11:30, PDT. (I happened to be there when I remembered that /this/ was the night. Oh well.) In spite of amazing light pollution from the El Camino Strip, and HP's patented "Illuminate the Sky" Labs, I was able to see 2 small ones and 3 large meteors. These last 3 were very bright and very yellow and eminated from the SE as well. They did not, however, leave any luminous trails. (At least none that we could see.) ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 1982 1109-PDT Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-8 Subject: Space In The News From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin) To: space at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[OFFICE-8]18-Aug-82 11:09:30.WMARTIN> From Electronic Engineering Times, Aug. 16, 1982, page 32, the "DC Circuit" column by Howard Roth: THE SOVIET SPACE PROGRAM: AN EXPENSIVE PROPOSITION According to Pentagon sources, the Soviet Union is outspending the US space program by up to $4 billion per year. Also, say the sources, the Russians plan to quadruple their $18-billion-a-year space program by the turn of the century. Russia spent about $6 billion in 1981 for spacecraft now in orbit. During last year, the Soviets launched 98 space missions with a total payload of 126 spacecraft. In 1981, the US launched 18 missions. These are ominous figures. They point to a concerted, orchestrated efort by the Soviet Union to develop a continuous manned presence in the high ground of space. While the precise amount of money the Soviets are putting into specific projects is difficult to determine, it is clear, say the sources, that the Soviets are pouring money into such areas as laser-weapon satellites (the first of which is expected to be launched sometime next year), hunter/killer satellites designed to destroy such birds as communications satellites, and a winged reusable transport (a less sophisticated version of the American space shuttle) to ferry personnel and materials to and from orbiting space stations. It is still conceded that the US holds the technological edge in space. ... However, the Soviets have been consistently averaging about 75 missions a year more than the US. They are also outspending the US as previously discussed. While quantity does not mean quality, the technological disparity between the two countries appears to be closing as a result of the massive Soviet effort. Unless we move, and soon, the gap will one day be non-existent. SPACE AS A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT Appreciation of the Soviet space program has been slow, but it is building. Until recently, limited attention had been given to the Soviet space program by US intelligence groups. But the Defense Department is now devoting more attention to the Soviet effort, including attempting to analyze the relationship between the various parts of its space program, and the space program as a whole with the military. The Defense Dept. is also attempting to make changes to counter the expansion in Soviet space activities. Said Edward C. Aldridge, Air Force undersecretary, to the American Astronautical Society, "In the past, our space systems were designed to be operated in a non-hostile, benign environment. Little attention was paid to wartime requirements of survivability or to the increasing dependence of military commanders on space support. I believe this has now changed. We have recognized that our systems must be able to operate in a hostile wartime situation. This recognition will have profound implications for the way we do business in space." ***End extract from referenced column *** Another item SPACE readers might find of interest is that the PBS program "Firing Line", with Bill Buckley, last week was on the subject of "The High Frontier", and had General Graham and a Dr. Graham as the guests, discussing the space-based ICBM defense concept going by that name. Regards, Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 82 22:32:01-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: cbosgd!djb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Comet Austin - Found! Article-I.D.: cbosgd.2540 Via: Usenet; 18 Aug 82 23:46-PDT SUCCESS!!!!! The weather finally decided to cooperate. My wife Elaine and I headed out to a elevated spot (highway overpass embankment) near our apartment to search for Comet Austin. Sunset was at 8:25 pm EDT. We set up watch around 9:10 (roughly the time Lew Mammel and Ron Meyer reported) and, as the skies darkened, spotted Austin around 9:18pm. It wasn't until 9:25 that we were sure about the sighting, but there it was, a faint (~5.0 mag) fuzzy spot with no visible tail. Position was (10h 20m RA, 41deg DEC), just south and east of Mu Ursa Major. We were using 8x50 binoculars, and needed to use averted vision to get a good look. The comet was visible until after 10:00pm, when the lights of Columbus blotted it out. I observed Comet Bradfield last summer, and it was considerably less to write home about than Comet Austin. To those who haven't tried yet, or those who've never seen a comet, I'd encourage you to check this one out. Consider this a good warm up for Hailey in 1986. Observing conditions should improve as the comet moves further east and north of the sun, although it will dim rather rapidly. Unfortunately, the moon will start showing itself, being new on the 19th and first quarter the 26th. Elaine and I plan to try again tomorrow night, and every night hence. Anybody wishing an up-to-date position can mail a request to me. I would very much like to hear from anyone who observes Comet Austin and can supply positional information that I can pass on as well as compare to ours. Happy hunting, David Bryant cbosg!djb ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 82 13:57:51-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.els at Ucb-C70 Subject: Where is Austin????? Article-I.D.: pur-phy.444 Via: Usenet; 18 Aug 82 23:56-PDT I'm very frustrated! I've been watching faithfully for about 2 weeks, during which time we've had some truly excellent seeing here in Indiana, however I have not seen Comet Austin. Does anyone out there know what's happened. It was supposed to be around 4th magnitude a few days ago. It seems to me that it should stand right out in my binoculars. Is this another fizzle like Kohoutek (sp?)?? Before anyone asks, my info is just what was on this newsgroup about it. Thanx in advance for explanations. els[Eric Strobel] pur-ee!pur-phy!els ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 20-Aug-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #277 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 277 Today's Topics: Orbit question Austin Report Finding Comet Austin ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Aug 82 9:24:57-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70 Subject: Orbit question Article-I.D.: inuxc.335 Via: Usenet; 19 Aug 82 17:46-PDT The current interest in Comet Austin has me curious about orbital determination. Does anyone know of a good reference that explains how to determine a comet's orbit, more specifically where a comet will be in a few weeks or days, from two or more observations. inuxc!fred Fred ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 82 8:50:15-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70 Subject: Austin Report Article-I.D.: inuxc.333 Via: Usenet; 19 Aug 82 17:56-PDT Last night August 18, 1982 Comet Austin was observed at the Mendenhall-Romano observatory which is located at 39 deg 57 min North Lat and 86 deg 12 min Long. ( Indianapolis) The comet's Magnitude was estimated at 5.2 The comet's position: R.A 10h 24m Dec. 40d 54m this position measured at 9:25P.M. EST The comet angular size was estimated at 3 min. The comet is near the stars lambda and mu Ursa Major. It was first picked up at 8:30 EST and can be "just seen" in 7x 50 bin. The view improves with objective aperture and is quiet splendid in a 8 inch telescope. The following people made these observations. Larry Marcus BTL-IN Ralph Keyser BTL-IN Ron Meyer BTL-INH (IAS) Fred Mendenhall- BTL-INH (IAS) ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 82 15:33:02-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: cbosgd!djb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Finding Comet Austin Article-I.D.: cbosgd.2542 Via: Usenet; 19 Aug 82 21:27-PDT For Eric Strobel, because he asked, and for any others having difficulty finding Comet Austin, here are a few hints. The first trick is to be sure you're looking in the right place, either based on right-ascension/declination positional information, or from knowledge of the stars in the vicinity (a good star map is invaluable). Since you've been following the discussion on net.space, you've got both position and neighborhood information, so that's not likely to be the problem. What is probably causing you grief is not knowing what to look for and how to look for it. This can be a hairy business, even for experienced observers. Comet Austin isn't going to be as bright as you imagine. When a comet is billed as being 4th magnitude, it isn't necessarily as observable as a 4th magnitude star. For comets (and other diffuse objects) one speaks of the "integrated magnitude", which is figured by summing the light output over the entire object. This is handy for comparison, but is misleading to observers, especially if the object is relatively large (like a galaxy). As a result, Comet Austin won't stand out in your binoculars. It won't even be as noticable as the 5th magnitude stars nearby. Instead, you'll have to be slow and deliberate in scanning the area, using averted vision if necessary, looking for that tell-tale fuzziness that is characteristic of comets. Such a approach is almost sure to produce results, provided your weather holds. Expect to see a faint, fuzzy spot, more or less where predicted. No visible tail, just a small elliptical "cloud". Most of all, be patient. (Anyone that hangs in there for 2 weeks with no success has all the makings of a Real Astronomer.) Good Luck, David Bryant cbosg!djb ps: Austin wasn't expected to be as spectacular as Kohoutek, perhaps in part to it's relatively recent discovery (July 19th), and little advance magnitude/orbit information. If you really want disappointment, wait until Hailey comes around. Folks are expecting a nightly display of incredible proportions. Ah well... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 21-Aug-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #278 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 278 Today's Topics: "laurenx" Congressional Bill HR 4286 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 August 1982 1826-PDT (Friday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: "laurenx" To: SF-LOVERS-REQUEST at SRI-CSL, HUMAN-NETS-REQUEST at RUTGERS, INFO-MICRO-REQUEST at BRL CC: INFO-CPM-REQUEST at BRL, SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MC, TELECOM at ECLB Please delete the name "laurenx" from any and all mailing lists. This test account has been deleted. I appreciate your assistance! --Lauren-- NOTE THAT THE ACCOUNT NAME IS "LAURENX" *not* "LAUREN". "LAUREN", of course, should *not* be deleted! ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 1982 0038-PDT From: Jim McGrath Subject: Congressional Bill HR 4286 To: space at MIT-MC cc: poli-sci at MIT-AI, jma at SU-AI, kdo at SRI-KL A bill to establish a national space and aeronautics policy, and for other purposes. Title IV - Government of Space Territories Constitutional Protection Section 4.01 All persons residing in any community in space organized under the authority and flag of the United States shall be entitled to the protection of the Constituion of the United States. Self Government Section 4.02 Whenever any such community shall have acquired twenty thousand inhabitants, on giving due proof thereof to Congress, they shall receive from Congress authority with appointment of time and place to call a convention of representatives to establish a permanent constitution and government for themselves. Admission to Statehood Section 4.03 Whenever any such community shall have as many inhabitants as shall then be in any one of the least numerous of the United States such community shall be admitted as a State into the Congress of the United States on an equal footing with the original States. Jim ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 22-Aug-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #279 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 279 Today's Topics: Austin observed ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Aug 82 22:41:20-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: npois!npoiv!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!ixn5c!ihps3!ihuxv!lew at Ucb-C70 Subject: Austin observed Article-I.D.: ihuxv.249 Via: Usenet; 21 Aug 82 20:56-PDT Saw comet Austin just below Ursa Majors hind foot with an Edmund Astroscan. ( 4.5" f/4 reflector with 28mm eyepiece ). I also saw it with binoculars. ( 7 x 50 ). I went to a rural site west of Aurora IL. Time of observation was 9:10 to 9:20 PM CDT. Conditions were excellent ( except for mosquitoes ). The Milky Way was pronounced with the Great Rift clearly visible. The comet appeared similarly to M13 in Hercules, except perhaps a little dimmer. Thanks to whoever it was that posted the coordinates. If conditions are good tomorrow I think I'll try again. Lew Mammel, Jr. - BTL Indian Hill ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 23-Aug-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #280 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 280 Today's Topics: Comet Austin Observed Space Constitution Clipping Service - OTA report on space technology ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Aug 82 9:00:34-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!ucbcad!UNKNOWN.npois!npoiv!harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!rrm at Ucb-C70 Subject: Comet Austin Observed Article-I.D.: inuxc.331 Via: Usenet; 22 Aug 82 3:36-PDT Last night 8/17/82 comet Austin was found at 9:10 EST. The comet was sighted approximately 5 degrees from the horizon on a line draw perpendicular from the horizon to gamma Ursa Major. My location does not have the best NW sky around but the object was fairly bright. It was first detected with my 8" f/6 dobsonian (nicknamed "the photon eater"). An attempt was made to observe it with binoculars, but this failed. At 9:18 EST my iq3f461!#!%&# (censored) neighbor decided to turn on his outdoor flood lights to illuminate his entire house. Obviously his electric bill for the last month was to low and he thought how nice it would be to help out the power company in their time of need. Of course, his house was directly to the NW from my observing location. Around 9:25 Austin was difficult to detect, mostly because of the strong light pollution (it didn't do much for my night vision either). The comet had the appearance of a bright E0 ellipitical galaxy with no trace of a tail. This is the first comet that I have seen and I plan on keeping a watchful eye on it as it visits our solar system. Comets are very unpredict able, they may suddenly brighten and from a tail, or perhaps break up before your very eyes. Good luck and good weather!!!! Ron Meyer inuxc!rrm ------------------------------ Date: 22 August 1982 2047-EDT From: Lars Ericson at CMU-10A Subject: Space Constitution To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC The requirements for admission into statehood of an Earth-bound territory are a lot more involved than the number of inhabitants. Why go into space to be governed by the same old folks anyway? I think a primary virtue of space is *space*: you can go out and try new things. -- Lars ------------------------------ Date: 22 August 1982 21:00 edt From: Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Clipping Service - OTA report on space technology To: Space at MIT-MC OTA report hits sliding U.S. space technology lead From the August 1982 issue of Industrial Research and Development by Ted Agres ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The United Stated is in grave danger of losing its leadership in space technology and development due to a lack of consistent policy and direction in civilian space programs, according to a report to Congress by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). The report, released in June, warns that efforts must be made by both the U.S. Government and the private sector to correct the problem because "international competition in space applications is a reality", especially from the Europeans and the Japanese. "Both technological and commercial leadership are at stake", the OTA report warns. "Unless the U.S. is prepared to commit more of its public and private resources to space than it does now, it will lose its preeminence in space applications in the 1980's." This is because "there is no overall agreement about [what] direction or scope the civilian space program should assume in the future." In addition, the report continues, "there is no clear and predictable policy or process to define at what rate and by what criteria the transfer of technology from government research, development, and demonstration programs to the private sector should take place." Unless this situation is corrected, increased space acitivities by the Europeans and Japanese "threaten the loss of significant revenue opportunities for the U.S. and well as a potential loss of prestige and influence." The 391 page OTA report, "Civilian Space Policy and Applications", was prepared for the Senate Committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation and was endorsed by the House Committee on Science and Technology. The report contains perhaps the sharpest warning to date that the U.S. leadership in space development is being seriously eroded. Barely a week after the report was issued, NASA cut the number of projected flights of the space shuttle through 1992 (from 500 to fewer than 300). This would raise the cost of lofting cargo into orbit by 85% after 1985. NASA officials maintain that the shuttle still will be commercially competitive with the European Space Agency's Ariane rockets, but many firms seem to be questioning that assessment. The OTA report delves into a number of policy areas, including the appropriate roles of the Federal government and of private industry in civilian space technology; the best relationship between the civilian and military space programs, including use of space transport vehicles such as the shuttle for national security purposes; and which new space projects, if any, should follow development of the shuttle. Both the government and private sectors, the report noted, must make greater efforts to ensure the continued excellence of the civilian space program. For example, it is "critical" that the government increase its efforts to transfer Federally developed technology to the private sector once "significant commercial potential" has been established. OTA identified four such areas of government involvement termed essential to the nation's future in space: contributing to basic R&D, supporting space science, providing public goods and services, and regulating and coordinating national space efforts, especially those involving international agreements. "Although the Federal government must continue to play an important part in space" OTA said, "it cannot do the job by itself. The twin factors of diminishing Federal resources for civilian space activities and the dynamic qualities of the private sector make it important that the private sector participate more actively in U.S. space efforts." The OTA stopped short of taking a position on the role of the military in civilian space programs, noting the "serious questions" that have arisen. But it did recommend a "more timely transfer of military technological capacity to the civilian sector, assurance that past restraints on permissible civilian applications activities be reexamined...[and] increased joint management of programs common to both" the civilian and the military sectors. The major challenge lies in international competition for the commercialization of space. While observing that there is "no single best model" for commercializing U.S. space application technologies, OTA recommended establishing "agreements of cooperation" between industry and government. Such accords would include encouraging advances in satellite communications and remote sensing. Another possibility would be to allow NASA to collect a royalty fee on future profits from satellites in return for a free launch. "Private firms must not expect publicly financed technologies to be transferred gratis, and government agencies must be willing to relinquish control over their projects and to plan ahead for eventual commercialization" if the U.S. is to compete with other international efforts. As examples, OTA identified four specific projects where industry-government cooperation could lead to technical and commercial advances. These are: advanced satellite communications, satellite remote sensing, materials processing in space, and space transportation. Among problems in these areas, OTA observed that for communications satellites the U.S. "lacks a consistent policy to assure coordination of military, civilian, and industry efforts. This absence of clear vision will again become a problem as a new configuration for communications satellites ... becomes possible in the 1990's." The development of the Ka band (30/20 GHz) of the spectrum for advanced satellite communications is one area in which new models of cooperation between civilian and government couls be tried, OTA said. It noted that the Japanese and Europeans already are developing necessary technologies with heavy subsidies from their respective governments. Again, OTA warned that the U.S. stands to lose the race in commercial exploitation of this emerging technology. In the same way, the future of U.S. civilian efforts in remote sensing "is in considerable doubt," OTA stated. "At the present time, it is unclear whether the U.S. will have a civilian remote-sending capability after the flight of Landsat D." The French, the Japanese, and ESA are building their own remote-sensing satellite systems, and it is "certain that the U.S. will no longer have a monopoly in providing these services." Likewise, the U.S. can expect significant competition from Germany, Japan, France, and the Soviet Union in materials processing in space. Additional U.S. government efforts are needed before private industry can be expected to undertake large-scale and expensive manufacturing of goods in space, OTA said. But it is in the field of space transportation that the U.S. appears to face its most serious challenge. NASA, OTA said, had planned to phase out its most expendable launch vehicles in the mid-1980's as the space shuttle was expected to become fully operational. But with the future need for launch services apparently exceeding availability (and with NASA's curtailment of future shuttle launches), the private sector "will be forced to continue to purchase launch services from the French," OTA reported. NASA is reviewing its launch plans. Fundamentally, OTA believes that if the U.S. space program is to maintain its past vitality, the nation "must also be willing to commit sufficient resources and attention to basic science engineering in all area related to space." This required clear policy initiatives for the future, and both the executive and legislative branches of government have been negligent in that, OTA said. In the absence of such policy objectives, the course of the U.S. space program will be determined by annual budget deliberations among the executive agencies, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congress. "Over time, the sum of these decisions determines the overall course of the space program" although it bears little relationship to the long-term evolution of space systems. OTA recommends "periodic high-level discussion of the space program" by the White House and Congress. OTA also suggests evaluating different options, including establishing a new Dept of R&D, of which NASA would be a part, or establishing a commission to advise the President and Congress on space. An additional option would be to re-establish and broaden the National Aeronautics and Space Council to include representatives from civilian agencies, the Dept of Defense, and the private sector. The NASC was disbanded in 1973 as part of a congressional effort to remove so-called advocacy groups from close access to the President, but no council or institution emerged to assume its responsibilities. Unless some solution to the overall problem is discovered and put into action, OTA warned, "the current drift" in civilian space policy and direction "will continue and worsen." ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 24-Aug-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #281 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 281 Today's Topics: laurenx message Independant Space Colonies tail on Austin OASIS meeting Saturday: "Space Stations, Past and Future" tail correction ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 August 1982 1351-PDT (Sunday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: laurenx message To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MC Gang, Sorry about that "laurenx" message. I still don't understand how the -REQUEST got lopped off, since my original copy here shows SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS-REQUEST@MC as the destination! Some "smart" mail handling software somewhere along the line apparently lopped off the -REQUEST and truncated the header in a manner that, by chance, was still deliverable. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 1982 1140-PDT From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Independant Space Colonies To: space at MIT-MC Date: 22 August 1982 2047-EDT From: Lars Ericson at CMU-10A The requirements for admission into statehood of an Earth-bound territory are a lot more involved than the number of inhabitants. Why go into space to be governed by the same old folks anyway? I think a primary virtue of space is *space*: you can go out and try new things. I think the question is really: How do you get there from here?? The people that pay the money for expansion into space are almost certainly not going to do so purely out of the kindness of their hearts. It will be an investment of one kind or another. They will almost certainly not do it unless there is some assurance that the factories or colonies they establish will retain some allegiance (political or financial, depending on who is putting up the money) to their sponsors. Secondly, it may be unwise (from the point of view of a groundhog) to let people who *strongly* disagree with your way of doing things, live at the top of your gravity well (see Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress). However, it certainly would be nice to diversify culturally. I suspect that, barring major wars or natural catastrophes, the Earth will be pretty homogenous within 50 or 100 years. Fast transportation and high-bandwidth communication will make Tokyo pretty much like London or New York before too long. A space colony in the Belt will be hours out of touch by radio and possibly years out of touch by ship. If that ain't isolation, I don't know what is. Just what you need to diverge from the mainstream. I have a friend who jokingly suggests that all outbound space colonists be addicted to heroin before they leave. That way you always have a handle on them. As colonies become practical, the governments of Earth will most likely start thinking along the same lines (though nothing so drastic, I hope). Is there a way to safely reach a state where the colonies can be safely independant from their almost inevitable beginnings as government or industrial outposts? ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 82 13:33:01-PDT (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!we13!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!ixn5c!ihps3!ihuxv!lew at Ucb-C70 Subject: tail on Austin Article-I.D.: ihuxv.252 Via: Usenet; 23 Aug 82 21:06-PDT Dave Rosik and I went to a rural site west of Aurora, IL last night, August 20, to observe comet Austin. At 9:30 PM CDT we observed it at about 10h 50m, 42d 50' . I got the coordinates by locating it on a Smithsonian Star Chart. These coordinates are almost exactly the ones that David Bryant gave for August 21. Is this some kind of mistake or did August 21 mean 00 00 August 21? Anyway, we definitely saw a tail. It was short ( ~20' ), straight, broad, and faint (of course.) I'm sure a photograph would show it nicely. The tail pointed away from the comet in a direction about 30d west of north, north being defined by the meridian through the comet. We were using an Edmund Astroscan (4.5" f/4 reflector) with a 28mm eyepiece. Conditions were good but it was a little hazy compared to August 17, when I first observed Austin. Obviously a dark horizon in the northwest is indispensable. I could clearly see 8th magnitude stars near Austin, and barely see 9th, the faintest ones shown on the SAO Star Chart. Lew Mammel, Jr. - BTL Indian Hill ------------------------------ Date: 21-Oct-85 21:32:15 PDT (Monday) From: Hamilton.es at PARC-MAXC Subject: OASIS meeting Saturday: "Space Stations, Past and Future" To: Space@MC cc: Hamilton.es Los Angeles area spacefanz: SPEAKER: George Butler, McDonnell Douglas TOPIC: "Space Stations, Past and Future" TIME: this Saturday 28 August 7 pm PLACE: The Aerospace Corp., Bldg. A-1, El Segundo (take the San Diego Fwy to El Segundo Blvd, then west about a half mile, just past Aviation Blvd, on the left) This is a general meeting of OASIS, the Southern California Chapter of the L-5 Society. Free and open to the public. --Bruce ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 82 14:11:36-PDT (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!lime!we13!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!ixn5c!ihps3!ihuxv!lew at Ucb-C70 Subject: tail correction Article-I.D.: ihuxv.254 Via: Usenet; 23 Aug 82 23:36-PDT Sorry, the tail was pointing 30d EAST of north. That is, the end of the tail was at greater right ascension than the head. I guess this is a typical mistake made from looking DOWN at a star chart. According to Norton's Star Atlas I should say the tail was "north following" the comet. Lew Mammel, Jr. - BTL Indian Hill ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 25-Aug-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #282 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 282 Today's Topics: STS-5 data Pollution Plagues Shuttle Looking for books Austin update Comet Austin -- found?? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Aug 1982 2109-EDT From: Rodger D. Osgood Subject: STS-5 data To: space at MIT-MC I have a friend in the Flight Planning division at JSC and I mentioned the interest expressed on this list for info on the position of the shuttle during its mission. She sent me a whole bunch of stuff on STS-5. It includes: A table of the intended in-flight maneuvers (9 manuevers aprox. half a page of data) A table of all the ascending nodes , being the times and positions at which the shuttle crosses the equator from south to north. (101 orbits aprox. 2 1/2 pages of data) A complete listing of the ephemerides, which are the positions and velocities of the shuttle in one minute intervals and in three different coordinate systems. (three pages of microfiche with 581 pages of data on it.) Some auxiliary info to define the terms and explain the coordinate systems. All of this info is based on a lift-off of 12:19:00 GMT on Nov 11,1982 but can be adjusted to the actual lift-off. It includes the changes caused by the 9 maneuvers as well as the effects of drag on the orbit, and it covers the expected duration of the mission plus one day (there is no deorbit maneuver simulated). I will probably put the in-flight maneuvers and the ascending nodes on-line for those interested, however, I am not exactly sure what I can do with 600 pages of epheremides. In addition my friend may be able to get acquisition/deacquisition times for the various ground tracking stations. I would like comments, suggestions, etc. on exactly what information would be useful and what form it should be in. Please send comments or requests to me at RDO@XX and general discussion to me or the list. I hope this will be of some help. rodger RDO@XX P.S. I am starting this now so that I have time to get different info from Houston if this is'nt exactly what peaple need. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 82 7:30:12-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Pollution Plagues Shuttle Article-I.D.: alice.873 Via: Usenet; 24 Aug 82 20:46-PDT The shuttles own space pollution, water and exterior particles, seriously hampered the optical experiments, designed just to see if they would be interfered with, on STS-3, NASA said yesterday. They say it could pose a serious problem to infrared devices and other optical instruments aboard the shuttle on future launches, and they will hold meetings, with the Air Force present, to decide what to do. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 82 9:49:08-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!npoiv!eisx!rg at Ucb-C70 Subject: Looking for books Article-I.D.: eisx.363 Via: Usenet; 24 Aug 82 21:36-PDT I am looking for the following two books. I have tried by local libraries and my company's technical library without any luck. If anyone could pass along some information about these I would appreciate it. They are both about the early days of Edwards and White Sands. "Across the High Frontier" C. E. Yeager & W. Lundgren "X-15 Diary" R. Tregaskis Thanks for your help. Reply by mail. Bob ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 82 8:48:48-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: cbosgd!djb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Austin update Article-I.D.: cbosgd.2549 Via: Usenet; 25 Aug 82 0:16-PDT Another successful sighting of Comet Austin! This time it was Saturday, August 21st. Conditions were perfect, so I took my trusty 8x50's to a party at a friend's, and keep an eye on my watch and the western horizon. At around 9:20, I looked in the expected location, and there it was. (Showed it to several interested folks who were somewhat disappointed by the faintness and small size.) Didn't see any sign of the tail Lew mentioned. Approximate location was 11h 03m, 43d 25m, just as predicted. By the way, Lew is correct, the positions I gave were for 0 hours U.T. on the indicated dates. Correcting these times to our time zones brings them back into the previous day. The observed position on the 21st corresponds to the position I supplied for the 22nd. Confusing, but that's what universal time does to you... Unfortunately, my position data ran out on the 22nd. I plan to call and get further data if possible. Even if I can't, it should be easy to keep up with Comet Austin, at least until the Moon gets to be a problem. David Bryant cbosg!djb ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 82 10:41:12-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!pur-ee!purdue!Physics.els at Ucb-C70 Subject: Comet Austin -- found?? Article-I.D.: pur-phy.446 Via: Usenet; 25 Aug 82 0:56-PDT Well, I think I saw it last night. Through my el cheapo 7x35 's it looks like the little reflection you can sometimes get if a car goes by while you're looking straight up thru binocs(only much dimmer). Even with averted vision I was sure my mind was on the blink. I then dragged out my old Sears 60mm refractor. At 32x, I thought at first that it was a star and I'd jostled the focus. For anyone who hasn't seen it with a scope, that's about the best description I can give. Next time I try with the scope, I think I'll get out of town!!! els[Eric Strobel] pur-ee!pur-phy!els ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 26-Aug-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #283 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 283 Today's Topics: Geostationary Amateur Radio Satellites Proposed Seeing what the night sky "really" looks like Any organizations like SSI? L5 society ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Aug 82 21:36:24-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Geostationary Amateur Radio Satellites Proposed Article-I.D.: eagle.484 Via: Usenet; 25 Aug 82 2:47-PDT >From the Amsat net, August 24, 1982: Cable Sat General corporation has proposed to the FCC that C-band amateur radio transponders be carried on each of two commercial GEOSTATIONARY communications satellites planned for launch in late 1985-early 1986 aboard the space shuttle. Each transponder would be constructed similarly to the commercial C-band transponders that would be the satellites' primary payload. Uplink would be between 5.65 and 5.67 Ghz, and downlink between 3.4 and 3.41 ghz. One bird would be located between 60-70W longitude, and the other at 140-150W. Each transponder would have an approximate bandwidth of 10 megahertz. The modulation techniques used would probably not be narrowband, due both to the difficulty of maintaining tight stability at microwave frequencies, and the small amount of transmitter power (~ 5 watts) available at the spacecraft. FM, spread spectrum, and digital modulation techniques are possible. It is estimated that a 10 meter dish with < 10 watts of transmitter power would be required at a ground station to access either transponder. Because the amateur transponders would share the same antennas as the commercial units, the coverage area would be similar to that of other domestic satellites: North America, Mexico, the Carribean, and southern Canada. A not-for-profit corporation called ARNET (Amateur Radio Network Experimental Transponder) would be created to administer the system. This proposal is still in the early planning stages and is certainly not guaranteed to take place. However, the possibilities are certainly exciting, and the company appears to be serious. Phil Karn, KA9Q Bell Labs, Murray Hill ------------------------------ Date: 25 Aug 1982 1330-EDT From: Ron Subject: Seeing what the night sky "really" looks like To: space at MIT-MC I hope no one minds a fairly useless gee whiz letter, but... About two weeks ago I went on a trip to Maine with five other people. We had rented a cabin by a small freshwater ocean (they call them "ponds" up there). There were no street lights and very little civilization within 15 miles. It was basically the boonies. We arrived late the first night and after unpacking I went down to the boat dock with a friend who is an amateur astronomer. I really didn't understand why he wanted to bring binoculars out there at night, I mean, it would only make things look closer, right? About the moment that fallacy crossed my mind I reached the end of the dock (by feel, it was pitch black) and looked up. There was no way to describe what I saw or felt. I had never seen the sky quite like that, zillions of stars, crystal clear, I could even see the Milky Way, something I'd only heard described till then. Much better than a planetarium! After gaping for about 20 minutes I noticed I was being eaten alive by mosquitoes and went back inside. I must have sounded pretty strange to everyone else, they couldn't understand what I was so amazed by! So, after the trip I came back to dusty, cloud covered New Brunswick NJ to find that "light pollution" more or less completely ruins observing conditions. This was incredibly annoying during the lunar eclipse. Ever since then I have been quietly gathering information and searching for a better way to reproduce that experience; generally to find a good way to "see what's really up there." So, the questions I would like to put forth are: what is a good text on skygazing (it would be spiffy if it included some harder astronomical info), and what are the levels of involvement for a hobby like this? More specifically, if I were to go as far as buying binoculars or a small telescope what type is recommended? I don't know how interested the general "readership" of this digest is in the answers. Please reply directly to me and I'll summarize back to the list if anyone wants to know. Thanks alot, (ron) ------------------------------ Date: 25 Aug 1982 1412-EDT From: Ron Subject: Any organizations like SSI? To: space at MIT-MC I have a friend who would like to name SSI (previously known as the L5 society) as a beneficiary in his life insurance. Sounds like a nice idea. I was wondering if SSI is the largest group of its type (or maybe even the only group of it's type). Also, could someone reply to me directly with their address and say whether they're incorporated. (ron) ------------------------------ Date: 25 Aug 82 15:39:42-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!harpo!eagle!san at Ucb-C70 Subject: L5 society Article-I.D.: eagle.486 Via: Usenet; 25 Aug 82 23:16-PDT Can somebody enlighten me about the L5 society. What are its aims, ambitions, etc? How does one join? Is there a New Jersey chapter and what happens in meetings. I know almost nothing about it except a few things I read on the net. Please reply to me via mail (or Mail) only. Lets not clutter up the net with this personal request. Reply by mail to eagle!san, BTL, MH. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 27-Aug-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #284 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 284 Today's Topics: L5 X-15 Diary Space Groups SSI and L5 L5 and SSI Re: What the sky really looks like ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from M.PCO.LISD.HIS by MIT-MULTICS.ARPA dial; 26-Aug-1982 10:20:00-edt Date: 26 August 1982 07:18 mst From: Davids.Multics at M Subject: L5 To: SPACE at MIT-MC I would also be interested in more information about the L5 society. I do not think that sending info via the net would be inappropriate - remember new people (like me) are hooking into the next every day and do not have all of the useful background information. ------------------------------ Date: 26 August 1982 1048-EDT (Thursday) From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30) To: space at MIT-MC Subject: X-15 Diary Message-Id: <26Aug82 104845 DS30@CMU-10A> When I was in junior high school, I borrowed "X-15 Diary" from the school library. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 1982 1039-PDT From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Space Groups To: space at MIT-MC SSI is not the L5 Society. You may be confusing one of several groups. SSI is Space Services Incorporated. They are the folks that are trying to develop low-cost orbital booster systems. You may recall the Percheron, a liquid-fuel booster whose only flight was accidental and not very long. (It blew up on the pad. But don't forget that NASA blew up *lots* of liquid-fuel boosters in their early days.) SSI is now working on a far more rational approach: the Conestoga solid-fuel booster. They are based in Houston, Texas (I don't have the address). NSI is the National Space Institute. They are a Washington D.C. based organization that (I believe) was orginally founded by Wernher von Braun. They put out a nice magazine 10 times a year. In the latest issue they published the text of Ronald Reagan's speech at the STS-4 landing (something I particularly wanted to see). They also apparently have other activities but I gather that they are mostly based on the East Coast. Their address is P.O. Box 7535, Ben Franklin Station, Washington D.C 20044 The L5 Society was formed in 1975 and its purpose is to promote space development. (I believe that their charter says that the organization can be dissolved when the Board of Directors can hold their final meeting in orbit). They recently held the First Annual Conference on Space Development (a surprisingly large affair) and publish a fairly nice monthly newsletter/magazine. Their address is: 1060 E. Elm St., Tucson, AZ 85719. There are also many active local chapters (more so than NSI). If anybody would like more information, please contact me directly (NOT on the SPACE list). And if you are on the USENET, *please* indicate a pathname from the ARPANet that will work for return mail. -- Tom ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 1982 1114-PDT From: Paul Dietz Subject: SSI and L5 To: space at MIT-MC SSI [This stands for Space Studies Institute as I recall -Ed.] and L5 are completely different organizations! SSI is run by O'Neil at Princeton. It gives grants and supports research into space exploitation. For example, it has a grant to someone to develope chemical technics for extracting minerals from lunar materials. It also is developing a third generation mass-driver. O'Neil has also recently developed (and patented) a system for air traffic control that uses three satellites, as opposed to umpteen ground stations. His system is exciting a lot of people, except of course the FAA whose system it would replace. O'Neil's system would save about 20 BILLION dollars(!) over the FAA system, and would require only one box in each plane as opposed to thirteen black boxes for the FAA. The L5 society, in my opinion, does little useful work. It publishes an amateurish magazine containing little useful information. It also lobbies policitians for more space spending. The first function is pretty pathetic, the second is of dubious legitimacy. It's not worth joining. I was a member of L5 last year but did not renew my membership -- there's just nothing there. I am going to repeat (perhaps increase) my SSI contribution. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 1982 1204-PDT From: Alan R. Katz Subject: L5 and SSI To: space at MIT-MC cc: katz at USC-ISIF Answering two messages at once and probably lots of other people will answer this as well: SSI is NOT L5. They are two seperate organizations. SSI stands for space studies institute, is Gerard O'Neil's group and exists to do research necessary for space colonization (some of it anyway). They have put together a couple of working mass driver's and have done research on the Lagrangian points. SSI is incorporated and is, I believe 501C3 (non-profit organization). L5 exists to educate people about space and to "spread the word." Its goal is to dissolve itself in a final meeting on a space colony at L5 (or L4, I guess). It is a 501 C3 organization. L5 has chapters around the world. The biggest is OASIS, in the LA area. OASIS has monthly meetings, monthly potluck parties, and special events (such as seeing the shuttle landings). (The next OASIS meeting is this saturday, on Space stations, and was announced in this digest earlier). Another large L5 chapter exists in the San Francisco Bay area, also having monthly meetings and potlucks. There are also large chapters in Mass. and Texas. If you are interested in space, and want to get involved in making it happen, you should definitly join L5 (and SSI as well). If there is a chapter near you, you should get involved in it. Its a great way to meet others interested in space, and a good way to get involved. Oh, by the way, SSI is about to set up a chapter in LA and possibly elsewhere as well. Sorry I don't have the addresses of these organizations with me at the moment. You can contact me for further information on OASIS. For more information on the San Francisco chapter, call (415)482-0532. Alan ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 1982 1348-PDT Sender: BILLW at SRI-KL Subject: Re: What the sky really looks like From: BILLW at SRI-KL To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[SRI-KL]26-Aug-82 13:48:07.BILLW> In-Reply-To: Your message of 26 Aug 1982 0302-PDT Speaking of things, can someone tell me where the closest spot to stanford is where it gets dark at night ? WW ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 28-Aug-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #285 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 285 Today's Topics: Independent Space Colonies STS-6 info requested Re: SPACE Digest V2 #284 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Aug 82 12:22:45-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!tekcrd!tekcad!keithl at Ucb-C70 Subject: Independent Space Colonies Article-I.D.: tekcad.177 Via: Usenet; 27 Aug 82 5:41-PDT Regarding the question of how free space colonies can happen when "they" pay for it, as brought up by Tom Wadlow: Space travel is paid for by large organizations because they are the only ones who can afford it AT PRESENT. This can change with new forms of space launch. The energy necessary to move a ton of mass from the Earth's surface to L5 is 16,000 Kilowatt-hours at 100 percent efficiency. This is $1000 worth of oil, $600 worth of electricity (in the Northwest), or a few dollars worth of uranium. If you fig- ure on 300 tons of mass per person (capital equipment, biomass, and shielding, mostly) that's about $200K per per- son; pretty expensive, but not impossible to get on a per- sonal basis. The trick is getting the efficiency, and that will probably require new inventions, but no new physics. Shipping most of this mass from the moon can make it even cheaper. If people can pay for it themselves, some may do so out of a desire for freedom and new frontiers, and who's to stop them? Most groundhogs would rather have anarchists "out there" than at home, if there must be anarchists at all (further discussion of that belongs on net.poli-sci). Statehood? The way things are going, the inhabitants of space will be applying to the Supreme Soviet, not to Congress... Keith Lofstrom uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!keithl CSnet: tekcad!keithl@tek ARPAnet:tekcad!keithl.tek@udel-relay ------------------------------ Date: 27 Aug 1982 11:33 EDT From: Sewhuk.HENR at PARC-MAXC Subject: STS-6 info requested To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Sewhuk.HENR I am interested in watching the launch of STS-6, the one in Jan/Feb (arctic season for Rochester) and was wondering what one does to do this. I guess the most obvious thing is to get to the site. Does it require tickets, waiting lists, etc. And if it is a first come/first serve deal where's the best place to be to watch one of these things take off. Dave ------------------------------ Date: 27 Aug 1982 1010-PDT From: WILKINS at SRI-AI (Wilkins ) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #284 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: billw at SRI-KL In-Reply-To: Your message of 27-Aug-82 0302-PDT From Stanford, drive up Page Mill Road to the Los trancos Open Space parking lot (2/3 of the way to Skyline) and you'll get considerably better viewing than in the flats. Or you can go over skyline when it's not foggy for even better viewing. David ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 29-Aug-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #286 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 286 Today's Topics: Updated ephemeris for comet Austin ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Aug 82 9:12:15-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!tekmdp!patm at Ucb-C70 Subject: Updated ephemeris for comet Austin Article-I.D.: tekmdp.1339 Via: Usenet; 28 Aug 82 3:28-PDT The following updated ephemeris for Austin is published in the September issue of Sky & Telescope magazine. All positions are given for 0h Universal time; right aascention and declination are per 1950 coordinates. E is the angualr elongation from the Sun. 1982 R.A. Dec. E Mag. h m o ' o Aug 29 11 59.0 +44 50 40 5.5 Sep 3 12 19.6 +44 05 42 6.0 8 12 31.7 +42 55 42 6.6 13 12 39.3 +41 38 41 7.1 18 12 44.4 +40 21 41 7.7 23 12 48.1 +39 08 41 8.2 28 12 51.1 +38 00 40 8.6 Oct 3 12 53.5 +36 58 41 9.1 8 12 55.7 +36 03 42 9.5 13 12 57.7 +35 16 43 9.9 18 12 59.4 +43 35 44 10.2 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 30-Aug-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #287 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 287 Today's Topics: Independent Space Colonies ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 August 1982 07:32-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Independent Space Colonies To: menlo70!sytek!zehntel!teklabs!tekcrd!tekcad!keithl at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Once we develop space mining (Moon and asteroids etc.) industry (LEO, L-5, Geosynch, etc.) and habitat, I propose the following way to homestead with minimal capital investment: (1) First you work a mine on the Moon or somewhere else by remote control from Earth. This is labor not capital investment. You mine enough materials to make your cabin in the sky. (2) Next you work the manufacturing facility by remote control. Most of this is automated but some loading and unloading of materials and final products as well as final assembly may require human interaction. (3) Next you remotely-pilot a tug to put your space-cabin in LEO for rendesvous with the shuttle. (4) Finally you stuff yourself like cattle into the cargo bay of the shuttle for a people-mover flight, go up, unload into your cabin, and now you can move that cabin anywhere within range of the space tug. Thus you do most of the work "yourself" with computer/robot assistance. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 31-Aug-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #288 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 288 Today's Topics: Possible NASA Layoffs remote control mining ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Aug 1982 1109-PDT From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Possible NASA Layoffs To: space at MIT-MC a244 1516 29 Aug 82 AM-NASA Funds,330 Space Agency Layoffs Expected Because Of Reagan Veto SPACE CENTER, Houston (AP) - Space workers may have to be laid off and the next shuttle mission delayed because of President Reagan's veto of a supplemental money bill, officials say. Kennedy Space Center, in Florida, would shut down if it is forced to lay off its 2,100 federal civil service workers, ''but that's very unlikely,'' space center spokesman Hugh Harris said Friday. About half the work force at Johnson Space Center, or 3,400 workers, is employed under civil serivce law, and spokesman Steve Nesbitt said preparations for the shuttle's fifth mission could not continue without them. Astronauts who are not in the branches of the military are covered by civil service law. Reagan's veto of the $14.2 billion bill ''doesn't push us into a furlough situation yet. There is still an opportunity for Congress to override the veto, which many believe will be done, or to pass another supplemental bill more to the president's liking,'' Nesbitt, public information officer at the center, said Sunday. He said that even if they are necessary, furloughs could not be handed out until Sept. 19, to comply with statutory notice requirments. The furloughs would last from three to 10 days. Nesbitt said the shuttle's launch, scheduled for Nov. 11, could be delayed one day for every day employees are not working. Reagan announced Saturday he had vetoed the bill, saying that it exceeded his domestic programs request by nearly $1 billion. In addition to the space center, the veto could affect 27 government offices and the salaries of 3 million military personnel. Any layoffs stemming from the funding shortfall the bill was to cover could last through Sept. 30. The fiscal year of the federal government starts Oct. 1. Funding as of that date has already been approved by Washington. While Congress has recessed for the Labor Day holiday until Sept. 8, Kennedy Space Center has enough funds to cover the payroll until Sept. 20. ap-ny-08-29 1816EDT *************** ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 1982 2339-CDT From: Jonathan Slocum Subject: remote control mining To: space at MIT-AI How do you control a piece of equipment with a built-in 2 1/2 second MINIMUM reaction time? Answer: not with any reliability at all, in even a moderate environment. And on the moon -- MINING, no less??? As the Navy and other deep-sea operators know, there are lots of situations where remotes do well -- but there are even more where they do not. For most purposes, you've got to be there yourself. That's why there is so much interest in manned deep-submergence vessels, diving tables, and the like. All this, with NO perceptible control delay, and some of the finest equipment money can buy -- at vastly cheaper prices than equivalent capability deposited (intact) on the surface of the moon by any currently available or near-term future means. So don't go staking your claims... ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 01-Sep-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #289 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 289 Today's Topics: Re: SSI and L5 - (nf) Re: Any organizations like SSI? Private Launch remote mining Space Command Summary of reponses to "What the night sky really looks like" remote control mining ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Aug 82 12:01:31-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!hp-pcd!charlie (Charlie Amacher) at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: SSI and L5 - (nf) Could you post some information on how to join SSI on the net, or mail it to me directly? ...ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!charlie [See next message -Ed] ------------------------------ Date: 25 Aug 82 22:56:44-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: mhtsa!allegra!phr at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Any organizations like SSI? I have a friend who would like to name SSI (previously known as the L5 society)..... No, no. SSI was *never* known as the L-5 society; SSI is the Space Studies Institute. Both SSI and L-5 are alive and flourishing, and either would be well worth contributing to. The L-5 Society (1620 N. Park, Tucson AZ, don't know ZIPcode) [The July 82 L-5 News gives the address as: 1060 E. Elm, Tucson AZ 85719 -Ed] is a grass roots society promoting space development; dues are $20/year ($15 for students) and the slick monthly L-5 News alone is worth the price of admission. There are also dozens of local chapters; national membership is about 7000. Besides the Newsletter, the Society's most significant activities are educating the public and doing almost-political things to support the space program. (As a non-profit corporation, they can't sponsor office-seekers or anything like that). Their biggest triumph in this area was preventing the US Senate from rubber-stamping the notorious UN Moon Treaty, which would have made commercial use of lunar and asteroidal materials very difficult and slowed down space development by decades. They seem to deserve some credit for preserving what's left of the Galileo mission, and prolonged the agony of the now-defunct Halley probe to the final wire. The Space Studies Institute (195 Nassau Street, Princeton, NJ 08540) is lower-keyed; they conduct and fund scientific research in areas which haven't attracted Government money. Much of the early work on model mass drivers was done by Bill Snow at SSI; now that some of the ideas are proven, he's doing the same thing for ARPA. Other work has included constructing models of automated lunar chemical processing plants, designs for several-km-sized space colonies, etc. etc. SSI operates on a shoestring budget but is doing very important work. More money would enable them to accomplish that much more. They're small enough for individual contributions to make a difference. You can subscribe to their quarterly work-in-progress newsletter (usually a few typewritten pages) for (last time I looked) $10/year. Obligatory note: SSI's president is Gerard K. O'Neill. There are several other possibilities: Delta Vee, the British Interplanetary Society, the National Space Institute, etc. See the survey article by Trudy Bell, published in various forms recently in the L-5 News, Omni, and a few other places. I unfortunately haven't been active in this kind of stuff for about a year (work...); some of the above information may be out of date. --Paul Rubin ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 1982 1006-CDT From: John Otken Subject: Private Launch To: space at MIT-MC Space Services Inc. is about to give it another try. They plan to launch their second rocket on Sept 8. They also announced a press conference tomorrow (Wed) in Houston. The local paper had some noise in it which claimed that SSI had purchased this rocket from NASA - a Minute Man III no less. John. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 1982 0915-PDT From: WILKINS at SRI-AI (Wilkins ) Subject: remote mining To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Your message of 31-Aug-82 0303-PDT As the years go by, we should be able to make remote units more capable with more sophisticated computers and software. They'll be able to do many useful things with no control from the earth. We haven't really put in much effort at developing intelligent control programs yet, and certainly a lot of such effort is still needed, but that doesn't mean that it cannnot be done. David ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 1982 2038-PDT From: Den Lenahan Subject: Space Command To: space at MIT-MC Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940. Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161 SPACE COMMAND: Another Step Toward the Final Frontier? I wasn't on the space net last June, so I don't know if anyone mentioned that on June 21, 1982, Air Force announced the formation of a special command responsible for military space activities. The new Space Command (SPACECOM) became an official command on September 1, 1982. SPACECOM subsumes the functions previously accomplished by Aerospace Defense Command (ADCOM) and the Aerospace Defense Center (ADC), as well as retaining North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) authority and responsibilities. SPACECOM also recovers some people (about 200) and functions passed to Strategic Air Command (SAC) in a reorganization three years ago. September 1, 1982, might be worth noting on your calendar. It may well represent as significant an event to space as was the emergence of a US Air Force on September 18, 1947 (via evolution from the US Signal Corps through the Army Air Forces) to the medium known as air. Consider the evolution of aircraft from '47 to '82, and try, if you can, to envision the spacecraft of 35 years hence! ------- ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 1982 0034-EDT From: Ron Subject: Summary of reponses to "What the night sky really looks like" To: space at MIT-MC, Hoffarth.wbst at PARC-MAXC Recently I sent a message asking for suggestions about how to get into Skygazing. There is a heavily edited and reformatted copy of the replies I received in the file SKYGAZING.REPLIES at RUTGERS. It can be FTP'ed by the usual methods. The responses describe various kinds of telescopes, mountings, magazines, books, and lots of helpful suggestions. All of the information is of a very general nature (I guess). Many thanks to all the people who were able to reply. See you in a dark field... (ron) ------- ------------------------------ Date: 1 September 1982 03:49-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: remote control mining To: LRC.Slocum at UTEXAS-20 cc: space at MIT-AI When I refer to mining, I really mean just scooping up the surface soil, possibly spilling half of it due to clumbsiness, and dumping it into a hopper for conveyance to the processing station. I have in mind a solar-powered remote-control station on the moon, and a servo based on position (not velocity or pressure). Thus once you are trained, you just visualize where you want it to shovel on the TV image and make the corresponding motion on Earth which takes place on Moon later. You should be able to shovel several scoops of soil in a batch, then go back after seeing what's left and shovel some of the parts you missed. I can walk 10 or 20 steps with my eyes closed and know when I am about to reach a curb I saw back at the start before I closed my eyes. I can reach for objects with my eyes closed providing I've located them beforehand. I can spot all the clutter on my floor, turn off the lights, and then walk across to my bed in the dark, stepping over the clutter I can no longer see. I figure I can locate the places I want to shovel on the moon and then get most of them without visual feedback. At least I'm confident enough I'd like to try the experiment on Earth using artificial feedback delay to prove it could be done on the Moon with real feedback delay. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 02-Sep-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #290 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 290 Today's Topics: SPACE Digest V2 #289 Standard methods for getting SKYGAZING.REPLIES Remote control mining ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 September 1982 10:40-EDT From: Stewart Cobb Subject: SPACE Digest V2 #289 To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Development of computer software and servo technology which will allow us to do useful work remotely despite the speed-of-light lag (2-3 seconds to Moon, much longer to Mars and such) is one of the things that will probably have to be done eventually as we go to work in space, but which can be R&D'd right here on Earth with only a small investment in hardware. The other such project which comes to mind is the development of a successful closed ecology which can keep several humans alive for a year or more. If you start small (i.e. rats instead of humans) this can be researched by individuals or small groups without expending a whole lot of money. Indeed, closed ecologies were popular science fair projects back in the Fifties and Sixties. Unfortunately, interest seems to have waned about the time the "ecology" movement became popular. On another topic, there may be a little confusion caused by the fact that there are TWO groups known by the acronym SSI. The Space Studies Institute, O'Neill's group in Princeton, does low-budget (but high-quality) research like the projects mentioned above. Space Services, Inc., is a private company attempting to develop a private orbital launch service (something like OTRAG). They blew up a liquid-fueled booster of their own design (the Percheron) late last summer; supposedly they're going to try again with a different rocket on September 8. There's also a group with the acronym STS (Space Transportation Services, I think), also based in Princeton. They have a financial slant -- last spring they offered to buy the fifth Shuttle orbiter from Rockwell ($1 billion) and give it to NASA, in return for being allowed to handle the marketing of launch services for ALL the Shuttles. I don't know what ever became of that offer. Stewart (hsc@mit-mc) ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 1982 1520-EDT From: Ron Subject: Standard methods for getting SKYGAZING.REPLIES To: space at MIT-MC FTP to RUTGERS and login with name ANONYMOUS and any password. The file is in SKYGAZING.REPLIES. Sorry if anyone missed it first time around. I'll keep it online for about a month or so. (ron) ------------------------------ Date: 2 September 1982 02:49-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Remote control mining To: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Date: 1 Sep 1982 09:08 PDT From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC Why the insistence on Earth-based control of the mining machine? It's simpler to get it working that way. Eventually we want to automate it. With remote control, we need only solve the problems of getting the device there and maintaining communication with it. With automatic control we have to in addition find an algorithm that can replace a human worker, and debug it. Remember even the Voyager didn't make its own decisions, we radioed a sequence of commands to it and it merely executed them by rote. It took days to figure out a change before we could safely radio it up. We couldn't use interactive control because (1) too many things had to be done in too short a time, (2) the radio (speed of light) delay was much more than 3 seconds (more like a half hour each way) making interaction impossible, (3) motions had to be more precise than a human could do by servo. On the moon we have plenty of time to stop and retry something without losing a once-in-a-lifetime chance, only 3-second total delay, and no need to be especially unclumbsy. One possible way of positioning would be for the lander unit to shoot out lengths of fine wire which could be several hundred meters long and would be energized with a signal which the mining rover could detect. One more system that can fail. But maybe worth trying the second or third time. 1) Can a suitable mining area be located from lunar orbit (i.e. do you need to actually sift the sand or can you use remote-sensing techniques)? 2) Can a payload be set down in that area with suitable positioning accuracy? [I think present art would indicate "Yes" on both counts]. Good questions. Is SSI or anybody working on them? Re accurate locating, a rover to move from landing spot to work spot would help, as would a navagation system for the Moon similar to the one currently planned for Earth, allowing travel to within a couple meters of each other merely by subtracting coordinates and traveling "toward" each other accordingly. Anybody working on accurate lunar navigation? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 03-Sep-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #291 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 291 Today's Topics: Excerpts from New Scientist ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thursday, 2 September 1982 22:27-EDT From: Jon Webb To: space at MIT-MC Subject: Excerpts from New Scientist Cc: webb at CMU-20C Here are some excerpts from the New Scientist of 26 August 1982. New Scientist is a British weekly science magazine. BRAZIL SET TO JOIN THE SPACE SUPERPOWERS Brazil plans to become by 1987 the eighth country to demonstrate it can life into space a satellite with its own rocket. The drive to join the select list of nations in this category comes partly as a result of military ambitions. The satellite of about 250 kg would be launched on a rocket under development at the Institute of Space Activities in San Jose near Sao Paulo. The institute, which military officers control, is working on the solid-propellant rocket primarily to carry warheads. But, according to Nelson de Jesus Parada, the director general of Brazil's civilian Institute for Space Research, the home-made launcher will take into space during the late 1980s a series of four satellites that have purely peaceful applications. ...Two of the craft will be for remote sensing, with resolution comparable to Landsat. ... The other two will be for telecomunications, handling streams of digital data from transponders around the country. ... The space program costs Brazil about 20 million pounds/year. They are also buying some satellites which they will place into orbit using Ariane. ... INDIA'S ROCKET COULD MEET MILITARY AMBITIONS Doubts are growing over whether India plans to keep its rocket programme solely for launching satellites rather than warheads. The solid propellant using in the country's SLV-3 launcher ... is ideally suited for missiles. Indian observers think that within six months of a political decision, engineers ... could convert the SLV-3 into a missile with a range of 2000 km. ... PRIVATE SHUTTLE FIRM AWAITS GOVERNMENT GO-AHEAD Space Transportion [sic], the company that wants to become the world's first private operator of a re-usable space craft, expect to know by the end of the year if the US government will let it go ahead with its plans. The company [called Spacetran]...wants to buy a space shuttle for $1000 million and operate it from 1987. [The president of Spacetran] says he expects the military to book 30 -- 40% of the flights. The government says NASA will need a little less than half. ... To take a full shuttle load of 30 tonnes into space will cost roughly $70 million... READY FOR THE SHUTTLE? Are you American and have you some skill at composing poetry or wielding a paint brush? If so, then you have a shance of making an early trip into space. A NASA committe is considering the criteria under which ordinary citizens can qualify for joining the crew of a space shuttle when the shuttle programme is operating in top gear in 1987. At this point, one of a fleet of space planes will journey into orbit every fortnight. James Beggs, the administrator of NASA, says that his government will not sell tickets for trips into space. Instead, it will judge which people are likely to gain the most from such a jaunt into the heavens. At the top of the list are journalists, painters, and photographers. Folk who, in the opinion of NASA, can share their experiences with the millions of others who will never have the oppourtunity to leave the Earth's atmosphere. If readers have any thoughts on who should be among the fortunates to make the shuttle crew, the had better write to NASA before it finishes its deliberations next year. [Note: from other sources (National Public Radio) I have heard that one of the tradition hindrances to going -- poor vision requiring eyeglasses -- will not apply to these passengers]. Jon ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 04-Sep-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #292 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 292 Today's Topics: Survey of Tracking Programs Private company to launch spacecraft: Houston (AP) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Sep 1982 0902-EDT From: Rodger D. Osgood Subject: Survey of Tracking Programs To: space at MIT-MC I am interested in finding out what satellite tracking/prediction programs are available. Several other people have expressed similar interest on this list, so I would like to take a survey. Please send me information on programs that find the positions of satellites, that you have or know of. I would like to know: The general capabilities of the program. Does it find position? lighting on the satellite/observer? ground station acquisition and loss? other? What units/form is the output in? The information that the program needs to have input to it. The language/operating system/machine that the program runs on. The availability/cost of the program. Other comments, good or bad experiences I will compile the results and report back to the list. Thanks in advance. rodger RDO@XX ------- ------------------------------ Date: 3 Sep 1982 1231-EDT From: Lantz at RUTGERS (Brian Lantz) Subject: Private company to launch spacecraft: Houston (AP) To: space at MIT-MC A 37-foot surplus military rocket is poised on a sandy Texas island, ready for the first launch of a spacecraft by private enterprise, a Houston company announced yesterday. "We're confident it's going to work like a charm," said Donald K. Slayton, a former astronaut who is mission director for the launch attempt next Wednesday north of Corpus Christi. The solid-fueled rocket, named Conestoga I, is scheduled to carry a dummy payload to 192 miles above the earth, where it will eject a shower of ice crystals and then fall into the Gulf of Mexico about 320 miles from the Matagorda island launch pad after a flight of about 10.5 minutes. Space Services Inc. of Houston is spending about $2.5 million for the project. A liquid-fueled rocket financed by the company exploded on the launch pad last year during testing, something company officials said won't happen with the simpler solid-fueled rocket. Slayton said the Conestoga I is built around a Minuteman I second-stage rocket engine that has a long history of successful lauches. The company purchased the rocket from the government for $365,000. Asked how confident he was the rocket would work, Slayton said, "About 99.4 percent." ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 07-Sep-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #293 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 293 Today's Topics: Remote mining using AI to alleviate speed-of-light problems Please remove me from your list. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Sep 82 23:16:48-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!fortune!megatest!sun!gnu at Ucb-C70 Subject: Remote mining using AI to alleviate speed-of-light problems Article-I.D.: sun.107 Via: Usenet; 6 Sep 82 3:41-PDT I seem to recall an article by Larry Niven and/or Jerry Pournelle a year or so ago about remote mining on the moon, using artificial intelligence techniques on the remote end to avoid the robot's breaking things (or itself) during the round-trip delay. It wouldn't have to be able to run itself -- just stop itself. Maybe JEP or someone can provide the reference? (It could have been the space advisory board report.) ------------------------------ Date: 6 September 1982 11:39-EDT (Monday) From: K. Shane Hartman To: space at mit-mc Subject: Please remove me from your list. I will read space with a bboard program here. Thanks, Shane ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 08-Sep-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #294 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 294 Today's Topics: looking for Bob Markevitch qualifications for shuttle SPACE ANNIVERSARY Lunar Telepresence Lunar Teleopresence Phase 3-B Launch Date Set ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Sep 1982 2018-EDT From: Rodger D. Osgood Subject: looking for Bob Markevitch To: space at MIT-MC Sorry to put this on the list, but I haven't been able to get a message though directly. Bob, I think I have the info that you want, please tell me how to get mail to you from the ARPA net. thanx rodger RDO@XX ------- ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 1982 20:52:36-EDT From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: space at mit-mc Subject: qualifications for shuttle A recent story here mentioned that NASA was looking for types who could communicate [the wonders of space] to everyone who can't go, and that these passengers would not be required to fit the current shuttle physical requirements, specifically not needing glasses. In fact, mission specialists already have much looser physical requirements than pilots and other traditional spacemen; I believe you're allowed as bad as 20/40 in one eye and 20/30 in the other, which is quite bad enough to require glasses. (I should remember this more closely, since I filled out one of the first set of applications, but it has been several years. What I most remember is Joe Haldeman saying he couldn't make it because of poor hearing. . . .) ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 82 9:04:43-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ihuxv!dimario at Ucb-C70 Subject: SPACE ANNIVERSARY Article-I.D.: ihuxv.279 Via: Usenet; 7 Sep 82 21:06-PDT Sept 3rd is the anniversary of Viking 2 landing on Mars. Too bad we cannot see more such anniversaries. mjd ihuxv ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 1982 0034-EDT From: Marvin Minsky Subject: Lunar Telepresence To: space at MIT-MC cc: minsky at MIT-OZ The effect of time-delay on remote manipulation will depend on the time-scale of what you are manipulating. The human sensory-motor reaction loop is of the order of 1/5 of a second. As you know, things fall 16 feet in the first second, and there's a square-root scaling for that. So you can catch something that falls out of your hand in half a foot or so. The lunar gravity is about 1/7th ours. The lunar round-trip time delay is about 12/5 seconds, and if we add our own delay we get 13/5. So if you consider gravity scaling, then lunar teleoperation should be sort of like you are twice as slow as here! That is, you ought to be able to catch something before it falls two feet. Now, we will be building lunar structures that are large, because of the low-G. Perhaps they'll be 4 times as high, and yet use weaker materials! Then you can catch them just the same as here - when you scale everything! How's that for an optimistic way to look at it? Seriously (but I was, actually), most space-structure work will use very delicate materials. That, after all, is the great thing about building stuff out there. Then, the manipulation speeds will be limited, not by reaction time but by the gentleness needed for handling. You simply cannot accelerate those aluminum-foil girders very much or they will bend and crinkle. So space teleoperation will not suffer from delay very much, because you will have to plan your motions many seconds ahead, or even minutes, to avoid collisions. If you jerk to avoid an unexpected collision you might do more harm than good abyway. Finally, of course robotic AI systems can work fast locally. If you want to take your analog wrist-watch apart it will take a long time, by remote control, but presumably such tiny work will be the exception. Epilogue: it infuriates me that there seems to be still no substantial research on telepresence. There are a few little projects here and there, but none of much significance. Still, no one seems to be fabricating a decently humanoid remote hand, either. Foo on the U.S. if some other culture beats us on this, another of the obviously enormous industries of the not far-away future that we will miss out on. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 1982 0048-EDT From: Marvin Minsky Subject: Lunar Teleopresence To: space at MIT-MC cc: minsky at MIT-OZ Ooops. Off by noticeable factor. Thing falls about 12 feet before you can catch it. That makes it pretty hard to catch. Better not drop anything. Other arguments OK. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 82 20:49:05-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Phase 3-B Launch Date Set Article-I.D.: eagle.499 Via: Usenet; 7 Sep 82 22:57-PDT The European Space Agency (ESA) has announced that the launch of Ariane L-7 carrying ECS-1 and Amsat Phase 3-B will take place on 3 Feb 1983. No launch time was announced, but from earlier planning documents, there will probably be two launch windows, each about 2 hours long, centered around 0200 and 1330 UTC. The launch of L-7 has been delayed not due to problems with the Ariane launch vehicle, but to design problems with the ECS-1 spacecraft. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 09-Sep-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #295 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 295 Today's Topics: more on magnetic monopoles Columbia to go to VAB Thursday SRB Recovery Conestoga launch delayed Shuttle Qualifications An interesting Galilean development space mining and computer graphics SSI address Lunar Telepresence Making Jobs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Sep 82 15:01:31-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!fortune!megatest!yin at Ucb-C70 Subject: more on magnetic monopoles I understand that Cabrera, the researcher at Stanford who came up with the recent candidate monopole event, has a new detector about to come on-line. This one consists of 3 superconducting loops, of about 30x(?) the original area, arranged so that the loops are orthogonal. This should give greater sensitivity, allow the detection of monopoles passing through a space rather than a plane, give some indication of the path and make event detection independent of fluctuations within individual loops. The original loop had a detection area of 20 cm^2. With this set-up an event occured after 151 days, giving an upper limit to the isotropic distribution of moving particles of 0.53 /m^2/sr/d. If certain assumptions are made wrt grand unified theories, the actual value might be as much as 0.3 /m^2/sr/d. The event that was detected looks very convincing, judging by the details given in a preprint to Phys Rev Letters. The set-up was designed so that a monopole event would induce a current equivalent to 8 superconducting flux quanta. The detected event had a value of about 7.5 flux quanta. No other event, including known disturbances (liquid helium, liquid nitrogen transfers, power fluctuations, rfi, etc), exceeded values of 2 flux quanta, with the exception of impulses to the set-up. These sometimes approached 6 flux quanta, however, there were no seismic disturbances recorded on the day of the event and the laboratory was unoccupied. External magnetic fields were attenuated 180 dB by shielding. Btw, should be interesting if monopoles are confirmed. If grand unified theories are right, a magnetic monopole will have a mass of about 10^16 Gev, something like a small paramecium. (Of course there is still the intermediate vector baseball with a mass of about 10^18 Gev.) The familiar Maxwell's equations will also have to add on some terms: div B = 4 * pi * rho m 1 dB 4 * pi - curl E = - * -- + ------ * J c dt c m Yin Shih Megatest, Santa Clara ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 82 7:27:05-EDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Columbia to go to VAB Thursday Fifty five days after she landed, the space shuttle Columbia will be rolled to the Vehicle Assembly Building this Thursday. There it will be mated with its external tank and two (new) SRB's Rollout to the launch pad is scheduled for 21 September, and launch is still scheduled for 11 November. Preparations for launch are about 1 day ahead of schedule. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Sep 82 22:35:45-PDT (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: SRB Recovery A Naval vessel and a rocket retrieval ship owned by United Technologies left Port Canaveral Friday and started sailing towards the site where the Columbia's 2 SRB's are under water. They will attempt this week to raise a 40-foot long piece of one booster, complete with two parachutes and a flight recorder. ------------------------------ Date: 08 Sep 1982 1023-PDT From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Conestoga launch delayed To: space at MIT-MC a059 0415 08 Sep 82 PM-Private Rocket,490 Space Rocket Launch Delayed Until Thursday By PAUL RECER AP Aerospace Writer MATAGORDA ISLAND, Texas (AP) - Failure of a battery and a guidance instrument forced officials of the first privately financed U.S. space rocket to put a hold on its launch until Thursday. Space Services Inc. of America announced the postponement Tuesday night, just 12 hours before the planned 10 a.m. launch of the unmanned Conestoga I rocket. Mission director Donald K. Slayton, a former astronaut, said the launch team first found a failed battery and then discovered a faulty gyroscope - a guidance instrument - aboard the 37-foot-tall rocket Tuesday. He said the battery was replaced and that the gyroscope could also be replaced by working through the night. But Slayton decided instead on the postponement to give his 31-man launch team time to rest. ''The same guys that do the checking also do the repairs and they are getting run down,'' said Slayton. ''We decided to fall back and regroup so they could recharge their batteries.'' The Conestoga I rocket is built around the second stage of a Minuteman missle. It is designed to make a 10 1/2-minute suborbital flight to an altitude of 192 miles, then splash into the Gulf of Mexico 321 miles from its island launch pad. Space Services founder and board chairman David Hannah said launch of the Conestoga is ''pivotal'' to success of the company. The Houston real estate investor said the launch must be successful for Space Services to go on with plans to assemble a launch system capable of putting satellites into orbit. Space Services purchased the Minuteman stage in the Conestoga for $365,000 and the entire launch operation is costing about $2.5 million. It is being financed by 57 investors. The Conestoga I is to carry a dummy payload to a point above the Earth where it will separate from the rocket engine, go into a rapid spin and dump 400 pounds of water. The water will fall as a cloud of ice crystals, Slayton said. The maneuvers are to demonstrate the company's ability to assemble and launch a spacecraft, Slayton said. Such maneuvers must also be performed during the launch of an orbital satellite, he said. Hannah, during an earlier news conference, said Space Services ''was on trial'' in the Conestoga project because of the failure last year of another rocket system. The Houston company paid for the assembly of a liquid-fueled rocket and was preparing to launch it from another Matagorda Island pad when the vehicle exploded during a pre-launch test. The rocket, called Percheon, disintegrated in a fireball that rose 200 feet. Hannah said the accident set the company's goals back by more than six months and forced selection of another launch team and of another type of rocket, the simpler solid-fueled engine of the Minuteman I. He predicted if the Conestoga launch is successful, his company could have a satellite launching system operating by 1984 with up to one launch a month thereafter. But he added no customer has signed a contract with the company. ap-ny-09-08 0715EDT *************** ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 1982 1507-EDT From: Clifford V. R. Ludwi Subject: Shuttle Qualifications To: space at MIT-MC cc: ludwig at MIT-XX I seem to remember John Young wearing bi-focal glasses during the first shuttle flight. Several shots of the command deck showed him studying a checklist or some such papers while wearing glasses. Cliff (Ludwig@MIT-XX) ------------------------------ Date: 08 Sep 1982 1422-PDT From: Tom Wadlow Subject: An interesting Galilean development To: space at MIT-MC According to the San Francisco Chronicle (never a particularly reliable source), NASA is considering the use of a gravity assist in getting the Galileo probe to Jupiter. The reason for this possible change in plans is the cancellation of the wide-body Centaur upper stage. The interesting thing about the gravity whip maneuver is the choice of targets. Apparently, the plan is to make a high-speed flyby of your favorite planet and mine, namely Earth. This brings up the rather interesting question of what can be learned from an Earth flyby. It seems like it might be good practice for an interstellar probe looking for a habitable planet, but development of that kind of technology is unlikely in the time frame involved. Anybody got any ideas??? ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 82 9:04:29-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: npois!houxi!deimos!ariel!houti!trc at Ucb-C70 Subject: space mining and computer graphics Remote space mining might also be aided by computer graphics. The robot mining tool could be simulated, and overlaid upon the video image (or even a computer simulation of the image, constantly updated to match the received version). This would provide the operator with immediate feedback sufficient to allow work without much confusion. An additional delay could also be added, so that when a simulated catastrophe occurs, the operator could cancel the last few seconds of operation. The extra second or so wouldnt make much difference, and could save millions in damaged equipment. Tom Craver houti!trc ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 1982 9:04-PDT From: dietz.usc-cse at UDel-Relay Subject: SSI address To: space at Mit-Mc I don't remember if the Space Studies Institute's address was given, so here it is: Space Studies Institute 195 Nassau Street P.O. Box 82 Princeton, NJ 08540 A one year subscription costs: $10 Student $15 Subscriber $25 Contributor $50 Donor $100 Patron $200 to 500 Sponsor Donations are tax deductible. ------------------------------ Date: 9 September 1982 01:38-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Lunar Telepresence To: MINSKY at MIT-OZ cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Note that I was not proposing the use of 3-sec-delay remote-control for fabricating aluminum girders, merely for stuffing ore into a hopper for tossing out to space (with or without preliminary processing on the moon before the toss). Thus the problem of fragile materials and "dropping things" won't exist. Once ore gets off the moon it's trivial to move it to LEO where there are plenty of voluteers to handle it locally. The reason for suggesting telepresence on the moon is it's a real pain to maintain human crews there, whereas LEO and even lunar orbit are easy by comparison. The reason for suggesting telepresence between Earth and Moon instead of between lunar-orbit and Moon or LEO and Moon, is that telepresence may be very clumbsy, taking lots of time even to do loading of ore, so using an astronaut's time would be cost-ineffective, whereas using the time of an Earther would be reasonable, even with the 3-sec problem. A lot of out-of-work Earthers could be employed as remote manipulator miners. (Hey Reagan, did you hear that? A solution to unemployment!) ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 1982 0220-EDT From: Marvin Minsky Subject: Making Jobs To: rem at MIT-MC cc: space at MIT-MC Agree fully. Here are all those people worrying about the lunar teleoperator being slow. I bet that for about 100 megabucks or so we could have had a slow remote builder on the Moon for the last whole decade. It could have moved slowly, using a few dozen watts of thermal or photovoltaic power, and those cute wax-powered thermal motors, painted black on one side, white on the other. Imagine what we could have done in those 3,000,000 one-minute manipulations. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 10-Sep-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #296 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 296 Today's Topics: Conestoga launch is a success Ariane, shuttle, Centaur, space station, lasers,... Re: space mining and computer graphics Wanted: Info on Bell Labs and space Conestoga I Launch ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 09 Sep 1982 1059-PDT From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Conestoga launch is a success To: space at MIT-MC a113 0900 09 Sep 82 PM-Private Rocket, 2nd Ld, a107,200 URGENT Eds: Lead with 6 grafs with additional details and splashdown By PAUL RECER AP Aerospace Writer MATAGORDA ISLAND, Texas (AP) - Conestoga 1 blasted off from this isolated island today, becoming the first privately financed spacecraft launched in the United States, and flew a 10 1/2-minute mission exactly as planned before splashing down. The gleaming white, 37-foot rocket was launched from a pasture into a clear blue sky about 15 minutes behind schedule. It climbed unhesitatingly to a suborbital altitude of 192 miles as 300 spectators applauded. The rocket arced over the Gulf, where a dummy payload separated and spewed 400 pounds of water into the vacuum of space. The payload and rocket splashed down 321 miles from the launch pad. More than 100 reporters and about 200 guests - many of them investors in Space Services Inc. of America - watched the launch and burst into applause as it disappeared from view. Donald K. ''Deke'' Slayton, a former astronaut who directed the mission for Space Services, had said before the launch that weather was the only problem facing the flight. Thunderstorms threatened to interfere with the launch. SSI had said the weather was expected to be clear between 10 a.m. and noon, and the launch was scheduled during that weather ''window.'' ''We did it, we did it!'' shouted one executive of SSI after the 10:15 a.m. launch. Company officials had called Conestoga ''the future'' of their business and said it would help boost private industry into space. The guests and reporters had traveled by boat to the island before dawn. Many of the guests arrived in a festive mood, dressed as for a lawn party, and dined on shrimp and sandwiches as the countdown proceeded. The countdown for launch went almost precisely as planned, with only a couple of brief holds when data communications were lost momentarily. Officials said the rocket performed as expected, establishing that SSI is capable of organizing and controlling a rocket launch. The rocket properly aligned itself for orbital injection, a maneuver that will be essential when SSI attempts to put satellites into space. This craft, however, was not designed to achieve orbit. ap-ny-09-09 1216EDT *************** ------------------------------ Mail-From: CMUFTP host CMU-CS-G received by CMU-10A at 9-Sep-82 14:44:57-EDT Date: 9 Sep 1982 14:02:07-EDT From: Howard.Gayle at CMU-780G at CMU-10A Subject: Ariane, shuttle, Centaur, space station, lasers,... The 10 September 1982 issue of Science contains several space articles. One deals with the technical & political aspects of Arianespace vs. NASA. Another discusses a controversy over modifying the Centaur for use as a high energy upper stage for the shuttle. A briefing notes congressional action on laser battle stations (more study, no demo yet). Research News covers various space station proposals and who would use them to do what. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 82 13:35:49-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: npois!cbosgd!djb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: space mining and computer graphics Article-I.D.: cbosgd.2606 Via: Usenet; 9 Sep 82 21:00-PDT References: houti.150 This is slightly off the subject, but I couldn't help but be reminded of it. When I was in graduate school at the University of Tennessee, two other graduate students were working on a real-time image inhancement system targeted for use in the Space Shuttle. Part of the shuttle's remote repair system included a camera located on the maintenance robot, allowing the crew to direct activity from within the cabin. As position and illumination conditions changed, the view could easily go from extremely bright to quite dark, and most points between. Using the real-time image inhancement system, the camera's picture could be interactively adjusted by the crew (using direct histogram specification), allowing almost instantaneous correction and providing a consistantly good view. Input was from a special controller that used several slide potentiometers to approximate the desired histogram (very much like a hi-fi graphic equalizer). I saw the system under test conditions, and it performed very well. It was quite easy to use, and one rapidly got surprisingly good at manipulating the histogram and improving the "picture". (Now, if I could do the same with my TV...) David Bryant cbosg!djb ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 82 22:39:48-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!physics!mam at Ucb-C70 Subject: Wanted: Info on Bell Labs and space Article-I.D.: physics.183 Via: Usenet; 9 Sep 82 21:49-PDT I'm looking for info on the general subject of btl involvement with space. This includes satellites or gizmos to go on satellites, space manufacturing/mining ideas, contracts or other arrangements with NASA, jobs related to space, etc. Please send replies to Matthew Marcus {mhtsa or alice}!physics!mam ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 82 15:38:26-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Conestoga I Launch Article-I.D.: alice.908 Via: Usenet; 10 Sep 82 1:37-PDT Space Services, Inc., made their first successful launch today, as Conestoga I lifted off from Matagorda, Texas. It was the first time that a privately owned company has launch a rocket. The surplus Minuteman solid motor, bought from NASA for $356K, carried the rocket up to a suborbital flight where it released its payload, 400 pounds of water; both fell into the Gulf of Mexico later, just as planned. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 11-Sep-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #297 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 297 Today's Topics: luna 2 Ariane L5 Launch Tonight Ariane L5 status Apparent Ariane Launch Failure Ariane Launch Failure Update Ariane crashed Eyeglasses on shuttle Re: SPACE Digest V2 #296, remote-controlled mining. Firsts, seconds Shuttle in VAB waldos l-5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Sep 82 14:33:09-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: npois!houxi!hocsb!hocsh!dcs at Ucb-C70 Subject: luna 2 September 12th is the anniversary of Luna 2, the 1st craft to impact another celestial body. (1959) (from the Kitt Peak Obs. Calendar) Doug ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 82 19:05:35-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Ariane L5 Launch Tonight The fifth Eurpean Space Agency Ariane rocket will be launched at 0230 UTC September 10, 1982 (10:30PM EDT September 9). This mission will be carrying the MARECS-B maritime geostationary communications satellite. No amateur spacecraft is aboard this time. Amsat Phase III-B will be carried on the 7th launch now scheduled for February 3, 1983. Phil Karn, KA9Q ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 82 22:48:40-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Ariane L5 status The latest word on the Ariane L5 launch: Telemetry was apparently lost during the third stage burn while the launcher was being tracked by the Ascension Island tracking station. It is not clear at this point whether there was a third stage malfunction, a telemetry system failure or a ground equipment problem. Phil Karn, KA9Q ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 82 23:45:31-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Apparent Ariane Launch Failure >From a special Amsat net: The liftoff of Ariane L5 took place at 02:12:03.33 UTC Sept 10, 1982. The first and second stage flight appeared to be nominal. However, expected acquisition at Ascension island was NOT nominal. When the launcher was finally acquired late, it was apparently not on the planned trajectory; it appeared lower than expected. This occurred at about 12 minutes into the flight, about 2 minutes before the scheduled end of the third stage burn. It is not yet known whether the payload actually made it into an orbit, but even if it did, it is highly unlikely that the two payloads could be placed into the intended geostationary orbit. It does appear that the problem was either with the third stage engine or with the guidance system; the exact cause is not yet known. Fortunately (for us), there was no amateur radio satellite aboard this flight. However, it is a foregone conclusion that this apparent failure can only delay the scheduled launch date for Amsat Phase III-B (3 Feb 1983). Phil Karn, KA9Q ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 82 1:50:08-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Ariane Launch Failure Update For the second time, an Ariane rocket has launched a submarine satellite. Its official; the third stage on L5 shut down early for unknown reasons, and the launcher and its two satellites impacted in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. This makes a track record so far consisting of 3 successes (L01, L03, L04) and two failures (L02 and L5). ------------------------------ Mail-From: CMUFTP host CMU-CS-G received by CMU-10A at 10-Sep-82 11:33:44-EDT Date: 10 Sep 1982 11:32:14-EDT From: Howard.Gayle at CMU-780G at CMU-10A Subject: Ariane crashed According to the BBC World Service, the first commercial Ariane crashed into the sea a few minutes after launch. The first two stages functioned, but the third stage failed. Two satellites were aboard. ------------------------------ Date: Friday, 10 September 1982 11:20-EDT From: Jon Webb To: Space at MIT-MC Subject: Eyeglasses on shuttle Cc: webb at CMU-20C I heard that the shuttle crew per se is supposed to have good vision, not requiring eyeglasses. Mission specialists are supposed to have vision good enough so that if they lost their eyeglasses, they would be able to find them. Apparently, this requirement has been relaxed further for the passengers who will not be performing any important functions on the mission, other than enjoying the ride. Jon ------------------------------ Date: 10 September 1982 15:28 edt From: Spratt.Multics at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #296, remote-controlled mining. To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Message of 10 September 1982 06:02 edt from Ted Anderson There was a project in the Man-Machine Systems Laboratory at MIT around 1977 to build an remote-controlled underwater exploration vehicle. The problem here was that the communications with the vehicle (which had a TV camera mounted on it) was done via sonar (very narrow bandwidth communications). To get a picture transmitted required about 8 seconds. Well, actually, the total time delay on dealing with the vehicle was 8 seconds, but transmission of the picture was the bulk of the delay. The approach in this project was not to put intelligence in the vehicle, but have a detailed model of the world of the vehicle which was used to predict the effects of operator decisions. The graphic display to the operator depicted the last actual picture and the predicted modifcations in a fashion which made it possible for the operator to easily tell which was which. Someone must still be doing this sort of work, and it seems like it would be readily applicable to the extraterrestrial remote-control problem. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 1982 1311-PDT From: Hans Moravec Subject: Firsts, seconds To: space at MIT-MC Contrary to several of the news reports, the Space Services Conestoga rocket was NOT the first rocket launched by a privately owned company. Even discounting small sounding rockets, the German based company OTRAG had two successful launches comparable to the SSIsuborbital one, and with a liquid fueled rocket of their own design, in the late seventies. There were about a half dozen NASA funded research projects in the early sixties that studied remote control of a lunar rover from Earth, using a 2.5 sec time delay in the control loop. Many of these had (primitive) predictors, where a dot in the image showed where the vehicle would be is the speed and direction were unchanged over the next 2.5 secs. The Stanford AI lab cart was a refugee from such a project conducted by the Stanford Mech E. dept. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 82 7:27:24-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Shuttle in VAB Article-I.D.: alice.912 Via: Usenet; 10 Sep 82 18:17-PDT The Columbia was rolled to the Vehicle Assembly Building last night about 18 hours behind schedule. The delay was mostly due to a short circuit in the transformer that helps to open the VAB doors. There it will stay until about the 21st, when it will be rolled to the pad for final preparations for the 11 November launch. ------------------------------ Date: 11 September 1982 02:49-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: waldos To: REM at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC That was an article by me, on the summer project NASA funded on self-replicating systems. I picked Minsky's brain for a couple of days while we were cooped up in Pajaro Dunes. It was either in Destinies or Analog, I think the last thing I did for Destinies, and was entitled "Nunc Dimmittis..." ------------------------------ Date: 11 September 1982 04:03-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: l-5 To: SPACE at MIT-MC The gentleman who declined to renew his membership is welcome to his opinion. Others have different views. Ones with different views on the L-5 Board include Heinlein, Kantrowitz, and a number of aerospace managers like Gordon Woodcock of Boeing. Some with different views who are members include astronauts and company presidents (Fred Haise of apollo 13 was guest of honor at the L-5 convention last spring; Hans Mark of Nasa was keynote speaker). Re: SSI of Houston and "rational approaches." I am not certain I understand what engineering contribution launching a miniuteman upper stage makes as opposed to trying to develop a cheap liquid rocket. Certainly using a minuteman upper stage is more rational if all you want to do is get your rocket off the pad and have it splash in the Gulf of Mexico instead of scaring the alligator. Gary Hudson who did the Percheron was at the World SF convention recently and we had a long discussion about the "new" and the old SSI approaches. It may be the new approach is "more rational" as said in the recent space digest, but it is not utterly obvious. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 12-Sep-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #298 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 298 Today's Topics: Shuttle crew vision requirements telepresence L-5 Ariane launch failure Rationality of SSI launch Shuttle on Mobile Pad ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Sep 82 20:07:59-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!duke!unc!tim at Ucb-C70 Subject: Shuttle crew vision requirements Article-I.D.: unc.3950 Via: Usenet; 11 Sep 82 4:29-PDT A couple of years back, I saw a NASA recruitment pamphlet on a college bulletin board. This was quite specific in listing requirements for shuttle crews; unfortunately, I didn't take it, because my vision is lousy. However, I seem to recall that pilot vision had to be no worse than 20/40 or so, and support crew vision could be at worst 20/100. (Of course, all vision had to be carrectable to 20/20.) Surely NASA isn't so broke that there isn't at least one UNIX system somewhere? How's about some answers, guys? Tim Maroney tim@unc ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 1982 1151-EDT From: Marvin Minsky Subject: telepresence To: space at MIT-MC cc: minsky at MIT-OZ There is a remote-controlled mini-submarine project at the Naval Ocean Systems Laboratory (San Diego) in a group headed by Paul Heckman. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 1982 1214-EDT From: Marvin Minsky Subject: L-5 To: space at MIT-MC cc: minsky at MIT-OZ The Pro-Space organizations have different goals and foci, so they are not equivalent. L-5, for example, is particularly interesting to me because its board aspires to make space colonies happen some day. I regard that as important, not just for scientific reasons but because I'm dubious that high-tech humans can survive on one planet throughout the current transition from pre- to post-technology. Probably members of the Planetary Society also share such concerns as individuals, but not so much in their highest level organization goals, which emphasize science. L-5's national meeting did indeed have a high technical content, and was attended by space-involved people of large influence and imagination. I am on L-5's board because it attracts technical people interested in projects like starship design and practical colony-launching schemes. Also, the different space clubs may also reflect different political orientations. This may affect your preference for what to join. My priority is to make it feasible that some humans survive the forthcoming possible disasters, and because one can't predict what politics will evolve in the colonies, I don't consider that aspect so important. In the long run, "better live than dead". ------- ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 82 22:51:55-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Ariane launch failure Article-I.D.: eagle.508 Via: Usenet; 11 Sep 82 19:57-PDT I have no further real information yet on the Ariane launch failure that occurred about 24 hours ago. I did speak today with one of the people at Goddard Space Flight Center whose job it was to process early tracking data for orbit determination, and he basically confirmed what we knew last night (and which I posted to the net). He told me that the failure occurred sometime after scheduled loss of signal at the Brazilian tracking station and before acquisition at the NASA station on Ascension Island. For this reason, there were no ground telemetry recordings being made at the time the failure occurred. This may make the failure hard to analyze. When the pass did occur over Ascension, the launcher barely skimmed the horizon rather than appearing at the 12 degree maximum elevation that was predicted. Due to the low elevation, the S-band radar data was useless, although several minutes of VHF telemetry data were apparently obtained. This indicates that the launcher did not simply explode, but that either the guidance system failed (less likely) or the third stage engine shut down prematurely (more likely). Part of the problem was that Kourou kept overriding the Ascension tracking antennas, telling them that they were looking too low, while the automatic tracking systems kept insisting that the pre-programmed look angles were wrong. This apparently resulted in intermittent telemetry loss. NORAD (the North American Air Defense Command) did not see anything in orbit after the launch, including debris, so it is concluded that the launcher and its payload broke up on re-entry and impacted in the Atlantic northwest of Ascension. Phil Karn ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 1982 1533-PDT From: Jim McGrath Subject: Rationality of SSI launch To: space at MIT-MC It all depends upon what it was suppose to do. If it was suppose to be a complete model for later launchings, then of course it is irrational (you cannot live off of second hand NASA parts forever). But it was NOT meant to be that. As far as I know, SSI is still committed to developing their own rocket, and this launch was largely intended to 1) get rid of the problems associated with a launch that are NOT dependent upon the rocket itself (so that you can later concentrate on just perfecting the rocket), and 2) getting ANYTHING up so as to attract more money. The failure of the European rocket was very fortunate in that it provided a feild day for reporters to compare American private enterprize to European government work. Jim ------- ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 82 10:12:23-PDT (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Shuttle on Mobile Pad Article-I.D.: alice.915 Via: Usenet; 12 Sep 82 2:17-PDT The Columbia was being hoisted onto the mobile pad that will bring her to the launch pad on 21 September last night; the operation should have been done by 0200 EDT today. Once on the platform, she will be mated to the external tank and two SRB's and then tested before actually being rolled out to pad 39A. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 13-Sep-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #299 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 299 Today's Topics: Ariane Launch Failure Diagnosed Ariane Flight Sequence ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Sep 82 1:19:24-PDT (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Ariane Launch Failure Diagnosed ESA has announced that it has determined the cause of the Ariane launch failure Thursday night. The problem was the third stage fuel pump. 4 minutes and 23 seconds into the third stage burn, the pump slowed, and the engines lost power within three seconds and then stopped. ESA says it will delay the next launch, originally scheduled for November 23, will be delayed "weeks or months" so that the problem can be fixed. >From the available information, I estimate the final "orbit" of the launcher had an apogee of 176 km and a "perigee" of -3,623 km. Not exactly geostationary. Phil Karn ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 82 12:27:06-PDT (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Ariane Flight Sequence I came across the following flight sequence for the Ariane in a standard geostationary transfer orbit mission: Event Time sec Velocity km/sec Altitude km Liftoff 0 0 0 First stage sep 138 1.8 43 Fairing jettison 244 3.65 110 Second stage sep 272 4.66 129 Injection 844 9.76 210 The L5 flight shut down midway thru the third stage burn, at about T + 535 seconds. The resulting altitude and velocity were about 175 km and 6 km/sec. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 14-Sep-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #300 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 300 Today's Topics: It's for the groundhogs, too Re: It"s for the groundhogs, too Terra Park ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Sep 82 16:28:07-PDT (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70 Subject: It's for the groundhogs, too Article-I.D.: watmath.3459 Via: Usenet; 13 Sep 82 4:08-PDT Dr. Minsky's article on the L-5 society closed with the comment that "[a] priority is to make it feasible for some humans to survive the possible future disasters." With all respect to Dr. Minsky, I'd like to point out that it's not likely that an L-5 colony wuld survive a Terran disaster. It is unlikely that an L-5 colony would be self-sufficient, and thus any cutoff of space travel means the end of it. Having said that, though, we all should note that an L-5 colony would make these disasters - from nuclear war to eco-death - a damned sight less likely. In fact, an L-5 colony could - as Pournelle has suggested - make the earth into a park. (You need orbiting industries for that trick). Well, we all know that. But we should be shouting it from the rooftops. The L-5 colony might be the dream of those of us who want to space, but it means life for the groundhogs, too. Rick McGeer. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 82 20:03:04-PDT (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!bstempleton at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: It"s for the groundhogs, too Article-I.D.: watmath.3461 Via: Usenet; 13 Sep 82 4:38-PDT References: watmath.3459 The Earth a park with industry in space? All very nice, but get real Rick. Lots and lots of industries can be done no better in space than on earth, and some even need gravity. There will still be industry on the surface of the planet for centuries to come, just because of the distribution problems. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 82 20:27:59-PDT (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70 Subject: Terra Park Article-I.D.: watmath.3463 Via: Usenet; 13 Sep 82 4:49-PDT Perfectly correct, Brad. But industries don't need a relative advantage in space to go there. All an industry would need is cheap transportation and cheap communications, so that it isn't inherently too expensive to manufacture things in space. The incentive for industries to go into space will come from enforcement of property rights here on earth: in particular, my property rights on the air I breathe and on the public waterways I use. Further, as Pournelle has pointed out (in Survival with Style), the pollution problem is merely another aspect of the energy problem. Since an L-5 colony, or an SPS, can provide power relatively cheaply modulo the initial investment, it'd seem to me that space solves that one for the groundhogs, too. Rick. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 15-Sep-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #301 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 301 Today's Topics: L-5 colonies Independent space colonies Mining by remotes Space and Recombinant DNA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Sep 1982 1530-EDT From: Marvin Minsky Subject: L-5 colonies To: space at MIT-MC cc: minsky at MIT-OZ Gee, I hope that people don't think that the L-5 society is especially concerned with colonies floating out there at the L-5 stability point. But I do think that there is nothing incredibly unreasonable about self-sufficiency, given enough technology and access to asteroids, or lunar materials. Things won't begin that way, to be sure, but given enough energy and material, why not. It better be part of the plan, anyway, because much as it would be nice to help the groudhogs, there's no way to guarantee against total destruction except by halting science. So far as I can see, we're almost absolutely certain to invent a human-extinction plague pretty soon. The geneticists are simply getting too good too fast for safety - and I think they're all convincing each other that the danger is small by pure peer pressure. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 1982 16:38:48-PDT From: A.exp@Berkeley To: u:space@mit-mc Subject: Independent space colonies It is incorrect to say space colonies can not be independent of earth. It could be done within 20 years. If interested, it would be to the reader's advantage to find the references himself. For an estimate of the percentage of the GNP that could be supplied by space industry using extraterrestvial material in this period of time or about 10 years beyond, see the appropriate NASA documents. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 1982 1918-PDT From: Robert Amsler Subject: Mining by remotes To: space at MIT-MC It would seem that establishing a base on the moon would be a likely alternative to trying to run a mining operation from the Earth with remotes. While a technology to control robots from Earth with the unavoidable time-delay for relaying commands is possibly workable-- one based on the moon itself wouldn't have that problem and a base could have other uses as well. I would think a lunar base easier to set up than an orbital station actually, all that nice rock to work with. How would the finances work out? I.e. How would the price of a lunar base compare to that of an orbital station? Militarily, I'd even guess the lunar base to have a better survivablity factor--that is until both we AND the Russians have bases and were're worrying about defenses against a lunar first strike. (sigh, some things will never change I guess). Would a lunar ground-based laser defense system have any problems? Could one be built strong enough to attack/defend Earth-orbital satellites or stations. Tunneling out the moon for nuclear reactors to power it one might be able to build a fairly hefty zap? Just think, our descendants could look up into the sky at night and wonder what it was like when the moon wasn't inhabited or fortified. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 1982 1614-PDT From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Space and Recombinant DNA To: space at MIT-MC If R-DNA has the industrial possibilities that its proponents (and Wall Street, apparently) seem to believe, then it appears that quite a bit of work will be done in that field. It certainly seems like the best place to do that work is in orbit (a high orbit or a Lagrange point, preferrably). I wonder how much shuttle capacity such an operation would require??? Plus an orbital taxi/tug to move between LEO and HEO. Would the savings for bio-hazard isolation equipment necessary to work on Earth, pay for an orbital genetics lab?? --Tom ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 16-Sep-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #302 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 302 Today's Topics: Reactors on the moon Space Manufacturing of Biological Materials Re: Shuttle Qualifications John Young's glasses Happy Birthday Robert Goddard! Mining the moon with computer gracphics assist Re: "reply to Marvin Minsky" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Sep 82 12:52:28 EDT From: dyer at NBS-VMS Subject: Reactors on the moon A moon-based reactor has all kinds of plusses going for it. You don't have to worry much about the safety features that are currently plauging the US's public utility reactors -- if there are no people around to be affected by a leak or meltdown, then who cares? The moon is an ideal enviroment for containing leaks because of the lack of atomosphere and prevailing winds to carry the gasses away. A lunar reactor could be /very/ minimal compared to earth-based reactors -- the best shielding might be six or seven miles worth of horizon, with the core and cooling system installed in a crater or pit. Set up a dozen or so 'throw-away' fast breeders on an otherwise empty plain. The reactors would be designed to last only five to ten years, and would be (comparatively) inexpensive. Every once in a while you switch fuel rods and process the plutonium, an operation that could also take place in an inexpensive lunar-based plant. Use the plutonium for mining, for power reactors, or for shoving asteroids around, a-la Dyson's ORION. Hopefully not for bombs. After ten years, or a melt-down, you bury the reactor with rock and moondust and spread radiation warning signs liberally around the area. Since the signs will probably stay around as long as the area stays hot (several million years?), future space-faring nations will be able to see that the burying-gound is an unhealthy place to dig. Gee, you could even have cheap waste-disposal: just launch waste cannisters with a mass-driver, so they would intersect the sun.... -Landon- ------------------------------ Date: 15 Sep 1982 09:24 PDT From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC Subject: Space Manufacturing of Biological Materials To: Space @ MIT-MC The September 13 issue of Electronic Engineering Times reports the following on page 29, under the headline "Biological Materials To Be Made Commercially In Space": "As a result of the experimental prototype's success on the fourth shuttle mission, McDonnell Douglas Astronautics says it will commit to the development of a production biological-materials processing unit." "The electrophoresis processing unit flown on the fourth shuttle flight was a joint project between McDonnell Douglas and Ortho Pharmaceuticals..." "According to McDonnell... the analysis of the quantities of the samples is 'extremely good'. The samples were to make a total of 1182 receptacles. Over 99 percent of the receptacles were filled to computer predictions of the experiment." "Samples which contained a 25 percent concentration of biological material produced about 400 times more separated material in space than the same 25-percent concentration could in full gravity." "...it proves that commercially viable quantities of biological materials can be produced in space." Aside: E.E.Times' Howard Roth writes a column on government and aerospace called 'DC Circuit' in which he provides excellent coverage of technology and political developments relating to space. /John ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 82 15:34:47-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Shuttle Qualifications Article-I.D.: utzoo.2461 Via: Usenet; 15 Sep 82 19:27-PDT References: sri-unix.3171 >From Raymond Schwarz John Young was wearing glasses, although im not sure wether they were bi-focals. Taking into account that Young is the most experienced veteran of space travel, NASA let him go anyway. (just an assumption). Also Young was not piloting the shuttle. It's interesting though, where newer "faces" would be conserned NASA would probablly be more strict as where "old faces" are concerned. Raymond. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 82 20:42:08-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Ucb-C70 Subject: John Young's glasses Article-I.D.: utzoo.2463 Via: Usenet; 15 Sep 82 19:37-PDT John Young was indeed piloting Columbia on STS-1, glasses and all. (I specifically saw a mention of him putting them on before landing the beast.) The point is, John Young did *not* wear glasses when he first joined the astronaut corps, many years ago. There is fundamentally no particularly strong reason why bad vision should keep one from being an astronaut, assuming of course that it is correctible to 20-20 via glasses. The thing is, the supply of would-be astronauts much exceeds the demand. The problem is not to find them but to thin them out. One easy way to do this is to set the qualifications higher than is strictly necessary. The same method is applied elsewhere as well. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 82 11:40:49-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: teklabs!tekcrd!tekcad!keithl at Ucb-C70 Subject: Happy Birthday Robert Goddard! Article-I.D.: tekcad.183 Via: Usenet; 15 Sep 82 18:12-PDT If you want a good excuse for a party... Tuesday, October 5, 1982 is the 100th anniversary of the birthday of Robert Goddard, the first man to launch a liquid fuel rocket (in 1926). We are going to have a party at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry at 7 P.M., and locals are invited. I've heard rumors that the California M.S.I. and the Minneapolis L-5 group are planning parties also. Keith Lofstrom uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!keithl CSnet: tekcad!keithl@tek ARPAnet:tekcad!keithl.tek@udel-relay ------------------------------ Date: 15 Sep 82 18:14:45-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!nwuxc!otuxa!we13!lime!houti!trc at Ucb-C70 Subject: Mining the moon with computer gracphics assist Article-I.D.: houti.152 Via: Usenet; 16 Sep 82 2:18-PDT Some more thoughts on how remote mining could be aided by computer graphics: The major tasks of a mining remote, as I see it, include: Initial self set up - after landing (little intelligence needed) Set up of auxiliary equipment - E.G. solar power collector to power the remote - (may require intelligence) Self maintenence, test, and repair - (needs lots of intelligence) Prospecting for minerals - (involves moving around, needs intelligence) Extraction of minerals - (depending on methods, can be dangerous, needs intelligence) Transport of minerals - (can follow a pre-scouted path, some intelligence required) Processessing of materials - (intelligence required depends on the complexity of processing - crunching it and piling it up doesnt take much, and might be a reasonable 1st objective) Remote maintenence and repair can be aided by a model of the remote, that can be manipulated to generate control to manipulate the real remote. Problems, damage, dust, and such can be simulated. Prospecting will probably involve moving about, collecting samples, and analysing them. Camera images will have to be analysed to create a model of terrain (lunain?). Probe readings will have to be incorporated into the model, and processed to detect potential danger areas and rich mining areas. Extraction of minerals may be done by scooping up loose material, drilling, blasting, or possibly cutting. Blasting would require a supply of explosives, which would be soon depleted, and is inately dangerous. Cutting and drilling are high-energy approaches, and would not appear suitable, at least for a first attempt. Thus, collection of already loose material will probably be the first major means of mining. A scoop, or perhaps a rotating broom could collect dust and gravel. Such an approach can be handled by planning a collection path, which avoids obstacles such as large rocks and pits. The terrain model could be segmented into collection zones by the operator, in which a standard collection method (selected from several), or one specially programmed by the operator would be applied. For example, the material might just be pushed up into a pile. Actually, there is one means of mining that is potentially practical for lunar mining. An array of mirrors could be used to focus sunlight into shaded (cooler) areas, then moved away. Repetitions of this cycle could be used to break up rocks. The cycle would be able to repeat at a faster rate and at greater temperatures than normal in the lunar environment. This is similar to the techniques used by ancient miners, who would light fires to heat the rock. It has the advantage that large mirrors should be easy to construct from light materials, and will not wear out so readily. The mirrors could serve multiple purposes, by smelting ore and generating power as well. Here, computer graphics could be used to plan target areas, model or display temperatures, and automate the manipulation of the mirrors. Transporting of materials can be planned by the operator by tracing a safe and efficient path over the terrain model. Instructions to the remote would be automatically generated. The operator could then carefully run the remote over the path several times, using a stop-look-go sequence for safety. Processing of the materials will probably involve smelting them, and can use the solar mirror approach outlined above. Rather than send along a blast furnace, it will probably be most practical to melt the ore, and let it drain into a container. It should be possible to create some sort of melting surface on the side of a hill. Tom Craver houti!trc ------------------------------ Date: 15 Sep 82 15:56:32-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!zeppo!whuxk!houxi!hocsb!hocsd!jis at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: "reply to Marvin Minsky" Article-I.D.: hocsd.134 Via: Usenet; 16 Sep 82 2:27-PDT I absolutely agree with Tom Roberts in so far as it is important to EXTEND the realm of Science (or at least the methodology of Science) to include national and international politics. However, it is not at all obvious to me as to how one can go about and make that happen. It seems that if science could be packaged in a religeous packet and sold, that might work (considering all the absurdities that people will buy in religeous packets!). Unfortunately, that thought is an anathema, at least to me, and perhaps it would defeat the basic purpose of the quest. Jishnu Mukerji Bell Laboratories 1B-425 Holmdel NJ 07733 hocsd!jis ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 17-Sep-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #303 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 303 Today's Topics: Mining the moon with computer graphics assist Re: John Young"s glasses Re: Reactors on the Moon John Young piloting STS-1 Shuttle Qual & Young's Glasses Re: Happy Birthday Robert Goddard! Space Walk Re: Reactors on the moon - (nf) Re: Reactors on the moon - (nf) Fission "waste" Reactors on the moon ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 September 1982 07:46-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Mining the moon with computer graphics assist To: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!nwuxc!otuxa!we13!lime!houti!trc at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC You have a bunch of good ideas there. Between the three of us (you me and Minsky) we should have enough to put together an article for L-5 newsletter. Re maintenance: If things don't break down often, we can run them unattended as long as possible, then either send replacement equipment or send a crew for a brief repair trip. That way we won't need to maintain personnel for long times on the Moon. Maybe we can even have the repair crew work remotely from LLO (Low Lunar Orbit). That way we wouldn't need any lunar liftoff facility, only semi-soft-landing for equipment and space travel without landing for crew. We'd send a LLO crew only for tasks where the 2.5 second delay from LEO was intolerable. Re searching for minerals: Initially we'll need lots of oxygen silicon and aluminum, and maybe we'll go for titanium also, all of which are abundant in lunar soil. We won't need to go prospecting, nor need to break up rocks. We just scoop up all the loose dirt within a mile of our landing site and we should have plenty. As for hydrogen and carbon, the two materials we'll need in large quantities which don't occur in abundance on the moon, we'll probably get them from elsewhere anyway, from a comet or asteroid that we've dragged into LEO where remote mining isn't a problem. (One exception, if we find water in polar regions of moon, we may decide to mine it from there instead of from a comet, and then we WILL probably need some skill at searching out the heaviest deposits of water and selectively mining them.) Re smelting container: How about pile up a bunch of loose debris (mostly dust with some gravel to give it strength) and form it into a sort of volcano shape, that is it comes up on all sides but has a big cavity in the top that reaches nearly back down to ground level. Then melt stuff into the cavity. After it has cooled, lift the cooled melt (which is solid) out of the cavity (which is loose debris), and add a little debris to replace the stuff that stuck to the melt, and melt some more stuff into the cavity, ... ------------------------------ Date: 15 Sep 82 17:50:19-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: John Young"s glasses Young's glasses were half-moon reading glasses, not bifocals or "normal" glasses. Presumably his vision is 20/20 without them. Rick. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Sep 1982 09:51 PDT From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Reactors on the Moon To: Space at MIT-MC cc: Ciccarelli On Earth, nuclear reactors are (by some arguments) a cost-effective power source compared to alternatives. On the Moon, *no* such advantage exists when compared to the obvious competitor: sunlight. Consider the following criteria: [Generator site] Nuclear: If you build it "dirty" and unshielded (as suggested), its users must be some distance away, at least outside the crater. Solar: No site restrictions. Power is generated where needed, without long transmission lines. Move the power station when you need to; it's not "hot", large, or heavy (especially with photovoltaics). [Fuel] Nuclear: (a) Launch it from earth, *if* your citizens and the rest of the world don't object to the possibility of an unexpected "hot" shower if the launch vehicle fails, or (b) Find it (if it exists), mine it, and set up and power a separation plant on the moon (not worth considering). By the way there's the nasty detail of reprocessing breeder output. Presumably this involves robots or highly-paid humans, not to mention a plutonium remanufacture facility. Sounds complex... Solar: Spread a thin reflective sheet, or set up your photovoltaics! No hot waste to reprocess, either. [Electrical generator] Nuclear: (and Solar) could run a turbine (such a solar turbine has been proposed for an orbiting solar power satellite), but turbogenerators have to be shipped from Earth until you can make them "up there", and they have certain economies of scale (lower efficiency when made smaller). Solar: Photovoltaics would be much easier (than turbines) to make "locally", since no iron is involved and silicon is plentiful. They are usable in ANY size; just connect enough cells in series and/or parallel to provide the desired voltage and current. They have NO moving parts, aren't "hot", and are easily relocated. There's no downtime or power reduction during repairs since you can replace modules without shutting down others in the array. [Industrial process heat, i.e. for smelting and reduction of rocks] Nuclear: Heat can't be used directly without shielding (if you expect to have humans anywhere nearby...). This means electrical conversion (lossy) and reconversion to heat or RF. Why bother...? Solar: Easier than power generation; just aim mirrors at whatever needs the heat. Turns on and off instantly; not true for a reactor. ...Lastly, I abhor the "run it till it melts down, then bury it" school of engineering. The same goes for the "launch the wastes into the sun" suggestions. Why *create* these problems in the first place, when obviously better paths exist? I'll be damned if I'd like to be the 22nd-century lunar homesteader who happens to encounter your (oops, mistakenly unmarked) plutonium waste dump. /John ------------------------------ Date: 16 September 1982 14:19 edt From: York.Multics at MIT-MULTICS (William M. York) Subject: John Young piloting STS-1 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Message of 16 September 1982 06:02 edt from Ted Anderson Well, the way I heard it was that John Young was chosen for STS-1 in the mid-70's by the Director of NASA at the time, John Young. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Sep 1982 2129-PDT From: Den Lenahan Subject: Shuttle Qual & Young's Glasses To: space at MIT-MC Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940. Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161 I suspect that Schwarz & Henry were both close to the truth on the astronaut vs glasses issue. I think, however, the restriction is probably a throwback to the military requirement that requires 20-20 vision to enter pilot training. The emphasis is on the word ENTER. Once in pilot training, and even more so having completed it, a waiver to permit glasses was an easy thing to come by. Some enterprizing lads got into pilot training despite glasses. Many entered as navigators (where the requirement is less than 20-20), then, after serving a tour in that capacity, applied for pilot training. (And usually were accepted, as they had already proven their ability to be trained and to function in the airborne environment.) One of my own students was even more clever. He entered the Air Force (wearing glasses) in the hospital administration field, then used his position to get a waiver from the Air Training Command surgeon general. (Incidentally, he was an excellent jet jockey.) But, as Henry surmises about astronauts, the candidates for military pilot training are numerous enough that there has been as yet no need to drop the 20-20 requirement (though, as noted, it is waived when advantageous). I suspect that, given high enough qualifications in other areas, NASA probably would consider waiving the 20-20 bit as well. Still, as someone mentioned a few issues ago, isn't there anyone on this net who has an inroad with NASA and can get us the unblemished truth? Dennis ------------------------------ Date: 16 Sep 82 13:12:16-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!aka779 at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Happy Birthday Robert Goddard! While you're celebrating the birthday of this pioneer, keep in mind that it is also the 25th anniversary of another pioneer--SPUTNIK, to whom we owe the gratitude for pushing us into the space age. Anyone ever think what would (or more aptly, WOULDN'T ) have happened if that little Vanguard had gone first? No Apollo and maybe no Americans in space... ------------------------------ Date: 16 Sep 82 18:37:21-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: npois!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Space Walk Joe Allen and William Lenoir will make a space walk on STS-5, and NASA announced today that on their helmets will be cameras and lights so that TV viewers at home can see just what they see. The five day mission will be the shuttle's first commercial flight. Meanwhile, STS-5 crew Vance Brand and Robert Overmyer took part in a mock countdown and launch this afternoon. The simulation was programmed to be aborted after one orbit to test out an emergency landing at Edwards AFB. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Sep 82 19:27:45-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!grunwald at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Reactors on the moon - (nf) re: dumping wastes on the moon Somehow, some little voice inside my head says that if we dump all of our nuclear waste so close to home so soon, that in 5000 years, we'll wish we hadn't. Assuming people are still alive, the moon would have a much more key position for travel and whatnot. It would seem a shame to to that to such a nicely situated piece of rock. A better plan would be to be a little safer about it, and then cleanup and shoot the wastes into deep space (say at a near by star). Even if it takes a few centuries to get to the star, it wouldn't matter much in deep space. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Sep 82 21:28:05-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcdaniel at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Reactors on the moon - (nf) However, Luna is a *B*I*G* rock! There is plenty of room for just about anything you'd like to do. Furthermore, unlike the earth, one spot is just about as good as any other (no weather, river, air pressure, etc. worries -- just land roughness, and that can be solved with a grader or by going down to one of the "seas".) Luna's radius is Order(3000 km) (plus or minus 75%!), and tha surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r*r (I think), so the lunar surface has an area of 4*3*3e3*3e3 = 1e8 or so square kilometers of more or less usable area (give or take a factor of 100). Plenty of room. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 1982 0205-PDT From: Hans Moravec Subject: Fission "waste" To: space at MIT-MC Foo. In fifty years the nuclear "waste" will be mined for isotopes available from no other source, and the only problem with it will be that there won't be enough for all the applications. Already elements like Americium, tritium and radioactive cobalt have irreplacable industrial and medical functions. To my mind the main problem with "waste" is storing it in such a form that we can get at it when we need it. (The plutonium, of course, will be removed much sooner than 50 years, and will provide power in the outer solar system, and propel Orion-type torchships). Solar power on the moon is not that great - its gone completely for two weeks out of every four, and is at shallow angles most of the rest of the time. Give me a nice, compact, warm, reliable reactor and I'll give you some happy robots. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 82 0:43:39-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Reactors on the moon Gee, you'd have to be careful not to put all those waste dumps together on one side of the moon, or else they might reach a critical mass and explode and drive the moon out of its orbit to wander through the galaxy and encounter all kinds of aliens and weird things... Seriously, reactors do have the advantage of generating power (and much needed heat) during the long lunar night. I would suppose that both solar and nuclear sources would have their places on the moon. Remember that the ALSEP packages used radioisotope generators. Phil Karn ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 18-Sep-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #304 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 304 Today's Topics: Space by Michener Fission "waste" --> solar power only halftime Earthworms don't need light Earthworms don't need light A billion billion billion dollars Reactors on the Moon ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Sep 82 11:23:34-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: teklabs!tekcrd!tekcad!keithl at Ucb-C70 Subject: Space by Michener Book Review - - "Space" by James A. Michener Finally, a serious mainstream author writes about space? Well, almost. "Space" reads like a fictionalized version of "The Rocket Team", revolving around a NASA chair jockey, an astronaut, a second-rate senator, and a German rocket mechanic, plus spouses. Standard Michener, with about 40 years of character development, family crises, and politicians doing their paternalistic thing for all us little folk. The black sheep in this one is a fellow who moves from a California UFO institute to mass market religion. Michener spends a lot of time on current anti-science trends. Flames: Michener appears to make Stanley Mott, the chair jockey, his mouthpiece, and some of the things he has Stanley say are disturbing. He discusses the distinction between engineers and scientists, and later says engineers don't read "sci-fi". Oh, yah? Page 384 "Some of your best writers sound like real fascists"; Some good writers are conservatives, and there are liberals who can't tell the difference, but Websters gives a precise definition which excludes all the science fiction authors I know, but may include extremists of the Left or the Right. Page 535, discussing O'Neill colonies- "All that would be required ... a billion billion billion dollars"; is Michener numerically illiterate? You could get to L-5 by climbing a stack of that many dollar bills, or launch the whole planet into orbit around itself. In the end, our favorite politicians are talking about shutting down NASA "to conserve resources", and all characters nod wisely. He discusses the hardships of breaking up NASA. This is not science fiction, being rooted in the past and present, and Michener makes statements that no SF author could get away with. He is one of the most popular mainstream writers, and is known for researching his subjects and developing his characters. This is how space enthusiasts look to the world, and as a mirror on ourselves this book is worth reading. Wait for the remainder table copy, though. Keith Lofstrom uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!keithl CSnet: tekcad!keithl@tek ARPAnet:tekcad!keithl.tek@udel-relay ------------------------------ Date: 17 September 1982 07:48-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Fission "waste" --> solar power only halftime To: HPM at S1-A cc: SPACE at MIT-MC It's not necessary to run our remote-mining-robots around the clock. It's hard to get good lighting at night (ever try to work under a car at night using artificial light?), so why not use solar energy for both energy and lighting, and shut down things 2 weeks out of each month? It's not like humans who will die if they don't get fresh oxygen at least once every 3 minutes, and thus have to (on the moon) have their CO2-->O2 devices running even at night. The 2-week rest will give us time to plan the next 2-week "day" of activities. Later when we get ourself bootstrapped to have some source other than solar power we might try running at night if it's cost-effective to provide artificial light and non-solar electricity. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 1982 1150-PDT From: Hans Moravec Subject: Earthworms don't need light To: rem at MIT-MC, space at MIT-MC There are currently a couple of factories in Japan that run unattended part of the time, usually the night shift. In those, the lights are turned off, since the robots don't work by vision anyway. The easiest methods for automating most of the dirtmoving, processing, and construction would use short range radars for terrain and object tracking - or some other active system - and would probably work better without that huge radio noise generator in the sky. Don't sell robotics short, it is presently vigorously alive, and by the time the transportation is ready, the automatic machinery for unattended operation 90% of the time will be too. ------------------------------ Date: 17 September 1982 16:20-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Earthworms don't need light To: HPM at S1-A cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Re: Radar or laser ranging for robotics on moon. Indeed, if you can get automated robotics smart enough to map terrain, plot optimal routes to avoid danger and collect maximal moon-dirt for smelting, all in the dark (no visual help from Earth-humans for 2 weeks at a time), fine. My point about shutting down at (lunar-)night was when using TV cameras and 2.5-second-delay-human control during initial minimal-equipment setups for materials-bootstrapping and system debugging. Later we may use active (radar, laser) ranging to create 3-d models, using that instead of TV pictures, sending back to Earth not a TV picture but a 3-d image that is displayed using some 3-d device. The human would still run the remote manipulator manually with the 2.5 second delay, but the visual feedback would be from the 3-d image rather than directly from moon-based cameras. Perhaps we'd use direct TV in the day and active ranging at night. During day we'd do long range terrain mapping and largescale planning, because daylight is of constant brightness regardless of distance whereas laser ranging brightness falls off inverse-square on the return path even if the laser outpath doesn't diverge. (Both fall off inverse-square for resolution, although that can be corrected by simple magnification. Using a large lens to collect more light may compensate for inverse-square light falloff, using magnification to reduce field of view to reduce noise from Earthshine. Thus with careful design maybe laser ranging can be used at night over long distances too.) I think a human teleoperator with various forms of computer-enhanced optics for visual feedback will be workable long before true robot control will be, and then just like on Earth we'll find tasks that the robot can do well and assign them to the robot, leaving the diminishing-rest to the human. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 82 12:55:09-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ihuxv!lew at Ucb-C70 Subject: A billion billion billion dollars A billion billion billion is e+27. If a dollar bill is e-4 meters thick, e+27 of them would extend e+23 meters. A light-year is 3e+8 meters/sec times 3e+7 secs/year or e+16 meters. A stack of a billion billion billion dollars would extend e+7 light-years; more than a round trip to the Andromeda Nebula. Lew Mammel, Jr. - BTL Indian Hill ------------------------------ Date: 18 Sep 1982 0201-PDT From: Jim McGrath Subject: Reactors on the Moon To: space at MIT-MC cc: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC Solar: No site restrictions. Power is generated where needed... The fatal flaw of solar, since this is not true. The sun sets even on the moon - for 2 weeks at a time - and solar energy is not constantly available except in very limited places. Thus you are forced into having long transmission lines (on the order of the moon's diameter), sharply restricting your building sites, or establishing some facility to efficiently store the energy for nighttime uses (which is VERY difficult). Jim ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 19-Sep-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #305 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 305 Today's Topics: Re: Re: Reactors on the Moon - (nf) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Sep 82 15:44:48-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!ech at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Re: Reactors on the Moon - (nf) The observations about the relative advantages of solar over nuclear power on the moon are persuasive, except for one glitch: the sun shines only about half the time, and when it does shine you have to "point" your collectors at it for maximum advantage (simply spreading a sheet on the more-or-less horizontal means you wind up with a power uptake that looks like a sine curve with the negative side clipped to 0). Indeed, the solar arguments are most persuasive only when the sun shines almost all the time, e.g. in orbit. This is the tremendous advantage of the L5-style space colony: the sun is almost always there to tap, and keeping the collector aimed at it is fairly easy in freefall. The major problem with solar power on planetary surfaces remains the lack of effective energy storage technology. The need for energy storage transcends solar needs, of course: any electric utility would like to be able to run its generating plant at a constant rate, storing the surplus at times of low demand and tapping it for peak demand. Solar power for mining the moon has the dual problem: a constant demand and a fluctuating power source. =Ned Horvath= ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 20-Sep-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #306 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 306 Today's Topics: solar power on the moon. ...when WHAT was inhabited...? Re: ...when WHAT was inhabited...? Why build in space? solar power on the moon solar Solar power stations at the moon's poles ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Sep 82 16:40:01-PDT (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!pur-ee!CSvax.Physics.piner at Ucb-C70 Subject: solar power on the moon. There has been some debate on solar power going on, and I would like to add my two cents worth. There are several methods of getting useful energy from sun light on the moon. I will discuss only two. 1) Solar cells. These cells produce electrical power directly when exposed to light. Very nice, but there are problems. Well, on the moon those problems are much easier to overcome. First, directing the cells towards the sun. The sun moves much more slowly across the "sky" than on earth. The mass of the cells is the same, but the weight is much less. So their support system can be built much lighter than would be required on earth. Hence, incredibly small motors can do the task. Indeed, motors may not be needed at all. Since there is no atmosphere very large temperature gradients are possible due to the solar radiation. Mechanical systems using bimetal strips can be designed to point the cells at any source of radiant heat. Thus no energy is used and the alignment is automatic. A side note, some cars use bimetal strips on the engines. On my car, a bimetal strip is linked to the choke and mounted on the manifold. When the manifold gets hot, the strip changes shape and pulls the choke off. Such systems are simple, cheap, and require no logic (other than that used by the designer). Furthermore, since there is no atmosphere, you get the full power of the sun as soon as it comes over the horizon. On earth, the best you can do is about 25 percent and that is only at noon. The other problem is storage. I did some simple calculations and found that the moon has a circumference of 6800 miles. If we are talking about putting a lot of people on the moon, say 100 million or so, one could justify building a superconducting power line around the moon. Bury the cables deep, and they could be kept cold for a fraction of the cost required on earth, and you only lose power during elcipses. Such a project is a large one, but no bigger than current earth bound projects such as the Siberian pipe line. This brings me to my second proposal. 2) Thermoelectric power. The temperature difference from one side of the moon to the other is huge. If you build a thermalcouple around it's circumference electrical power could be generated directly on a continuous basis. Such a system is incredibly simple. A lot of wire, and not much else. Such systems can be used on a local basis too, one side in light, the other side in shade. But then you only have power during light. An only for a fixed system. In any case, if we are talking about a large number of peole on the moon, then solar power is the way to go. The first colony however will probably have to depend on nuclear power, because you have to start somewhere, and nuclear power plants have fairly high energy densities, in other words, if you have to ship fuel to the moon, nuclear is the cheapest. If you want to generate power from what the moon has to offer, solar is the best bet. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 82 14:22:15-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: npois!houxi!ihps3!ihnss!knudsen at Ucb-C70 Subject: ...when WHAT was inhabited...? Concerning lunar installations of lasers capable of zapping Earth, as well as plagues & nucler war, maybe the future will be: Inhabitants of Moon and/or L5 colonies reminiscing about the good old days when that big blue & white cloudy planet was inhabited. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 82 15:11:21-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: npois!houxi!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!aka779 at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: ...when WHAT was inhabited...? No one, in my opinion, has ever shown any justification--survival, economics, ecological, or even FUN--for the enormous expense and doubtful possibility of building anything at Lagrangian points. To date, I've read cute little stories postulating an elitist population that evolves an independent society as follows: (1) trillions are spent by the working taxpayers of Earth, elite and all; (2) after the New Heaven is established, Old Earth asks for taxes or tribute or whatever; (3) the indignant Fivers revolt & destroy O.E. with asteroids, mass drivers, microwaves, etc. (4) Heaven exists for the elite, all tucked away in their big tin can in the middle of nowhere. (5) And I always ask, lunatic that I am--if the technology and $ exist to build big floating tin cans, why not use those resources to build at the bottom of the Moon's gravity well--there's a lot more *stuff* laying around, and once you're there, it's nearly free. (6) Those of us who are settled on the Libertarian State of Luna will be charging a stiff price for our planet; (7) Free space Ain't! ------------------------------ Date: 19 Sep 1982 1225-PDT From: Hans Moravec Subject: Why build in space? To: space at MIT-MC The main reason for space as opposed to planetary residence, as I see it, is that there is a lot more space than planetary surface, and its condition is more predictable. The moon can support maybe the equivalent of a billion people - but that same material dispersed into free orbiting colonies can support maybe a thousand times as many. Eventually the sun is surrounded by an obscuring cloud of materials-efficient orbiting habitats, a la Dyson, instead of a paltry handful of profligately materials-wasteful mudballs. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Sep 1982 1825-EDT From: Margot Flowers to: space at MIT-MC subject: solar power on the moon From: Jim McGrath The sun sets even on the moon - for 2 weeks at a time - and solar energy is not constantly available except in very limited places. Thus you are forced into having long transmission lines (on the order of the moon's diameter), sharply restricting your building sites, ... If solar energy sufficient for the needs of the dark half could be generated at the poles (which would always recieve sunlight that is not greatly diminshed by atmosphere as it is on the earth), then the farthest transmission lines would have to reach would be to the moon's equator, at most "only" one quarter the diameter of the moon (still a somewhat long distance). ------------------------------ Date: 19 Sep 1982 2159-EDT From: Marvin Minsky Subject: solar To: SPACE at MIT-MC Reply-To: MINSKY at MIT-OZ Energy storage isn't important on the moon, if you accept HPM's why work at night argument. It is, on Earth, because of clouds. Also, on earth, you can't avoid the dimming of light off-peak, because the atmosphere attenuates at low angles. On moon, simple mirrors can do it. They don't even have to move several fixed mirrors can get close to constant illumination. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 82 0:06:44-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Solar power stations at the moon's poles This was mentioned a couple of months ago. They won't work as intended, because the moon's axis is inclined to the plane of its orbit by 6.5 degrees and its mean orbital inclination to the ecliptic is a little over 5 degrees. Hence, the moon's poles experience the same kind of seasonal day and night as do the earth's poles and cannot be used as sites for continuous solar power. However, the moon's "arctic" and "antarctic" circles are much smaller than the earth's because of the lesser tilt of the rotational axis. The only place near the earth that is suitable for continuous 24-hour solar illumination (that I can think of) is a polar sun-synchronous orbit where the orbit plane coincides with the terminator and the altitude is enough such that seasonal movements of the earth's shadow don't intersect the orbit. Phil Karn ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 21-Sep-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #307 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 307 Today's Topics: Neat book September OASIS meeting: "Is There Space in Our Future?" power storage/distribution on the moon solar power on the moon. ...when WHAT was inhabited...? --> Better on Luna?? solar power on the moon Power on the Moon Re: ...when WHAT was inhabited...? Shuttle Update Re: Reactors on the moon - (nf) Re: a billion billion billion dollars STS-9 Crew Announced ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Sep 1982 1052-EDT From: J. Noel Chiappa Subject: Neat book To: space at MIT-MC cc: JNC at MIT-XX Got this from a friend, so I thought I'd pass it on to y'all: What I really wanted to mention was that, passing by WordsWorth in Harvard Square the other night, I saw and purchased a book you may be interested in and not yet know about. It is entitled "The Space Shuttle Operator's Manual." While the writing is not on a very high technical level, it's approximately 150 pages give much interesting information on living, working and emergency conditions as well as liftoff, orbital and re-entry procedures. Also included in the appendices are many structural drawings and 3 page foldouts depicting the flight deck consoles. Seemed worth the $9.41 price. ------------------------------ Date: 20-Sep-82 12:32:05 PDT (Monday) From: Hamilton.es at PARC-MAXC Subject: September OASIS meeting: "Is There Space in Our Future?" To: Space @ MC cc: Hamilton Reply-To: Hamilton.es @ PARC-MAXC LOS ANGELES SPACEFANZ: Will future space activities be the province of unmanned, superbly-engineered robots, or will man take an increasingly active role in space exploration and development? The September general meeting of OASIS, the Southern California Chapter of the L-5 Society, will feature a debate between Dr. Thomas A. Heppenheimer (author of "Colonies in Space") and Dr. Brian O'Leary (ex-astronaut and author of "The Fertile Stars" on the future of man in space. TIME: this Saturday 25 September 7 pm PLACE: The Aerospace Corp, El Segundo (take 405 to El Segundo Blvd. West. Enter through lobby of building A1, the first building on the left after you cross Aviation Blvd.) Free admission; all are welcome. --Bruce ------------------------------ Date: 20 September 1982 14:02-PDT (Monday) From: KING at KESTREL Subject: power storage/distribution on the moon To: space at mc cc: King at KESTREL To transmit electrical power around the moon or store it with low losses: 1) erect towers 200m high, 40 km apart. You'll need about 320 of 'em. Line of sight transmssion can be established between adjacent towers. The spacing has to be modified slightly to take advantage of mountains and to go over them. 2) Atop each tower, place a magnet capable of bending a beam of relativistic electrons and focussing them. we thus establish a 320-agonal path for electrons. This path makes a circuit around the moon, approaching the surface at many points. 3) Power can be added to or drawn from the beam at any point by a mechanism similar to a travelling wave tube or a linear accelerator. Small amounts of power might also have to be bled on each tower for internal use, such as keeping the magnet cold if its superconducting rather than permanent. 4) I suggest posting a few warning signs. This beam may be hazardous to your health where it nears the surface. (but if a magnet goes "out" the beam won't go all that far and certainly can't reach the Earth through its intense magnetic field. I might suggest a Tungsteon plate on each tower to protect against this.) Dick ------------------------------ Date: 20 September 1982 19:14-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: solar power on the moon. To: decvax!pur-ee!CSvax.Physics.piner at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Regarding bimetal strips in chokes in cars: Those have been a source of malfunction in every car I've ever had. Because they have no smarts, when they jam they aren't aware of it, take no corrective action, report nothing to the operator (driver). For the moon I hope we use something with some smarts. I propose an omni-direction solar array (inefficient but gives some power whenever the sun is in the sky) for bootstrapping the computer logic; alternately a radioactive-decay heat source. Then use that energy to run a smart aiming device for the main batch of solar cells or other solar energy collection/conversion devices. Then use that energy to run the mining experiment station. ------------------------------ Date: 20 September 1982 19:24-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: ...when WHAT was inhabited...? --> Better on Luna?? To: npois!houxi!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!aka779 at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I'll give you one good reason for building in space instead of on Luna. It's damned hard to build large massive things in gravity. Things keep falling. Things have to be supported against falling. But things break and structures collapse and a cascade of disaster happens with one thing knocking another apart and something else collapses and heavy objects crush people to death. Supporting against gravity, girders have to be strong to support the basic stuff that just be held up, but those girders are massive themselves and that merely compounds the problem. There's some limit beyond which it's virtually impossible to build anything bigger. Witness the limit that even pieces of rock can't rise more than about 29 thousand feet above sea level; they get crushed under their own weight. In space we can build things arbitrarily large providing we're sufficiently far from tidal forces of planets (including moons etc.). At L-5 (or in LEO for that matter) we can build much larger than on Moon, and much more cheaply materialwise. Even though many elements are available on the moon, some aren't. But in deepspace (L-5 or whereever) we can bring asteroids of desired composition nearby and raid them for materials. On Luna we'd have to somehow land those asteroids gently enough to avoid moonquaking the processing plant to shambles. Sure there'll be uses for moon bases, but the longrun picture is surely deepspace for a vast majority of large manufacturing and energy-producing facilities, and probably habitat as well. ------------------------------ Date: 20 September 1982 19:42-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: solar power on the moon To: Flowers at YALE cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Date: 18 Sep 1982 1825-EDT From: Margot Flowers If solar energy sufficient for the needs of the dark half could be generated at the poles (which would always recieve sunlight that is not greatly diminshed by atmosphere as it is on the earth), That's wrong. The Moon tips north and south with respect to the sun, just like the Earth does (Summer and Winter), although not the same amount. The effect is similar. Half the year the north pole is in darkness and half the year the south pole is in darkness, with some grazing lighting during the boundary region (Spring and Autumn equinox). A high tower might get light a little more than half the time at either pole, whereas a ground-based station might get light a little less than half the time. Two high towers are need for coverage all the time (except during eclipses). then the farthest transmission lines would have to reach would be to the moon's equator, at most "only" one quarter the diameter of the moon (still a somewhat long distance). Your geometrical terminology is lacking. The distance around the moon is called the "circumference", not the "diameter". You're off by a factor of PI (3.1415926535...). But because each pole gets light only half the time, there's an additional factor of two, because worst case is supplying the south pole from the north pole during southern Winter and vice versa during northern Winter. Thus you're really off by a factor of 6. I propose three stations on the equator separated by one third of the circumference. That way each supplies energy for a little less than half, and their less-than-halves overlap allowing smooth transition from one to the next, avoiding power glitches as current in cables is reversed gradually between the two sites. Except for the master trunk that girdles the Moon at the equator, worst case is quarter circumference. (That proposal is in the context of centralized production. Acutally I prefer distributed production whereby each station has its own solar energy, with computer making it track the sun, and decreasing level of activity each night to conserve limited energy storage. At least in the forseeable future, say 50 years.) ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 1982 9:19-PDT From: dietz.usc-cse at UDel-Relay Subject: Power on the Moon To: space at Mit-Mc Origin: usc-cse Via: USC-CSE; 20 Sep 82 20:46-EDT In "Colonies in Space" Heppenheimer (sp?) proposes putting two nuclear reactors on the moon. The first is the provide power for the first team, which builds a mass driver. The second and larger plant is to power the first mass driver. After you get a mass driver working and are building solar powersats the team builds a rectenna to receive power from a satellite at the L1 point (between the moon and earth). The reactors are shielded by putting them in craters and covering them with several meters of lunar soil. One big engineering problem with reactors on the moon is waste heat. On Earth you can heat up fluids (air, water) but in space the only way to dispose of heat is to radiate it away. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 1982 22:29:33-PDT From: jef at LBL-UNIX (Jef Poskanzer [rtsg]) To: npois!houxi!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!aka779 at berkeley Subject: Re: ...when WHAT was inhabited...? Cc: space at MIT-MC It is likely that L4 and L5 are chock-full of stardust, just begging to be build into useful factories, powersats, resort hotels, etc. Various people have looked for the dust and so far have found nothing, but I am still confident that it is there. We could find out exactly how much dust is there for a paltry $20M or so - one of those upper stages used with the shuttle to get to geosynch should be able to get to L4/5 and back, considering that its payload could be as simple as a sheet of plastic for the dust to embed itself into. We REALLY should find out. Does anyone know of any plans for missions like this, or for more extensive telescopic searches? --- Jef ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 82 15:37:01-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: npois!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Shuttle Update Article-I.D.: alice.924 Via: Usenet; 20 Sep 82 23:46-PDT The Columbia sailed through its mock mission yesterday with flying colors, making a scheduled simulated emergency abort (wow, all these adjectives!) landing at EAFB. Today, NASA said that plans to move the shuttle to pad 39A on Tuesday, the 21st, were going right on schedule, and the launch is still scheduled for 11 November. On Monday, NASA will pick the mission specialists for STS-9, scheduled to blast off on 20 September, 1983. STS-3 will see the first non-astronauts on the shuttle and also the first foreigners. Its payload will be Spacelab. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 82 11:34:51-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!barnes at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Reactors on the moon - (nf) ***** uiucdcs:net.space / mcdaniel / 9:09 pm Sep 16, 1982 However, Luna is a *B*I*G* rock! There is plenty of room for just about anything you'd like to do. Furthermore, unlike the earth, one spot is just about as good as any other (no weather, river, air pressure, etc. worries -- just land roughness, and that can be solved with a grader or by going down to one of the "seas".) Luna's radius is Order(3000 km) (plus or minus 75%!), and tha surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r*r (I think), so the lunar surface has an area of 4*3*3e3*3e3 = 1e8 or so square kilometers of more or less usable area (give or take a factor of 100). Plenty of room. I seem to recall from my history classes that back a few decades we thought the oceans and remote sections of our planet were big enough to take it. The World has a slightly different opinion now. In 5000 years I don't think that hunk of rock will mean anything to us execpt as a museum. Think of what was happening on this planet 5000 years ago and if we survive another 5000 years, we won't be worrying about little star systems like this one. uiucdcs!barnes ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 82 19:07:29-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!duke!bcw at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: a billion billion billion dollars From: Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University Well, in English this phrase is ambiguous. It isn't at all clear what it means; if the "billion" is British usage than each of the "billions" have a value 1000 times the American value, and if it is intended to mean something like 3 x 1 billion or 1000 x 1000 x 1 billion it might be reasonable in some dialect (not in any standard English I know). I don't know what he was trying to convey by the phrase but the precise meaning is obviously not important - he's trying to express an impossibly large number. Whether this is a literate way of doing so is another question. Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 82 19:41:12-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: STS-9 Crew Announced The crew for the seven-day flight of STS-9, now scheduled to launch on 30 September, 1983, was announced today by NASA. The commander will be John Young, making his second shuttle flight; pilot will be Brewster Shaw; mission specialists will be Owen Garriott and Robert Parker. Also among the crew will be an American scientist Byron K. Lichtenberg and West German scientist Ulf Merbold; they will operate Space Lab 1, also due to fly with STS-9. It will be the first time that a foreigner has flown on an American spacecraft. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 22-Sep-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #308 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 308 Today's Topics: Power on the Moon Satellite Search-and-Rescue Shuttle Rollout Today Billions Lunar Power Generation re where to build Luna vs L-5 solar power on the moon solar power on the moon re where to build Relativistic Electron Power Transmission Uosat-Oscar-9 Salvage Success! Shuttle at Pad More on UOSAT Salvage ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 September 1982 07:17-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Power on the Moon To: dietz.usc-cse at UDEL-RELAY cc: SPACE at MIT-MC On the moon there'd be vast areas of uninhabited terrain relatively near to the nuclear reactor. For example, the reactor could be put south of the work area instead of in its center, and then the area south of the reactor could be uninhabited. The solution to cooling the reactor would then be to pipe liquid sodium thru miles of tubing along the surface. During the day the sodium wouldn't be much effective, but at night it'd be great. You'd thus need a large tank of reserve sodium to act as a heat storage device, absorbing excess heat during the day and then distributing it to the radiator at night. (I picked sodium because it's been used on Earth and if we sent a reactor using sodium as the primary coolant we could avoid the need for a heat exchanger to transfer heat to a secondary coolant (water) like we do on Earth.) Would the idea work? ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 82 15:06:44-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!kcarroll at Ucb-C70 Subject: Satellite Search-and-Rescue According to today's morning edition of the Toronto Star, a satellite-based search-and-rescue system was used (yesterday?) to locate a small aircraft that had crashed in the mountains of British Columbia. The satellite that detected the signal from the aircraft's Emergency Transmitter Locator (ETL) was a Soviet one, Cospas 1, launched last July 30. The signal from the satellite was received at a Canadian Forces search-and-rescue station at Shirley Bay, outside Ottawa, the day after the crash. Cospas 1 is in a low (960 km) orbit, covering Canada once every 12 hours, if I decode the news-reporter's phraseology correctly. Conincidentally, I attended a lecture by an employee of SPAR aerospace (of Canadarm fame) last week--he described this satellite system, which I beleive his company had a hand in, and mentioned that while no rescues had yet been attributed to the satellites, they expected them to prove themselves in the near future! The system, I beleive, is comprised of three satellites, one Canadian, one French and one Soviet, in high-inclination orbits. The search-and-rescue equipment flies as a secondary payload on these satellites. It works by receiving the low-power (1 watt) ETL signals from downed aircraft, and either relaying them to ground stations, or finding the frequency shift in the signal due to the relative velocity of the satellite with respect to the ETL, which is then transmitted to the ground stations. In any case, the Doppler-shift of the ETL is found, and is decoded on the ground to determine the position of the downed aircraft. In this case, the satellite data located the aircraft to "within a few kilometres" of its actual position. Not bad! (Oh yes. Three people were rescued: G. Van Amelsvoort, J.Zaigleheim, and G. Heemskerk, all from the Toronto area. An air-based search for th aircraft the previous night had failed. The satellite's success was attributed by the Armed Forces to its being high enough to "avoid natural interference".) -Kieran A. Carroll ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 82 7:21:33-EDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Shuttle Rollout Today The Columbia will be (and may be already) rolled out to pad 39A today. The eight hour trip was scheduled to have begun at 0515 EDT. Once there, final tests will be done before its 11 November launch. On 18 October, two communications satellites will be loaded aboard it. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 1982 1209-EDT From: Marvin Minsky Subject: Billions To: space at MIT-MC cc: minsky at MIT-OZ Some child was tellig me about something large and said "it is a hundred billion thousand million billion billion" miles long. I said "it would be larger if you say "a billion billion billion billion billion billion". The child said "it sounds larger the first way". More variety, I suppose. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 1982 at 1219-CDT From: kjm at utexas-11 Subject: Lunar Power Generation To: space at mit-mc The point has been made that relatively low power motors could be used to point a solar collector on the moon. Why not build a tower of sufficient height to "see around" the axial inclination at one of the lunar poles and place the collector on top of it? (The collector would complete one revolution per lunar month.) Ken Montgomery ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 1982 13:56:40-EDT From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: rem at mit-mc Subject: re where to build Cc: space at mit-mc Many authors have protrayed people badly crushed during space construction because they didn't allow for the fact that what they were handling had the same momentum as it had on the ground. Presumably this would be less of a problem with girders assembled in space out of flat stock (among other things, they wouldn't have to resist being crushed during launch), but would you really be able to build lightweight structures if you want to spin them for artificial gravity? Most of the descriptions of space colonies I've seen talk about spinning to produce [artificial gravity] greater than lunar-surface. Seems like you'd have to stress them two ways, since they'd have to support whatever G you select and resist the forces necessary to start up and balance the spin. Also, I don't think your 29,000-foot figure is a limit; that's simply as far ahead of erosion as the collision of the Indian and Asian plates has pushed the Himalayas. On Mars, still with twice the lunar G, a cinder cone (Olympus Mons) has gotten up to 80,000 feet. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 1982 1259-CDT From: Clyde Hoover Subject: Luna vs L-5 To: space at MIT-MC One does not have to build huge structures ANYWHERE to support colonies. We poor slobs in 1G have built some HUGE buildings which serve us perfectly well, so we don't have to enclose half of near-Terran space to live there. And as for Terran mountains being only 'able' to be a dozen or so miles high - crap! While mountains do sink under their weight eventually, they get worn down by erosion MUCH faster. The only reason there isn't 20 mile high mountiains is because tetonic forces haven't in recent history (last 100 million years), pushed anything that high. We should put sloar power stations in orbit somewhere, but we should not go ONLY to space or ONLY to planetary surfaces. I doubt that there is any material at the L-? points to build anything out of -- we will need to get metals for SOME rock somewhere, and Luna is the closest. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 1982 1527-EDT From: Margot Flowers subject: solar power on the moon to: Webb at CMU-20C, REM at MIT-MC cc: space at MIT-MC Several people have pointed out that the poles of the moon do not receive sunlight continually. (I knew there was a reason I said "If ...".) Though my suggestion was faulty, the point of my comment was really more general: that appropriate spacings of solar collectors on the moon might make solar power be not so unfeasible asit might seem at first thought -- something that various other messages have recently suggested too. Date: 20 September 1982 19:42-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Your geometrical terminology is lacking. The distance around the moon is called the "circumference", not the "diameter". I did know that (I think it is clear from the content of my message that I meant "one quarter of the circumference", otherwise more people would have commented on it), but thanks for pointing out my inadvertent "write-o". - Margot Flowers ------------------------------ Date: 21 September 1982 19:58-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: solar power on the moon To: Flowers at YALE cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I think it's quite clear that in the long run we want to have habitat and industry etc. in space, probably a la Dyson sphere around each star we homestead. It's not so clear what method we want for powering planet-based habitat and industry, whether simply tap off the Dyson power grid, or have local solar energy with local storage, or have a ring of energy girdling the planet to avoid need for local storage, or have local nuclear fission power, or if we solve the problem local nuclear fusion power. I think it's too early to decide on one or the other, although we ought to keep all those possibilities in mind towards the end of the next 50 years as we approach the time they will be implemented. (My guess, none of the above, by 50 years from now we'll have a new and better idea.) My suggestions how to supply energy to lunar mining stations deals with the bootstrapping period, from when we first establish an experimental mining station on the Moon until we have enough industry on the Moon to begin to consider linking all of it together into large power grids or mass-tossing networks of manufacturing stations (imagine using a mass-driver to toss pellets of pure titanium from the titanium-extracting station to a place where it's needed to make titanium-iron alloy, this toss perhaps being between points hundreds of miles apart!). Our urgent problem now is that (1) the money-holders don't think space is worth money because they think it's too expensive or impossible or doesn't reap enough rewards, (2) the scientists haven't really worked out all the possibilities and created a proposal for action (some starts have been made here with Pournelle's space policy proposal), (3) because of 1 and 2 hardly anything is moving along and thus we simply aren't bootstrapping ourselves into space. Currently I stick mostly to things that will be useful for getting started. In addition to the currently-planned shuttle activities of chemical-manufacture experiments and large-space-telescope, these include: development of SEPS (Solar Electric Propulsion System = solar-powered ion rocket) and a general space-tug capability, development of a full-scale mass-driver, launching of a permanently-staffed LEO (Low Earth Orbit) station, surveying L-4 and L-5 for debris, surveying the polar regions of the Moon for water ice, surveying near-Earth asteroids and comets for minerals, experimenting with remote-control mechanisms and robotics to determine whether they are feasible, and actual starting of experimental robot mining on moon (in polar regions if water is found there, else in equatorial regions). It is in this context that I debate whether robotics is sufficiently developed for mining, whether solar or nuclear energy should be used, ... and dismiss power grids on the moon as being too far in the future but still worth discussing briefly to aid our long-range perspective. ------------------------------ Date: 21 September 1982 20:15-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: re where to build To: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX cc: SPACE at MIT-MC When planning for the stresses on a structure while fully built, you have only one configuration to check, the final structure. When you build something that will be spun up to make artificial gravity, you have two, during spin-up, and in stable spinning. But when you build something on Earth or in any other gravity field, you have all those intermediate states during construction. Most collapsing structures that kill people occur either during construction or during Earthquakes. Hardly any people are killed by structures that just colapse suddenly during normal operation. Thus construction in space will be much safer than construction on Earth, assuming nobody is dumb enough to spin up a structure while it's still being built. Actual operation will be about the same as on Earth, which is adequate. (You don't have to plan for Earthquakes or hurricanes or tornadoes or blizzards or heavy rain causing ground liquification in space either, so in that respect space habitat will be safer than on Earth.) In space your only unpredictable hazards are collisions with objects such as meteors spacecraft and mis-tossed industrial materials. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 1982 13:50-PDT From: dietz.usc-cse at UDel-Relay Subject: Relativistic Electron Power Transmission To: king at Kestrel, space at Mit-Mc Electrons are a bad idea because of energy losses from synchrotron radiation. If the bending magnets are large enough this isn't a problem (how large?). I also worry about magnetic fields in the solar wind and the lunar soil deflecting the beam. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 82 13:14:10-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Uosat-Oscar-9 Salvage Success! I just received a phone call from Vern Riportella, WA2LQQ, AMSAT Executive VP. Rip informs me that last night, the SRI team using the 150 foot antenna has successfully commanded Uosat-Oscar-9, turning off the beacons which have jammed the command receivers for quite a few months now. The problem was that no interlock circuit had been provided in the spacecraft to prevent the inadvertent turning on of both the 2 meter and the 70 cm beacons, which desensitized the command receivers also on 2 and 70 cm. Naturally, a mistake was made, and somehow both beacons had been commanded on. The SRI dish, plus a kilowatt of transmitter power, was finally able to override the strong local signal in the command receiver (probably on 2 meters, but that hasn't been confirmed) and turn off a beacon to allow commanding on that band. Initial telemetry reports after the two-meter beacon was turned back on and telemetry encoding enabled indicate that the spacecraft is still in excellent health. Uosat-Oscar-9 may be received with a conventional amateur 2-meter receiver on 145.825 mhz FM. If you have a Bell 202 (NOT 212) modem and a conventional terminal, you can decode its telemetry. Just connect the terminal to the modem and set the terminal to 1200 or 300 baud, depending on the current telemetry speed. Phil Karn, KA9Q/2 ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 82 15:26:55-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Shuttle at Pad The Columbia reached pad 39A at 1000 EDT today, right on schedule. The end to the rollout procedure was not expected until 1330 EDT though, when the shuttle is actually secured to the pad. Then, three days of gas, electrical, and other connections will ensue. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 82 21:48:44-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: More on UOSAT Salvage Article-I.D.: eagle.526 Via: Usenet; 22 Sep 82 2:36-PDT Some more details on the successful salvage effort at SRI which regained control over the Uosat-Oscar-9 spacecraft, which had been unable to respond to commands since April 1982: The SRI team commanded the beacons off at 22:35 UTC on 20 September, using an enormous amount of effective radiated power on the 70 cm command frequency. The earlier problems with the SRI effort appear to have been due to ground command encoder problems and outdated orbit element sets that gave inaccurate antenna pointing instructions (the SRI dish has a 3 db beamwidth of less than a degree at 70cm). The command encoder glitches were fixed several days ago. On the first pass after receiving a new set of orbit elements, the SRI team succeeded. As I mentioned in my previous article, the spacecraft appears to still be in good health, and the activities in progress before April (extending the gravity gradient boom, checking out the HF beacon transmitters, TV camera, computers, etc) can continue. Phil Karn, KA9Q ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 23-Sep-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #309 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 309 Today's Topics: Re: re where to build Power on the Moon Relativistic Electron Power Transmission Structures for spinning and Dyson spheres Simulation of space operations with computers Note on material at L4 and L5 Power on the Moon ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Sep 1982 11:35:29-EDT From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: REM at MIT-MC Subject: Re: re where to build Cc: SPACE at MIT-MC In response to your message of Tue Sep 21 22:14:30 1982: Actually, most of the recent collapses of buildings (at least in this country) have been after the building was complete, when it turned out that someone had miscalculated the load the system could naturally come under--- witness the walkway falling at the Hyatt Regency Kansas City, the various collapses of arena and shopping mall roofs. Fatalities in the latter have been minimal, but the interesting thing is that it happened because nobody calculated that water on the roof would cause it to sink in the middle, preventing drainage and collecting more water until the roof fell in. The worst recent accident during construction involved the collapse of a scaffolding around a cooling tower being cast (the tower itself stayed up). I'd say that most accidents during construction involve the collapse of auxiliaries rather than the primary structure giving way; I don't think your description of intermediate, less-stable states is accurate (with the possible exception of wild cards like the Sears tower in Chicago, where diagonal braces many stories high couldn't be added until the stories were mostly finished). I expect that accidents on the moon and in space would be about equally devastating, although in different ways (consider the problem of getting something heavy off of a body under lunar gravity against that of zero-gee surgery) but there's enough junk up already to represent a significant hazard at least to LEO space construction. ------------------------------ Date: 22 September 1982 11:11-PDT (Wednesday) From: KING at KESTREL To: Robert Elton Maas , SPACE at MIT-MC Subject: Power on the Moon The purpose of the primary coolant in the reacter is to get heat from the insides of the reacter to the thermal power generation process. To avoid heat exchangers, it is therefore necessary for the primary coolant to boil. What you're looking for is the boiling water reacter - not the liquid metal reacter. The latter is primarily interesting because liquid metal doesn't moderate, a property desirable for a breeder reacter. I doubt we'll be using breeders on the moon, ever. Before things get well enough developed for a breeder to be practical, we'll be thinking solar with circumlunar transmission lines. Some of the light-weight structures proposed for cooling the SPS will work on the moon, especially if there is a tall mountain to spray the stuff off of. We would want that, anyway, to have shading of the radiators. You bring up an interesting point. Why not use sunlight during the day (when your cooling system might not work) and nuclear during the night (when your solar won't work). I wouldn't be surprised if the weight saved by using a less heat-resistant cooling system would "pay for" a solar power system. Dick ------------------------------ Date: 22 September 1982 11:17-PDT (Wednesday) From: KING at KESTREL To: dietz.usc-cse at UDel-Relay Cc: space at Mit-Mc Subject: Relativistic Electron Power Transmission The magnets don't have to be that large. Ames has worked it out for the much more difficult case of a beam shuttling back and forth between 2 satellites in Earth orbit. The magnetic field isn't a problem. It merely has to be allowed for. Dick ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 1982 1228-PDT Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-8 Subject: Structures for spinning and Dyson spheres From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin) To: space at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[OFFICE-8]22-Sep-82 12:28:16.WMARTIN> I would think that generating artificial gravity via spinning structures would create tension-type forces instead of compression; thus you can use light stuff held together with cable or similar material with a high strength-to-mass ratio. You need the outer surface to be strong enough to support the "weight" of the things sitting on it, but that surface is suspended from the hub. It would be like a sling holding rocks. Hmmm, no spike-heeled shoes allowed... What are the standard references for information on Dyson spheres? Has anyone done any "real" analysis on them and their implementation or effects, or did Dyson just describe them once as a neat idea and that's as far as it went? Anyway, I was wondering what the effect of a Dyson sphere is on the star it surrounds. Since this star becomes a closed instead of open system, with all the photons and radiation returned to the star or trapped at the inner sphere surface, does it change the life cycle of the star? Will the star use up its resources slower or faster or is there no effect? I would think that a culture that could build a Dyson sphere could perform maintenance on the star inside, maybe by sending mini black holes through it to clean out higher-atomic-number elements and feeding in more hydrogen or helium to keep it youthful. If I invested the cost of a Dyson sphere, I wouldn't want it to become unusable in only one stellar lifetime, after all! What about navigation? How do you find a Dyson-sphered star system? Or maybe they don't want to be found... If the idea of the whole concept is to trap all the star's energy, what happens to waste heat? Or is it assumed that a culture like this can perform perfect total energy conversion, and that what we would consider waste heat they would have used for some other purpose? Or is the backside of the sphere a big radiator? The whole construction seems much like a broiler to me at times... I'd like to read about the details involved in this, so references would be welcomed. Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 1982 18:39:33-PDT From: A.exp@Berkeley To: u:space@mit-mc Subject: Simulation of space operations with computers The entire process of assembly of factories on the moon and in space, their operation, and interactions with humans that control them can be simulated once a model of the factory component behavior and of the moon surface or space environment are operating on a computer. In the simulation, human observers could use a computer generated graphic to observe the objects operated on or constructed, and interact with them to simulate teleoperation, or allow artificial intelligence to do the operation while the simulated world is constructed. In addition, this simulation would be useful for training the human teleoperators of future real systems, to the extent that artificial intelligence is inadequate. Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc,. has developed a computer simulation of the steam plant of a Navy ship which will be used in training, but could also show the state of an actual system, in order to allow humans to control it from a computer terminal instead of from manual work inside the engine room. The simulation shows qualitatively the interactions between components. This type of simulation could be extended to show the actual appearance, both internal and external, of any facility to be operated. The conclusion is that the factory in space, or space colonies, could be simulated fully, except for the human behavior, on computer models. Finally, this sort of system would allow greater ease in achieving total automation in the actual construction of the final system in space. It is also possible to include, however, human behavior in the simulation. It is unnecessary to build anything in space before the facility has been fully completed in simulation. For more information: "Advanced Computer Aided Design and Modelling of Entire Colonies," The L-5 News, June 1982 "Development of an Advanced Computer Aided Instruction System for Propulsion Engineering," Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc., February 18, 1981, Proposal No. P80-ISD-90 "Using Qualitative Simulation to Generate Explanations," Kenneth Forbus and Albert Stevens, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc., March 1981, Report No. 4490 ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 1982 20:54:09-PDT From: A.exp@Berkeley To: u:space@mit-mc Subject: Note on material at L4 and L5 This was studied by the Space Studies Institute in 1980, but I haven't heard the results. It was found theoretically that material would accumulate, and observing was scheduled. ------------------------------ Date: 23 September 1982 05:47-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Power on the Moon To: KING at KESTREL cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Gee, I may have brought up the point, but you thought of how to use it. I like your idea of using solar energy at day and nuclear at night. One alternative would be to use just one or the other depending on whether the application needed light or dark. Thus robotics and telepresence based on TV cameras in the usual way would run only during day and use solar energy, while robotics and telepresence based on LASER ranging to generate 3-d images would run only at night. A given experimental station might use only one of the two methods and thus run optimally with only one of the two power supplies. A station trying to maintain around-the-clock operation, such as silicon wafer production for computer circuits, would require both energy sources. One reason I proposed sodium (liquid metal) instead of boiling water, was that it might possibly be designed to run during the day when ambient temperatures are already near the boiling point for water at normal Earth pressures, making it very hard to condense the water to feed it back into the reactor. But if you run it only at night as you suggest, boiling water would seem optimal providing you can keep it warm enough to avoid feeezing. I guess if it gets too cold in the condenser (heat radiator), you can just disable the parts of the radiator furthest from the reactor, reducing effectiveness of cooling, causing things to run a little warmer, thus preventing freezing; so I guess the problem of freezing isn't had to solve, providing the pipes are strong enough to withstand repeated hard-freeze and thaw cycles. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 24-Sep-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #310 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 310 Today's Topics: Conductive cooling on the Moon? Dyson spheres - closed system?, detection, reference Shuttle Training Flights ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Sep 1982 08:39 PDT From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC Subject: Conductive cooling on the Moon? To: Space at MIT-MC Could a network of pipes, extending into the surrounding soil, cool a buried reactor (by *conduction* rather than by radiation)? Being no expert on heat transfer, I have several questions: 1) What is the thermal conductivity of such soil, and does this make the idea impractical at the outset? 2) At midday, how far down does heat from the sun-warmed surface penetrate? 3) How far down can you dig before encountering rock? 4) How large a network would be required for a "typical"-size power station? What's "typical"? 5) How difficult would construction be? 6) Are "heat pipes" applicable? /John ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 1982 10:39 PDT From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Dyson spheres - closed system?, detection, reference To: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin) cc: Wedekind.es, space at MIT-MC Will, In his book "Disturbing the Universe" (1980, I think) Freeman Dyson talks a bit about these things (he doesn't use the term "Dyson sphere", of course - in fact, he says he got the idea from some SF author whose name I can't remember). They wouldn't be closed systems because of the infrared radiation coming from their backsides. We have looked (not too hard) for IR sources of the type expected from a Dyson sphere and found nothing so far. Dyson thinks that we would have to mount a much bigger effort along these lines before drawing conclusions. He goes on to say he doesn't think this (or any huge ETI-specific search efforts) would be a good idea - that astronomical "business as usual" is the best way, all things considered, to look for interesting objects both natural and artificial. I wish I remembered his reasons - whatever they are, you bet they're not shortsighted! cheers, Jerry ------------------------------ Date: 23 September 1982 18:51-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas To: A.exp at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I agree fully. I saw a simulation of the view out a ship's windows in a harbor, on TV (Nova or Fast Forward? I forget), and it was fairly impressive. If we get some funding to develop systems for simulation of space construction, we might get some good simulations going by the time we need to make final plans. One problem is it takes a long time to design new systems of a major kind such as this simulation. Maybe we should go ahead with pilot plants with actual equipment in space now, using mostly off-the-shelf equipment (remember how long it took to design a brand new Space Transporation System and get to the first test flight?), and when the simulation is up and running THEN use it to design and simulate the NEXT version of space manufacturing, using actual data from the pilot plant to correct our models about space physics that the simulator uses to compute its simulations? (Even if we're right about the laws of physics and the mathematical methods to handle them, we may be spending our effots on the wrong problems. Remember how paranoid we were in 1957 about meteors hitting the spacecraft? Imagine if we'd tried to simulate an Apollo lunar-landing project at that time with 6 feet thick walls to shield against meteors!.) ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 82 19:41:20-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Shuttle Training Flights Article-I.D.: alice.934 Via: Usenet; 23 Sep 82 23:46-PDT The crew of STS-5 took part in training exercises today. Mission Commander Vance Brand and pilot Robert Overmyer flew modified Gulfstream jets over the 15,000 foot concrete runway at KSC and practiced landings there, and mission specialists Joseph Allen and William Lenoir flew T-38 jets around the Cape. Tomorrow, they will all board the shuttle at 0845 EDT and practice a mock countdown leading to a simulated liftoff at 1100 EDT. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 25-Sep-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #311 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 311 Today's Topics: Re: solar power on the moon Simulation of space operations with computers, reply to REM Note on material at L4 and L5, in reply to REM Conestoga I Launch space vs. moon colonies ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Sep 82 23:45:36-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!houxi!houxb!lmg at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: solar power on the moon If you really want a continuous supply of energy for the moon, and don't mind another grandious scheme, try this: Build large powersats at the L4 and L5 points. Beam the energy to collectors on the surface directly "below" the satellites. Use superconducting subsurface cables to distribute the power to where it's needed. Of course your aim better be good, or ... Larry Geary Bell Labs, Holmdel ...npois!houxi!houxb!lmg ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 1982 10:44:02-PDT From: A.exp@Berkeley To: u:space@mit-mc Subject: Simulation of space operations with computers, reply to REM There is an appropriate article on tactical simulation in (about) the September 26, 1982 Aviation Week and Space Technology. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 1982 10:44:22-PDT From: A.exp@Berkeley To: u:space@mit-mc Subject: Note on material at L4 and L5, in reply to REM You mean time on the Large Space Telescope has officially been allocated for looking at L-4 and L-5 for debris? Or just that SSI has proposed allocating time? The time was allocated, according to O'Neill, during 1980 on the 200". ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 82 15:38:26-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Conestoga I Launch Space Services, Inc., made their first successful launch today, as Conestoga I lifted off from Matagorda, Texas. It was the first time that a privately owned company has launch a rocket. The surplus Minuteman solid motor, bought from NASA for $356K, carried the rocket up to a suborbital flight where it released its payload, 400 pounds of water; both fell into the Gulf of Mexico later, just as planned. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 82 9:28:35-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: teklabs!tekcrd!tekcad!keithl at Ucb-C70 Subject: space vs. moon colonies Polar lunar power has been suggested before on the net. As the lunar pole is not perpendicular to the ecliptic, each pole is in darkness 6 months a year. Two power stations are needed, with transmission lines to the equator pi*d/4 long, not d/4. Might as well be equatorial. Why space, and not Luna? 1) Zero Gee is a useful option, 2) space is farther out of gravity wells, 3) closer to useful markets, and 4) less terri- torial. Benefits derivable from above are 1) Cheap, continuous, concentratable solar power, 2) a more controllable environment, 3) Processes and structures impossible on planetary surfaces, 4) cheaper access to more places, 5) relative freedom from potential territorial coercion, and 6) no one need sleep in the wet spot. The list is endless. The Libertarian State (?) of Luna cannot move out of the way of thrown rocks, and won't stay free long. Governments are for gravity wells. Keith Lofstrom uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!keithl CSnet: tekcad!keithl@tek ARPAnet:tekcad!keithl.tek@udel-relay ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 26-Sep-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #312 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 312 Today's Topics: Re: solar power on the moon Mass Drivers re: space versus the moon re: simulators as an aid to tele-operation Houston visit Simulated Launch Successful On Rats and Sinking Ships ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 September 1982 08:25-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: solar power on the moon To: harpo!ihps3!houxi!houxb!lmg at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Date: 23 Sep 82 23:45:36-PDT (Thu) From: harpo!ihps3!houxi!houxb!lmg at Ucb-C70 Build large powersats at the L4 and L5 points. Beam the energy to collectors on the surface directly "below" the satellites. Use superconducting subsurface cables to distribute the power to where it's needed. Yup, that's the most likely plan for lunar energy once we get bootstrapped. But if we try to build those powersats and cables and rectennas out of Earth materials it'll cost enough to bankrupt the world. We must bootstrap ourselvesusing lunar and other non-Earth-origin materials using small non-Earth-located processing stations to produce the materials to build the grandoise large stations. I'd like to see the bootstrapping well enough along to have the first grandoise station by the year 2000, but our nation doesn't seem to be headed that way. Of course your aim better be good, or ... See the discussions of not too many months ago about Geosynch-to-Earth powersats, about phasing of signals by use of an up reference beam, using a virtual cubic-corner-reflector to send the down beam exactly back where the reference beam came from, about how due to relativistic effect the downbeam is a few miles from the reference beam so you simply offset the reference beam from the center of the rectenna, and how if the reference beam is lost the downbeam becomes non-coherent and spreads its energy uniformly in the celestial sphere so nobody gets fried unless some saboteur sends a fake reference beam up, and even then people in the beam just uncomfortably warm until they move aside or get inside a microwave-shield such as a hardtop car. Just about all the arguments apply for L5-to-Luna powersat beams. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 1982 2013-EDT From: Marvin Minsky To: space at MIT-MC cc: minsky at MIT-OZ 1. I hope everyone realizes that Dyson spheres are not objects, but clouds of particles in different orbits. An actual sphere-lie thing would collapse at the rotation poles. Even Ringworlds don't work because they're unstable - that is, they don't stay centered around their star, and actually fall in eventually. As for heat pipes, etc., they mat be too costly. The cheapest thing might be just to use piles of dust to acculumate heat, and then spread it out by tractor at (14-day) night to cool off. You can also cool off in the day, by making suitable geometry baffles, or by running hot enough. In space stations, the circulating dust hack may be quite practical instead of rigid radiators and captive fluids. But it is true that heat garbage is serious in space and on the moon. Thus photovoltaics have some attraction, since their gross size double-serves as heat-loser also. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Sep 1982 0010-EDT From: Marvin Minsky Subject: Mass Drivers To: space at MIT-MC cc: HPM at CMU-10B There have been several references to lunar mass drivers. Jerry Pournelle and I made some envelope-type calculations that seem to show that one can launch stuff from the moon rather easliy by whirling them around and around, in a bucket with strong Kevlar cable, up to orbital velocity, and letting go. One can get escape velocity, even, using a moderately-tapered cable. I recall the taper was only about 10-to-1. There are nice problems about HOW to let the bucket go, without disastrous shock-waves going back the cable. Anyway, it seems to me that such a device would be very inexpensive, not at all massive, etc. Therefore the mass driver is obsolete, and more attention should be paid to this simpler device. Any comments - or literature references? HPM has done a lot of sky-hook calculations. How do they apply to this? ------------------------------ Date: 25 Sep 1982 17:01:41 EDT (Saturday) From: John Redford Subject: re: space versus the moon To: space at mit-ai Cc: vlsi at dec-marlboro Space colonies are just as subject to the "territorial coercion" that Keith Lofstrom discusses as moon colonies are. The L4 and L5 points are well-defined, valuable areas of space. There are bound to be conflicts over who uses them, and so property questions are bound to arise. We are seeing this already with the satellite slots in geosynchronous orbit. At the last World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC) a couple of years ago the equatorial countries made a serious effort to lay claim to the sections of the geosync orbit immediately above them. They failed, but the Third World countries as a whole succeeded in getting some slots reserved for their future use. (Incidentally, this whole issue is a problem not because there is any danger of the satellites running into one another, but because the satellites must be a certain angular distance apart if they are to be individually resolved by small, cheap antennas). The conference proceedings grew pretty heated, and this was over the relatively abstract issue of communication rights. Lofstrom also says that the Libertarian State of Luna can not survive since statists can drop rocks on them, but a colony in space is far more vulnerable to attack. A projectile coming in at 20,000 miles an hour could demolish a colony's living cylinder almost as effectively as a nuclear weapon. On the moon you can burrow underground for some measure of protection, and the destruction of one section does not mean the destruction of all. The space versus planet argument has an analogy on earth of living on the ocean versus living on land. The only society I can think of where the bulk of the population lives at sea is the boat people of the coasts of Southeast Asia. As far as I know, no one lives mainly on the deep ocean. This might be a matter of too harsh an environment; storms at sea are said to make those on land look like light drizzles. It might be because of vitamin deficiences in fish and seaweed. If you translate hurricanes into solar flares and vitamins into trace elements, you might conclude that living in space, the worst wasteland of all, would not be much fun. John Redford ------------------------------ Date: 25 Sep 1982 17:54:34 EDT (Saturday) From: John Redford Subject: re: simulators as an aid to tele-operation To: space at mit-ai Cc: vlsi at dec-marlboro Let's be a little cautious in our enthusiasm for simulators in remote control lunar operations. The Moon will be a completely new environment both for the operators and the programmers of the simulators. It might take considerable first hand construction experience before a reasonable simulator can be done. For instance, the program may say that it's all right to bang on the rivet, but it didn't know that the rivet was vacuum-welded to the girder, and so the robot's hammer breaks off. Repair cost: ten million dollars. Me, I don't trust the transistor circuit simulators that I use to within more than ten percent, and they are vastly simpler than the ones you would need for tele- operation. John Redford ------------------------------ Date: Fri Sep 24 1982 17:19:00 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: Houston visit To: lbl-unix!SPACE at MC Greetings. Sorry to bother the whole list with this message, but I can't think of an alternate way of reaching the right people... Business has taken me to Houston twice in the last couple of months, and will probably do so again shortly, possibly for the last time for quite a while. So far, I haven't had time to visit the NASA facilities in the area, but I'd very much like make such a visit on my next trip. By chance are there any readers of this digest who are at the Johnson Space Center (or know someone who is) who might be willing to show me around a bit? I know there are some self-guided tours, but I'd sure like to get a more "behind the scenes" looksee if I could. Anyway, I thought I'd give it a try. Thanks much! --Lauren-- ------------------------------ Date: 24 Sep 82 15:38:01-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Simulated Launch Successful Article-I.D.: alice.937 Via: Usenet; 26 Sep 82 1:06-PDT The shuttle made a successful simulated liftoff on schedule, at 1100 EDT, today, and NASA said all was proceeding on schedule for an 11 November launch. The test was mainly to make sure that all connections from the shuttle to its external tank and SRB's were secure. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 82 21:39:54-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: UNKNOWN.G.asa at Ucb-C70 Subject: On Rats and Sinking Ships Article-I.D.: populi.352 Via: Usenet; 26 Sep 82 0:53-PDT I would like to see a research station on the moon (analogous to our research stations in Antarctica), but the notion that lunar colonization provides a deus ex machina solution to the problems of environmental pollution and nuclear war on Earth is utterly absurd -- such escapist notions are more worthy of hard-line Creationists and ardent Right-to-Lifers than the scientific community at large. Escape from nuclear or conventional war? Don't be silly: if the Reds can drop a dozen warheads on New York City, they can take the trouble to blitz the moon, especially if the lunar colony has been silly enough to arm itself with weapons capable of scratching Russia. So long, Luna I! Thank God you won't survive to die of radiation sickness.... Nuclear Power on the moon: the suggestion that nuclear wastes would be buried hither and yon on the lunar surface really isn't so shocking -- after all, it's just a stripped-down version of what the nuclear power industry would like to do here on Earth. Until the nuclear power folks are willing to back up their talk about "safety" with hard cash (i.e., accept the financial responsibility for damage caused by their facilities), these claims are just irresponsible talk. Forget human life for a moment; Three Mile Island was costly in terms of investment. I sure would like to see a generation of engineers that could look upon open space as something other than a dumping ground for inconveniently deadly by-products of their pet technology, but I suppose that's just my knee-jerk liberalism talking. Good-by, Luna! Hello, Anaconda! In space, no one can hear you cough.... For those of you who haven't forgetten that the Earth is presently inhabited by approximately 4.5 billion people...and who aren't interested in spending the rest of their life in a pressure suit or the environmental analog of the Death Valley National Monument Visitor Center...and who would like to do something more constructive than just wait for the next shuttle to Luna City, here are some things you can do (without risking your security clearance) to both improve the quality of life at home AND have fun at the same time. (1) ENVIRONMENT: The Sierra Club has dozens of programs dealing with myriad environmental issues, one of which is bound to appeal to you. For information on how to join, write: Sierra Club, 530 Bush Street, San Francisco, CA 94108. (2) NUCLEAR POWER/WAR: Think the proponents of nuclear power/war have bigger mouths than brains? Become a sponsor of the Union of Concerned Scientists by writing the union at 1384 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02238. (3) POPULATION: If you're concerned about the increasing number of illigitimate births and incidents of child abuse, the rising crime rate, or just feel that 4.5 billion people would be a good place to stop, do some work with your local Planned Parenthood office to insure that contraceptive devices and education continue to be made available in your community, and that a woman's right to abortion-on-demand is not infringed in any way. (4) NUCLEAR/BIOLOGICAL WAR: Either of these ought to set the space program back about 10,000 years, so what the hell, let's skip 'em. Write your congressmen, your president, and your local newspapers and tell them you want out of the arms race and into the space race. Advise your friends, colleagues, and co-workers that developing new bombs and nastier bugs has all the moral grandeur of Nazi doctors experimenting on concentration camp inmates (not to mention being expensive), and, of course, eschew such projects yourself. And don't wave the Red Menace bogey man at me, either: we still haven't renounced the first strike option, and right now, I'm more afraid of what we're likely to do than them. Remember, the ENTERPRISE was a multi-national undertaking.... John Hevelin ucbvax!G:asa ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 27-Sep-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #313 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 313 Today's Topics: Re: Re: Reactors on the Moon - (nf) : Lunar-Based Lasers Relevance Re: On Rats and Sinking Ships Rats, Sinking Ships, and Knee-Jerk Liberals Knee >JERKS< The Moon as Environment? Disaster Insurance ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Sep 82 18:38:50-PDT (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!zeppo!whuxk!houxi!hou5d!hou5a!mat at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Re: Reactors on the Moon - (nf) The whole dicussion of putting reactors on the moon, and not caring about the resulting nuclear waste, and using the moon as a garbage dump for hazardous materials, reminds me of the 19th century and the early half of the 20th, when the new and large industries of the Industrial Revolution thought nothing of dumping their wastes in the next valley, or in somebody elses stream, or into the lungs of their workers, and neighbors, ... . Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. How about a little constructive guilt here. Please don't think I am an environmental freak. I am not. I want to see progress move forward, but let's not be deliberately irresponsible. M Terribile houxz!houxi!hou5a!mat ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 1982 1215-PDT From: Robert Amsler Subject: : Lunar-Based Lasers To: space at MIT-MC Nobody has taken up the question of what a lunar-based laser could do. Apart from the obvious use as protection against incoming objects (both natural and man-made) there is the question I believe Dyson raised of launching vehicles with a jet-exhaust system powered from a ground-based laser supplying the heat to boil off a fluid carried in a tank in the vehicle. Then too, one could imagine using the laser as a photon drive for light-sail vehicles? ------------------------------ Date: 26 September 1982 16:09-EDT From: Stewart Cobb Subject: Relevance To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I'm probably not the only one who will say this, but I'll say it anyway: I read this list for news and speculations about current and future space efforts, not insults, flaming, and one-sided views on current (alleged) problems here on Earth. It's not that I'm not interested in Earth problems, but I read other lists for discussions of them. The only time Earth's problems should appear on this list is when they directly affect the space effort (suppose, God forbid, that Challenger were destroyed in a race riot) or vice versa (moving heavy industry into space so that places like Pittsburgh can be livable again). This missive was prompted by John Hevelin's flame. Perhaps the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, and the Union of "Concerned" Scientists should support the space effort; however, at present, they don't. By that criterion, John's message was not relevant to this list. Advertisements for groups like L-5 and SSI are relevant; advertisements for groups like those mentioned above are not. If I've flamed too much here for your taste, please forgive me. With luck, this message won't need to be repeated. Stewart (hsc@mit-mc) ------------------------------ Date: 26-Sep-82 14:19:26 PDT (Sunday) From: JLarson at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: On Rats and Sinking Ships To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Right on John Hevelin !! Some of us haven't given up on planet Earth yet. John Larson ------------------------------ Date: 26 September 1982 18:14-EDT From: Stewart Cobb Subject: Rats, Sinking Ships, and Knee-Jerk Liberals To: UNKNOWN.G.asa at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC From the top: "Irresponsible talk" and nuclear power plants -- you've got this one turned around. There have never been any deaths, injuries, or losses of property, money, or even time caused by nuclear power plants to anyone not directly involved (i.e. everyone except plant workers and stockholders). (If you want to argue that statement with me, I'll be glad to defend it.) The "irresponsible talk" comes from the scaremongerers who frighten the public with overblown fantasies of the consequences of events with infinitesimal probabilities of occurrence. All while ~20 coal miners die (violently) in cave-ins each year, and hundreds more die of black lung. And while we burn oil we can't afford in order to fill our lakes with acid rain. And while ... but why go on? DA NUKES (not bombs, but \power plants/) are gonna RADIATE everybody ta DEATH tomorra! Whose side is the irresponsible talk really on? If you want financial responsibility, maybe the anti-nuclear-power-plants groups should take over the payments from the government's Black Lung Fund, since they're going to make sure it remains in business. "Goodbye Luna, Hello Anaconda" -- The copper in your computer terminal had to come from somewhere. Personally, I'd rather it came from a barren, airless rock than from a pretty planet like Earth. Of course, you're entitled to your own opinion. "Space as a Dumping Ground" -- You bet it is! Specifically, it's a place to dump things like strip mines and factories and steel mills, which are necessary but nasty to be near. Again, I'd rather see them in space than on Earth. Pittsburgh could be a nice place, if it weren't for the mills. "Think the proponents of nuclear power/war have bigger mouths than brains?" -- Well, I can't say I've ever heard a proponent of nuclear war, so I can't judge that one. However, I've heard a number of proposals for "disarmament" and "nuclear freezes" which sounded like the authors were guilty of shouting slogans before thinking. All the Union of Concerned Scientists seems to be "concerned" about is getting their names in the paper. I've already told you what I think of the opponents of nuclear power, but you don't need to worry about its proponents. No matter what they say, no one will never hear them -- the media is much more interested in the mutterings of the anti-nuclear-power gurus. Keep this in mind: nuclear war and nuclear power are totally separate issues. All that slogans like "No Nukes" have accomplished is the confusion of the two issues in the public mind (\there's/ irresponsibility for you!). TRY to think about where your messages are going on the net. There are other mailing lists for the topics you are interested in (POLI-SCI and ARMS-D, to name a couple). Your message didn't really belong on SPACE, and most of us didn't want to read it. If you have something that is relevant to the list, by all means send it in -- but don't bother us with irrelevant "knee-jerk liberalism." Stewart Cobb (hsc @ mit-mc) ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 1982 1746-PDT From: Hans Moravec Subject: Knee >JERKS< To: space at MIT-MC I agree that the endless religious war between the flower adolescents and those of us who are reasonable technological optimists should move to the POLI-SCI list. I've already heard all the other side's slogans. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 82 0:39:40-PDT (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!duke!mcnc!unc!tim at Ucb-C70 Subject: The Moon as Environment? Article-I.D.: unc.4006 Via: Usenet; 26 Sep 82 18:37-PDT M Terrible (?) has commented that a certain amount of capriciousness is involved in the "Let's dump nuclear wastes on the Moon; nobody will care" line. He also made some analogies with attitudes towards Earth's environment around the turn of the century. I'd like to examine this point in more depth. First, the fact the the Moon is uninhabited now does not mean that it will not have a lasrge population within a few centuries. Clearly, we want to spoil as little of the terrain as possible for these prospective future Lunarians. Thus, dumps should be aa small as possible. Second, and closer to home, the front part of the Moon is part of Earth's environment. Call me a fool, but I would fight tooth and nail any project that would detract in the least from the appearance of the Moon from Earth. It is one of the great beauties of nature. Popular opinion, I'm sure, would agree; so any large-scale projects would have to be on Farside. Third, about pollution per se: a large part of the problem with this on Earth is that it tends to propagate. Rivers, wind, etc., all cause pollution to disperse and be a general menace. On the Moon, there's only one place for it to go: down. (Or up and forever gone, for any gaseous wastes.) Also, our hypothetical populations will presumably live in a relatively sheltered ecosystem, unlike us poor slobs, greatly reducing the risk from pollution. This is the real benefit of waste dumping on the Moon. Fourth, no one seems to have mentioned a very large problem: getting the shit up there. The cleanup from an "accident" (say a launch pad detonation) would be impossible. This of course only applies to Earth-born wastes; if we could move the nuclear industry to the Moon in toto, this problem vanishes; but we're still left with a lot of stuff lying around down here from the present. As far as I'm concerned, it can stay; the risk of launching it is awesome. Finally, if the stuff is really just waste (and no matter how much recycling you do, there will always come out something that is just an unrecoverable mess -- 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), why not just fire it into the Sun, or into interstellar space? Neither would notice in the least. So the Moon is a big rock; these two are inconceivable. In summation, various reaches of space are "environments", and various environmental criteria apply to their use, but in general they are far more resilient than Earth, and therefore likely prospects for large industrial and destructive undertakings. Tim Maroney ( unc!tim ) ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 1982 2353-EDT From: Marvin Minsky Subject: Disaster Insurance To: Space at MIT-MC The letter from Hevelin speaks for itself: he lists enough disasters without even mentioning the genetic engineering accidents. Then he dismisses the space colonies on the grounds that the Soviets might try to shoot them. Well, they might not, also. It makes sense to try to avoid disaster, but the only way to ensure it is to restrain all progress. That is probably impossible, so it still makes sense also to spend some small investment, e.g., 1/1000 of the wealth, on colony research. Anyway, the issues are complex. It is fine to be anti-nuclear if you have checked to see if it really is worse than coal. That is not clearly the case. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 28-Sep-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #314 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 314 Today's Topics: STS orbital speed Reactors on the Moon / waste disposal on Moon Lunar Environment Is there space in our future? Relevance ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Sep 82 12:50:01-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: teklabs!azure!jackk at Ucb-C70 Subject: STS orbital speed Does any one out there know the orbital speed of the Space Shuttle? - Jack Klinker !teklabs!tekmdp!jackk ------------------------------ Date: 27 September 1982 11:38-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Reactors on the Moon / waste disposal on Moon To: harpo!zeppo!whuxk!houxi!hou5d!hou5a!mat at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC The Moon is a much better place to dump lunar-nuclear-wastes than the Earth is to dump terran-nuclear-wastes. On Earth we must find those very few places where there hasn't been geological activity for so long that there's unlikely to be for a long time in the future, and where it's been dry for so long that salt has been built up so it's likely to stay dray in the future. We've found such places, but it took a lot of work. On the Moon, all places qualify! Just about anywhere is a good place to dump. Just mark off a place here and there and dump all your wastes in those places, leaving the rest of the Moon for inhabitation. "A waste dump in every backyard" without causing problems! The only two mechanisms for moving wste from where it was put to anywhere else are (1) meteor collisions (common globally but not likely in any particular spot) and (2) human malice (requiring the same sort of military security that dumping grounds on Earth currently need). I should think that providing we don't just toss waste into random places, but instead restrict it to specific marked spots that are underground to protect against random small meteors an are guarded as soon as enough people live on the Moon to make security a problem, the Moon should have no problem with nuclear wastes from lunar power plants. Note I am not advocating sending Earth-generated waste to the moon. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Sep 1982 10:53 PDT From: KANorman.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Lunar Environment To: Space at MIT-MC Tim Maroney invokes the second law of thermodynamics to forclose the possibilty of complete recycling. I don't see how this fits. To the best of my knowledge the second law does not say recycling is impossible, it only implies an external source of energy must be used to (locally) increase the entropy of the stuff undergoing reprocessing. There is no inherent reason that nuclear wastes cannot be completely reprocessed into component materials of at least industrial purity. All that keeps us from doing this now is the lack of any 'economic sink' for these materials. How long did ity take man to figure out how to use obsidian, clay, lead and other metals? How long did we have kerosene before jets started using it? The day will come when each of these materials has an economic niche to fill, and we will come to know radioactive 'waste' as a renewable resource. Lest you think I'm firing from the hip, Tim, I have a terrarium which is six years old. It recycles all its own biomass, and I only added water once, when it was rather young. Since then sunlight alone has allowed it to do a recycling job in its otherwise closed container. What should I teach it about thermo so that it will stop this outrage? Kevin ------------------------------ Date: 27 Sep 1982 10:04-PDT From: dietz.usc-cse at UDel-Relay Subject: Is there space in our future? To: space at Mit-Mc I went to the September OASIS (the LA L5 chapter) meeting this last saturday. It featured a debate on the future of space between Dr. Tom Heppenheimer (author of "Colonies in Space") and Brian (?) O'Leary, former astronaut and author of "The Fertile Stars". The debate was lively and interesting. Heppenheimer was a rather straightlaced, logical type who argued that space activites aren't going to go anywhere until radical new technologies are developed, such as fusion engines for spacecraft. O'Leary was, frankly, a space cadet. He emitted all sorts of comments about "Left Hemisphere/Right Hemisphere", spirituality, etc. He seemed to have no logical arguments to present (I guess he derides rational thought as "left hemisphere"). I was suprised at Heppenheimer's position. It is diametrically opposite to the position he took in "Colonies in Space". He said that solar powersats are not viable energy options but are, rather, cultural artifacts of the mid 1970's, grand, nonpolluting, solar-powered, government-funded panaceas. Heppenheimer argued that space exploitation is limited today by chemical rocket technology. He compared it to aviation technology, which is also mature (commercial aviation has undergone little fundamental change in 20 years). For example, consider the Centaur booster, soon to be launched from the shuttle orbiter. It first flew in 1963(2?)! It would have been nice to hear a rebuttal of all this, but O'Leary was incapable of providing one. O'Leary did present a proposed asteroid encounter mission for 2001 with the asteroid 1982DB. This mission allows us to return asteroidal material with a delta-v of only 70 meters per second, and with time from earth to the asteroid of three weeks. The ostensible purpose of the mission would be to return with 100 tons of platinum group metals, which are more abundant in asteroids (we think). The scheme has unfortunate flaws, however: how hard is the Pt to extract? Is there any water on the asteroid to fuel the return trip? Is there any Pt on the asteroid? If Heppenheimer's right it's bad news for the space buffs. The L5 society and others will find that if space exploitation cannot be economically justified (meaning: high enough payoff, low enough risk) then it cannot be justified at all. And if there are no big breakthoughs we won't see space colonies. The debate was taped by some people from OMNI. It may appear in a future issue. ------------------------------ Date: 27 September 1982 23:52-EDT (Monday) Sender: CARTER at RU-GREEN From: Robert A. Carter To: Stewart Cobb Cc: Carter at RUTGERS, SPACE at MIT-MC Subject: Relevance I have considerable sympathy for some of the things John Hevelin speaks to, but little for his choice of forum. The drive to turn any specialized discussion into a platform for the parochial political ideas of the speaker is sometimes construed (usually by that speaker, and fellow zealots) as proof of true faith. To the rest of us, it just looks like plain bad manners. In short, I'm with Cobb. _Bob ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 29-Sep-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #315 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 315 Today's Topics: Re: On Rats and Sinking Ships Chemical limits to space travel. Is there space in our future? satellite pictures prices going up Waste on Moon. Sagan vs. the colonizers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28-Sep-82 9:34:10 PDT (Tuesday) From: Suk at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: On Rats and Sinking Ships In-reply-to: John Hevelin's message of 23 Sep 82 21:39:54-PDT (Thu) In-reply-to: Robert A. Carter's message of 27 September 1982 23:52-EDT (Monday) To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC I agree completely with Bob Carter. Hevelin probably did his causes a disservice by going overboard on SPACE Digest. I wish, however, he would put an address on his message so that we could send a personal reply without having to use the digest. I tried to message him individually, but my message came back marked "undeliverable." Stan Suk ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 1982 1351-EDT From: Marvin Minsky Subject: Chemical limits to space travel. To: space at MIT-MC It is true that the best chemical reactions have so little specific impulse that the mass-ratio of chemical rockets is inconvenient. It is also true that present technology is 40 years old, or more, since the Shuttle is little different from a von Braun V-2 rocket. To rebut Heppenheimer's position, we have only to consider, for example, the Kantrowitz proposal to use laser-powered launch aids. Focussed radiation can in principle convert reaction mass to plasmas with much higher specific impulse, so that single-stage spaceships will someday be practical. This requires a large investment in the launching laser system. It appears technically practical, though not politically practical, to launch huge payloads with a Jules Verne type earth cannon, propelled by a nuclear charge buried at a couple of kilometers; Lowell Wood has suggested this. Such a device might launch a compressed solar power satellite kit to be assembled in space. It is by no means established that SPS is impractical - or even very expensive - in the long run. Only, it needs a generation of research; microwaves, lasers, etc., the available options aren't even yet all imagined. ------------------------------ Date: 28 September 1982 22:06-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Is there space in our future? To: dietz.usc-cse at UDEL-RELAY cc: SPACE at MIT-MC It's sad when the only person arguing our case does so with total incompetance. Too bad OMNI taped it. If only Carl Sagan were there to take over the pro-space side. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Sep 1982 0002-EDT From: Margot Flowers to: space at MIT-MC subject: satellite pictures prices going up If you've been planning on ordering satellite pictures, you better act fast. According to the Fall 1982 CoEvolution Quarterly: Tom Parsons ... told us that EROS satellite data imagery prices (from Next Whole Earth Catalog p. 25) are going up fantastically this October. A 2-1/4-square-inch-negative from Landsat, for instance is going from $6 to $35. If you're thinking of ordering Landsat pictures, do it soon. By the way, back issues of the CoEvolution Quarterly (its uneven but always has something excellent) have a few articles about space colonies in it, by ONeill and others. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 1982 2353-EDT From: MINSKY at MIT-OZ Subject: Waste on Moon. To: space at MIT-MC There probably are problems about waste disposal on lunar surface because of high daytime temperature. REM is right that one must bury things, and not only because of micrometeors. I haven't looked up, for example, the lunar escape-velocity temperature of elemental iodine, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that it doesn't quite make it off the moon but diffuses around in a growing purple cloud. If it were a few pounds of I-131 or Sr-90, that might be pretty awful. (Didn't Apollo actually leave a big can of thermo-strontium around, in fact?) This problem can be avoided completely simply by putting the stuff down a meter or so which, I think is the level of lunar thermofrost. Also, the stuff should be chemically combined into larger molecules. The molecules must be (i) too heavy to vaporize at lunar mid-day temperatures and (ii) have bonds that are not broken too much by sunlight. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 1982 2131-PDT From: Hans Moravec Subject: Sagan vs. the colonizers To: space at MIT-MC, rem at MIT-MC If Carl Sagan were in such a debate, he would argue on Heppenheimer's side, rather than on O'Leary's, though for different reasons. He would say that manned space travel is a waste of money which could be spent for unmanned scientific probes. Then he would look up to show us his awe-stricken profile. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 30-Sep-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V2 #316 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 316 Today's Topics: Nuclear Waste Nose Cone Formulae Needed Centaur Wars Is there space in our future? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mail-From: CMUFTP host CMU-CS-ZOG received by CMU-10A at 29-Sep-82 09:50:59-EDT Date: 29 Sep 1982 09:50:54-EDT From: Bob.Zimmermann at CMU-ZOG at CMU-10A Subject: Nuclear Waste That really a brilliant idea, putting all our nuclear waste in a few site on the moon. The one day (circa 1998+-1) the whole thing can get set off in a massive chain reaction, causing immense tides, cataclysmic disasters, and really poor acting. RAZ ------------------------------ Date: 29 September 1982 11:16 edt From: Boebert.SCOMP at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Nose Cone Formulae Needed To: SPACE at MIT-MC Could some former or present model rocketeer forward to me the formulae used to plot ogive, parabaloid, and ellipsoid nose cones, such as those sold by Estes? Pointers to reference works also appreciated. This data is required for a model rocket CAD program which I intend to place in the public domain once completed. Replies to me only, please---I can't concieve of anybody else being interested in this. Thanks in advance Earl ------------------------------ Mail-From: CMUFTP host CMU-CS-G received by CMU-10A at 29-Sep-82 12:02:15-EDT Date: 29 Sep 1982 11:46:48-EDT From: Howard.Gayle at CMU-780G at CMU-10A Subject: Centaur Wars The 1 October 1982 issue of Science has a briefing (p. 37) on the Centaur upper stage for the shuttle. On 15 September, the US House of Representatives voted to use the Centaur. The Air Force, which previously favored its own solid fuel upper stage, changed its position recently and came out in favor of the Centaur, which uses liquid hydrogen and oxygen. The reason, according to Rep. Edward P. Boland (D-MA), is "that contamination detected in the shuttle's payload bay during the test flights means that shielding will be required for certain classified payloads, which in turn means that the Air Force will require the greater lifting power of the Centaur." I wonder if this contamination comes only from nuclear power supplies? ------------------------------ Date: 29 September 1982 22:17-EDT (Wednesday) Sender: CARTER at RU-GREEN From: Robert A. Carter To: Robert Elton Maas Cc: Carter at RUTGERS, SPACE at MIT-MC Subject: Is there space in our future? Date: Tuesday, 28 September 1982 22:06-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas If only Carl Sagan were there to take over the pro-space side. <>illions and <>illions of mock-profundities? There are more scientifically literate spokesmen addressing this digest. Including yourself. _Bob ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest *******************