01-Oct-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #1 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 1 Today's Topics: Happy Fiscal New Year! Re: Centaur wars [wars?] Re: Centaur Wars Is there space in our future? Shooting nuc. wastes into deep space Re: SPACE Digest V2 #316 Nuclear Waste mass drivers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 October 1982 0000-PDT (Friday) From: OTA at S1-A (Ted Anderson) Subject: Happy Fiscal New Year! With the passing of the 1982 Fiscal Year, the Space Digest changes volume number to three (3). Have a prosperous fiscal year! The Moderator ------------------------------ Date: 30 September 1982 0955-EDT (Thursday) From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30) To: space at MIT-MC Subject: Re: Centaur wars [wars?] CC: Gayle@CMU-CS-G at CMU-10A Message-Id: <30Sep82 095547 DS30@CMU-10A> I wonder if this contamination comes only from nuclear power supplies? Only? What nuclear power supplies? The contamination is from outgassing from the Shuttle, mainly from the attitude control jets. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 1982 at 1006-PDT From: Andrew Knutsen To: Howard.Gayle.CMU-780G at Cmu-10a cc: space at Mit-Mc Subject: Re: Centaur Wars In-reply-to: Your message of 29 Sep 1982 11:46:48-EDT. Sender: knutsen at SRI-UNIX I read an article recently on satellite defense, where it said that heavier shielding and more maneuverability was being added to newer satellites for protection against anti-satellite weapons. Maybe the "cargo bay contamination" was some guys idea of a euphemism... Tho it is there, but I hadnt heard of it being radioactive. Cosmic rays perhaps, but do we use nuclear power in LEO? ------------------------------ Date: 30 Sep 1982 1624-PDT From: Alan R. Katz Subject: Is there space in our future? To: space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC As a current Oasis board member, I feel I must comment on the recent messages about our last meeting. First of all, in my opinion, the summary given in the earlier message was quite accurate. That the "debate" came out as it did was a great suprise. Tom has come to Oasis meetings for some time, and likes to state controversial opinions which he is good at defending. We figured it would be fun to have him debate someone who could refute these positions at one of the monthly meetings. Brian just moved out here a few months ago and has been to some Oasis meetings, and we figured he would be a good one to debate him. As it turned out, Tom came off looking very good and Brian was very bizarre. Also, the meeting was not taped by Omni, it was taped by us. Tom said that if the debate was good, it may have been trancribed for Omni. I doubt it will be, but perhaps so. Of course there are many spokespersons for space, and we have had many of them at our meetings (which are usually the forth Sat. of the month, except for Nov and Dec. because of the holidays). By the way, for those who don't know, Oasis=Organization for the Advancement of Space Industrialization and Settlement, the LA chapter of the L5 Society. The name was thought up by the person who was the experiment integration person for the first Getaway special, which flew on the last Shuttle mission (didnt work the first few days though). Alan ------------------------------ Date: 30 September 1982 16:00-PDT (Thursday) From: GANESHA at OFFICE-1 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Subject: Shooting nuc. wastes into deep space re: grunwald's plan to shoot nuclear wastes into space, towards a nearby star: Can't you just see some poor E.T. cruising around his solar system stoping to investigate this funny little asteroid coming from around Sol? They might not take it as a friendly gesture.... regards, Ganesha ------------------------------ Return-Path: <@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA:MBNorton@M.PCO.LISD.HIS> Received: from M.PCO.LISD.HIS by MIT-MULTICS.ARPA dial; 01-Oct-1982 01:31:02-edt Date: 30 September 1982 21:58 mst From: MBNorton.Scouting at M Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #316 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Message of 30 September 1982 03:03 mst from Ted Anderson Re: Nuclear waste A better idea than the moon is to merely every{ ten years or so (whenever costs make it profitable) take all the waste in the world and take it up on the shuttle. Then, when in orbit around the earth, jettison it towards the sun, the largest fusion reactor known in this solar system... ------------------------------ Date: 1 October 1982 03:11-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Nuclear Waste To: Bob.Zimmermann@CMU-ZOG at CMU-10A cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Apparently you don't understand much about chain-reaction. If you have much less than critical mass in near proximity, or if the materials are so impure that you have lots of moderators, the level of chain reaction is quite low, and very stable. If you have almost critical mass, it's still quite stable, just sort of hot and dangerous to be next to. If you have a little more than critical mass with high purity, you get a fizzle, the stuff heats up and some stuff boils off and the mass in proximity is reduced to less than critical and it goes back into almost-critical-mass condition. If you start with zero and start adding new fissile material over a period of time, each time it reaches critical mass it fizzles some, boils off some, and returns to less than critical mass. Nothing like you seem to be fearing can happen, where all of a sudden out of nowhere the whole bunch of waste dumps simultaneously go critical and blast the Moon out of orbit by some kind of explosion (your reference to Space 1999, pure fiction!). [Flip mode: You sound like the person who writes speeches for Ralph Nader when he doesn't know anything about a subject and doesn't care what he says as long as it scares people of nuclear energy. -- If that remark offends any reader, just ignore it.] ------------------------------ Date: 1 October 1982 0414-EDT (Friday) From: Hans Moravec at CMU-10A (R110HM60) To: space at MIT-MC Subject: mass drivers I was asked about mass drivers by a friend, and thought the reply (essentially a core dump) might be of interest to this list. Note that the idea of a "slingshot" lunar catapult was one of the first considered by O'Neill's group, and probably precedes the magnetic launcher historically (Tsiolkovsky must have thought of it). Kevlar, with five or six times the strength to weight of steel, makes the idea even more attractive. The basic ideas for a lunar magnetic catapult are quite old, and such devices play central roles in the novels "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein and "Earthlight" by Arthur Clarke. A lunar catapult got a boost when Gerry O'Neill's physics class in 1969 formulated space habitat plans, with most of the material to come from the moon, launched by a fixed structure. The first idea was simply a large horizontal rotating steel wheel; pellets would be introduced at the middle, and move by centrifugal force to the rim, which would be moving at lunar escape velocity - since lunar escape is only 3 km/sec, steel is a reasonable material for such a launcher. O'Neill's original article on the subject "The colonization of space", Physics Today, Sept 1974, pp 33:40, gives results of some detailed calculations of both this "rotary pellet launcher", and of the "transport linear accelerator". The idea has been further analyzed since then, and O'Neill's Space Studies Institute continues to develop fancier small working models. Henry Kolm of MIT (of magnetically levitated train background) has been working on the idea for a long time, and he and his students built the earlier models in collaboration with O'Neill's Princeton group. From personal contact I know Rod Hyde and Lowell Wood at Livermore have done many calculations on similar ideas, and propose Earth based launchers (its necessary to move aside a kilogram of air for each square centimeter of surface area of the projectile, and of course you need at least 10 km/sec Earth escape velocity, but the idea is apparently workable). Most of their stuff is not published in the open literature. In 1980 Henry Kolm published similar conclusions about Earth based magnetic launchers - "Mass Driver Update" by Henry Kolm, L5 News, September 1980, pp 10:12. He says earth based drivers were pushed by a member of his magneplane team from the start, and were seriously investigated by the 1977 NASA-Ames summer study, and Chul Park and Stuart Bowen used simulation software developed for ablative re-entry analysis of planetary probes to try out the idea, and found that projectiles the size and shape of a telephone pole could be launched from earth surface out of the solar system with loss of only 3% of its mass and 20% of its energy to the atmosphere. (launcher 8km long, 1000g acceleration for 1.26 seconds). The 1976 NASA-Ames Space Manufacturing study also has a survey article on mass drivers - "Electromagnetic Mass Drivers" by F. Chilton, B. Hibbs, H. Kolm, G.K. O'Neill and J. Phillips. There have been lots of follow up reports. Lowell and Rod also have more direct means for launching large masses into suborbital, or escape trajectories from earth using deep nuclear explosions - these could launch massive payloads into space or destroy distany cities without radioactive residue. (a small mountain on a suborbital intercept course with a target would also be immune to ABM lasers). Similar advantages for smaller payloads have actually been experimentally verified for "rail guns" - a projectile is accelerated by the Lorentz force (filed line repulsion) of the magnetic field generated by a huge current from an enormous capacitor bank discharging into a pair of parallel conductive rails shorted by a plasma arc. The arc is accelerated down the length of the rails to speeds not limited by molecule velocities as in chemical guns. Desert experiments by Los Alamos and Livermore have already achieved earth escape velocity: "Fastest shot in the West: A railgun", Science News, December 12, 1981, p 375. More exotic ideas have been growing recently. An idea that started in crude form in a discussion between McCarthy and Minsky, that stationary payloads could be supported at low orbital heights by the reaction of pellet streams between them moving around the earth in fast polygonal trajectories, with magnetic deflection at the corners supporting stations evolved in further discussions with a number of people (mostly Bob Forward) into a relatively simple scheme where a pellet stream is accelerated upward by a vertical mass driver buried in the ground. The stream travels in a vertical aboveground tube where regularly spaced coils incrementally decelerate it - the reaction to the deceleration supports the tube against gravity. As the pellets reach the top of the tube most of their initial kinetic energy is gone, and they are turned around and guided into a tube parallel to the first one. This has coild which slowly accelerate the pellets downward (again, the reaction supports the tube), the power for the acceleration coming mostly from the decelerating coils at the same height in the first tube, with a makeup for resistive and other losses. By the time the pellets again reach the ground they are moving downward at the same horrendous speed they started with going upward. A buried mass driver parallel to the first decelerates them, and feeds them deep underground into the mouth of the first one, where they again are accelerated. A tower of this kind is not limited by strength/weight limits of materials, and could be grown from the ground up. Rod and Lowell did a design for this, and concluded that a 1 GW power station could keep a stalk of this able to support shuttle-sized loads and extending almost to synchronous orbital height standing. The results of a power failure would be pretty interesting. They presented their results at a southern california AAIA meeting this summer, but I don't have a reference or a copy of the paper at this time. Many other applications of this "ballistic levitation" idea are possible, and two were recently published - "The Skyrail" by Kenneth Brakke, L5 News, July 1982, pp 6:9 This describes an idea very similar to the M&M polygonal orbital pellet stream supported station mentioned above, except that the material moving at above orbital velocity supporting stations moving at below orbital velocity is a continuous belt (with expansion couplings). This has some stability and aiming advantages to using pellets, and makes it easier to (inductively) hold onto the fast moving stream to gain or shed orbital velocity. "The Launch Loop" by Keith Lofstrom, L5 News, August 1982, pp 8:9 Proposes a very long (2000 km) earth based magnetic launcher which by virtue of its great length accelerates payloads to only 3 gravities while imparting enough velocity to reach geosynchronous or lunar height. 2000 is very far for a perfectly straight run on our rough and rumbly earth, so Lofstrom proposes to levitate the whole structure 120 km above the surface (out of the way of both air and orbital traffic) by means of a closed magnetic accelerating tube which recirculates an iron ribbon 5 cm wide and 2.6 mm thick at 12 km/sec. This is faster than orbital velocity, and when made to follow the curvature of the earth produces a net upward centrifugal force which suspends the rest of the structure, which is stationary. 200 km kevlar tethers anchor it to the ground, and keep it from flying into space. His design could launch 20 five ton payloads (including passengers) to geosynchronous height and beyond. Other uses for mass drivers, such as reaction engines on an asteroid, in which solar energy is used to propel bits of rock, the reaction of which moves the asteroid (with specific impulses as high as ion rockets, if desired), have been suggested. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 02-Oct-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #2 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 2 Today's Topics: Formula for Sun Position Re: SPACE Digest V2 #316 Re: Shooting nuc. wastes into deep space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Oct 1982 0958-EDT From: PRJohnson at MIT-XX (Paul R. Johnson) Subject: Formula for Sun Position To: Sky-Fans-MIT at MIT-XX, Space at MIT-MC Does anyone know of, or know where to find, a formula or algorithm for computing the Sun's position (in right ascension and declination, or whatever) given Universal Time? Any related forumla that can be transformed into this would be useful, and accuracy need not be great (say within 1/2 a degree?). Reply to me, I'll summarize replies if people are interested. ---Paul Johnson (PRJohnson@MIT-XX) ------- ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 1982 0945-PDT From: WILKINS at SRI-AI (Wilkins ) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #316 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Your message of 30-Sep-82 0303-PDT I have just received digest 316 for the fourth time. Is something wrong? David ------- ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 82 13:38:59-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!faunt (Doug) at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Shooting nuc. wastes into deep space Article-I.D.: hplabs.832 Via: Usenet; 2 Oct 82 0:19-PDT References: sri-unix.3566 I can also see this alien saying "I`m rich, lots of radioactives" ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 03-Oct-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #3 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 3 Today's Topics: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #316 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 October 1982 06:14-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V2 #316 To: MBNORTON.SCOUTING@M at MIT-MC cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC "Jettison" usually means just dump overboard with nearly zero relative velocity. If you're in low Earth orbit and you jettison something "towards the sun", it'll still be in low Earth orbit. It takes an awful lot of delta-vee to get from low Earth orbit to trans-Solar trajectory. Nothing onboard the shuttle can apply that delta-vee. You need some kind of upper stage, carefully fired over a period of perhaps minutes, carefully aimed the whole time, to get the delta-vee in a particular direction. I don't think any normal meaning of "jettison" will do the trick. (Let's develop the SEPS. Then we'll at least be technologically capable of such feats as shoving waste into trans-Solar trajectory or going to get an asteroid and shoving it into Earth orbit.) Remember, we're in a deep gravitational well, even in LEO. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 04-Oct-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #4 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 4 Today's Topics: Re: Earthworms don"t need light Earthlight Re: chemical limits to space travel Re: chemical limits to space travel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Sep 82 13:27:59-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!intelqa!gizsys!omsvax!bc at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Earthworms don"t need light Article-I.D.: omsvax.144 Via: Usenet; 3 Oct 82 18:05-PDT References: sri-unix.3328 There's an assumption in the whole argument about not using TV at night on the Moon that TV cameras are as blind as people. Not so, as anyone who's used a Starlight 'scope can testify. A good third-generation image intensifier camera, such as are used by the military now (and were first designed in the mid-1970's) is capable of getting a usable picture by starlight on a clear, moonless night on Earth. That's the only kind of night you get on the Moon. In addition, if we are operating on the near side of the Moon (which is the place to be, since we can use line-of-sight communications for our remote control channels), we get Earthlight for a good part of the night. At worst, operations would need to be suspended for a day or two (Earth measure) around the new Earth (Lunar midnight). ------------------------------ Date: 03 Oct 1982 1952-PDT From: Hans Moravec Subject: Earthlight To: space at MIT-MC By golly, you're right! Except earthlight is at a maximum during midnight on the middle of the lunar nearside. (Full earth at midnight on midline!) It complements the sun nicely there at all times - only darkouts would happen during lunar eclipses, and even then the earth-atmosphere refracted light should give a pretty bright reddish illumination (judging from the color of the moon during a lunar eclipse). And earthlight is about 50 times brighter than moonlight, so seeing, with a reasonably light efficient sensor (not even a starlight scope) should be no problem at any time. Just before sunrise and after sunset, there's only a half-earth. Away from midline things are less symmetric, and on boundary with farside you get full earth after sunrise, and sliver of earth before sunset, or vice versa (and very low earth angle at all times besides). On the farside it really is dark half the time, so those SF stories that refer to it as the darkside aren't entirely wrong. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 1982 11:46-PDT From: dietz at usc-cse Subject: Re: chemical limits to space travel To: minsky@mit-oz,space@mit-mc Origin: usc-cse I don't think the laser propulsion scheme is a valid rebuttal to Heppenheimer's position. He argued that chemical rockets and any space program based on them are mature. A workable laser scheme would be a radically different technology. Also, I don't think just *proposing* a scheme is adequate. A working model is necessary. The laser based launch systems have serious practical difficulties: laser inefficiencies, laser accuracy, atmospheric limits on power density. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Oct 1982 11:46-PDT From: dietz at usc-cse Subject: Re: chemical limits to space travel To: space@mit-mc Origin: usc-cse I don't think the laser propulsion scheme is a valid rebuttal to Heppenheimer's position. He argued that chemical rockets and any space program based on them are mature. A workable laser scheme would be a radically different technology. Also, I don't think just *proposing* a scheme is adequate. A working model is necessary. The laser based launch systems have serious practical difficulties: laser inefficiencies, laser accuracy, atmospheric limits on power density. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 05-Oct-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #5 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 5 Today's Topics: Re: Earthworms don"t need light ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 October 1982 21:42-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: Earthworms don"t need light To: menlo70!sri-unix!hplabs!intelqa!gizsys!omsvax!bc at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Could you possibly not have checked the geometry before sending your message? Assuming the lunar station is on the near side of the Moon, say at the point facing directly towards Earth, new-Earth is at noon, not at midnight. At midnight the Earth is full. Look at it this way, the Sun is either beyond Earth in the direction you're facing, at noon, or behind your back shining right on the part of Earth you're watching, or at some angle between. Worst case is just before sunrise or just after sunset when the moonbase gets no direct light and only half the maximum Earthshine, or during a dark lunar eclipse. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 06-Oct-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #6 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 6 Today's Topics: Moonworms ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Oct 1982 2257-EDT From: MINSKY at MIT-OZ Subject: Moonworms To: space at MIT-MC cc: REM at MIT-MC Gee, these nightwalks are gonna be fun. I don't see any difficulty about the robot's vision, in view of those correct arguments about always having at least half-earthlight at the worst twilight hours. The robot eyes can be made suitably high gain from the start, so they don't have to wear special intensifier glasses. As for the people, I think we have all been forgetting one annoying fact - radiation. Except for occasional spacewalks, us poor worms will need the equivalent of a lot of shielding mass during the long haul. I forget what's needed. At the worst times - e.g., during solar flares, you need equivalent of a meter or two of rock. The rest of the time, I suppose you need a good couple of decimeters of earth between you and nothingness - in the lunar daytime. So in the day, you have to stay home in your cave. If this is correct, then most human exo-work will have to take place in the evenings. So the problems will be more of staying warm than staying cold - which was the problem for Apollo moonwalks. That's good, I think. Presumably it is much easier to heat spacesuits than cool them. (Or does the evaporation of breathing air supply enough cooling without extra help?) It occurs to me that there's also emergency heat within easy reach, if you get stuck out there. Just scrape some soil away, and bask in the almost-glowing subsoil. Anyone know the depth-temperature curve for lunar permafrost? ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 07-Oct-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #7 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 7 Today's Topics: Excerpt from New Scientist ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wednesday, 6 October 1982 19:27-EDT From: Jon Webb To: space at MIT-MC Subject: Excerpt from New Scientist Cc: webb at CMU-20C From the 30 September New Scientist: PRIVATE ENTERPRISE CATCHES A DOSE OF SPACE FEVER American companies are beginning to muscle in on the profitable applications of space technology. Comsat, a satellite operator in Washington, plans to run up to a dozen craft for observing the weather or mapping the Earth. The satellites' operators are at present either NASA or the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Meanwhile, a group of businesspeople says it wants to develop a small but powerful rocket called Centaur for commercial applications. The government is providing $450 million to develop Centaur as a booster that will lift scientific payloads from the shuttle to high orbits. Orbital Systems of Chicago wants to take over the rocket and sell it to customers for $30 million per launch. The proposition will appeal to firms that want to put satellites into orbits higher than 500 km, which is about as far as the shuttle can travel above the Earth. An inertial upper stage, which is due to make its debut in November of the shuttle's first operational flight, can take satellites higher. But this stage lacks power and can lift into orbit only relatively light payloads. The commercial moves come on top of the successful launch by Space Services of Houston of a prototype rocket which it says will carry satellites into space more cheaply than NASA's vehicles. Also, a firm in Princeton called Space Transportation wants to buy a space shuttle for $1000 million for commercial trips into space. James Beggs, NASA's admintrator, is a keen advocate of private enterprise. He says he would like private companies to take over complete responsibility for running launch vehicles like the shuttle, leaving his agency to concentrate on research and development. Comsaha christened "Earthstar" its proposed network of weather and land-resources satellists. The network would comprise the Landsat-D mapping satellists now in orbit, plus a similar craft due to be launched in the next couple of years. It would also operate the weather satellites run by NOAA, including the GOES craft, in geostationary orbit. Paul Maughan, the director of Comsat's Earthstar programme, refuses to say exactly how much his company would pay the government to run the satellites. But this would probably be in the region of $500 million. But governments and private companies have invested $1000 million over the past decade in the Landsat programme alone. This includes the cost of putting up four satellites (of which only Landsat-D is transmitting useful data) and of running ground stations (which would be included in the package that Comsat wants to buy from the government). Critics doubt the desirability of transferring to the private sector hardware which, they say, it is important for the government to control. For instance, developing countries could argue that a private firm would be unwilling to guarantee access to data from remote-sensing satellites. The transfer could thus unsettle the US's relations with the rest of the world. Comsat shrugs off these reservations. Maughan says that his organisation is much better qualified than government agencies at operating satellites and selling their data to customers. At present, the Landsat system recoups about $5 million per year by selling data, but runs at a considerable loss. Information from the weather satellites is made available free to other government organisations around the world including Britain's Met Office. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 08-Oct-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #8 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 8 Today's Topics: Student Experiments in Space Re: Student Experiments in Space Throwing away nuclear "waste". Excerpt from New Scientist More on STS-5 Spacewalk Japaneese Shuttle ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Oct 82 7:27:59-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Student Experiments in Space Aboard STS-5 this November will be experiments from Michlle Issel, Aaron K. Gillette, and D. Scott Thomas, all 18 years old. All of the experiments deal with crystal growth in weightlessness. They are hoping to provide new insight on collagen. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 82 16:41:31-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Student Experiments in Space I must apologize! I said this morning that all three student experiments to be aboard STS-5 dealt with crystal growth in flight. That is totally incorrect (I didn't read the article closely enough; ah well, it was early) Michelle Issel's experiment deals with crystal growth in micro- gravity; D. Scott Thomas' experiment deals with the effect of weightlessness on convection currents, and Aaron K. Gillette's experiment deals with the effects of weightlessness on sponge cell colonies. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Oct 1982 at 1613-CDT From: vomlehn at utexas-11 Subject: Throwing away nuclear "waste". One thing which discussion on shooting nuclear wastes into space or into the sun or wherever is that we may WANT them later on. There are all sorts of interesting isotopes in the wastes from various reactors and just because we haven't found a use yet doesn't mean that they won't be useful in the future and it might be rather expensive to have to make them from scratch rather than simply seperating them. Also, as a side note, it is possible to subject the wastes to high density neutron beams (such as may be generated by certain fussion reactions) and thereby transmute them into radioactivly inert elements. ------------------------------ Date: 7 October 1982 19:29-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Excerpt from New Scientist Would the proposed Centaur rocket for LEO-to-HEO maneuvers use standard chemical-burning technology? How would it compare to the ion rocket (SEPS) for cost of development, time from start-design until operational, specific impulse, etc.? I.e. is the Centaur a temporary device to get us by until the SEPS can be developed, or is it a total waste of time&money compared to SEPS, or is it as good as SEPS? Should we develop just the Centaur, or just the SEPS, or both? ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 82 16:47:24-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: More on STS-5 Spacewalk The objectives for the STS-5 spacewalk were revealed by NASA today. On day four of the five day flight, mission specialists Joe Allen and William Lenoir will walk into the cargo bay while the bay doors are open and take a space walk (termed so because of the lack of an artificial environment) The main goals of the 3 hour walk will be to test out the new space suits, the procedures for Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA), and also the tools that are hoped to be used on STS-13, sometime in 1984, to repair the Solar Maximum Satellite. On days 1 and 2 of STS-5, two satellites will be launched from the cargo bay via spring like devices. The landing of STS-5 will be the first try at a fully automated landing, though the crew will be ready to take manual control if necessary. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 82 10:38:32-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: teklabs!tekid!jm at Ucb-C70 Subject: Japaneese Shuttle Article-I.D.: tekid.484 Via: Usenet; 8 Oct 82 0:17-PDT The following is taken from a copyrighted article in Aviation Week and Space Technology (must reading for space types). Japan Studies Small Shuttle Development Paris--- Japan is evaluating development of a small shuttle orbiter-type vehicle as part of future planning studies underway at NASDA, Japan's space development agency. Japanese representatives attending the International Astro- nautical Federation (IAF) conference here said the shuttle studies are in the early concept stage. Initial evaluations have defined a vehicle capable of carrying 3 crewmembers - pilot, copilot and flight engineer/specialist. The studies include the use of air- breathing jet engines on the vehicle to provide powered flight for the final phase of the return to earth. The Japanese representatives said NASDA is moving ahead with its near term plans to widen the country's system of expendable launch vehicles and is still targeting the start of test missions with the new H=1 vehicle in 1986. The H-1 is a follow-on to the Japanese N-series launchers, and is expected to enter operational service in the late 1980s. (AW&ST, Oct 4, 1982) I wonder if the Japanese will do for space what they did for cars and consumer electronics. Is there a Nissan Shuttle in our future? Jeff Mizener Tektronix, Beaverton ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 09-Oct-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #9 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 9 Today's Topics: Centaur upper stage neutron neutralization Computer simulation of space operations Conestoga in Discover Mag ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 October 1982 0924-EDT (Friday) From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30) To: rem at MIT-MC Subject: Centaur upper stage CC: space at MIT-MC Message-Id: <08Oct82 092410 DS30@CMU-10A> The "new" Centaur upper stage is also known as the "wide-body Centaur." It is a new version of the H2/O2 Centaur which has been flying on top of Atlases for 20 years. The difference is that its fuel tank is much wider, for more efficient use of the Shuttle payload bay. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 1982 09:25:04-PDT From: jef at LBL-UNIX (Jef Poskanzer [rtsg]) To: vomlehn at utexas-11 Subject: neutron neutralization Cc: space at mit-mc Date: 4 Oct 1982 at 1613-CDT From: vomlehn at utexas-11 Subject: Throwing away nuclear "waste". ... Also, as a side note, it is possible to subject the wastes to high density neutron beams (such as may be generated by certain fussion reactions) and thereby transmute them into radioactivly inert elements. This seems VERY unlikely. Since the heavy, fissile isotopes all have an excess of neutrons, their daughter nuclei will generally have an even larger excess of neutrons. That is why they are radioactive. Bombarding these guys with even more neutrons, it seems to me, would just make the problem worse. Sure, some of the nuclei would give up and beta-decay or fiss instantly, but most would just absorb the neutron and become more radioactive. For more information on these processes, see the Scientific American article called "Nuclei Far From Stability", from sometime in mid-1978, by J. Cerny and some other guy. A very good article, even if the computer graphics are substandard. Rumors of this technology seem to be very common these days, along with ultra-cheap solar power and other perpetual motion machines of the third type. Would that it were true... --- Jef ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 1982 16:44:18-PDT From: A.exp@Berkeley To: u:space@mit-mc Subject: Computer simulation of space operations There was another article about Grumman tactical simulation using computers in the new Aviation Week and Space Technology. Another such project, at Boeing, sponsored by ARPA, was discussed in a previous issue, about 9 months ago. Also, if anyone is interested in space colonization simulation, please contact me, because I would like to see if there is enough interest to have facilities established. P. S. I sent the above message about 3 days ago originally, but have not seen it in the space digest, nor have any possible responses gotten to me. I have also only received the Friday digest, and am therefore uncertain what mail may have been sent to me. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Oct 1982 2038-PDT From: Den Lenahan Subject: Conestoga in Discover Mag To: space at MIT-MC Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940. Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161 The November 82 issue of Discover Magazine has a pretty good article on the flight of Conestoga I. Pages 36-42 with the title: A "No Frills" Trip into Space. Three nice photos of the lift-off (and, for contrast, a photo of the 1981 explosion). There's also an insert article on page 42 called: Meanwhile, A Setback for the Europeans. The latter is about a half-page on the recent Ariane failure. In my opinion, worth a look (if you don't mind Discover's Readers' Digest-Newsweek hybrid style). Dennis ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 10-Oct-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #10 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 10 Today's Topics: Mass drivers: update Elimination of nuclear wastes by neutron irradiation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Oct 1982 0647-EDT From: HPM at CMU-20C Subject: Mass drivers: update To: space at MIT-MC addendum to message of a few days ago - A recent survey of electromagnetic launching can be found in "An alternative launching medium" by Henry Kolm and Peter Mongeau, IEEE Spectrum, V19 #4, April 1982. A comprehensive overview, containing 30 papers from the 1980 conference on Electromagnetic Guns and Launchers, is found in IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, V MAG-18 #1, January 1982. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 9 OCT 1982 1959-EDT From: BRUC at MIT-ML (Robert E. Bruccoleri) Subject: Elimination of nuclear wastes by neutron irradiation To: jef at LBL-UNIX CC: space at MIT-MC Without knowing the beta decay rate for a variety of neutron enriched isotopes, one cannot categorically eliminate transmutation as a means for eliminating nuclear waste. As long as the steady state absorption of neutrons by a mix of waste material is less than beta decay for the mix, and if stable isotopes can be removed efficiently, the method could work. It is true that neutron absorption will lead to heavier isotopes, but they will be more likely to fission. The mean molecular weight for a continually irradiated mass would not necessarily be very large, and it may contain a significant quantity of stable isotopes. I would guess the data is available to simulate this process accurately to see if it could work. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 11-Oct-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #11 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 11 Today's Topics: Shuttle Ahead of Schedule ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Oct 82 22:35:11-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Shuttle Ahead of Schedule Article-I.D.: alice.968 Via: Usenet; 10 Oct 82 4:07-PDT With the process of loading the highly volatile nitrogen tetroxide and monomethyl hydrazine into the Columbia's Orbital Maneuvering System completed (they started loading Tuesday and finished today), the preparations for the launch of STS-5 are 8 hours ahead of schedule. Tuesday, The Canadian Anik and Satellite Business Systems satellites will be moved into the Columbia's white room. At that time, they will be in a container for testing and if they are OK, they will be placed in the cargo bay on 18 October. They are to be ejected from the cargo bay by a giant spring and then their own motors will ignite to carry them to geostationary orbit. NASA is charging each company $10 million for the ride. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 12-Oct-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #12 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 12 Today's Topics: centaur ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Oct 1982 0948-PDT From: Richard M. King Subject: centaur To: space at MIT-MC cc: king at KESTREL Does anyone out there know how its doing? I was reading in September 10th's Science about a flap as to whether NASA should be allowed to modify Centaur for the Shuttle, or forced to accept a new High Energy Upper Stage. Dick ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 13-Oct-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #13 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 13 Today's Topics: Fate of the Centaur ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 OCT 1982 0002-EDT From: BRUC at MIT-ML (Robert E. Bruccoleri) Subject: Fate of the Centaur To: space at MIT-MC CC: king at KESTREL The amendment to the HUD - Independent Agencies Bill to delete Centaur funding was rejected by the House by a large margin. Apparently, the Air Force decided that it would need the Centaur's power to haul shielded satellites into geosynchronous orbit. The amendment to delete Centaur funding was sponsored by Ronnie Flippo. Details about the vote appeared in a recent issue of Science (about two weeks ago). ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 14-Oct-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #14 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 14 Today's Topics: GUTS and total conversion We are alone Comet Interception Listening to the Shttle ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Oct 1982 10:07-PDT From: dietz at usc-cse Subject: GUTS and total conversion To: space@mit-mc,energy@mit-mc Origin: usc-cse I'm fascinated by recent results concerning Grand Unified TheorieS (GUTS) of elementary particles. There are several promising directions for baryon-number nonconserving interactions. One example is proton decay. It is thought (if GUTS are right) that the proton has a half-life of about 1.0E31 years (give or take). When it decays most of its energy is released (in the form of a positron and a neutral pion). A very effcient energy source, if very slow. Of greater interest is the GUTS monopole. It is very massive (1.0E16 Gev, as opposed to about 1 Gev for a proton). Near the particle itself the broken symmetries of oridnary space are reunified, allowing baryon number changing interactions. Monopole catalysed total converion becomes a possibility. Of greatest interest is the possibility of neutron oscillations. Some GUTS suggest that neutrons, under certain conditions, should "oscillate" between neutron/anti-neutron states with a time-scale of 1E5 to 1E7 seconds. A recent paper in Nature (30-Sept-82, ppp.427-428) points out that this could provide an explanation for a stubborn puzzle from cosmic ray physics. Physicists have found a very puzzling oversupply of anti-protons in cosmic rays. Numerous explanations have been attempted but have been contradicted by the absence of high levels of anti-neutrino's, gamma's and anti-helium4. The paper suggests that neutrons produced by supernovae oscillate into anti-neutrons which then decay into anti-protons. The process could also occur with solar flare neutrons. A single supernova could produce 1E16 kilograms of anti-protons. So why hasn't this been observed? Because the neutron has a magnetic moment, the oscillations are suppressed by magnetic fields. The interstellar field is only 1E-6 to 1E-7 gauss. Even so, only about .01% of the neutrons produced by a SN will oscillate before they decay. The oscillation rate is inversely proportional to the square of the magnetic field, so neutron oscillations are suppressed on earth (mag field around a gauss). I presume that the interactions between nucleons in a nucleus also suppresses oscillations. If this is true there's an energy efficient way to manufacture antimatter: produce neutrons, place them in a superconducting bag from which all mag fields have been expelled, and wait. Some of the neutrons will oscillate into anti-neutrons and decay, giving anti-hydrogen. From there to a starship is just (!) engineering. ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 13 October 1982 18:19-EDT From: Jon Webb To: Space at MIT-MC Subject: We are alone Cc: webb at CMU-20C There's an interesting article in the 7 October New Scientist which suggests that we are the only intelligent life in the universe. The article is too long to type in here, but I'll try to summarize the argument. The author is Frank J. Tipler, of Tulane University. There are two basic reasons Dr Tipler argues this: (1) "All the great contemporary experts on the theory of evolution -- Franciso Ayala, Theodosius Dobzjansky, Ernst Mayr and George Simpson -- are unanimous in claiming that the evolution of an intelligent species from simple one-celled organisms is so improbable that we are likely to be the only intelligent species ever to exist." (2) It would be easy for any intelligent species to leave evidence of its existence, and we observe no such evidence. Point (1) is based on the idea that intelligent behavior is based on several evolutionary changes, and that until the level of increased intelligence is reached, no evolutionary advantage is gained, and in fact there is some disadvantage (because the nervous system is more complicated). So it is extremely unlikely that intelligent behavior would evolve. Point (2) is based on the idea that very soon (within 100 years) we will have the capability for making self-reproducing machines which, once the first one is launched, will colonize the entire galaxy within 300 million years (even using conventional rocket technology). Such a machine will work by going to a solar system, mining asteroids to reproduce itself, sending off the copies, then exploring the solar system for various purposes, including colonization. If such a machine existed in our solar system, we would have had evidence of it long ago. Since we observe no such machines, there are no other intelligent beings in the universe (or at least no others interested in meeting other intelligent beings). Tipler concludes that it is a waste of time and money to be looking for radio signals from extraterrestial civilizations. If such civilizations were interested in being found, we would have noticed them long ago. Jon ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 1982 2003-EDT From: Clifford V. R. Ludwi Subject: Comet Interception To: space at MIT-MC cc: ludwig at MIT-XX The Oct. 11 issue of AW&ST had a very interesting article about diverting the International Sun Earth Explorer (ISEE) 3 probe to observe comet Giacobini-Zinner in Sept., 1985. This would mean that the US will be the first country to directly observe a comet. This mission will beat the international Halley mission by about six months. Also of note; this is an EXISTING spacecraft that is being diverted from its current mission for this event. Unfortunately, the diversion will preclude completion of its assigned mission. The mission has already started. If all goes as planned, ISEE 3 will use the moon for gravity assist, passing within about 60 mi. of the lunar surface (final trajectory planning will be completed as more is known about the comet's orbital parameters). ISEE 3 does not have imaging equipment aboard, but it "should be able to return information on plasma densities, flow speeds, temperatures and the character of heavy ions in the tail". It is hoped that the probe will pass within 1864 mi. of the comet nucleus. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 13 October 1982 21:43-EDT From: Stewart Cobb Subject: Listening to the Shttle To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Someone at Johnson Space Flight Center told me that, during Shuttle flights, a ham radio club at JPL broadcasts on shortwave the Shuttle-to-Houston communications (the same signal you can hear on Bell's "900 number"). If this is true, it would save many of us a lot of money in phone bills. Can someone in L.A. get details on this? By the way, Johnson broadcasts the signal on 171.5 MHz (FM), for the benefit of its off-duty mission controllers (I believe that's the correct frequency, but I'm not totally sure). Unfortunately, it's strictly a local broadcast. Stewart Cobb (hsc @ mit-mc) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 15-Oct-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #15 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 15 Today's Topics: Re: We are alone Alone We are alone Re: Comet Interception Re: More on STS-5 Spacewalk ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Oct 1982 8:43-PDT From: dietz at usc-cse Subject: Re: We are alone To: webb@cmu-20c,space@mit-mc Origin: usc-cse This has already been discussed in space digest within the past year. I still don't think anyone has refuted ------------------------------ Date: 14 Oct 1982 1715-EDT From: MINSKY at MIT-OZ Subject: Alone To: space at MIT-MC cc: minsky at MIT-OZ The arguments about evolution and intelligence are presumably wrong. They usually have the form: "I am a famous evolutionist, and I can't figure out how an early form of a wing could help an animal fly. Therefore the evolution of birds is extremely unlikely and can have only happened once in the universe." Yet insects and bats and spiders and, soon, squirrels, and soon, some fish may make it. I find it hard to see how almost any vestige of intelligence or learning could fail to be useful. It only has to find a niche that pays off against the biolgical cost of the extra cells or whatever. As for Tipler's other arguments, each must be dealt with by itself. One can't retyute it because he might be right. But, in a few hundred years we may grow enough to understand: THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF EXTRA-PLANETARY LIFE: IT IS AN UNPARDONABLE CRIME TO UNLEASH ANY SELF-REPRODUCING FORM, OUT OF CONTROL, INTO THE UNIVERSE. Presumably, anyone can figure this out, including Tipler. The punishment is cultural sterilization, if you are caught doing this. So inteligent races will think twice about making fast-spreading self-reproducing forms. As for the rest, there is that little problem of Defense. Perhaps most intelligent cultures waver between boasting about their accomplishments, and prudently waiting to see what the others are like. In that scenario, we'd have a universe of intelligent races each waiting to be sure that the others have only good intentions. I should add that you must remember that all members of advanced civilizations are immortal. Everyone seems to forget this. In a few hundred years Man, too, can choose immortality. At that point, your attitude probably changes subtly. Today we think nothing of sending out radio signals that will be detected at the hub of the Galaxy in a few millenia. "Who cares what they do about it, we say, we'll be all dead by then." But our descendants will not have that excuse, so they'll think twice about revealing their existence. ------------------------------ Date: 14 October 1982 21:30-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: We are alone To: Webb at CMU-20C cc: SPACE at MIT-MC There are already several independent evolutions of intelligence on our own planet. These include: Dolphins porposes and whales; Octipus. I don't consider monkeys and apes independent, we're just the most intelligent ape, but the two above are truly independent. What makes us humans different from our monkey cousins and independent mollusks and sea-mammals is that we have a compulsion to try new things even if not immediately useful, to take anything that seems to be winning, and to even make personal modifications to get better versions than what we wer given. Witness teenagers adapting our language to suit their needs for club passwords and jargon etc., as well as more useful scientific jargon. Compare to gorillas chimpanzies and Subject: Re: Comet Interception To: space at MIT-MC Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940. Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161 While it's true that the ISEE 3 probe will catch Giacobini-Zinner about six months before the Soviets, the French and the Japanese catch Halley's, I think an AP story out of Washington nails down the underlying reason. AP referred to the method as a "bargain basement way" since it is expected to cost $1.5 million compared to the estimated $250 to $500 million to probe Halley's with a new launch. This conveniently ignores any lost-opportunity cost associated with precluding the first mission completion. But it seems to be a viable way of getting there "fustest", if not with the "mostest". The AP article says that a short burn a month ago has ISEE 3 moving away from the sun such that it'll be "behind" Earth by Christmas. Another burn on Feb 6, '83, is required to make the gravity-assist move past the moon. While most of us probably would have preferred to see a US probe to Halley's, let's wish ISEE 3 lots of cosmic luck. (Or is it ISECE 1 now? C as in Comet.) Dennis ------- ------------------------------ Date: 6 Oct 82 22:47:06-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: npois!houxi!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!aka779 at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: More on STS-5 Spacewalk Article-I.D.: inuxd.178 In-Reply-To: Article alice.964 Via: Usenet; 14 Oct 82 22:18-PDT I've recently heard that if one's chosen experiment requires one'spresence, one would be taken aboard for the flight on the Shuttle. Does any one out there have some experiment thatrequires a retina scan...? --Arlan Andrews, BEll Labs, Indy. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 16-Oct-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #16 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 16 Today's Topics: Challenger's Engines Delayed NASA to catch a comet - (nf) I don't think we're alone We are alone Re: Comet Interception Re: Re: Comet Interception ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Oct 82 7:22:45-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Challenger's Engines Delayed Article-I.D.: alice.974 Via: Usenet; 15 Oct 82 3:45-PDT The three main engines of the Challenger, supposed to have arrived last month, still are not at KSC. They are at Rockwell International's test site. Before installation, the engines must be certified by Rockwell for use. Two of the three have been certified after 500 second test firings, but the third was seen to have been leaking, so they are doing more tests on it. NASA says the delays could push the 20 January launch date back by a week. They hope to test fire the engines on the pad by Christmas. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Oct 82 18:25:55-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!pur-ee!davy at Ucb-C70 Subject: NASA to catch a comet - (nf) Article-I.D.: pur-ee.585 Via: Usenet; 15 Oct 82 4:06-PDT #N:pur-ee:3800004:000:1190 pur-ee!davy Oct 14 13:13:00 1982 WASHINGTON (AP) - The space agency has found a bargain-basement way to beat the Soviets and be the first nation to catch a comet. It won't be Halley's comet; catching up with Halley's would cost $250 million to $500 million, too high for the Reagan administration. Instead, a satellite already in space and parked a million away will be sent to the comet Giacobini-Zinner in September 1985 - six months before the Soviets, the French and Japanese send three probes to Halley's. The cost: Less than $1.5 million. "It will be the first measurements of a comet and its environment by a spacecraft," said Charles Redmond, a NASA spokesman. But, he added, the space agency was not "going out to make a big public splash" about its attempt to glean information about the celestial bodies, which follow an elliptical or parabolic orbit around the sun. ........ filter out boring stuff ........ If the complicated procedures work, the spacecraft will pass through the several thousand mile wide tail of the comet on Sept. 11, 1985, to within 44 million miles of the head. Taken from the Purdue Exponent, 10-14-82. --Dave Curry pur-ee!davy ------------------------------ Date: Friday, 15 October 1982, 11:46-EDT From: John Batali Subject: I don't think we're alone To: space at mit-mc The facts are these: we have precisely one example of a planet where life appeared (Earth); one example where it didn't (the Moon) and one example where the evidence is inconclusive but negative (Mars). We have no quantitative theory for predicting the probabilities for the appearance of life forms on planets -- we don't know enough what life >is< to make any such theories. (But even assuming carbon-based, proteins, and nucleic acids type life, no such theory is forthcoming -- ask a physical chemist for the physical structure of water at 30 degrees C to get an idea how far we are from such a theory. [hint: he won't be able to tell you.]) My point is that, as scientists, we have no reason to say, either way, if there could be other life in the universe. One positive data point >can< just be an anomaly -- we don't know how much of an anomaly it would be either way (ie if there is lotsa life, or there isn't any at all). Believing either side is purely a matter of faith (faith = belief by choice, rather than by reason). Hypothesizing is a different matter. For example, it is perfectly OK to pursue a hypothesis generated and held by faith. Just don't claim, without qualification, that it's TRUE. ------------------------------ Date: Friday, 15 October 1982 09:57-EDT From: Jon Webb To: Robert Elton Maas Cc: webb at CMU-20C, SPACE at MIT-MC Subject: We are alone Well, if there are lots of whale-level "intelligent" beings out there we won't detect them by listening to radio signals. That was the main point of the article, that listening for intelligence is a waste of time and money. And anyway it's not really clear how intelligent sea-mammals are, though let's please not take up that argument here. I don't think there's a lot of evidence that octopi are very intelligent. Jon ------------------------------ Date: 15 October 1982 19:23-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: Comet Interception To: DLENAHAN at USC-ISIE cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I think the current diversion of a solar satellite for comet duty points out the desirability of having many spacecraft out there at the same time. If we have lots of craft already out of Earth's gravity well, going random directions and in random places around the Sun, then when something new arrives, a comet typically, we can pick the craft nearest it which is going in about the right direction and divert it from its planned duties to comet duties. This is the same argument that has been used for advocating having lots of manned spacecraft in LEO at all times in case somebody needs to be rescued. I'd like to see a lot more stuff put up there doing routine scientific measurements until an opportunity arises to divert it to something rare and interesting. As for loss of data from the original mission, it's been up there 4 years so it's probably gotten a reasonable amount of info already. The info it woul have gotten in the future if not diverted would be much more redundant than the original data. It would be useful for establishing trends over time, and for taking averages to get more accurate estimates, and possibly valuable if a major event such as a big solar flare or supernova occurred, but otherwise we could say that the major part of the data is already gathered and the comet duty would be more informative than continued originally-planned duties. -- Can somebody with more specific knowledge about this particular space mission confirm or criticize my general observations above? ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 1982 2146-PDT From: Den Lenahan Subject: Re: Re: Comet Interception To: rem at MIT-MC cc: space at MIT-MC Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940. Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161 Re: Maas Msg of 15 Oct 83, 19:23-EDT. I absolutely concur with the desirability of having many spacecraft "out there" available to be diverted to interesting missions. But I wouldn't mind seeing ISEE 3 go to Giacobini-Zinner AND a US probe to Halley's, using the ISEE data to tweak the info gathering equipment on the second probe in case there're surprises....things we should be measuring in Halley's, but won't know we should be measuring until we get the feedback from G-Z. Let's hope any G-Z data of importance gets passed to the three countries who will be trying to visit Halley's in '85. What the AP article said about the changed mission was (quoting now): "Many solar physicists wanted to keep it there, performing its original mission. But they were overruled by those who wanted to take the opportunity to sample a comet." Dennis ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 18-Oct-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #17 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 17 Today's Topics: Re: Alone????? Re: We are alone SPACE Digest V3 #16 Alone Alone Alone. Alone. I doubt we're alone Re: We are alone We are not alone! I don't think we're alone Re: We are alone - (nf) what's the number? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Oct 82 12:52:22-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!CSvax.Physics.els at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Alone????? Article-I.D.: pur-phy.517 Via: Usenet; 15 Oct 82 22:46-PDT What makes Tipler (or anyone else, for that matter) think that a civil- ization will send out a few self-replicating robot ships. What do they get out of it? If you're going to under take such a project, why not just build a little bit bigger and do a .1c ark. At least then you get the added benefit of preserving the species. For scientific interest, most stars are just like most other ones, so just shoot some high velocity probes at points of astro- physical interest. To contact other civilizations, electromagnetic radiation is definitely more cost effective(and faster, too!). All in all, I find the xeroxing robot idea totally unsatisifactory for explaining lack of contact. Of course, I could be wrong. In that case, contact hasn't been made simply because we haven't performed a complete survey of the asteroids yet! els[Eric Strobel] pur-ee!pur-phy!els ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 82 19:05:16-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!duke!bcw at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: We are alone Article-I.D.: duke.2642 Via: Usenet; 16 Oct 82 1:16-PDT From: Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University Re: Replicating robots Actually there is a stronger form of Tipler's argument, which says that what would be replicated would be colonists, that is, an intelligent race would send out colonists (space arks or whatever) to different systems, and that they would send colonists to other systems, etc. *This* could be the reason for expansion - it is certainly a lot more plausible than just a lot of replicating robots. There is still the question of whether the drive towards expansion and "progress" (in that sense) would be universal or would persist in an extremely advanced society. Even if it took 1000 years for the colonists to settle in a system and start sub- colonies of their own, they should have settled the entire galaxy by now. I don't buy the idea that intelligence is relatively recent because secondary stars are new. The primary stars must have gone supernova back about 10 billion years ago (give or take a billion), so there is plenty of time for intelligence to develop which could in principle be *billions* of years ahead of us (the idea is that the appropriate elements like carbon and oxygen were formed by those supernovae). Tipler's argument is fairly powerful, but it seems to me that there are some weaknesses in it which may topple the entire structure: o It appears that the major means for detecting intelligence is radio emissions. Considering the technology, it is probable that any technological civilization knows about radio waves; however, this does not mean that they are used for long-range communications. They may be used only for very short-range communications since broadcasting an omnidirectional signal is expensive from an energy point of view if the range is any significant distance (already, unidirectional signals are used by much of the broadlast industry on earth). The radio spectrum is also a rather scarce resource (there's only so much bandwidth, and no amount of technology can get more), so it might be used for short-range communications and things like lasers and masers used for long-range (inter-stellar) communications. This alone could probably account for the absence of signals. o There are some anomolies which have been detected which may be due to other intelligences (though that is not the only explanation which has been advanced). For example, there have been objects detected which do not radiate in the visible spectrum but which do radiate in the infra-red spectrum. This sounds suspiciously like the Dyson sphere idea (surround a sun with a sphere to catch *all* of its energy output). I'm not saying that that is the most probable explanation, just that this hypothesis cannot yet be conclusively ruled out. o It is also possible that an inter-species understanding to allow societies to mature until they would be "enriched" by contact rather than overwhelmed. Thus, there could be a concerted effort to avoid contact with developing worlds or societies long before any technological intelligence has developed there. In other words, although the argument has a certain amount of force, there are enough weaknesses in its initial assumptions that it is rendered somewhat moot. Given its initial assumptions however the conclusion is practically inescapeable. Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University ------------------------------ Date: Saturday, 16 October 1982 18:15-EDT From: RLL at SCRC-TENEX To: Space-request at MIT-MC Cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Subject: SPACE Digest V3 #16 In-reply-to: The message of 16 Oct 1982 06:02-EDT from Ted Anderson Please remove me from this mailing list. Thankx. -Rick ------------------------------ Date: Saturday, 16 October 1982 14:42-EDT From: Jon Webb To: MINSKY at MIT-OZ Cc: webb at CMU-20C, space at MIT-MC Subject: Alone THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF EXTRA-PLANETARY LIFE: IT IS AN UNPARDONABLE CRIME TO UNLEASH ANY SELF-REPRODUCING FORM, OUT OF CONTROL, INTO THE UNIVERSE. Presumably, anyone can figure this out, including Tipler. The punishment is cultural sterilization, if you are caught doing this. So inteligent races will think twice about making fast-spreading self-reproducing forms. I assume you mean that some inter-stellar government is responsible for enforcing this law, not that it enforces itself. It is a little hard to imagine such a government existing and our not being aware of it, especially since we will shortly have the capability for unleashing such a form ourselves. Presumably any government that has the capability of cultural sterilization is not afraid of revealing itself to other civilizations in the universe. If there is no other intelligent life in the universe, then the reason for your law disappears. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Saturday, 16 October 1982 21:28-EDT Sender: MINSKY at MIT-OZ From: MINSKY at MIT-MC To: Jon Webb Cc: space at MIT-MC Subject: Alone In-reply-to: The message of 16 Oct 1982 14:42-EDT from Jon Webb ------- ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 1982 2154-EDT From: MINSKY at MIT-OZ Subject: Alone. To: space at MIT-MC cc: webb at CMU-20C, minsky at MIT-OZ Well, I was partly joking. I meant first that intelligent cultures might think of reasons NOT to expand recklessly, and this would be why we don't see a lot of Dyson spheres. Among the reason for this possibility is that I believe intelligent cultures might ALL choose to convert themselves to intelligent-machine form as soon as that option is available. The advantage is immortality and immunity from biological suffering. Then, it may turn out that they will discover forms of memory-sharing in which the proliferation of many individuals makes less sense tha it does to us. Second, I didn't mean that there has to be a visible super-power in the galaxy, in order that one might fear one's existence. Any sensible culture that has been invisible up to now must have thought of Tipler's argument and wondered what happens to those who show themselves. Perhaps there is, they'll think, some more powerful enforcer or predator. So, I meant, maybe they're all waiting to be sure it's safe. I don't mean that I'm not disturbed by the argument, either. By the standards of our own human behavior, you'd certainly expect anyone who was able to would think about arranging all the nearby stars into prominent dodecahedra or whatever they thought was pretty. All I'm saying is that the super-intelligent might think a little longer. We can't outguess them, of course, since they're smarter. I'm only suggesting that even at our level, there might be some conservative, military-type reasons to be careful. Another argument goes like this, by the way: once you reach OUR level, it is a mere thousand years before you (i) convert yourself to abstract digital form and (ii) understand all of physics. What happens then? Well, we can't say. But it seems likely that (i) you would leave ordinary expanded-matter stars and move to condensed places like neutron stars in which you can computer things 10**12 times faster. Perhaps Dr. Forward could suggest other reasons. Then, when you figure out what you want, perhaps you beam yourself into a black hole where things are (according to your new theory) even better. Well, that's all whistling in the dark, of course. I agree that there is a puzzle about our not having seen signs of life, yet. I also think those evolutionary arguments are very, very weak - that is, about the appearance of intelligence after life has started. But I don't think we should jump to conclusions yet. If neutron stars are the place for intelligence to go, for example, then their interstellar messages would be emitted at much higher frequencies than we're prepared to receive, since radio antennas would be impractical. Perhaps they simply send carefully aimed neutrino beams to other places dense enough to receive them easily.. ------- ------------------------------ Date: Saturday, 16 October 1982 22:21-EDT From: Jon Webb To: MINSKY at MIT-OZ at MIT-MC Cc: webb at CMU-20C, space at MIT-MC Subject: Alone. Well, I agree that the evolutionary arguments are very weak. Arguing from a single example is extremely difficult. But I think the argument about the Von Neumann machines is strong. Even if intelligent beings reach a point where they don't interact with our universe any more, you would expect them to go through a phase (perhaps only a few decades long) where they could build self-reproducing machines, and they might think it was a good idea -- after all, even if the race as a whole didn't want to do it, within 100 years any reasonably large government here will be able to do this. So there would be a definite reminder that the race existed. And in any case, it's too late for us: we started announcing ourselves 20 years ago, when our sun became a radio star. We might not be able to detect such events now, but any sinister agency interested in finding new civilizations could. It seems to me that any growing civilization must go through a phase when they are careless and leave evidence of their existence all over the place. They must reason: everyone who is really interested already knows about us, why not build a self-reproducing machine on the assumption that there is no one else out there? Jon ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 82 14:40:49-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!duke!unc!tim at Ucb-C70 Subject: I doubt we're alone Article-I.D.: unc.4097 Via: Usenet; 17 Oct 82 0:39-PDT Responding to recent points about the improbability of other intelligent life having developed in the Universe: (1) If the probability were as low as one in a billion (one planet out of every billion that develops life), we could still expect to see a lot of intelligent species, although sparsely distributed. (2) The argument that we would have seen traces is invalid. How would we know what to look for? Perhaps Andromeda is artificial. Why do we assume that highly-developed species would change things around on a cosmic scale in any case? Finally, intelligent life is a fairly recent development, dependent on the formation of second-generation stars; possibly no one is very far ahead of us, at least not enough to have done anything observable given the speed of light barrier. Tim Maroney unc!tim or tim@unc ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 82 14:53:15-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!seismo!rocheste!sher at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: We are alone Article-I.D.: rocheste.120 In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.3774 Via: Usenet; 17 Oct 82 0:41-PDT As far as I know evolution is not a predictive science. This renders any predictions made by evolutionary evidence instantly suspect. Any argument which tries to prove the unlikelyhood of any currently existing object could only be based on apriori evidence (for this read no evidence whatsoever). However I am merely an interested layman so can not give an expert opinion on a book (especially since I have not read it) but it would have to be damn good to convince me with arguments along those lines. As far as our not detecting aliens (well this issue has been adressed already but to reiterate) I would guess that we could not detect ourselves from 4 lightyears away (at minimum) unless we knew what to look for. As far as detecting advance cultures maybe they communicate with subspace radios and use warpdrive. -David Sher (almost completely unafraid to sign my name) ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 82 20:39:26-PDT (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!seismo!rocheste!emil at Ucb-C70 Subject: We are not alone! Article-I.D.: rocheste.121 In-Reply-To: Article pur-phy.517 Via: Usenet; 17 Oct 82 0:56-PDT Where do you think Spock came from? Live long and prosper \\ /// \V// |||| Emil Rainero (P.S. I typed this with just my right hand.) (p.p.s My left millde finger is broken.) ------------------------------ Date: Sunday, 17 October 1982 12:00-EDT From: Jon Webb To: John Batali Cc: webb at CMU-20C, space at MIT-MC Subject: I don't think we're alone Well, I think it would be better if you would address the arguments presented by Tipler rather than just saying you don't believe them. I think we have a lot of evidence that there is no organized inter-stellar civilization, for example. Tipler presents a fairly convincing argument that there has been no civilization with an intelligence slightly better than ours anywhere in this galaxy up to about 300 million years ago. What do you think of his argument? Jon ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 82 5:01:48-PDT (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!deimos!houxi!ihps3!ixn5c!ihlpb!burris at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: We are alone - (nf) Article-I.D.: ihlpb.3610508 Via: Usenet; 17 Oct 82 20:36-PDT #R:sri-unix:-380300:ihlpb:8600001: 0:353 ihlpb!burris Oct 15 18:47:00 1982 The one thing I'm curious about is why we are led to believe that an intellegent life form from another planet would have any desire to communicate with a race bent on self-destruction. If they were intellegent enough to get here from the required distance they would very likely consider us barbarians. Dave Burris ihlpb!burris BTL - Naperville ------------------------------ Date: 17 Oct 82 16:53:46-PDT (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!stocker at Ucb-C70 Subject: what's the number? Article-I.D.: pur-ee.593 Via: Usenet; 18 Oct 82 0:27-PDT a 900 number for listening in on the shuttle was mentioned here recently, can someone enlighten those of us who don't know as to what it is? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 19-Oct-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #18 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 18 Today's Topics: ISEE 3 mission Re: signs of life ? "Pressures Are Increasing For Arms Race in Space" Re: We are alone - (nf) Re: We are alone Where did Spock come from? Really Alone? crime to unleash ... RE: Are We Alone Re: RE: Are We Alone Re: crime to unleash ... Re: Are we alone? Alone. I got them flying saucer blues again, momma ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 October 1982 09:29 edt From: CLJones.Multics at MIT-MULTICS Subject: ISEE 3 mission To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC ISEE 3 has been parked out beyond Earth's magnetic field far enough to be past the bow wave caused by solar particles hitting our magnetic field. It's my understanding that the balance of it's mission was to go to the other side of Earth (i.e. the night side) and hang out there for a while taking measurements in the "tail" of our magnetic field. It's this part of the mission that will be lost. Too bad, but if I had had a vote, I would have chosen the look at a comet. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Oct 1982 0756-PDT Sender: BILLW at SRI-KL Subject: Re: signs of life ? From: BILLW at SRI-KL "By the standards of our own human behavior, you'd certainly expect anyone who was able to would think about arranging all the nearby stars into prominent dodecahedra or whatever they thought was pretty." Oh I don't know, The pattern is complex, probably 6 dimentional, and beyond human understanding, but \I/ think the stars look pretty just the way they are. (All of them, and a civilization capable of doing that probably is as aware of us as we are of plankton). BillW ------------------------------ Date: 18-Oct-82 7:05PM-EDT (Mon) From: B.J. Herbison Subject: "Pressures Are Increasing For Arms Race in Space" To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC From the NYT, 18-Oct-1982, p. A1, col 1 "Pressures Are Increasing For Arms Race in Space" By Philip M. Boffey Special to The New York Times Washington, Oct 17 - Edward Teller, the nuclear physicist widely credited with inventing the hydrogen bomb, visited President Reagan at the White House recently to give him an idea for another revolutionary weapon. The device might be stationed in space or launched at a moment's notice. Its core would be a small nuclear bomb and its power would be delivered by lasers. If the Soviet Union ever launched a mass missile attack against the United States, tracking instruments would point the lasers at the missiles, the nuclear bomb would explode, the radiation generated by the bomb would activate the lasers, and lethal light beams would flash toward the earth. Instantaneously, these beams would destroy vast numbers of the missiles in flight. Many Uses of Satellites Space technology scientists are not certain whether such a weapon could actually be made to work. But the fact that its possibilities are being discussed seriously by one of Mr. Reagan's most eminent scientific advisers illustrates the pressures that are building for an arms race in space. or something else... There was more to the article but I couldn't get beyond that point. B.J. Herbison-BJ@Yale decvax!yale-comix!herbison-bj ------- ------------------------------ Date: 17 Oct 82 18:27:33-PDT (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!seismo!rocheste!sher at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: We are alone - (nf) I don't know about you but I (a member of this race) am not bent on self destruction. Any race that can not benifit from dialog with another race probably deserves the name barbarian. -David Sher (actually signing my real name) ------------------------------ Date: 18 Oct 82 8:54:31-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: npois!houxi!fenk at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: We are alone Interesting logic based on at least one large assumption. Why would we want to send self replicating machines throughout the galaxy? If NASA proposed that as a future project I doubt very much that they would receive funding for it. John Fenk (houxi!fenk) ------------------------------ Date: 18 Oct 1982 1625-EDT From: Steve Strassmann Subject: Where did Spock come from? To: space at MIT-OZ Where else? Southern California. -Steve Strassmann ------------------------------ Date: 18 Oct 1982 2218-PDT From: JTKIRK at UFP Subject: Really Alone? Sender: EXPERIMENTAL at USC-ISI To: space at MIT-MC Members of the United Federation which have assumed responsibilities for the adminsitration of regions whose intelligent life-forms have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these regions are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of interplanetary peace and security established by these articles of federation, the well-being of the inhabitants of these regions. Article 73, Articles of Federation Star Fleet Technical Order TO:00:01:12 James T. Kirk at United Federation of Planets ---------- Sorry guys, but with Minsky's version of the prime directive and the resultant dialogue (and especially Rainero's "Where do you think Spock came from?") I just couldn't resist. Really, Dennis (DLENAHAN at ISIE) ------------------------------ Date: 18 Oct 82 15:20:20-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: npois!houxi!houxj!wapd at Ucb-C70 Subject: crime to unleash ... In response to the article stating that it is a crime to unleash a self-reproducing, out-of-control being into the universe : Doesn't the human race fit that description ? Bill Dietrich houxj!wapd ------------------------------ Date: 18 Oct 82 9:30:21-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70 Subject: RE: Are We Alone Article-I.D.: inuxc.464 Via: Usenet; 18 Oct 82 22:46-PDT The recent arguments for mankind being alone in galaxy are just that, powerful arguments not facts. However they do give us a great deal to think about. Is the galaxy just jammed packed with intelligent life forms? If so why haven't we seen any evidence? I personally don't by the old argument that an "intelligent" life form would not loose self replicating forces in the galaxy, or that they would not interfere with an underdeveloped species. Many people on this net have been equating intelligence with morality and that is a very dangerous assumption. If the universe is brimming over with life and if it has a large amount of intelligent life I would expect the intelligent forms to show a broad spectrum of morals. Some would be very concerned about all life forms others would only be concerned about there own species. As is with our star I would think we would find that our concepts of morality occupy the middle ground, not particularly good and certainly not spectacularly evil either. Fred BTL Indy ------------------------------ Date: 18 Oct 82 12:12:33-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!aka779 at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: RE: Are We Alone Article-I.D.: inuxd.185 In-Reply-To: Article inuxc.464 Via: Usenet; 18 Oct 82 23:46-PDT Since we have little data to determine whether life of any kind exists Out There, most of the foregoing discussion is premature. In any case, it is worse than meaningless to speculate upon the motivations of alien races. We have no bases for comparison, and certainly no means of ascertaining evil or good intent among other races. On our own planet, for example, can anyone give good reason for the self-destructive communist regimes, in which 90%+ of the people suffer so that the 10% or so can live almost as good as the average American? This is outrageous, but to us a commonplace. As I tried to point out to other speculators this last summer, the alien in ET is no nearer human than the alien in The Thing. Certainly, each is a representative of another evolution, and each behaves according to its nature. The human view of each species is simply prejudiced. I'm certain that The Thing has its interesting points, too. Any creature that can build a flying saucer can't be all bad, huh? Let's not ever forget that technological advancement does not mean maturity. the two worst regimes that have ever disgraced this planet --allies, too, by the way, until one turned on the other--were right up there in technology in certain areas: Nazi Germany and Red Russia. And I see that the Chinese Reds launched an ICBM from a sub... ------------------------------ Date: 18 Oct 82 17:55:31-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: crime to unleash ... Article-I.D.: eagle.558 In-Reply-To: Article houxj.143 Via: Usenet; 19 Oct 82 0:36-PDT One could argue that netnews articles consitute self-replicating machines, unleashed into the universe... ------------------------------ Date: 18 Oct 82 18:55:46-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!duke!bcw at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Are we alone? Article-I.D.: duke.2649 Via: Usenet; 19 Oct 82 1:48-PDT From: Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University Re: Are we alone? Well, it's at least possible that there is an inter-stellar federation which steps on those civilizations which make pests of themselves by creating self-replicating forms or whatever. This need not be anything more than simple self-interest - if they let it go on long enough, they could be overwhelmed by all those numbers, even if their technology is quite low (a man in the jungle could still lose an engagement with a colony of army ants if he doesn't choose his place, time, and method of confrontation -- or lack thereof -- properly). I doubt very seriously that any extraterrestrial intelligence would regard us as no more significant than plankton - though they might not think us any more significant than ants (= social animal, capable under most circumstances of no more than minor irritations, etc). After all as someone said, we are ants with a decidedly nasty sting (=nuclear war). That doesn't mean that the outcome would be in doubt - it would simply be a question of using the right pesticide. There are a few questions though about Tipler's assumptions though - why should we think that we could detect a self-replicating form anyway? If the purpose of the robots is to gather information (the only other possible explanation I can think of is to expand the sphere of influence of the society which seems rather pointless - why should we care what happens in Andromeda?), then they would probably communicate with extremely low- dispersion signals like lasers or masers or possibly something which we don't yet know about - the energetics of omnidirectional broadcast over interstellar distances are simply wrong. As for expansion, unless they plan colonization, there does not seem to be any particularly interesting reason for expanding indefinitely. But colonization of a star system may not be the best place to look - for a sufficiently advanced technology perhaps a neutron star or a black hole would be a sufficient energy source, or perhaps they have gotten to the point of direct conversion of matter to energy and can dispense with such archaic concepts as stars. As for the detection of radio signals, I doubt that our signals are very decipherable even out only a few light-years unless you know exactly what you're looking for. There is probably only a relatively narrow band of time during a civilization during which omnidirectional broadcast is used at any significant level of power (we are rapidly moving away from it ourselves), and the signals would be so weak by the time they got here (& probably their television wouldn't be in standard video!) that you would have to use a directional antenna with extremely high resolution in order to find them. Our stage is probably quite transient - civilizations probably either destroy themselves at about this point (look at us), or pass through it and don't use such primitive broadcast technologies. Tipler's argument is interesting and makes some good points, but I still maintain that at our current level of knowledge it is rendered rather moot. Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University ------------------------------ Date: 19 October 1982 04:52-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Alone. To: Webb at CMU-20C cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, MINSKY at MIT-OZ Here's one of my guesses: Webb's statement that each civilization does the same as we did, sending out radio waves indiscriminately when we first become technological, is true. Every developing civilization makes the same MISTAKE we've already made. There's an advanced civilization that wants to survive, so it stamps out any other civilization it finds that might threaten it. They have an outpost about 50 lightyears from here. In 30 years our early radio signals will reach them. In 80 years they'll stamp us out. Have fun. Sweet dreams tonite. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Oct 82 15:49:46-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: UNKNOWN.G.asa at Ucb-C70 Subject: I got them flying saucer blues again, momma Article-I.D.: populi.403 Via: Usenet; 19 Oct 82 1:56-PDT As far as I know, there is little evidence to prove that intelligence per se gives any species an evolutionary superiority. Of course, I'd like to believe that it does, but the PROOF seems sadly lacking. "Man" as a species has not been around long enough for the final decision to be made. The first question of our Intergalactic IQ Test has been posed: will we learn to solve our intra-species differences peacefully, or will we reduce our civilization to radioactive rubble? I can't imagine anything stupider than unleashing hordes of "self-reproducing robots" upon the universe. (Remember the "Nomad" episode in "Star Trek"?) "I should add that you must remember that all members of advanced civilizations are immortal. Everyone seems to forget this." I doubt that we know it in the first place, and I sort of resent being instructed to "remember" mere speculation as some sort of "fact" that I should not have "forgotten." (Net.space is beginning to sound more and more like sf-lovers.) I suspect that "immortality" (definition, anyone?) has about the same chance of discovery that perpetual motion has, but even granting the possibility, immortality will certainly pose as many problems for a species as it solves. It seems to me that a prudent strategy to adopt in this rough- and-tumble Universe would be to assume that the only Life that exists is the species (either "intelligent" like us or merely "highly successful" like insects and microorganisms) right here on Earth, and that if we blow it here, there's not going to be any second chance. And let's hope that the Guardians of the Universe (if guardians there are), after reviewing, say, our last 5,000 years, don't just dismiss us as some sort of virulent infection and autoclave this solar system.... I'm changing my name to protect the innocent.... John Hevelin ucbvax!G:asa ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 20-Oct-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #19 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 19 Today's Topics: either way you look at it ... Re: Are we alone It's getting crowded out there I still think we're alone Alone Again, Naturally. Tipler's argument October OASIS: "The Soviets in Space" Alone Infrared study of space shuttles. Re: Alone We Are Alone ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Oct 82 16:42:54-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70 Subject: either way you look at it ... As one wag put it: If the universe is inhabited - what a scope for pain and folly! If it isn't - what a waste of space! ------------------------------ Date: 18 Oct 82 23:09:27-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!duke!bcw at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Are we alone It's unlikely that there will ever be any rigorous proof that greater intelligence always confers an evolutionary advantage. For some types of environments, there probably is not too much advantage to greater intelligence; for others, especially those which require a complex response, there could be a premium placed on intelligence. Evolution is by no means a fixed, immutable process -- it is opportunistic and unpredictable. There are certainly risks to producing self-replicating forms which have no built-in limiting factors - though this could presumably be done without too much trouble for any civilization which was capable of building something like that anyway. Immortality of the members of an advanced civilization is certainly speculation, but probably not any more unreasonable than the speculation that they exist in the first place. There are of course the questions whether the alien biology is at all analogous to earth biology, and so forth; if so, there appears to be a reasonable chance that immortality in the sense of no significant amount of aging would be acheivable (this appears to be possible with earth biology, given a few more decades). Immortality of another type is also possible - by some form of shared memory (a giant computer for example). This is probably possible in some form for any type of intelligent life. It is probable in any event that even without physical immortality that the members of a truly advanced civilization would have a far different concept of time than we. For us, the thought of what might happen in 1000 years is somewhat like science fiction; this represents between 10% and 20% of the total amount of historic time. For a race for which this represented 1% or less of historic time, there would probably be a much greater feeling of concern for what would happen in that amount of time regardless of whether the members expected to live to see it. Some modern planners have attempted to think in terms of decades to 1-2 centuries (never mind how successfully, the only point is that they feel the need to be concerned with this span of time); it seems not unreasonable that civilizations, like people, think of time past in terms of fractions of their total cumulative span. I'm not 100% certain that this belongs on net.space, but it certainly doesn't belong in sf-lovers; the latter deals with things which are *known* to be fiction. If this topic offends people, maybe it should be moved to net.misc or a subgroup of net.space so that it can die a quick death like everything which gets moved there does ... Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 1982 1004-EDT From: John Redford To: space at MIT-AI cc: VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO Subject: It's getting crowded out there Self-replicating machines may not have devoured the galaxy for the same reason that bacteria have not devoured the earth; because there are other machines out there that eat them. Just as you have plant robots that eat asteroids you could have animal robots that eat the plants. One could imagine a whole ecology of robots out there preying on one another. First the lichen 'bots spread a net of silicon solar cells over the surface of the planet. Then the moss 'bots come along with their tracking collectors. Aluminum earthworms burrow under the surface looking for those tasty dopant elements. Mechanical trees lift their collectors off the ground, out of the way of herbivores (mechivores?). Their roots break up the rocky soil so that auto-ants can drag it away.... well, come to think of it, why is the asteroid belt so finely ground up? Actually, it's too early to be sure that there aren't large-scale manifestations of intelligence out there. Someone could be flashing a galaxy in Morse code at us, but there are hundreds of millions of galaxies and only perhaps a thousand professional astronomers in the US. The radio searches have only looked at a few stars for a short time at a few wavelengths. We can put an upper bound on the power-distance of any signals (Alpha Centauri does not seem to be blinking), but it's still pretty coarse. John Redford ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 19 October 1982 11:49-EDT From: Jon Webb To: Space at MIT-MC Subject: I still think we're alone Cc: webb at CMU-20C It seems to me the simplest explanation consistent with the available evidence is that there is no other intelligent civilization in the galaxy. Of course we can propose that there are such civilizations, but we don't see them for various reasons, but that's not scientific, it's based on an emotional response. (Anything can be explained in many ways, but in science we try to choose the simplest way). Tipler's argument shows that the distances between stars impose no barrier to intelligent civlizations being aware of each other. Given that, and the fact that we observe no evidence of other intelligent civilizations, we must conclude that there are no other intelligent civilizations in the galaxy. Jon ------------------------------ Date: 19-Oct-82 9:30:45 PDT (Tuesday) From: Suk at PARC-MAXC Subject: Alone Again, Naturally. To: Robert Elton Maas cc: SPACE at MIT-MC "There's an advanced civilization that wants to survive, so it stamps out any other civilization it finds that might threaten it." Not necessary -- we'll do it ourselves. Just before we "unleash our self-replicating robots" on the universe, we destroy ourselves (and our s-r robots) through some nuclear miscalculation. (Twenty billion years later, some fish wriggles up onto dry land out of a swamp on some obscure planet in some far distant galaxy....) Stan ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 1982 8:53-PDT From: dietz at usc-cse Subject: Tipler's argument To: space@mit-mc Tipler's argument clearly won't tell you much if you don't make assumptions about the motivations of the aliens. But this is precisely what the SETI crowd does -- they assume that the aliens will want to talk with one another by long-range radio signals. Therefore, they say, we should listen for these signals and join the galactic club. Tipler is just pointing out that IF you wanted to contact infant cultures like ours it would make a lot more sense to build self-reproducing machines. I reject the argument that it is dangerous to unleash a selfreproducing machine. These will be artificial life froms, remember, and won't have to be able to mutate to meet drastically changed conditions. Put in enough error correcting codes, check sums, etc. and you won't have to worry about program errors causing unlimited reproduction or hostile behaviour. All this assumes that there are no design errors, but that doesn't seem like a hard problem to solve. ------------------------------ Date: 19-Oct-82 15:32:42 PDT (Tuesday) From: Hamilton.es at PARC-MAXC Subject: October OASIS: "The Soviets in Space" To: Space @ MC cc: Hamilton.es LOS ANGELES SPACEFANZ: OASIS (Southern California L-5 Society) general meeting is Saturday 23 October 7 pm at The Aerospace Corp, Bldg A-1, on El Segundo Blvd. just west of Aviation (about a half a mile west of the San Diego Fwy). TOPIC: "The Soviets in Space", featuring an hour-long film on the Soviet space program, including footage shot on board the Salyut 6 space station. Also to be shown: some NASA short subjects. --Bruce ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 82 10:12:17-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!seismo!rocheste!bukys at Ucb-C70 Subject: Alone Article-I.D.: rocheste.125 Via: Usenet; 19 Oct 82 19:27-PDT I am surprised that no one has mentioned the argument that we've only been capable of detecting anything "out there" for a cosmologically/ historically insignificant amount of time. So I'll mention it. Anybody remember the "technology is to a dime as history is to the Empire State Building" illustration? (Don't answer, this is rhetorical.) It seems to me this is one of the first arguments you hear from Saganites on this subject. Liudvikas Bukys ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 82 11:45:45-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Ucb-C70 Subject: Infrared study of space shuttles. Article-I.D.: utzoo.2538 Via: Usenet; 19 Oct 82 20:27-PDT NASA is now using computer assisted infrared heat detection systems to take a better look at the heat distribution on the shuttles on re- entry. This technique allows engineers to see where the most critical 'hot spots' on the shuttle occur, how efficiently the tiles are operating, and wether any changes, esp. of aerodynamic or thermodynamic design of the shuttle are needed. No doubt a lot can be learned from these studies to improve the efficiency of operation of shuttles, and perhaps even reduce maintainance costs. R.S. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 82 8:00:55-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!claus at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Alone Article-I.D.: inuxa.148 In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.3844 Via: Usenet; 19 Oct 82 20:46-PDT A self-reproducing machine could always be programmed to scan each solar system for life and if it finds life, leave that solar system alone and go on to the next. A machine such as this could already have come through our solar system years ago and decided to leave us alone. What is wrong with such a machine if it leaves existing life alone? Such a machine could also have a lot of other built in 'moral' features. D. M. Claus BTL/Indy ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 82 14:54:10-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!stan at Ucb-C70 Subject: We Are Alone Article-I.D.: floyd.701 Via: Usenet; 20 Oct 82 1:46-PDT With all this talk about "we are alone" and "self-reproduction", this discussion ought to be moved to net.singles. @ Stan <-+-> King | _/ \_ (floyd!stan) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 21-Oct-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #20 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 20 Today's Topics: Im alone, Youre alone galactic civilization density Re: either way you look at it ... - (nf) Mutant Machines Re I still think we're alone Ain't logic fun?? How can we SAY we're alone? Comment on Space Digest theorizing I still think we're alone Tipler's argument Re: We are alone Alone? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Oct 82 19:55:28-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!ittvax!sii!mem at Ucb-C70 Subject: Im alone, Youre alone I think I'm alone. You folks, as a figment of my imagination, are spending entirely too much effort on the subject. M Mallett ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 82 16:29:47-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!deimos!orion!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihps3!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70 Subject: galactic civilization density It is possible to be quantitative even on the basis of null evidence. This is done routinely when upper limits are set to the rest mass of neutrinos and the half life of protons. In this spirit, we might ask "What is the upper limit on the civilization density in the galaxy given that there are none around the nearest (say) 10,000 stars?" We can answer this quickly by noting that a probability of 1/10,000 of finding a civilization around a given star gives a probability of 1/e of NOT finding one around any given 10,000 stars. This still leaves plenty of room for speculation, considering that there are ~1e11 stars in our galaxy. Our upper bound on the total number of civilizations in the galaxy then becomes 1e7. As for the proliferation argument, I think this severely understates the difficulties posed by the galactic distance scale. One has to work hard to even begin to appreciate it. The other galaxies might as well be separate universes, for all the hope technology has of communicating between them, let alone colonizing them. Roll your eyes back and GROK! Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew ------------------------------ Date: 19 Oct 82 18:01:57-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hp-pcd!jon (Jon Brewster) at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: either way you look at it ... - (nf) As another 'wag' put it: "Either we are alone... ... or we are not. Each way is mind boggling ." (badly paraphrased from wherever I read it) Jon Brewster ucb!hplabs!hp-pcd!jon ------------------------------ Date: 20-Oct-82 11:32AM-EDT (Wed) From: David Miller Subject: Mutant Machines To: Space at MIT-MC ...Just install check sums and error correcting codes and you will eliminate the chance of mutation and the machines running amuck... I've got news for you, DNA has more backup and error correction mechanisms than have ever been put into any robot, and look what happens to a strand of DNA after a couple of million years, even under a very protective atmosphere. Imagine what would happen to any memory system you care to think about after a similar interval in deep space. The likelihood of mutation seems pretty good to me, and for some interesting speculation on what might happen consult your local SF lover. -Dave ------------------------------ Date: 20 Oct 1982 12:38:02-EDT From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: webb at cmu-20c Subject: Re I still think we're alone Cc: space at mit-mc It may be reasonable to conclude that Tipler's argument "shows that the distances between stars impose no barrier to intelligent civilizations' being aware of each other"; however, it also shows that he can't step outside of his primitive anthropomorphism and suppose that another intelligent race would differ from us enough not to want to spread through the galaxy like a disease. As long as we're considering alien intelligences it is worthwhile to weigh all of the speculations in SF, since many authors show more ability to think with a wider perspective than Tipler (at least as he's been represented here; I haven't read any of the material summarized by others in this digest). For a sampler, consider that most races would devote themselves solely to communications, as shown in SONGS FROM THE STARS (Spinrad---otherwise a thoroughly obnoxious book). So far, we have much evidence that expansive urges are ultimately self- destructive (although the alternatives aren't much fun either---consider dynastic Egypt or China). To assume that we can project the development of aliens past our own level (in view of the dreadful record of such predictions attempted on our own society) or even guess at their motivations is a peculiarly monstrous egotism. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Oct 1982 1017-PDT From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Ain't logic fun?? To: space at MIT-MC, webb at CMU-20C Date: Tuesday, 19 October 1982 11:49-EDT From: Jon Webb Subject: I still think we're alone It seems to me the simplest explanation consistent with the available evidence is that there is no other intelligent civilization in the galaxy. Of course we can propose that there are such civilizations, but we don't see them for various reasons, but that's not scientific, it's based on an emotional response. (Anything can be explained in many ways, but in science we try to choose the simplest way). Tipler's argument shows that the distances between stars impose no barrier to intelligent civlizations being aware of each other. Given that, and the fact that we observe no evidence of other intelligent civilizations, we must conclude that there are no other intelligent civilizations in the galaxy. It seems to me that scientific method would lead us to to the following conclusions about other civilizations: 1) We have seen only one example of intelligence (ourselves). 2) We have studied only one solar system containing a habitable planet for Life-As-We-Know-It. 3) Study of subcultures within our own civilization show us that our estimation of why other cultures do things is usually wrong. 4) We have looked for evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence for a very short time and in a very limited portion of the sky. Therefore: We really don't know, and we can't know until we get more data. Cheers, --Tom ------------------------------ Date: 20 Oct 1982 1307-CDT From: Jonathan Slocum Subject: How can we SAY we're alone? To: space at MIT-MC Statements like "We haven't seen them, so the simplest [hence most preferred] hypothesis is that they don't exist" fall to the simple observation that we haven't LOOKED to any significant extent. Not only have we not looked very long in an historical sense, we haven't even looked very hard with what time and instruments we have available. Deer don't look up into trees, but that doesn't mean there aren't any lions up there. The "scientific method" does not allow us to draw ANY conclusions based on no evidence, which is what we've got now. Mountain lions would appreciate the fact that deer aren't scientifically oriented. We humans claim to be scientific; mostly, we're not. As to whether we SHOULD look or not, that's another issue. I'm in favor of it, just out of sheer curiosity. This doesn't imply that I know HOW to look, though. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Oct 1982 13:11 PDT From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Comment on Space Digest theorizing To: space at Mit-Mc cc: Wedekind.es I enjoy and value the speculative discussions by members of this digest much more than the strictly reportorial (?) ones, and don't buy the "leave it to the experts" approach to things in general. At the same time recent discussions made me think that mixing a little humility with our audacity wouldn't hurt. It might be worthwhile deciding how much you agree with this (hopefully not misremembered) paraphrase from B. Russel: 1) Where the experts are agreed the opposite opinion should not be held to be certain. 2) Where the experts disagree a lay person should not hold any opinion to be certain. 3) Where the experts agree that there is no basis for a conclusion the lay person would be wise to withhold judgement. I know that some of us ARE the experts, and in any case I can think of few groups of people that need this reminder less, but it seems like something worth thinking about. Now, back to the theorizing! Jerry ------------------------------ Date: 20 October 1982 19:31-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: I still think we're alone To: Webb at CMU-20C cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I go along with Webb's argument as most likely. Intelligence the level of Humans/Apes, Dolphins/Whales, Octipusses, Insect colonies seem to evolve rather commonly. Technology the level of Humans has evolved (we know) at least once, but we have no idea whether it evolved elsewhere. Space technology like we envision seems not to have evolved yet anywhere in this galaxy nor in nearby galaxies, although it may have evolved in Seifert galaxies or in random distant places. In any case, space technology seems to be rare. We know of not one instance of it yet, and it seems not to have taken hold of nearby galaxies yet. Somewhere on the road from Whale/Insect/Octipus/Ape level intelligence to advanced space technology, most species either die out or simply don't make further progress for billios of years. I have two major theories: (1) The road from intelligence to technology is difficult. We are likely the very first in this galaxy to make it. (2) The road from technology to advanced space technology is difficult. Nobody in this galaxy has made it yet, those who got as far as we have now have all died out (nuclear or biological war?) or gone into declaine (Reagan&Stockman). The latter is unlikely since Japanese et al are taking upthe slack, and I would imagine such alternatives would exist on other planets where technological civilization evolved. This option thus reduces to "most technological civilizations commit nuclear or biological suicide before achieving advanced space technology". I see no way to distinguish between these two cases without going out to explore the galaxy, looking on planets for (1) intelligent lifeforms which haven't yet achieved technology, and (2) relics of past technological civilizations which have suffered disasters such as nuclear or biological war. Of course if we succeed in gathering that evidence, it'll mean we have passed from Earth-based life to space-based life, thus making the question moot except for scientific curiosity and predictions of what we might meet in other galaxies, since at that point we'll surely be the first in our galaxy to spread to space where others have failed or haven't even gotten the idea to try, and the question of whether we were the first to achieve technology or the first to spread technology to space will be moot. ------------------------------ Date: 20 October 1982 19:40-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Tipler's argument To: DIETZ@USC-CSE at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I categoricaly reject your claim that if one builds self-replicating robots and sets them loose on the Universe, all of them carefully programed and checksummed etc., that you'll inhibit mutation/evolution in these creatures. If anything can go wrong it will! Haven't you learned that? There's a cost associated with error-correcting codes. So if some machine manages to turn off its error-correcting code via something breaking (a bit switched, a JSR instruction changed to a NOP by accident, whatever) it'll have a slight advantage in surviving. So the population of non-error-protected machines will grow slightly. One of them will suffer a more serious mutation, that offers a true advantage, and suddenly a popuolation explosion of mutants will take over the galaxy. I don't believe the pressure of evolution can be stopped by a one-time careful design of a replicating form. *any* replicating form set loose in a big enough environment will eventually evolve. Even if you have police robots going around checking each robot to verify correct operatin of checksum codes, there are enough places to hide in the galaxy that evolution can escape detection long enough to take over. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Oct 82 15:29:10-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hao!woods at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: We are alone Article-I.D.: hao.322 In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.3823 Via: Usenet; 20 Oct 82 18:15-PDT Come on now! How could we be so conceited as to think that this puny little rock off in the corner of the universe has the only intelligent life? WIth the countless billions of stars and planets out there, probability favors eveolution of intelligent life SOMEWHERE out there. It is clearly possible for a much more intelligent race than ourselves to exist, and still not have the necessary technology to send out detectable signals this FAR AWAY. ~v (Drat! I can't escape to vi!) Oh, well my typos have to stay, I'm too lazy to type it all over again! It may be that they are indeed trying to contact us (or any other "intelligent" race) but we are looking for the wrong thing. As someone already pointed out, they would hardly use radio waves to bridge interstellar space! It just seems highly unrealistic and self-centered to think that WE are the most intelligent life in the universe. God help the universe if we are! Anyway, I thought Galileo (or was it Cornelius?) showed the invalidity of the geocentric theory of the universe. GREG (menlo70!hao!woods or hplabs!hao!woods) ------------------------------ Date: 20 Oct 82 10:22:22-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70 Subject: Alone? Article-I.D.: inuxc.472 Via: Usenet; 21 Oct 82 1:56-PDT Alone? Of course we are alone. Listen there are over 100 billion stars in our galaxy and over a billion galaxies in the known universe, yet in all of that there is only one of each of us. That is what I call being alone. Fred ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 22-Oct-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #21 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 21 Today's Topics: Re: Aloneness Together Alone Again, Naturally Re: is this it? ET's and Simple Explanations self-replicating machine program mutation Re: is this it? Re:Mutant Machines Re: Tipler"s argument Astronomy questions NOT Re: Alone Halley's sighted Re: Re I still think we"re alone but are we looking?? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Oct 82 19:15:21-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!lime!we13!uniq!mike at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Aloneness Together Article-I.D.: uniq.110 In-Reply-To: Article hp-pcd.378 Via: Usenet; 21 Oct 82 2:57-PDT The whole issue is obvious... All "intelligent" "civilizations" are alone together. All the arguments that we see in these pages is based on a very weak premise: - that we are from an intelligent species. I personally have no faith in our ability to construct some sort of replicating device to "boldly go..." without it changing or forgetting what it was meant to do. Even with redundancy and checksums et al, I say no. What about the "galactic environment"? (I hear it now: "What about it?") Can we really present ourselves as members of an intelligent species while we unloose a mechanical disease that digs, scours, and eats whatever it requires to fufill its purpose? If we could put in all the safeguards to respect all environments, then we would already know everything that we're searching for. Why does everyone assume that advanced "intelligences" will have advanced technologies? I don't think that's necessary. Perhaps it's a leftover from science fiction. Why am I beginning to sound like Andy Rooney? Why would I care? Rockin' the boat, Yers truly, Mike Hall ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 82 0:25:23-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!duke!unc!tim at Ucb-C70 Subject: Alone Again, Naturally Article-I.D.: unc.4134 Via: Usenet; 21 Oct 82 2:58-PDT Something no one has explained to me yet is why any culture would have any desire to build self- propagating starships. What good does this do you? How do you justify the expense? As to the recent point about the assumption that advanced intelligences have advanced technology: one answer is boredom. If a culture develops tech- nology in the first place, it is for comfort (I assert); when maximum comfort is achieved, the design of new machines or other technologies becomes an art. Also, maintenance of comfort requires technology as advanced as that which first brought about the comfort. No machine can run forever without maintenance. However, I agree that these technologies are not neccessarily of the planet-moving type that so many seem to expect to observe; I can easily see a race being fairly satisfied with living in a fairly small space, say a few planets. Finally, I'd like to reiterate my earlier point: There is no way for us to know if other intelligent species exist or not. We don't know what to look for. Observing ourselves tells us nothing about what traits are universal to intelligence. Tim Maroney (unc!tim) ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 82 0:43:44-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!duke!bcw at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: is this it? Article-I.D.: duke.2664 In-Reply-To: Article sii.178 Via: Usenet; 21 Oct 82 6:37-PDT From: Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University Re: Intelligence and mutations Mark Mallett brings up the question of whether human intelligence (and presumably alien intelligence as well) might not have stagnated. This has probably been true for the past 50,000 years or so (man has been able to significantly modify his environment for something on this order of time), since there probably hasn't been too much selection pressure (in a relative sense) during that time. But if our understanding of things like the workings of the brain and artificial intelligence continue at their present rate, we will before very long be able to directly modify intelligence. Selection and evolution arguments really don't matter very much if the race can directly modify it the characteristic under consideration. As for DNA being "programmed" to mutate, this sounds suspicious. The differences between the DNA for humans and apes only has about 2% or less different. It is unclear that this 2% difference was caused by any type of classical mutation (micromutation or macromutation), it is probable that much of the difference is recombination. Many people have the impression that evolution proceeds by the selection of new mutations; in reality, mutations are relatively rare, and most evolution proceeds by the selection of new *combinations*. Finally, I am far from convinced that it is really possible to design an error correcting code which will be guaranteed to remain intact for 20,000,000,000 years (guess of remaining lifetime of the universe) for all of 1e15 robots (give or take a few million) - unless the code is so costly that the time to compute it is of cosmological scale. Without such a guarantee it is possible to imagine the mutations and selection to take place in a manner not too unlike life on earth, which is exactly what some of the other readers have been worried about. Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 1982 10:19:59-EDT From: mclean at NRL-CSS (John McLean) To: SPACE at MIT-MC Subject: ET's and Simple Explanations It seems to me the simplest explanation consistent with the available evidence is that there is no other intelligent civilization in the galaxy. Two comments: (1) The cannon of simplicity is notoriously difficult to apply. Although the simplest explanation as to why I don't see an elephant in front of me is that there is no elephant in front of me to see, the extra terrestial example is not so clear-cut. The simplicity of the "no elephant" explanation rests on the fact that I do not have to go on to explain why there is no elephant in front of me. An advocate of extra terrestial life would want an explanation of why there is none, or similarly, why the earth is so special. This leads to my second point. (2) "Facts" do not exist in a vacuum. It is folly to gain a small amount of simplicity in explaining X by greatly increasing the complexity of my explanation of Y (assuming that I want eventually to explain both). The advocate of extra terrestial life wants to explain, not merely why we haven't seen any signs of such life, but also why the same circumstances that gave life to this planet shouldn't arise elsewhere with similar results. john ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 1982 at 1009-CDT From: kjm@UTEXAS-11 Subject: self-replicating machine program mutation To: REM@MIT-mc cc: space@mit-mc How many computer programs do you know of or have written in which one wrong instruction gives some inherent slight "advantage"? It seems to me that program mutation is more a fast way to get inert or malfunctioning pieces of junk rather than better robots. Ken Montgomery ------- ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 82 1:12:58-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!duke!bcw at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: is this it? Article-I.D.: duke.2665 Via: Usenet; 21 Oct 82 3:48-PDT References: sii.178 From: Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University Re: Intelligence and mutations Mark Mallett brings up the question of whether human intelligence (and presumably alien intelligence as well) might not have stagnated. This has probably been true for the past 50,000 years or so (man has been able to significantly modify his environment for something on this order of time), since there probably hasn't been too much selection pressure (in a relative sense) during that time. But if our understanding of things like the workings of the brain and artificial intelligence continue at their present rate, we will before very long be able to directly modify intelligence. Selection and evolution arguments really don't matter very much if the race can directly modify the characteristic under consideration. As for DNA being "programmed" to mutate, this sounds suspicious. The differences between the DNA for humans and apes only has about 2% or less different. It is unclear that this 2% difference was caused by any type of classical mutation (micromutation or macromutation), it is probable that much of the difference is recombination. Many people have the impression that evolution proceeds by the selection of new mutations; in reality, mutations are relatively rare, and most evolution proceeds by the selection of new *combinations*. Finally, I am far from convinced that it is really possible to design an error correcting code which will be guaranteed to remain intact for 20,000,000,000 years (guess of remaining lifetime of the universe) for all of 1e15 robots (give or take a few million) - unless the code is so costly that the time to compute it is of cosmological scale. Without such a guarantee it is possible to imagine the mutations and selection to take place in a manner not too unlike life on earth, which is exactly what some of the other readers have been worried about. Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University ------------------------------ Date: 20 Oct 82 22:39:40-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!duke!unc!mcnc!jnw at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re:Mutant Machines Article-I.D.: mcnc.1346 Via: Usenet; 21 Oct 82 5:57-PDT DNA may have a lot of backup and error correction, but it is programed to mutate. Any DNA which wasn't able to mutate went into the bit bucket long ago. If you want a machine to mutate you have to programe it to. DNA is programed so that changes have a significant probability of making sense. John White ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 82 8:23:47-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!claus at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Tipler"s argument Article-I.D.: inuxa.152 In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.3914 Via: Usenet; 21 Oct 82 18:47-PDT In regard to constructing self-replicating robots - how can it be done?? It seems to me that to build such a robot the most advanced technology must be used, but for that robot to reproduce it must incompass all of that technology. Some examples of this are IC masking, steel production, material refinement, etc. If we could develope such a machine all of our work would be done and we could just go along for the 'ride'. I feel when we reach the point of being able to produce such a machine we will have the ability to do far more productive things and such a machine would ill never be built. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 82 8:54:00-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70 Subject: Astronomy questions Article-I.D.: inuxc.476 Via: Usenet; 21 Oct 82 18:56-PDT All this talk about wild self reproducing robots brings to mind old Battle Star Galatica stories. It is time to get back on to more serious issues. 1. Did anyone observe the Leonids last night? Indianapolis was clouded out. 2. Friday night at about 2 UT the moon will pass in front of M-22 3. What is happening with Columbia? Fred BTL-IN ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 1982 2129-PDT From: Den Lenahan Subject: NOT Re: Alone To: space at MIT-MC Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940. Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161 It's almost time to start leaving the alone topic alone. To try to start changing the subject, did y'all see on the TV news that Palomar has a photo of Halley's Comet on its way in? ------- ------------------------------ Date: 22 October 1982 02:11-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Halley's sighted To: SPACE at MIT-MC Acording to tonight's newspaper, astronomers from CalTech have sighted Halley's Comet and it's right on track as predicted. They first saw it last week thru the Palomar 200-inch telescope, then confirmed the sighting this week. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 82 15:07:55-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!ittvax!swatt at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Re I still think we"re alone Article-I.D.: ittvax.465 In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.3904 Via: Usenet; 21 Oct 82 22:58-PDT Well this has certainly been an interesting discussion. I would like to add several modest points. 1) The notion that greater technological capabilites also denotes vastly greater intelligence escapes me. First, I doubt anyone can give an acceptable definition of intelligence, except that it is: a) A quality that one being possessing it recognizes in another. b) What the intelligence tests measure. I doubt on either scale intelligence per se has increased significantly since the days of the Wright brothers, or even since Archimedes (those Greeks were a SMART bunch ...). I certainly wouldn't be too snobbish to sit down and talk with say, Newton, even though he might have nothing to say that I couldn't read in books. Thus the gap in technological and social sophistication between ourselves and the Greeks of Pericles' day could be closed in a generation at most. 2) Trying to prove that other civilizations do or don't exist reminds me of Hegel's philosophical proof that there could ONLY be 8 planets (an effort which has not endeared him to scientists). If we find other life (or they find us) then we will know for sure; until then, it's all speculation. 3) Just because it's speculation doesn't mean it's pointless. There is, after all, a public policy issue here, which is how much money to spend on attempting to contact other civilizations. - Alan S. Watt ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 82 21:31:48-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!laura at Ucb-C70 Subject: but are we looking?? Article-I.D.: utzoo.2541 In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.3914 Via: Usenet; 22 Oct 82 2:18-PDT I went to a Carl Sagan lecture at the University of Toronto (here) about six months ago. He was speaking on Looking for Extra-Terestrial civilisations and raised a number of good points among them: EM theory is a relatively recent development on this planet. Given that we have only had such a small window of time in which we have been announcing ourselves, is it any wonder that no one has bothered to come check us out?? (except to two drunken farmers in....) Remember what radio noise they are going to be hearing from us: McCarthy trials, Howdy-Doody....Hmmm I think that I might try someone else first too given that tracking down Extra-Terrestrial civilisations was my game... We havent looked all that hard! A large orbital radio telescope would help...but then that costs money which hasnt been put into space development in recent times. If money cannot be found to not turn Pioneer off and monitor it now I dont see much hope for getting a large telescope in the future... In fact, I like how Sagan presented our search for other civilisations. He said that he had talked with a person (rather distinguished sort whose name I cannot recall now, *DARN*) who said that he had conducted this experiment. He got up one morning and set his table for an elabourate dinner for two. Then he opened the front door and patiently waited. After a whole day, no lobster had come in to eat dinner with him. He concluded that since there was no lobster eating dinner with him there was therefore no such thing as a lobster...... Laura Creighton decvax!utzoo!laura ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 23-Oct-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #22 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 22 Today's Topics: Re: but are we looking?? re self-replicating machine program mutation Alone Again, Naturally / stagnant societies Re: either way you look at it ... - (nf) Mutants are My Friends Re: Tipler"s argument ET's and Simple Explanations self-replicating machine program mutation Re: Re I still think we"re alone Re: is this it? Re: Halley"s sighted ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Oct 82 1:13:50-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!rabbit!ark at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: but are we looking?? I have heard it proposed that perhaps civilizations only use radio for a short period -- until they have their planet so thoroughly cabled that they can use land lines instead. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Oct 1982 11:09:16-EDT From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: kjm at utexas-11 Subject: re self-replicating machine program mutation This is true of most biological mutations; the theories describing means of evolution all require a statistical population in which most mutations are either trivial or failures, or else there is enough genetic variation in the population as a whole that in a crisis one tail of the curve will survive whatever wipes out the other tail and maybe the center as well. Given that the programs would presumably be identical initially, the incidence of constructive mutation should (I think) be small---but over the time frame we're talking about, attempting to predict what would happen is foolish. ------------------------------ Date: 22 October 1982 11:43-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Alone Again, Naturally / stagnant societies To: harpo!duke!unc!tim at UCB-C70 The claim that an advanced civilization might be content to inhabit a few planets, is reminiscent of the early days of computers when somebody estimated that 20 or maybe 25 computers (of IBM 704 technology) worldwide ought to satisfy all the uses we would ever find for them. We just don't know at present all the uses we'll find for planets and asteroids and stars etc. I suspect we'll always find a use for more compute power and more materials&energy and more habitat-space. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Oct 82 2:45:57-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!watarts!geo at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: either way you look at it ... - (nf) The original is a Pogo cartoon. ------------------------------ Date: Friday, 22 October 1982, 12:12-EDT From: John Batali Subject: Mutants are My Friends To: space at MIT-MC From: kjm@UTEXAS-11: How many computer programs do you know of or have written in which one wrong instruction gives some inherent slight "advantage"? It seems to me that program mutation is more a fast way to get inert or malfunctioning pieces of junk rather than better robots. This sounds like one of the creationist's arguments against evolution. All it proves it that we aren't clever enough yet to make our programs robust against random bit lossage. (But there are solutions -- and evolution has "found" one.) Also: the Darwin idea that changes can only be slight is becomming more and more questionable as our understanding of the mechanisms of genetics develops. It is entirely possible that a single nucleotide change could impart a great deal of selective advantage. For example: skin (or fur or scale or feather) color seems to be the result of the presence of one or a few proteins. The color of the protein depends on its shape and the positions of associated non-peptide molecules. >One< change in the DNA could change the color of the protein, thus changing the color of the whole organism. In the case of albinism, this change is not for the better, but it could be: perhaps the famous moths in England had something like this happen to them. ------------------------------ Date: 22 October 1982 12:18-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: Tipler"s argument To: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!claus at UCB-C70 Your argument is reminiscent of the middle-age philosophers (who still exist in certain churches) who argued that the maker must be greater than the maken thus to avoid infinite ascent there must an absolute maker which is God. Just look at evidence. There are biological organisms in existance which self-replicate, yet in no sense are they so advanced that there's no road for progress. Most of them don't even understand themselves. In fact not even humans understand their own biology totally. Thus I don't think it's at all necessary for a self-replicating robot to encompass all of technology. A self-replicating robot merely has to have some way to self-replicate, which implies some way to gather and use energy, and some way to move around (perhaps by just drifting in a fluid the way dandelion seeds drift in the wind). But I see no need whatsoever for them to contain the latest technology, not to mention containing all known technology. With millions of inventors all trying to make a self-replicating robot, one of them might succeed half by accident (they all had almost-self-replicating robots, but one was lucky and his design really worked where the others failed). The one that succeeded, even with many flaws, and with a design so serendipitous that nobody really knew how/why the damned thing really worked, not even the inventor, would spread through the galaxy, and evolve by natural selection. ------------------------------ Date: 22 October 1982 11:57-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: ET's and Simple Explanations To: mclean at NRL-CSS My explanation is rather simple and consistent: (1) The same forces that caused life on Earth, cause it everywhere else too, anyplace there's a long-lived star with planets containing lots of random elements from earlier supernovas and stellar-winds. (2) The same forces that drive us toward suicide hee on Earth, have driven technological civilizations towards suicide elsewhere. (3) The same forces that cause life on Earth to adapt to every nook and cranny in our biosphere, even places where we think no creature would want to live, occurs elsehere. Whenever the means to inhabit a biosphere exists, that biosphere will be totally inhabited to the limit of the energy materials and room available. We don't see the Galaxy thriving with live at every bend in the road, in particular we don't see it thriving around our neck of the woods, so probably nobody has made it fully into space yet, although the galaxy abounds with pre-space life. Anything of the type "making A simple at the expense of making B very complex" in that argument? ------------------------------ Date: 22 October 1982 12:04-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: self-replicating machine program mutation To: kjm at UTEXAS-11 Date: 21 Oct 1982 at 1009-CDT From: kjm@UTEXAS-11 How many computer programs do you know of or have written in which one wrong instruction gives some inherent slight "advantage"? It seems to me that program mutation is more a fast way to get inert or malfunctioning pieces of junk rather than better robots. The first time I read this I took it to be a rhetorical question, as it was probably intended, but upon second reading I happened to remember an actual case to point. At SU-AI about ten years ago we were actively writing display hacks for the III (Information International Incorporated) display processor. Somebody wrote a program that was supposed to draw random stars (points of light that apeared in random positions), and then wink out later to be replaced by new random stars (there was a queue of stars that initially grew until it was full, then stars were recycled to new points in strict revolving order). The first time he ran the program it had a bug, one instruction was wrong, instead of drawing random points it drew random rays from the center of the screen. It was a wonderful accident, much better than the original idea. I'm sure if people in this community think hard they can think of other examples, though rare, of single wrong instructions being improvements over the original conception. This would seem to be the correct forum since we have a reason for considering this question (who would have believed it?). ------------------------------ Date: 22-Oct-82 3:16PM-EDT (Fri) From: B.J. Herbison Subject: Re: Re I still think we"re alone To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Cc: decvax!ittvax!swatt at UCB-C70, Herbison at YALE 1) The notion that greater technological capabilites also denotes vastly greater intelligence escapes me. First, I doubt anyone can give an acceptable definition of intelligence, except that it is: a) A quality that one being possessing it recognizes in another. A human being can usually recognize another. If a spaceship landed on Terra and an organic life form in a spacesuit came out and tried to communicate with us, we could probably tell if it was intelligent. If we try looking for intelligence, I can't assume we could always recognize it. b) What the intelligence tests measure. Intelligence tests generally measure how well a human fits in western society. They work fairly well for educated White adults in our culture, but would tell nothing for aliens. This discussion is getting further and further away from what I expect it to be (and I am guilty also). Should it be moved to another mailing list / newsgroup? B.J. Herbison-BJ@Yale decvax!yale-comix!herbison-bj ------------------------------ Date: 22 October 1982 20:52-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: is this it? To: decvax!duke!bcw at UCB-C70 When we can directly modify intelligence, traditional biological evolution by selection of DNA will mostly be replaced by evolution by selection of ideas and programs and data. Good ideas such as structured programming and atomic physics will grow and bifurcate and develop further, while bad or useless ideas such as platonic ideals and buggy whips will mostly die out. To some extent this has already been happening. If and when we set loose self-replicating robots throughout the galaxy, we'll see a new kind of evolution which will be a combination of physical evolution of the robots and idea-evolution of their programs. Of course if the programs are used to totally control the physical design, it'll be analagous to DNA totally controlling the design of biological creatures, complete with sharing/exchanging of program fragments as we now know bacteria and other lifeforms share/exchange DNA. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Oct 82 8:59:49-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!nrf at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Halley"s sighted Does anyone know when Halley's Comet will be within range of small (<20") telescopes? Neal Fildes Bell Telephone Laboratores, Whippany, NJ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 24-Oct-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #23 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 23 Today's Topics: We may now be seeing them : net.space SS ejector seats To: Andrew Klossner New Shuttle Booster Successfully Tested Re: SS ejector seats We may now be seeing them : net.space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Oct 1982 0935-PDT From: Hans Moravec To: space at MIT-MC a062 0610 22 Oct 82 PM-Space Search,420 Is Anybody Out There? Let's Find Out, Scientists Say By WARREN E. LEARY AP Science Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - An international group of scientists is urging governments not to abandon efforts to communicate with other civilizations in space, if any exist. Sixty-nine prominent scientists and academicians, in a letter published today in Science magazine, said that humans have the capacity to communicate through radio signals with civilizations thousands of light years away. They called for a concerted, worldwide effort to locate possible civilizations in outer space by listening for their radio signals. Several countries, including the United States, the Soviet Union and Great Britain, have conducted limited radio searches in the past. Last October, an ambitious, six-year, $3.6 million U.S. search effort ended due to budget cuts by the Reagan administration. The scientists and academicians, including several Nobel laureates, said, ''We believe ... a coordinated search program is well justified on its scientific merits.'' Without such an effort, the decades-long debate over whether there is other intelligent life is likely to remain unresolved, they said. The scientists, including astronomers, engineers, biologists, physicians, philosophers, anthropologists and computer experts from many countries, said they were divided on a number of questions concerning whether other life exists in space. ''But we are unanimous in our conviction that the only significant test of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence is an experimental one,'' said the letter authored by Dr. Carl Sagan, the astronomer and author from Cornell University. The Nobel laureates who endorsed the call include David Baltimore of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Francis Crick of the Salk Institute and Linus Pauling of the Pauling Institute for Science and Medicine. Among the signers were: Philip Morrison and Marvin L. Minsky of MIT; A.G.W. Cameron, Edmond O. Wilson and Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard University; Fred Hoyle, Cambridge University, England; Vitaly L. Ginzburg, Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow; Roald Z. Sagdeev, Soviet Academy of Sciences; Cyril Ponnamperuma, University of Maryland; Lee A. DuBridge and Bruce Murray, California Institute of Technology; and Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, president of Notre Dame University. The U.S. program that ended last year involved developing antennae and computer programs to listen to the flood of radio information coming from space and sort out what might be signals from other worlds. ap-ny-10-22 0857EDT *************** n014 0751 22 Oct 82 BC-EXTRATERRESTRIAL By WALTER SULLIVAN c. 1982 N.Y. Times News Service NEW YORK - Sixty-eight leading scientists from a dozen nations, including seven Nobel laureates, have joined in urging ''organization of a coordinated, worldwide and systematic search for extraterrestrial intelligence.'' Despite theoretical arguments against the likelihood that civilizations exist on other worlds, they say in a petition, ''the only significant test is an experimental one.'' The results, whether positive or negative, they add, ''would have profound implications for our view of the universe and ourselves.'' Following a surge of interest in the search for radio signals from other worlds in the 1960s and '70s, skeptics began arguing that any highly sophisticated civilizations would have made their existence obvious by erecting beacons or sending exploratory missions to the earth. Congress has specified that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration devote none of its budget for the fiscal year1982 to such a search. Left-over amounts, however, have been used to keep the project alive, and the NASA budget for the fiscal year 1984, beginning in October 1983, provides for developing radio astronomical techniques to seek patterns generated by intelligent life. The sum to be allocated, according to a NASA spokesman, is about $1 million from a total budget of about $6 billion that was signed by President Reagan last month. The money allocated will be used chiefly by two California research centers working for NASA: the Ames Research Center in Moffett Field and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. The goal is to develop sophisticated electronic techniques that can be used by existing radio telescopes. Signers of the petition say that new technologies make possible a search ''a million times more thorough than all previous searches, by all nations, put together'' for as little as a few million dollars yearly for one or two decades. The argument that highly advanced beings would have made themselves obvious, they say, assumes that such beings would behave in a manner for which there is no precedent on the earth. ''The radio search, on the other hand,'' the statement continues, ''assumes nothing about other civilizations that has not transpired in ours.'' Signers of the appeal include such Nobel laureates as David Baltimore, professor of biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Melvin Calvin, professor of chemistry at the University of California in Berkeley; Francis Crick, research professor at the Salk Institute in San Diego, Calif., and Manfred Eigen of the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry in Gottingen, West Germany. Other Nobelists are Gerhard Herzberg, of the National Research Council of Canada; Linus Pauling, formerly of the California Institute of Technology, and Edward M. Purcell, a physicist at at Harvard University. The appeal was organized by Carl Sagan, director of the Laboratory for Planetary Studies at Cornell University, on behalf of the Planetary Society. It will appear as a letter in the Oct. 29 issue of the journal Science. end nyt-10-22-82 1045edt *************** ------------------------------ Date: 23 October 1982 16:39-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: We may now be seeing them : net.space To: UCBVAX.decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, POURNE at MIT-MC, utzoo!laura at UCB-C70 Please specify which of my claims is silly. You seem to be saying the same thing I'm saying, that planets around the galaxy are teeming with life, and that intelligence develops everywhere. The only part you seem to be disputing is that if life somewhere developed the technology to move into space and miagrate to other stars, then after a few billion years it should have occupied every nook and cranny of habitable space in the galaxy, including our very own Solar System, turning every star including our own into a Dyson sphere or better. You cite the many South Pacific islands that weren't even visited until WW-II. Well, 1492 to 1945 is less than 500 years. It takes about that long for the population explosion to get to the point where there are enough people to explore all land on Earth, and a little longer to get to where not only all land but also all underseas locations are inhabited (not just explored). I suspect in another 200 years the Earth will be totaly saturated, every nook and cranny including 7 miles deep in the ocean and the poles and deserts and mountain tops. Now let's assume some advanced civilization can achieve 0.5 C going from one star to the next, say 8 light years away, so the trip takes 16 years. I figure it would take a well-prepared colony about 10 years to get bootstrapped into using asteroids and solar energy to support life and to process materials and build new collecting and processing equipment. Then the population explosion can begin. Let's say due to unlimited energy and resources, each family has 5 children, and a generation is about 25 years. Let's say the initial colony is 1000 people. After 1 century, i.e. 100-(16+10)=74 years from end of bootstraping, we have 120,000 people. After 1 more century we have 75 million people. After 1 more century we have 46E9 people, which is enough to start sending out colonies to nearby stars. Thus every 300 years life expands 8 light years. The galaxy is about 25,000 light years in radius, thus it takes about 25,000*(300/8)=937,000 years for life developing space technology near the center of the galaxy to spread throughout the entire galaxy. That's less than a million years. They may miss a few stars, maybe the initial expansion hits only 10% of the stars. But now there's no room left to expand, except by carefully searching for new stars and missed stars nearby. Another 900 years and each little colony will have located all neighbors within 8*3=24 light years and planted colonies there. This is still less than a million years, and the galaxy is already totally cramped. Now suppose such a population explosion started 8E9 years ago. Well, 7.999E9 years ago the Galaxy was already saturated. Probably they'd find ways to consume stars faster, or they'd have galactic wars, or who knows. I doubt we'd find our Solar System sitting here with most of its hydrogen not yet burned and in fact looking rather virgin like nobody has made use of it yet. Even if they somehow missed our tiny star, I doubt we'd find the whole Galaxy full of hydrogen-burning stars after all this time; rather we'd find ourselves in a burned out galaxy, where virtually all the hydrogen has already been consumed. Enough speculation. Let's go out there and find out what's living on planets of neighboring stars. Let's succeed [at establishing civilization in space] where they all failed, and go find out why they all failed. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Oct 82 12:37:42-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ihuxi!ijg at Ucb-C70 Subject: SS ejector seats Article-I.D.: ihuxi.238 Via: Usenet; 23 Oct 82 18:47-PDT The question came up at lunch today about the ejection seats on the SS. If the crew has to eject just after launch, what prevents (if anything) them from ejecting into the ground? i. j. gordon ihuxi!ijg ------------------------------ Date: 22 Oct 82 9:26:02-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70 Subject: To: Andrew Klossner Article-I.D.: inuxc.482 Via: Usenet; 23 Oct 82 23:17-PDT My apologies to the rest of the net. I really don't understand how we can have a net which allows people to send mail to me but no matter how hard I try I can't return mail to these same people. Your question is of course impossible to answer. The easiest answer is that I know there is only one of me because I have no memory of another. That statement can be blown out of the water from any number of philosophical points of view. I prefer the answer that I know there is only one of me by the same reasoning that allows me to say that there "is" at least one of me, and then run with it from there. How is the weather on Sirius IV these days Andrew? Fred ------------------------------ Date: 22 Oct 82 16:54:02-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: New Shuttle Booster Successfully Tested Article-I.D.: alice.997 Via: Usenet; 23 Oct 82 23:47-PDT A new, more powerful SRB has been successfully tested by Thiokol Corp., its manufacturer. Fastened horizontally to a platform, it was test fired and shot a plume of smoke for several hundred yards. The new SRB will allow future shuttle flights to carry 3000 pounds more payload. It is 150 feet long, 12 feet in diameter, and packs 1.1 million pounds of solid fuel, burning for 2 minutes. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Oct 82 16:55:50-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: SS ejector seats Article-I.D.: alice.998 In-Reply-To: Article ihuxi.238 Via: Usenet; 23 Oct 82 23:56-PDT The ejection seats on the space shuttle were considered necessary for test flights, but they have now been removed for actual operation; i.e. NO ejection seats any more. ------------------------------ Date: 24 October 1982 05:09-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: We may now be seeing them : net.space To: REM at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, POURNE at MIT-MC, UCBVAX.decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70, utzoo!laura at UCB-C70 I see nothing wrong with REM's analysis. Assume he's off by a factor of 100 and the question remains, Where Are They? did they all discover Zen and stay home? We won't know until we go; but we can sure as hell learn what population pressure is REALLY like if we stay here... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 25-Oct-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #24 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 24 Today's Topics: New Shuttle Booster... Money for SETI? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Oct 1982 2132-PDT From: Hon Wah Chin Subject: New Shuttle Booster... To: space at MIT-MC Who cares about the length of smoke? What's the thrust? ------------------------------ Date: 25 October 1982 03:39-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Money for SETI? To: SPACE at MIT-MC In Saturday's Peninsula Times-Tribune (formerly Palo Alto Times and Redwood City Tribune) there's a nice column ("A personal view") by Leonard Koppett, strongly advocating funds for SETI ($10/yr total, i.e. a quarter cent/year worldwide, or 4 cents/yr if USA foots the whole bill). He countered three major arguments against SETI funding: Either-or, better things to spend the funds on? -- No, each bill is judged on its merits, there's no either-or between spending funds on SETI or on schools/hospitals. Spend money on Earth, not in space? -- Space programs don't send money to space, they spend it for personnel and resources on Earth just like other programs. It just ends in another pocket, "to a computer operator at NASA indtead of to a computer operator for some insurance company". Why waste money on research when there are practical things that need doing? -- [I'll quote almost this entire paragraph.] "As we gain basic scientific knowledge and experience, we develop potential understanding of the mechanisms of the things that concern us most directly: health, the manufacture of improved products for daily use (and yes, weapons), the laws of physical nature. Biology and medicine are not intimately involved with chemistry and subatomic physics, and the new instruments, as well as the new theories, have made outer space a laboratory for studying the particles and radiation on which everything else is based. Deep-space astronomy has become a frontier of nuclear physics. New knowledge is not 'wasted'." ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 26-Oct-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #25 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 25 Today's Topics: Re: I still think we"re alone Re: self-replicating machine program mut - (nf) Mutations and intelligence in space. Meta-SETI -- Truth and reality ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Oct 82 22:32:04-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!aka779 at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: I still think we"re alone As much fun as it has been reading this interesting series of discussions, I find it hard to believe that the subject of UFO close encounters has been ignored. Before you all jump onto me, read my series of UFO classifications in THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF UFOS, edited by Ron Story doubleday, 1980. I interpret the evidence of these reports as evidence of extraterrestrial visits. As to the theories of whether we are alone, or whether we could be visited by physical vehicles (as opposed to radio signals only)-- there are hundreds ofreports of alien credatures of all types, sizes, and apparent evolutionary tracks. None of these reports contradicts any known "science"; and in factthe reports from the 1950s indicate types of technologies that we only now can recognize-- hardly the frauds and hoaxes most would have us believe. So I say--there may be some Netnews terminals in use right now by some who know the answers to the raft of questions proposed. And undoubtedly laughing at some of the arrogant geocentric prejudices being expressed. Not afraid to sign my name, but aware of the flak/flames to come. --Arlan Andrews, Bell Labs, Indy...inuxd!aka779 ------------------------------ Date: 23 Oct 82 5:26:23-PDT (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!barnes at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: self-replicating machine program mut - (nf) I always wondered how something like a robot improve its programming by malfunctioning, but not now after taking CS 265 (a digital logic lab.) I would leave a gate here or there unconnected or with the wire barely touching and the curcuit would work. Then I would realize my error and fix the connection, then the damn thing wouldn't work wired properly. I am a true believer that a logic gate with no input 'knows' what state it should be in to give the correct output (except, of course, when it becomes time to turn in the project). uiucdcs!barnes ------------------------------ Date: 22 Oct 82 13:33:43-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!miles at Ucb-C70 Subject: Mutations and intelligence in space. Re: mutations, I have not as much background of this field as i would like to have, but anyhowm, is it not possible that the differences in people are caused by some sort of mutations. Perhaps by many many generations of interbreeding. ( physical differences ). This may or not be correct, but i just thought that i would suggest it. Re: intelligence... It is almost inevitable that there are some sort of intelligent life forms out there. But, as said we do not know how to look, or where to look. And if other races developed to high tech. , there is no reason that their developments should parrallel earths, so their ways of thinking and communicating are probably quite different than ours. And if are any races out there that can communicate in a similar fashion, they might just not be interested in trying to contacte other races, or their tech. may not be advanced enough. Perhaps the only way we will ever know is to get out there on our own. For the time being that is not too possible. (excuse the typos) R.S. ------------------------------ Date: 26 October 1982 02:16-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Meta-SETI -- Truth and reality To: SPACE at MIT-MC There's a terrific program showing on PBS currently (KQED this past evening, KQEC next Saturday evening) that deals with truth and how to learn it. A major discussion of this subject dosn't belong here, but since it bears on the question of SETI ("Does intelligent life and technological civilization exist elsewhere than on Earth?") I thought I might mention it here. Mortimer Adler is simply brilliant. Applying his view of reality and truth to SETI, we have something like: Objective reality exists independent of our opinions, continues to be the same regardless of whether our opinions are correct (correspond to reality) or not, and would continue to be the same even if we didn't even think about it at all, even if we all died out. Either there is life elsewhere or there isn't. To discover this truth we must collect evidence, conduct experiments, argue and debate, and check out our reasoning ... Has anybody else heard of Mortimer Adler or seen this program (one of a series called "Six Great Ideas"; this episode on truth, next week's episode on beauty) and want to discuss this for a while? (Reply to me, REM at MIT-MC on Arpanet, not to SPACE.) ------------------------------ Date: 26 October 1982 04:07-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas To: SPACE at MIT-MC Oops, little errata, $10/yr should read $10E6/yr, in my message about funds for SETI advocated by Leonard Koppett. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 27-Oct-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #26 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 26 Today's Topics: Re: self-replicating machine program mut - (nf) Money for SETI? Columbia Countdown Query Mutations and intelligence in space. Not alone Not alone ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Oct 82 21:27:27-PDT (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcewan at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: self-replicating machine program mut - (nf) But biological mutation usually creates "junk", too. Its just that every so often a success appears that is an improvement, while all of the thousands of failures fade away do to their inferiority. Just because something is rare doesn't mean it doesn't exist. ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 26 October 1982 18:15-EDT From: Jon Webb To: SPACE at MIT-MC Subject: Money for SETI? Well, I really don't want to restart the Tipler discussion, but suppose we detect no signals. Then we really know very little about whether there is intelligent life in the universe. All we know is that if it is out there, it is not noisy. Wouldn't it be better to spend the money on developing our own space expertise, in order to someday search for life directly, or maybe spread our own life around? There's only so much money people will be willing to spend on space-related things nowadays. Jon ------------------------------ Date: 26-Oct-82 9:57:54 PDT (Tuesday) From: Suk at PARC-MAXC Subject: Columbia Countdown Query To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: Suk Reply-To: Suk at PARC-MAXC Can anyone tell me exactly when STS-5 is scheduled to land at Edwards AFB? Also, do things appear to be on schedule at this point? Thanx. Stan Suk ------------------------------ Date: 26 October 1982 20:50-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Mutations and intelligence in space. To: decvax!utzoo!miles at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC At this time I'd like to propose reasons for technological civilizations out-there actually broadcasting radio waves just like we do, even though they evolved differently and have different culture etc. First, most planets of the rocky type like the four inner planets around Sol (the Sun) which are large enough to hold a good atmosphere for evolving life, like Earth and Venus, have differentiated masses of materials so that various mineral deposits exist. Intelligent life on such planets would discover these minerals and discover their properties. One significant property discovered would be that some materials are insulators and some are conductors. Even if commercial distribution of energy in the form of electricity wasn't used, the properties of electricity would be well investigated, including the property of alternating current being radiated from one place and received at another. I think this means radio transmission would be discovered and developed as a scientific curiosity at the very least. A technological society may be treated somewhat as a large manufacturing plant with a large computing system (the brains of the creatures in the society being the CPUs). Any maufacturing/computing needs communication. In the search for better communication, all sorts of media would be investigated. Just as we on Earth are experimenting with communicating via all wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation from very-low-frequency radio thru ultraviolet (x-rays and gamma-rays aren't used because they are too dangerous) as well as acoustic waves and even thinking about maybe gravity waves someday, I suspect alien civilizations would investigate them all too. In a natural planetary environment various wavelengths have various advantages and disadvantages. Some bounce around between ground and ionosphere to provide better than expected long-distance communication albeit not reliably. Some pass thru the atmosphere thus are effective for satellite-based communication. Some bend around the planet to provide reliable medium-range communication. Some are line-of-sight to provide secure (private) and reliable communication. Some pass thru buildings or go around them smoothly to provide good local communication. Some have such short wavelengths they can be sent via conduits such as waveguides or fibers. -- I suspect the whole electromagnetic spectrum would be used for various purposes. Chances are lots of broadcast-style communication (more efficient than directed-communication when a mass-audience is desired, such as for political brainwashing or civil-defense bulletins) would happen to leak out and be detected from other planets around other stars. We should simulate radio conditions on various possible planetary atmospheres, starting with known ones in our own Solar system, pick wavelengths that are likely to leak out, and listen for those wavelengths. For planets like our own, we simply use ground-based SETI receivers tuned for what passes thru our own atmosphere. For planets unlike our own we might need space-based SETI receivers to catch stuff that leaks out of their atmospheres but not into ours. Any weak links in that chain of argument in favor of radio-based SETI? It's sort of a straw man to knock down, not something I'm very convinced of, but I'm leaning in that direction and I'd like to hear any rebuttal or amendments. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 82 8:25:14-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!ixlpc!mhauck at Ucb-C70 Subject: Not alone Article-I.D.: ixlpc.4054714 Via: Usenet; 27 Oct 82 0:54-PDT How can anyone say we are alone untill they have looked back throught history? What about the Egyptian Pymramids and the Atezs(spelling?)? What about all the cave drawing that have been found showing what looks like men in space suits? How about Chariots of the Gods? Hasn't any one thought of these. It has been stated that all myths begin in fact. What if a group of space travlers stopped here thousands of years ago. Wouldn't they have been throught of as gods? Just think how we would look to people back then. An airplane could be Apollo's sun chariot, a flame thrower lighting. Just think of it. And to those that believe in God, is not God a superior intelligence? Why could he not have come and started this world, a great intelligence watching the life he placed here grow and develop. Finally what civilization would want to have any thing to do with a planet that seems bent on destroying itself. We can can't even get along with other countries, let alone ourselves, so why even bother with a life form that will destroy itself in a few hundred years. Think about the UFO's, men chaseing them any intelligent life would realize we are to afraid to allow non earth beings to come to this planet, without believeing they are here to conquer. And try to destroy them. mankind is not ready for any visitors from other planets and I think any intelligent life would know it. M.J.Hauck ------------------------------ Date: 21 Oct 82 8:25:14-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!ixlpc!mhauck at Ucb-C70 Subject: Not alone Article-I.D.: ixlpc.4054714 Via: Usenet; 27 Oct 82 0:56-PDT How can anyone say we are alone untill they have looked back throught history? What about the Egyptian Pymramids and the Atezs(spelling?)? What about all the cave drawing that have been found showing what looks like men in space suits? How about Chariots of the Gods? Hasn't any one thought of these. It has been stated that all myths begin in fact. What if a group of space travlers stopped here thousands of years ago. Wouldn't they have been throught of as gods? Just think how we would look to people back then. An airplane could be Apollo's sun chariot, a flame thrower lighting. Just think of it. And to those that believe in God, is not God a superior intelligence? Why could he not have come and started this world, a great intelligence watching the life he placed here grow and develop. Finally what civilization would want to have any thing to do with a planet that seems bent on destroying itself. We can can't even get along with other countries, let alone ourselves, so why even bother with a life form that will destroy itself in a few hundred years. Think about the UFO's, men chaseing them any intelligent life would realize we are to afraid to allow non earth beings to come to this planet, without believeing they are here to conquer. And try to destroy them. mankind is not ready for any visitors from other planets and I think any intelligent life would know it. M.J.Hauck ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 28-Oct-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #27 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 27 Today's Topics: I Hope They Leave Us Alone history and outer space SETI, advisability of ... more 'is anyone there?' a monkey wrench into 'is anyone there'?? Re: Ain't logic fun?? - (nf) Money for SETI? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wednesday, 27 October 1982, 10:54-EDT From: John Batali Subject: I Hope They Leave Us Alone To: space at MIT-MC In the context of the discussion about SETI, I ought to ask the question: Do we really want contact with ETs? Perhaps they will bring us superneat technology and perhaps they will be incredibly cute, but I am very uneasy about the prospects of meeting some civilization more advanced than ours. Here are some reasons: 1. Science is fun. Science and technology are not the answers, but the process of finding them. If some BEM told me, for example, the precise half-life of the proton, or why faster-than-light really is possible, or how to cut unemployment without raising inflation, I would be interested, and grateful. But a good deal of the fun of the search would be gone. 2. Humans may be tasty. This may be silly, but it is a reasonable fear when the more general possibility is considered: What do "more advanced" (ie stronger, smarter, cleaner) creatures do when they enter a new territory? Ans: they do whatever they want, eating, changing and generally mucking up anything in their way. (I note that Carl Sagan's cute little plaque on the Voyager probes contains the chemical composition of humans, as well as a map back here. ET: soups on!) 3. Who wants to grovel? I didn't like Childhood's End for the same reasons that I don't like the Bible: I'm a humanist, and I don't like the dignity of humanity to be placed under some other creatures. I don't want them coming here and imposing their will on us, no matter how much it is in our interest. Even >knowing< about ETs might be bad for us, it might cause us to be complacent about fixing our problems as we wait fir the aliens to arrive with the solutions. I would prefer to wait until we are ready to go check out silly radio shows from somewhere in Sagitarius. At least we might get lunch. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Oct 1982 1027-PDT From: WILKINS at SRI-AI (Wilkins ) Subject: history and outer space To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Your message of 27-Oct-82 0302-PDT Looking at history gives no firm evidence of extraterrestrial visitors. Chariots of the Gods is almost completely bunk, and there is a book giving more reasonable explainations for the phenomena. If you wish I can give you the reference after looking it up at home. There was an excerpt in one of the last four Science Digests. David ------------------------------ Date: 27 October 1982 14:21-EDT From: Oded Anoaf Feingold Subject: SETI, advisability of ... To: jon.webb at CMU-20C cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I think searching for evidence of intelligent life would pay off in other ways than finding it - we'd learn new engineering and likely new science. A similar effect - Penzias' and Wilson's (and Best's?) discovery of big-bang residue while looking for noise sources that might screw up Telco microwave transmissions. Besides which, we might find something after all, or discover interesting/profitable things serendipitously. Furthermore, SETI-type activities keep physicist and astronomer types off the streets - very beneficial socially and cheap at the price. Hence my attitude would be to go for it, for some level of funding within an order of magnitude of $10E7/year. Apologies to all for a simplistic and perhaps Pollyannnaish message. Yours, Oded ------------------------------ Date: 26 Oct 82 10:43:55-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: menlo70!nsc!katic at Ucb-C70 Subject: more 'is anyone there?' I don't know about Tipler's ideas, but maybe I can add something to this discussion. In the book "Intelligent Life in the Universe" (Carl Sagan & I S Shklovski, Delta Books) there is an attempt at a mathmetical formula for the number of currently existing, technically advanced sentient races in the galaxy. This attempt is in Chapter 29, "Distribution of technical civilizations in the galaxy." The following is an extract/paraphrase of that attempt. The formula is: N = Rst * Fp * Ne * Fl * Fi * Fc * L Where: Rst Mean rate of star formation, averaged over the lifetime of the Galaxy Fp Fraction of stars with planetary formations Ne Mean number of planets in each planetary system with environments favorable for the origin of life Fl Fraction of such favorable planets on which life develops Fi Fraction of such inhabited planets on which intelligent life with manipulative abilities arises during the lifetime of the local sun Fc Fraction of planets populated by intelligent beings on which an advanced technical civilization arises during the lifetime of the local sun L Lifetime of the technical civilization ======== Lets look at S&S's estimates of the numbers: Rst ~10 stars per year. This is an educated guess. Fp ~1 S&S essentially assume that all stars will have planetary systems Ne ~1 Ditto for inhabitable planets. Fl ~1 Ditto for life arising. Fi A quote: "The question of the evolution of intelligent life is a difficult one. This is not a field which lends itselt to labratory experiementation, and the number of intelligent species available for study on Earth is limited." S&S have adopted the value of 0.1 for this factor. This is close to a WAG (Wild Ass Guess!). Fc "The developement of a technical civilization has a high survival value at least up to a point; but in any given case it depends on the concat- enation of many improbable events, and it has occurred only recently in terrestrial history." S&S have again adopted a value of 0.1, another close WAG. L This one is the kicker! "We can imagine two extreme alternatives for the evaluation of L: (a) a technical civilization destroys itself soon after reaching the communicative phase (L less then 10e2 years); or (b) a technical civilization learns to live with itself soon after reaching the communicative phase. If it survives more than 10e2 years, it will be unlikely to to destroy itself afterwards. In the latter case, its lifetime may be measured on a stellar evolutionary timescale (L much greater than 10e8 years)." They go on to use two values: L < 10e2 years < 10 communicative civilizations! L >> 10e8 years > 10e7 comm. civ's In case one, we may be the only ones, in the later case, civilizations maybe everywhere. Sagan adopts ~10e7 for an average figure leading to: N ~ 10e6 Assuming that this is accurate, they then figure that the average steller distance between technical civilizations is several hundred light years. If we (the net) use this, then we can easily deduce that we haven't been around long enough to notice or be noticed! S&S go through some more stuff and get some more conclusions, but you can easily get the gist of thier ideas. ======== Let me add to this a few factors which I will NOT try to quantify: F!p Fraction of those technical civilizations whose outlook on life is not directed toward a pastoral existance. Ft Fraction of those technical civilizations whose outlook is sufficiently outwardly directed to make intersteller communication attractive Fs Fraction of those technical civilizations who are sane enough to not fear the dangers of intersteller communication S Speed ratio of life, assign mankind=1, those who 'think faster' than us get >1, slower >0 & <1. ======== Philosophically, we can state two facts: 1) We have not proved that intelligent life exists on other planets 2) We have not proved that intelligent life does not exist elsewhere All we can say is that we haven't found anything YET. katic (....!nsc!katic) ------------------------------ Date: 26 Oct 82 15:51:12-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: menlo70!nsc!katic at Ucb-C70 Subject: a monkey wrench into 'is anyone there'?? An Investigation into the Factors Behind the "Is Anyone There" Discussion In a previous message to this group, I suggested something that I'd like to get into a discussion about. Taking the privilege of making highly unwarrented (but possible) assumptions, I will let fly. Here goes: ======== Assumption 1: Any sentient being will accomplish roughly the same amount of productive work in its day, regardless of the length of the day. D = day factor. For mankind, D = 1. For a race on a world going around faster than ours D > 1, for slower 0 < D < 1. This addresses the question of subjective time rate. Suppose we call our day 1 unit long. Suppose that another sentient race (call them the Gardd) is on a planet whose day is 5 units long. Then, by my assumption, the Gardd will take about 400 years to go from the car to the space shuttle (or thier equivalents). For them, D = 0.2 ======== Assumption 2: The average intelligence of a race as a whole can vary. Assumption 3: The racial average intelligence of mankind is about average for the Galaxy. R = racial average intelligence. For mankind, R = 1. Scale others up/down as you would IQ's. (I have taked the liberty of normalizing this quantity.) This addresses the the question of relative intelligence. We can free associate here and come up with some usefull guidelines: Corollary A: There is a minimum value of R below which technical progress is impossible. I will (somewhat arbitrarily) set this lower limit at ~0.6. This society might progress slowely, but I feel it will progress. (We can temporarily assume that there will not be any evolutionary pressure upward. An invalid assumption, but it makes the arguing easier.) Corollary B: There does not appear to be an upper limit to R. If you wish to stipulate that the upper limit is infinate, then you may want to call that race (person?) god. ======== Assumption 4: The peak intelligence (I call it the Newton Factor) is roughly dependent on the population size of the race. ie, the larger the sample size, the farther out the endpoints (of a standard bell curve) will be found. Assumption 5: Mankind is an average population size race. N is the peak intelligence factor. For mankind, N is somewhere around 2 to 2.5. Assume 2 for ease of use. This puts a limit on the spurt growth of scientific/technological (s/t) growth. If a Newton or an Einstein does not come along every now & then, progress is slower. If a transcendent genius does appear, the race may make great growth strides in (relatively) short periods of time. ======== Assumption 6: The carnivorous background of a race affects the Darwinian competition aspect of a race. C = 1 for a carnivore, much less for a herbrivore. On the other hand, C > 1 for an omnivore. This affects the s/t growth rate of that race--carnivores evolve faster, are more efficient competitors and live a 'smarter' life style. (Although there are arguments for being an even smarter prey species, I don't accept them.) Omnivores have the advantage of a wider scope of available food sources. Unfortunately, this is a factor which has a tradeoff associated with it. If a race if highly competative, it is also prone to violence. Corollary C: The violence factor for mankind, V = 1. For a more peaceful race, V > 1. For a less peaceful one, 0 < V < 1. For the sake of argument, I will stipulate that this factor is lowest in herbrivores and highest in carnivores; with omnivores falling in the middle. ======== Assumption 7: The competition enherant in a multisexed race enchances s/t growth rate two ways: through genetic mixing as well as through evolutionary choice decisions in mate selection(s). M = 1 for a multisexed race, much less for a unisexed race. Look at the evolution of unicellular anumals. Those ones which are multisexed generally show a marked advantage in fitting to new niches in the echology, etc. On the other hand, it has been suggested that any race with greater than 2 sexes will have such an inordinate sex drive that no intelligence will be left over for any other purpose. Certainly life-as-we-know-it has no (even minimally) intelligent races other than bisexual. ======== Assumption 8: The curiousity factor of a race affects its s/t growth rate. I (investigation) = 1 for mankind. Questions: --Can intelligence be seperated from curiousity or is curiousity only one (necessary) part of intelligence? --Is s/t growth possible with a low/zero value of I? --Is evolution of intelligence possible without necessary evolution of curiousity? ---------------- What is the point behind all of this? This entire discussion has been taking place under the assumption that all other sentient races act just as we do! I would like to see some questioning of this assumption. Thoroughly cowed but bravely marching onward katic (....!nsc!katic) ------------------------------ Date: 23 Oct 82 21:26:53-PDT (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcewan at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Ain't logic fun?? - (nf) Lets be mathematical about this: How many intelligent species do we know of? At least one. How many star systems have we investigated? One (not too thoroughly). So the expected value for number of intelligent species found per star system >= 1! ------------------------------ Date: 28 October 1982 00:47-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Money for SETI? To: Webb at CMU-20C cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Let me propose this alternative. Instead of treating the itsy bitsy teenie weenie little bit of money we spend on space currently as a rare commodity, and having all the uses for it fight against each other like rats on a sinking ship [SETI, manned space station, unmanned orbiters of Jupiter&Saturn, solar missions, Mars rover, surveys of asteroids&Moon, more shuttle orbiters, Halley's and other comets, ...], why not find ways to get the public so enthusiastic about each worthwhile&inexpensive activity in space [4 cents per USA citizen per year is really virtually free!! Even $10/(yr*person) is less than the pizza budget] that people will demand more space activity and eager watch the results that come back from each new mission? One pizza per person per year will pay for an awful lot of space activity! P.s. it was sad the other night seeing the Nova rerun where somebody at JPL said matter of factly that we'd have a rover on Mars in 1986. So many many things have been cut in recent years, and so many other things have been threatened that we rave about what's not cut and totally forget what was cut a while back, like the Mars rover. Imagine time-lapse images from Mars on the evening news, 24 hours of roving collapsed into a 5-minute "Report From Mars" that is a regular nightly feature!! Wild Kingdom shows a half hour of nature stuff 5 nights a week. How about the same for Mars, say 15 minutes of time-lapse imagary mixed in with 15 minutes of discussion about what was found that day and earlier? People like lotteries. How about funding the whole Viking project by having people try to guess each day what will be found around the next bend in the ? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 29-Oct-82 0317 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #28 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 28 Today's Topics: Re: Ain't logic fun?? - (nf) Re: Mutations and intelligence in space. Galileo's star drawings STS-5 Re: Pournelle's comment on exploration Amateur Radio Station on the Shuttle 250,000,000 people per year Recovery Sighted! Population pressure Lunar Observing Alone Re: Alone ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 October 1982 06:54-EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: Ain't logic fun?? - (nf) To: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcewan at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC There's one problem with your estimate of 1 intelligent species per star system (ignoring the obvious problem that at least three other species on Earth are also intelligent although not technological, as I mentionned a couple times before) -- Your data is very biased. Suppose a survey were conducted in every star system in the Galaxy, asking whether an intelligent species existed there? Exactly one survey sheet would be turned in, after all who would turn it in on the other systems? The reason this planet we're on is suitable for life and not the others in our system, instead of the other way around with Venus nice and Earth unbearable, is because if this planet weren't habitable we wouldn't be here contemplating the question. Your survey with Earth as the only place surveyed is very biased. You've picked a place where intelligent life exists, to conduct the survey, rather than a random place in the Galaxy. Any way you look at it, the expected value won't be 1 until we have picked a few RANDOM star systems out there, not our own, and found them all to be inhabited with intelligent life. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Oct 82 15:17:01-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!CSvax.Physics.els at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Mutations and intelligence in space. Article-I.D.: pur-phy.526 In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.4054 Via: Usenet; 28 Oct 82 3:50-PDT One weak link that I can think of is that general broadcasts usually are fairly weak( on an interstellar scale), and most would be washed out in the background clutter. Arguments similar to yours have been used to arrive at the idea of listening around the "water hole". The idea of listening for random leakage is OK, though if civilizations are fairly dense in distribution. It has the advantage of giving a "peeping tom" sort of view into the society(ies) on the other planet. Broadcasts that are beamed out intentionally are certainly more likely to be censored w.r.t. accidentally giving a potential enemy vital info. els[Eric Strobel] pur-ee!pur-phy!els ------------------------------ Date: 25 Oct 82 17:32:17-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70 Subject: Galileo's star drawings Article-I.D.: ihuxr.160 Via: Usenet; 28 Oct 82 3:55-PDT As an exercise in historical appreciation, I tried comparing my telescopic observations of the Pleiades and Orion with those published by Galileo in "The Sidereal Messenger" (I used "Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo" edited by Stillman Drake.) Galileo's drawing of the Pleiades has 36 stars in it and I could identify all but one of them. Actually there isa very dim candidate star in about the right position, but I wonder if Galileo could have seen it (I suppose he did.) When I looked at his Orion drawing though, I couldn't even get started comparing them with my observation. There didn't seem to be any correlation at all. This is a total mystery to me and I would appreciate any light that anyone can shed on it. (The Orion drawing has about 80 stars.) I don't think that the proper motions of the stars are any where near what would be required to account for this. Also, Galileo's drawings are quite distorted. I attribute this to an extremely small field of view through his primitive telescope. Is this right? But again, that can't account for the total lack of correlation that I find. Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew ------------------------------ Date: 28 Oct 1982 at 1135-CDT From: kjm@UTEXAS-11 Subject: STS-5 To: space@mit-mc Does anyone know how the preparations for STS-5 are coming? ------- ------------------------------ Date: 26 Oct 82 17:09:02-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: teklabs!tekcrd!azure!steveb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Pournelle's comment on exploration Article-I.D.: azure.1383 Via: Usenet; 28 Oct 82 18:09-PDT Jerry Pournelle: ". . .we can sure as hell learn what population pressure is REALLY like if we stay here. . ." Do not forget -- there is *NO* alternative to UNBEARABLE population pressure but to either a) lower the birth rate, or b) raise the death rate. Space colonization will NOT do it. Why? Take some very rough figures -- current earth population ~ 4 Billion; current doubling time ~ 30 years. Averaged over the next 30 years, thats about 130 million new people a year. Averaged over the next 60 years, that's about 250 million new people a year. Anyone care to suggest that we can homestead out 250 MILLION people each and every year? A few thousand or hundred thousand, sure. But if you count on space exploration to check population pressure, you'll end up with a far more effective check -- the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Steve Biedermann (decvax|ucbvax)!teklabs!tekmdp!steveb ------------------------------ Date: 26 Oct 82 22:04:44-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Amateur Radio Station on the Shuttle Article-I.D.: eagle.580 Via: Usenet; 28 Oct 82 18:22-PDT It now appears POSSIBLE that STS-9, the first launch of the Spacelab, will carry an amateur radio station. Owen Garriot, W5LFL, who will be an astronaut on the mission, will be the operator. The Westlink Amateur Radio News service has been hypeing this topic up quite heavily in the past two weeks. Before everybody gets all excited, there are several caveats that should be remembered: 1. The proposal is not yet final. Significant progress is being made, however. 2. STS missions are launched into very low altitude, low inclination orbits. This means that passes are short (try dialing the 900 DIAL-IT number during a mission and listen to how often they hand off to a new tracking station). Passes visible from temperate latitudes are even quicker and at low elevations. 3. If they carry essentially a 2m walkie-talkie as proposed, without repeater capability, stations on the ground will not be able to hear each other as they attempt to contact the shuttle. Combine this with the adrenaline factor, and Garriot will likely not hear much more than interference unless the amateurs calling him are VERY disciplined. 4. Shuttle astronauts (and astronauts in general) are VERY busy people. It is not clear how much spare time Garriot will have to spend yakking on the radio. On the other hand, since the mission will last over a week and is primarily intended to ferry up Spacelab, perhaps he'll have some time. Phil Karn, KA9Q ------------------------------ Date: 28 Oct 1982 1841-PDT From: Hans Moravec Subject: 250,000,000 people per year To: space at MIT-MC The oft repeated (and 1930 vintage) argument about space travel not being able to solve earth's population problems is a canard based on a belief that space travel is very difficult, and can never become as commonplace as, say, commercial air travel. This may have been a reasonable position in the 1930's, but I don't think it holds up with what's already been accomplished, and with the new, second generation, space travel proposals. According to my rough calculations the airlines now carry about 100,000,000 passengers on multi-hour trips per year. 250,000,000 a year could be launched easily if there were a mere thousand community spaceports around the world. The average traffic per port would be only about two jumbo jet loads per day, a lot by today's technology, probably not in a few decades. Meanwhile, up in the sky, the O'Neill colonists are busily building habitats. If a 100,000 person habitat can build a copy in a year, then after a decade the exponentially growing number of colonies can absorb a few hundred million immigrants a year. After two decades there will be a colonist shortage, and the new habitats will have to be staffed by robots, there not being enough people around because they breed so damn slowly. In any case, space solves the space problem for those that go. Those that choose to stay deserve what they get, whatever that may be. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Oct 82 19:40:06-PDT (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!duke!unc!kh at Ucb-C70 Subject: Recovery Sighted! Article-I.D.: unc.4155 Via: Usenet; 28 Oct 82 19:06-PDT Astronomers at Cal Tech, using the 200-inch Mount Palomar telescope, have sighted the economic recovery just beyond the orbit of the planet Saturn. The recovery, which passes periodically through the solar system, will not be visible to the naked eye until 1986. (from cartoon by V.C. Rogers, Durham Morning Herald, Oct. 25, 1982) duke!unc!kh kh.unc@UDel-Relay ------------------------------ Date: 27 Oct 82 11:55:31-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: teklabs!tekcrd!tekcad!keithl at Ucb-C70 Subject: Population pressure Article-I.D.: tekcad.240 Via: Usenet; 28 Oct 82 19:09-PDT "...Space colonization will NOT relieve population pressure..." Only time will tell. However, consider that industrialization leads to a lower birth rate, and space resources may help industrialization. Other effects of this sort may help bring about Pournelle's suggested population relief. Let's examine the ultimate limits on space migration. Assume you want to ship people averaging 50 kg out at about 11 km/s. The kinetic energy per person is about 3E9 Joules, or 7.5E17 Joules for 250 million people. This is the Earth's solar influx in about 6 seconds, or one month of electrical power generation in the US. Rockets are too expensive and inefficient for massive space migration, but there are no fundamental physical reasons why cheaper mechanisms cannot be made. And remember that a large proportion of the colonists will be young couples of childbearing age; this will (at least) double the effectiveness of space migration, by shipping both the young adults and their potential children. If you keep this up for a generation, the Earth's population will not only stabilize, it will soon disappear. Most people will be too dumb to leave, regardless of how bad things get. With cheaper transport, however, those who want to will be able to escape. 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 Oct 82 8:38:49-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: menlo70!sytek!gi!arizona!purdue!ecn-ec.inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70 Subject: Lunar Observing Article-I.D.: inuxc.490 Via: Usenet; 28 Oct 82 21:14-PDT INDIANAPOLIS OCT 27, 1982 Some of you may have noticed the brown haze in the air. This is usually caused be an inversion layer, warm air trapped below cooler air. While this is not good for deep space observing it can causes rock steady seeing. Last night I set up Sundark, the famous blue telescope, and took an utterly fantastic journey across the moon. At 340x the image was razor sharp, a very rare event. To our friends in the mid-west, tonight the same weather conditions may hold. It is time to dust off those high power eye pieces and get some use out of them. Fred- BTL INDY ------------------------------ Date: 22 Oct 82 16:10:33-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: menlo70!sytek!gi!arizona!purdue!ecn-ec.inuxc!ixn5c!ihps3!houxi!houxz!hocsb!hocsh!dcs at Ucb-C70 Subject: Alone Article-I.D.: hocsh.109 Via: Usenet; 28 Oct 82 21:26-PDT I hope I am not opening a pandora's box, but here goes. Does anyone think that maybe another civilization has visited us in the past, maybe even stayed on? Is there any credible evidence for this? Doug Smith BTL-HO houxh!dcs 201-949-3569 ------------------------------ Date: 28 Oct 82 9:07:41-PDT (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ihnet!tjr at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Alone Article-I.D.: ihnet.101 In-Reply-To: Article hocsh.109 Via: Usenet; 28 Oct 82 22:42-PDT re: "does anyone have evidence that any extraterrestrials have ever visited earth?" I remember a method to investigate the universe (but cannot remember who said it): Build a self-replicating (Von Neumann) machine, send it out to some galaxie, have it replicate itself "N" times, investigate its surroundings, and then communicate them back to HOME BASE. This will cover the (known) universe in a finite time, and supply A LOT of information about it. I could never help thinking that WE are part of such a Von Neumann machine, about half-way along in the program. (Fossils? - the program has been executing here on earth for hundreds of millions of years; fossils are the remnants of earlier steps in a "bootstrapping" process.) So the question becomes: "Are WE extraterrestrials?" Tom Roberts ihnet!tjr ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 30-Oct-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #29 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 29 Today's Topics: Amsat Phase 3B Status Report Re: Columbia Countdown Query Number of civilizations per galaxy Re: SPACE Digest V3 #26 Re: 250,000,000 people per year Re: SPACE Digest V3 #26 Re. 250,000,000 per year to space: Breeding; optimal population size; technological bootstrapping ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Oct 82 21:42:51-PDT (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Amsat Phase 3B Status Report Article-I.D.: eagle.579 Via: Usenet; 29 Oct 82 5:03-PDT ESA has announced that Amsat Phase-IIIB will now fly on April 2, 1983. The board of inquiry filed its report on the launch failure of Ariane L5 on Oct 15th. As was already stated, the third stage cryogenic hydrogen turbopump failed before normal shutdown, causing the failure. It is now believed that the failure may actually have been due to overtesting of the turbopump gearbox that weakened the unit before launch. In any case, ESA is delaying the launch in order to subject the next launcher to a very close inspection before another launch. This makes us feel a little better; there is a saying that the best launch to go on is the one right after a failure - everybody is on their toes. The Phase 3B mode "B" transponder (70 cm in, 2 m out) has been tested in a thermal vacuum chamber, and found to meet specifications. Peak power output is approximately 50 watts, and the AGC is set to maintain an average power output of about 15 watts. Transponder input power at the antenna terminals to obtain the average power output is about -105dbm. Bandwidth is almost exactly 150 khz. The mode "L" (23 cm in, 70 cm out) transponder has been tested and found to not yet meet specs. Power output is low by about a DB, and the third-order intermodulation products are only 17 db down. With this latest launch slip, there will probably be time to improve the L transponder. Phil Karn, KA9Q ------------------------------ Date: 27 Oct 82 15:42:47-PDT (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Columbia Countdown Query Article-I.D.: alice.1020 In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.4053 Via: Usenet; 29 Oct 82 7:36-PDT STS-5 is scheduled to launch on 11 Novemeber. The mission length is supposed to be five days, giving a 16 November landing date. I have not received a time of landing yet; that is usually released the week before the launch. As of the last I heard, everything was running on schedule, and I haven't heard anything else for about a week. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Oct 1982 0859-PDT Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-8 Subject: Number of civilizations per galaxy From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin) To: Space at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[OFFICE-8]29-Oct-82 08:59:19.WMARTIN> In reference to the discussion of Sagan's formula, I just heard an NPR Journal item (National Public Radio, aired locally on 28 Oct 82) which was an interview with James Michener regarding his new book, "Space". In this interview, he talked about the same sort of formula that was printed here. Of course, since this was radio, there was no detail, but a couple of the comments were: 1. Binary and multiple star systems are excluded, as they are unlikely to have habitable planets. (I can see logic in this; planets in such systems are likely to be gobbled up by one of the stars, or be in eccentric orbits which cause wide variations in heat, or just receive too much radiation from all those suns.) That would make "Fp" much less than "~1". 2. End result was 15 current intelligent civilizations per galaxy. I don't have any particular emotional attachment to this result, I'm just reporting it as it is appropriate to the current discussion. It loks like Michener's "Space" might be worth reading... Will ------------------------------ Date: 29 Oct 1982 1220-EDT From: LS.RHK at MIT-EECS Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #26 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Your message of 27-Oct-82 0608-EDT What's so amazing about the Aztecs (correct spelling!) and the Egyptians? Many proposals of visits by spacemen are simply because we cannot fully understand the long lost construction techniques used to build the pyramids. Recent findings may indicate that the stone was not actually cut and moved, but rather "melted" with an acid and then molded into the correct shape at the site, where it was re-hardened. This does not seem like such a way out idea that us clever humans couldn't have figured out how to do it without alien help. Try reading a little more archaeology books once and a while. You might start with a book called "Riddle of the Pyramids". I don't know the author, but I'll find out and report back. It takes a realistic look at the pyramid's construction, purpose, and design. Who knows? You may just find it interesting. Sincerely, Robert H. Kassel LS.RHK@EE ------- ------------------------------ Date: 29 Oct 1982 14:14:51-EDT From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: hpm at s1-A Subject: Re: 250,000,000 people per year Cc: space at mit-mc Taking just a cursory look at costs, your figures are excessive by 2-3 orders of magnitude. Compare the cost of a shuttle (the one a private firm is trying to buy, for instance) versus that of an executive jet, or the cost for a shuttle flight (in terms of # of average incomes) versus that of the first commercial plane flights. What is needed is a technological breakthrough to bring these numbers anywhere near your figures (consider for instance that the solid fuel shuttle boosters are already taking a significant fraction of perchlorate(? see the article I entered a while back) production); such a breakthrough would have to begin by getting around the mass ratio problem (the msg after yours has some cute calculations on minimum energy needed to get people into space but doesn't say how much ancillary mass (e.g., spacesuit or capsule) the numbers allow for). This is about the most off-the-wall assertion I've seen in the digest in some time. Got any ideas about how we could reasonably get from here to there? ------------------------------ Date: 29-Oct-82 11:55:11 PDT (Friday) From: reed.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #26 In-reply-to: OTA's message of 27 Oct 1982 0302-PDT To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Re: SETI It would be interesting if one of the interstellar bound satellites (Pioneer or later on Voyager) would turn around and look at the earth as would an ET looking for life in the solar system. We might get a better idea of what they are likely to see in terms of noise vs signals, which would in turn give us a better idea of what to look for. Personally, while I believe the SETI has merit, and is a worthwhile project, I don't see what's so all fired important about doing it now as opposed to in the future. Any search now is likely to be inconclusive, and any search in the future will be no more likely to succeed. Since we are short on money now, let's spend it on things that are more important. -- Larry -- ------------------------------ Date: 29 Oct 1982 2150-PDT From: Hans Moravec Subject: Re. 250,000,000 per year to space: To: space at MIT-MC Of course you wouldn't do it with the shuttle; though enough people might be moved to space with current means to get the ball rolling. The exponential doesn't require that much traffic for the first decade - it picks up greatly later. One of the most likely rocket successors is the earth based mass driver (See "An alternative launching medium" by Kolm and Mongeau, IEEE Spectrum, April 1982). Rail guns have already achieved escape velocity, the gentler coaxial accelerators are not far behind. A mass driver long enough to launch loosely packed people takes more real estate (about 1000Km) than a 1000g compact version, but needs no more accelerating coils or energy. With it you could put people in space using within a factor of two the minimum theoretical energy. With a factor of four further improvement in material strength to weight ratio over Kevlar you could build orbiting skyhooks which could lift people gently into space at almost no energy cost, if you lowered a similar mass of lunar slag back down. Even with plain Kevlar you can greatly increase the shuttle's efficiency; according to calculations done by Burke Carley and myself, 50 million kilograms could be brought to low earth orbit with about 1700 shuttle launches. By first building a large tapered Kevlar cable in orbit, which is spun up so the tip velocity subtracts about half orbital velocity at closest approach to the surface, the same job, including building the cable, could be done in 300 launches. The advantage increases if you want to move more mass, because the satellite needs to be built only once. Its orbital momentum is restored between succesive payload accelerations by a high specific impulse thruster, probably an ion engine, at its hub. So, anyway, there are lots of reasons to believe that space travel will get much cheaper, maybe even more than three orders of magnitude, when things really get rolling. Even if they don't, the wealth produced by the growing (and growing smarter) space population will make the per capita income higher, as in past. The analogy with air transport is not as weak as your naive analysis suggests. The major reason that so many people are able to fly today is not that the cost of flight has dropped so dramatically since 1910, when almost nobody flew. The main reason is that the general wealth has increased so far that we can now afford to build and run so many aircraft. The same thing will happen with space transport - the costs will decline as knowledge and experience increases, and those same increases in knowledge will make the posessors and their friends rich enough to afford it eventually. ------------------------------ Date: 29-Oct-82 22:52:22 PDT (Friday) From: Hamilton.es at PARC-MAXC Subject: Breeding; optimal population size; technological bootstrapping To: Space@MC cc: Hamilton.es Space is NOT an ultimate answer to population pressures. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I recall someone calculated that if we continue to increase our numbers at the present rate, in a few thousand years humanity would have to expand outward in a ball at the speed of light to avoid overpopulation. Just think for a minute -- as the near space around you fills up, the constant overpopulation stream from your planet has to go farther and farther, meeting more and more people along the way, to reach the frontier. (Anybody care to come up with some numbers?) I'd like to discuss optimum population size, which has relevance for both earth and space colonies. I believe the optimum population is one which is big enough that most important economies of scale can exist, and with enough redundancy such that a large common-mode disaster would not cripple the economy. I strongly suspect that a world population of around 100 million would be plenty large enough to meet these criteria. Further, as genetic engineering raises the avg I.Q., and people have lots of free time to devote to the arts, we will not need large populations to get cultural variety. Unfortunately, as technology marches onward, it seems like a larger and larger production runs (and thus, population) are required to achieve the necessary economies of scale. Conceivably, robotics and easily-reprogrammable factories will change this. Does anyone know of any studies addressing these questions? I'm also interested in the question of technological bootstrapping. How long would it take a couple of thousand people dropped on a tropical island (or minimal space colony) with nothing, to develop to our current technological state? Suppose we gave them all our knowledge (microfiche, access to computer data bases, etc.) but no tools. How long would it take them to progress from stone axe, to blast furnace, to VLSI factory? What are the critical points? For instance, would giving them a bar of platinum, or a human-powered lathe, or a bank of solar cells, or whatever, reduce the time by a generation? Anybody know of any studies (or SF novels!) addressing this in detail? --Bruce ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 31-Oct-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #30 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 30 Today's Topics: Galileo? Re: I still think we"re alone Low-cost launching IUS to Get First Workout Tomorrow ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Oct 82 17:05:55-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!pyuxbb!pyuxdd!pyuxjj!pyuxcc!djj at Ucb-C70 Subject: Galileo? Perhaps Galileo had a better view of the stars since he was not burdened with centuries of pollution distorting the atmosphere. Then again, maybe he guessed a lot! Dave ------------------------------ Date: 23 Oct 82 3:58:29-PDT (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: teklabs!charliep at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: I still think we"re alone I cannot let the references to UFO's go unanswered. As a fan of the Skeptical Enquirer, it is my duty to point out that even Dr. Hynek, head honcho UFOlogist-believer, admits that NOT ONE reported case of UFO sightings is best explained by proposing some alien interference. Even the kindest (non-alien) observer must truly admit that the entire subject is rife with frauds and cases of blatant tampering with the "evidence". It's really too bad when the movie makers mislead and misrepresent the facts, as in several recent "big hits", just to make more money. A lot of people REALLY BELIEVE that stuff now. Maybe if we all pray hard enough, ET will come back and give us an outlet for our love.... ------------------------------ Date: 30 Oct 1982 1453-EDT From: MINSKY at MIT-OZ Subject: Low-cost launching To: space at MIT-MC cc: minsky at MIT-OZ There appears to be a way to launch heavy loads that is remarkably cheap. In this scheme (suggested by certain scientists working in a certain laboratory near the Livermore Valley in California) you drill a vertical cannon into the earth. The propellent is a small H-bomb, and the projectile is a densely packed space-colony kit. Kinetic energy obtained this way may be even much cheaper than railguns or any other conventional power source. Of course, you have to use some lower-G system to launch people to the rendevous, until we find how to freeze or otherwise suitably pack them. Of course, this Jules Verne-like fusion-launch scheme is politically impossible today. The authors of the scheme claim it involves negligible radwaste escape because all activity remains buried kilometers below ground. But they don't deny that further details are classified. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 30 Oct 82 9:44:15-PDT (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: IUS to Get First Workout Tomorrow Article-I.D.: alice.1037 Via: Usenet; 31 Oct 82 1:17-PST The Inertial Upper Stage booster, designed to lift payloads carried up in the shuttle into higher orbits, will get its first real workout tomorrow. Two satellites, DSCS Phases II and III, launched at 1205 EDT today by the new Titan booster, are now in a 95 to 120 miles orbit around the Earth. Tomorrow, their IUS's will ignite and, if they work, will carry them up to geosynchronous orbits. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 01-Nov-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #31 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 31 Today's Topics: Space Industrialization Why Space Industrialization? Optimism Number of civilizations per galaxy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 31 Oct 1982 1108-EST From: John Redford To: space at MIT-AI cc: redford at SHORTY Subject: Space Industrialization There is a lot of blithe talk about opportunities for new industries in space, but a lack of hard information as to what they might be. Perhaps people on this list can help. As I see it, the only advantage space offers is zero gravity. Better vacuums are attainable in Earth labs. Raw materials are more easily mined from the sea-bed or Antarctica than they are from the asteroid belt. Solar energy is more plentiful and more constant in space, but developing it would be a project ten times the size of the Alaska pipeline, and we need something we can do in the next ten years. And if cheap fusion came along our hundred billion dollars would go down the drain. I've heard of two processes that might get a boost from zero-g: drug production by electrophoresis and semi-conductor material production. From what little I know about electrophoresis it works by putting the materials to be separated in an electric field. Each molecule is accelerated by the field by an amount depending on its molecular weight (or, more exactly, ratio of charge to weight). I don't know enough to say how zero-g helps you here, but maybe someone out there does. In any case, it seems that recombinant DNA lets you synthesize what you want directly, rather than having to synthesize everything and then separate out what you want. Recombinant DNA would have another, political advantage in that it would not be dependent on the whims of Congress and NASA. Congress has already cut back the number of shuttle flights once. Who would want their profits to depend on whether David Stockman was sharpening his budget cutting axe? The other process, semi-conductor manufacture, I do know something about. For crystallizing silicon, space-based processing is pointless. There are dozens and dozens of steps in the manufacture of a chip. They all introduce defects. The bulk of the defects that kill chips come in these later stages, not in the original wafer. Also, the cost of an advanced chip is largely the cost of its design, not its manufacture (except for memories). We can already put more transistors on a silicon chip than we know what to do with. However, there is another material, gallium arsenide, that might benefit from space-based processing. GaAs has six times the mobility of silicon, meaning that an electron will move six times faster through it in a given electric field. Many circuits are speed-limited by the time it takes an electron to cross a transistor, so GaAs has clear advantages. At present it is used in microwave applications where only a couple of transistors are needed. For more complex circuits, the yield of defect-free parts is very low. No one has succeeded in making even an eight-bit microprocessor out of it. Part of the problem is because GaAs doesn't crystallize as cleanly as pure silicon. Zero-g processing might help, and then again it might not. It's something to try anyway. However, it is also difficult to put good insulating layers on the stuff, and there could be other major yield problems. There is one industrial product, though, that we know space is good for: information. Telecommunications amounts to something like a half a billion a year in sales. It's hard to estimate the value of weather and Landsat data because it is given away by the government, but that's probably substantial too. For some reason this doesn't have the sex appeal of drugs or chips. Maybe it's because human presence is not required. Maybe it's because all these satellites are looking down instead of up and out. NASA withdrew from comsat research some time ago, and now funds for Landsat D have been cut off. Could all this interest in space industries be misplaced? John Redford -------- ------------------------------ Date: 31 Oct 1982 1858-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: Why Space Industrialization? To: space at MIT-MC I'm feeling at bit at loose ends today so, although its probably a mistake, I think I'll take time to answer some of the questions raised by the previous message. To a large degree this will constitute preaching to the converted but it is possible that there are some out there, John included, who may be enlightened. To the others: please bear with me. The real answer to John Redford's question does not lie in the detailed examination of certain industries to see which can benifit most from the advantages of space manufacturing. The answer can be found by considering the big picture. The basic imperative of space industrialization is simply that virtually everything will be cheaper and easier when done in space. By everything, I mean IC manufacture, steel products production, energy production, consumer goods manufacture, metals refining, agriculture, food processing, and many other things. The reasoning behind this claim is as follows. What governs manufacturing costs are the costs of the various ingredients to the process. This is raw materials, energy, transportation, capital, and labor. Looking into the future, it seems that labor will get cheaper as automation makes things less and less labor intensive. Energy and raw materials can be expected to get more expensive. The cost of capital depends on the degree of capital intensiveness of the process, the risk involved and imponderables like the prevailing interest rates. Transportation is usually dominated by energy costs which will rise and the distances involved. The current "problem" with space industrialization is that of transportation and labor (high cost) and capital (high risk). First transportation. It can reasonably be argued that the high cost of transportation will drop and drop dramatically as time, money, and effort are applied to the problem. The past few days have seen several suggestions on how the to orbit transportation situation can be changed radically, and for the better. It should be clear that the from orbit direction can only be easier. Consider, for instance, a large metal balloon, which is evacuated, loaded with goods destinied for the surface, and pushed gently in the direction of the earth. Unlike a meteor or space craft this object will have a density of, say, one tenth that of air at STP. So as it encounters the upper fringes of the atmosphere it will bounce and roll and gradually deaccelerate and sink to the altitude where the air density is 1/10 that of sea level. Then you open a small valve and let air in until the balloon reaches the altitude you choose. Let down a tether to a waiting ship and tow the balloon to port. The balloon is converted to beer cans or tank treads or what have you and the cargo inside is loaded onto trains and trucks and delivered to market. As transportation to and fro becomes cheaper, the amount of activity that can go on there will increase. At first, clearly, only the highest value-per-gram items will be profitable. But as transportation becomes cheaper more and more things will becore profitable. As the volume of activity increases the benefits of yet cheaper methods of transportation will also increase. Economies of scale will also help drive down costs. It's not just transportation that will improve with effort. The cost of a manhour of labor will also decrease. As the environment becomes more common all the ancillary expenses of labor will drop. Food and housing costs will drop as it becomes cheaper to import it, economies of scale will eventually make growing food feasible. Insurance and other fringe benifits will get cheaper as more is learned about the environment. If the demand for jobs in space exceeds the supply of such jobs the wages costs will also drop. From a mechanical stand point factories will be easier and cheaper to build in space. There's no gravity to worry about. That will make most things easier. Consider a process that needs an assembly line 10 miles long. On the earth you would need either a very large (and expensive) building or a complicated switchback type arrangement. In space you just stretch it out in the most convenient way. Consider the difficulty of making 100 story high I-beams for a large building. It would be almost impossible on the earth but in space you just set up the steel rolling mill and have it keep rolling I-beam until you have it as long as you want it. Extrude as many as you need and let them hang there in space cooling then ship them down. Have the balloon drop them right into the building's foundation like a huge crane, add concrete and you have the building's superstructure done. This sort of thing will reduce the capital requirements, and increasing familiarity with the concepts will reduce the risk premium of the capital's cost. As presumably everyone realizes, most of the raw materials in this solar system are not to be found within 5 miles of the surface of the third planet. Most of them are above that planet's atmosphere. As the easily accessible materials are used up on the earth, the exoatmospheric sources will become increasingly attractive. As better transportation techniques are developed (perhaps for other original purposes) the costs of bringing materials from the moon and the asteroids will decrease. As more of the intermediate stages of a manufacturing process are already produced or used in space they will become available in space at a discount from their earth surface prices. If you are making electric motors and someone else has already built a copper wire factory because the Navy needed a single piece of copper wire 500 Km long, then copper wire will be cheaper than wire imported from the surface. If, in addition, GE developed a process for making high quality permanent magnets out of bizarre alloys that could only be made in space, then the best magnets available anywhere in the system might just be dirt cheap if you happened to need them in orbit. You get the idea. Energy is also something that will be cheaper in space than anywhere else. Except for nuclear power, all the energy mankind has ever used is stored solar energy. Why not get it straight from the source? I wouldn't worry about cheap fusion power myself, but if it comes, so what? Are you going to throw away a solar panel or a big solar mirror which you are running for free just because someone will sell you cheap power? Once you've bought the solar cells you might as well keep on using them. When they wear out you can replace them with a fusion generator. If you're getting solar energy from the source, and you have access to hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen you can probably grow food more economically on space than on the surface. Continuous daylight, fully controlable growing conditions, no pests, no diseases, what could be better? And if you've got the food there, why not do all the high energy processing there too? The whole system is a large scale positive feedback cycle. As more and more industries move into space the leverage for making some aspect of space utilization cheaper becomes enormous. Then each incremental improvement lures new and different industries into space since it has reached the threshold where they can be profitable. The larger the volume of space activity the more money and effort will be spent on improving the profitability of those activities. This increase in the technology base will benefit everyone both in space and on the surface. The way to determine how far this process of space indutrialization can go is to look at the physical limits of the basic processes. You don't call up NASA and ask them how much the rental on the shuttle is if you want to know if it will be economically feasible to roll steel plates for container ships in space in 50 years. The question is really: what is the energy cost of delivering steel plates from orbit to Philidelphia harbor? The answer is there is an energy surplus of 32 million joules per kilogram! This sounds interesting, maybe we can sell 1% of that energy as electricity for a penny a kwh? That is 9 cents per kilogram. If a container ship contains 10 000 tonnes of steel then that should make me about a million dollars just in delivering the steel to the customer. Plus the price I charge for the steel itself, and I should be doing OK. What is the energy cost of bringing a tonne of asteroid back from the belt? What form do I need that energy in? How fast do I need it? Will solar panels and a mass driver do it? How about nuclear explosions? How about a solar sail? Can I do my processing in the belt and just ship back the the finished products? Can people live and work for long periods of time in space? Are O'Neill colonies a practical way to house people working in space? Will people like it? The answers to these questions suggests to me that there is no serious physical limit that will prevent space industrialization. Indeed, it looks as if most things will be much easier and more economical in space than on the earth. If this is so than in 100 years there may be nothing left on the surface of economic significance. This is not to say that there will be nothing of any value though. Converting the earth to a park sounds like a good idea to me. As others have suggested exporting the earth's population is only difficult, not impossible. If it should be deemed necessary or important, why not? The key is thinking big. If you can think of a way to do something, why not consider it straight forward? If you can't think of a way to do it, but its theoretically possible, why not consider it doable? If you can't prove it impossible, why not consider it worth studying? If its been proved impossible, why not consider it unlikely? Don't consider it absolutely impossible and not worth thinking about until God himself comes and personally tells you so! Optimistically yours, Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 31 Oct 1982 2047-PST From: Hans Moravec Subject: Optimism To: space at MIT-MC And if God Himself tells you it's impossible, be sure to be skeptical, and ask "Who is this 'God' person, anyway?". ------------------------------ Date: 1 November 1982 04:35-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Number of civilizations per galaxy To: WMartin at OFFICE-8 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Actually, in a binary star system with suitable mass ratios, wouldn't most of the remaining mass collect at the L-4 and L-5 points, creating two massive planets after things stabilize? The question then is whether these two locations are a reasonable distance for life to evolve. Of course having only one planetary distance instead of a whole range (Mercury to Neptune in our case) decreases the probability of a habitable planet considerably. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 02-Nov-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #32 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 32 Today's Topics: IUS Works vanVandenburg flights Re: Pournelle"s comment on exploration Space Industrialization what are short term space industries? Population growth re re 250,000,000 people per year Population growth - on second thought Launching by Mass Driver, Skyhooks Take that, you pessimist! Space Industrialization ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Oct 82 22:17:59-PDT (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: IUS Works Article-I.D.: alice.1040 Via: Usenet; 1 Nov 82 3:22-PST The second phase of the DSCS Phases II and III launch succeeded tonight, and both satellites are now in geosynchronous orbits. The Initial Upper Stage booster that carried them out of their 95 mile orbit ignited on schedule and worked perfectly. The new Titan 34D put them in their initial orbit, and that also performed without a flaw. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Oct 82 17:41:17-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: hplabs!intelqa!gsp86!public at Ucb-C70 Subject: vanVandenburg flights Article-I.D.: gsp86.157 Via: Usenet; 1 Nov 82 3:24-PST Last I heard, shuttle flights out of Vandenburg will be polar shots. First, can anyone confirm that, second will they take off to the north or south? In other words does L.A. get to see it, or S.F.? murray at intelqa ------------------------------ Date: 29 Oct 82 17:48:26-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: hplabs!intelqa!omsvax!bc at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Pournelle"s comment on exploration Article-I.D.: omsvax.189 In-Reply-To: Article azure.1383 Via: Usenet; 1 Nov 82 3:27-PST Jerry Pournelle: ". . .we can sure as hell learn what population pressure is REALLY like if we stay here. . ." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he was suggesting we ship all the excess (who chooses?) population out into space, but rather that the drastic increase in *average* standard of living for the entire planet, due to the increase in available energy, materials, and processing techniques, would cause the birth rate to drop. We have some data that show a correlation between increasing standard of living and decreasing birth rate both in the long-industrialized nations of North America and Europe as well as the recently developed nations of Asia. This hardly constitutes discovery of a universal principle, but hell, it's the best hope we've got that population won't continue to increase to a massive die-off from one or all of the Four Horsemen. I personally do not think that Planned Parenthood is going to be able to make a dent in the birth rate by reasoned discourse with any large fraction of the world's fertile adults. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Nov 1982 0704-EST From: Robert W. Kerns Subject: Space Industrialization To: space at MIT-MC "a project time times the size of the Alaska pipeline"? C'mon, I thought you were talking about SPACE industry, not powering EARTH industry. To power your GaAs plant would require some aluminized mylar for heat, and some solar cells (perhaps manufactured locally!) or a small steam turbine for the electricals. A very small piece of a shuttle cargo, I'm sure. As for vacuum not being an advantage. I thought I had heard it was better than any produced with other than the most elaborate equipment on Earth. No matter, it's CHEAP! Don't discount gravity. I notice that a lot of Ted's items are gravity-related benifits. Gravity is a BIG factor in trying to make a 100-story I-beam, and a prohibitive factor in actually moving it into place! (Of course, without gravity, you probably wouldn't NEED a 100-story I-beam anyway; tension structures would use a long cable instead, and use rotation to keep things apart... ------- ------------------------------ Date: 1 Nov 1982 1402-EST From: John Redford To: space at MIT-AI cc: redford at SHORTY Subject: what are short term space industries? Message-ID: <"MS10(2055)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11868515394.29.583.3215 at DEC-MARLBORO> Lots of things are physically possible; most are not economic. Perhaps there are ways to get things to and from orbit for ten cents a kilogram. Perhaps growing oranges at L5 will be cheaper than growing them in Florida. But we can't get to that point unless there's something right now that's easier to do in space than on earth. What can we say to the steely-eyed man from Johnson and Johnson when he asks incredulously: "It will cost one hundred million dollars to do ONE WEEK of research on SpaceLab?" It had better be something more concrete than "Space is the high frontier", or he'll spend his money shoring up the image of Tylenol. Last time I looked, the entire merchant semiconductor industry in the US had sales of five billion dollars. That's up from nothing in about twelve years, but it's still only half of NASA's budget. Even if space industries have the same kind of explosive growth, they won't be able to supplement NASA until well through the 1990s. Since IC research is much cheaper than space research, and its benefits are a lot more obvious, space probably won't grow as fast. The comsat industry certainly hasn't. The first ones went up in the mid-sixties. At that rate space industrialization won't get up steam until the next century. The sort of developments we're talking about here take serious amounts of money, money like what the oil companies spend on exploration. Exxon has excellent reasons to look for oil, and we would have to present reasons just as compelling to put the same amount of money into space. What would they be? John Redford PS What have the Russians been doing in their space station for the last N years? If no one knows then it might be something good enough for the military to keep to themselves. -------- ------------------------------ Date: 1 Nov 1982 11:09 PST From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Population growth To: SPACE@MIT-MC cc: Wedekind.es The "low-cost launching" discussion grew out of a question about how long our current birth and death rates can persist. Low cost launching or no, the answer is "not too long". Unless there are some really wild developments soon (FTL drive or VERY matter- and energy-efficient "people") we will find our galaxy cramped before the population reaches 10E20 or 10E25 times its current value. With a 30-year doubling time that gives something like: X------------------------------N-------P where X is the beginning of the historical period, N is now, and P is a generous estimate of when the party will be over. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: 1 Nov 1982 18:12:40-EST From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: space at mit-mc Subject: re re 250,000,000 people per year Your technical analysis is interesting, but supports my conclusion that an unpredictable breakthrough is necessary (e.g. your request for a material [stronger] than Kevlar). I'm also fascinated by your casual assumption of 1000 km spinward being available---I can think of a few places where such land exists and most of them present major difficulties. As for my "naive economic analysis", look who's talking! Do you even have any idea of what the curve of total population vs. number of flights taken actually looks like? The third item is even more critical---what gets done about population while we're waiting for this pie in the sky to materialize? ------------------------------ Date: 1 Nov 1982 15:19 PST From: Wedekind.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Population growth - on second thought To: SPACE@MIT-MC cc: Wedekind.es It's hard to botch an estimate of something which is a logarithm, but I tried. My msg on the limits of population growth didn't listen to itself. Without FTL transport, in the next couple thousand years we'll only have time to fill about a millionth of the galaxy before the doubling must begin to slow. This means about 20 less doublings than I had figured on. On the other hand, my figure for max persons/star system might be too pessimistic; hike this up by a factor of a million (to 10E15 times the current population of earth - after all, imagine how many starships you can make the solar system into!) and maybe we're in the same ballpark of 60 doublings (a couple of millenia, 20% of history) as a generous upper bound. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: 1 Nov 1982 9:31-PST From: dietz at usc-cse Subject: Launching by Mass Driver, Skyhooks To: hpm@s1-a,space@mit-mc Origin: usc-cse Reply-To: dietz.usc-cse@udel-relay Mass driver: The human body can take a lot of acceleration if it's immersed in a fluid of equal density. To work, this fluid must also fill the lungs. Possible fluids are fluorocarbons, which dissolve much oxygen, or a pressurized Xenon-Oxygen mixture (at 50 atm. it has the same density as the body, and we'd only need aboiut .5% oxygen to breathe it). The Xenon has the disadvantage of being an anesthetic, but is much easier to breathe than a liquid. The upper limit to this technique is the nonuniformity of the human body. At high enough acceleration (hundreds to thousands of g's?) the bones begin to sink though the lighter tissue (ugh). Skyhook: Doesn't the skyhook (and the elevator) have problems with space junk? The volume swept out by the cable is substantial. I'd expect that it would hit orbiting fragments every few days. One hit is enough to break it. Most of the cable is travelling at high velocity relative to the junk, increasing both the probability and the energy of collision. ------------------------------ Date: 01 Nov 1982 2129-PST From: Hans Moravec Subject: Take that, you pessimist! To: space at MIT-MC Well, the exact timing of individual technical advances is unpredictable, but the overall process has a kind of regularity - for example Moore's 1965 law that the number of components per IC will double each year for a long time shows no sign of letup, though it required and continues to require continuous scientific advances. A similar law holds about the maximum speed of transportation, or the strength to weight of materials. The mass drivers don't have to be spinward; once you escape the tyranny of the exponential a couple of thousand km/hr aren't such a big deal, and polar would be ok - we were talking about escape velocity mostly anyway. Also, a mass driver of this kind would be a bulk launcher, and would take only three minutes or so for each launch cycle. If built for shuttle scale payloads, it could conservatively launch 10 people every five minutes, 120/hr, 3000/day, one million per year, so you would only need a few hundred. You could build some side by side, but it would be more sensible to just use one in pipeline mode - there could be power plants along its length, and maybe you could get a load off every few seconds. A factor of four for Kevlar isn't such a big deal. The theoretical (bond strength limited) strength of kevlar is nearly ten times as high as the measured strength - part of the problem is that the ends of the polymer molecules tend to come at the same place in the fibers, so there are what amounts to weak links. Better randomization could fix it, or simply longer polymer molecules (like the infinitely long ones in "The Man in the White Suit"). When Kevlar was first discovered it was only half the strength of the current product, but still spectacular for Dupont to want to put it into production. The laboratory scale spinning process used in the experiments didn't scale up to production level, so a new spinning method was devised. It worked, and there was a totally unexpected bonus - the material was twice as strong. Materials science is still in the black magic stage, and accidental improvements are to be expected. To give an idea of the bounds, the MEASURED strength/weight ratio of many single crystal laboratory samples is nearly 100 times that of Kevlar or present Carbon or Boron composites. As for crud banging into skyhooks, sweep it up, clean out the lower orbits when emmigration gets underway - I think this is analogous to the canals or the railroads buying up the right of way. Occasional rocks and cows did cause train wrecks in the old days, but the trains were replaced because the service was so valuable. Similarly, skyhooks are not such a big deal, and can be replaced for the occasional meteor. Though maybe most of the stuff can be kept away with laser ABM tecnology - which may or may not work against missiles, but should work against non-devious little rocks. The rare big rocks can be avoided by swinging the skyhook a bit. It should also be noted that my first message about the possibility of moving 250M people/year off earth was a response to the statement that it was impossible, which I consider silly. In fact, the population problem seems to solve itself whenever there is enough wealth to go around - the main problem is producing the wealth in sufficient quantity. Also, I expect human, and quickly thereafter superhuman, artificial intelligence, within twenty years, long before even a 15 year doubling of human population will cause the food producing capacity of the earth to be exceeded, and I think any plans we have now will become moot at that point. As for the purpose of the expansion into the galaxy (which, of course, I expect to be done primarily by our artificial progeny), I think it is A) to survive whatever potential disasters there are (sun going nova, aliens, plague, galaxy going Seyfert, etc.) so that we can B) continue improving our artificial intelligence, so we know more and think faster and better so that eventually we can C) figure out what the universe is really all about (probably after having occupied it all for a long time) so that we can maybe D) escape from it in some way, perhaps to a bigger place, more likely to something unimaginable. i.e. I think the purpose of intelligent life ought to be the task of figuring out the purpose of life, the universe and everything with all possible vigor. ------------------------------ Date: 2 November 1982 03:38-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Space Industrialization To: VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO cc: REDFORD@SHORTY at MIT-MC, space at MIT-AI I was under the impression that while the capital investment of getting an iron-nickel asteroid is tremendous the payoff is enormous and only the lack of existing technology and unfavorable tax laws are preventing major companies from trying it now. Perhaps somebody on the list can resolve this question. Besides solving our energy and raw-minerals problems, space industrialization may provide an escape from extinction, and certainly provides a unique place to set up astronomical equipment for getting images at all wavelengths without any atmospheric degradation. We need inferometers several astronomical-units in diameter to accurately measure the diameters of interesting remote objects and to look for planets around other stars. We need giant space telescopes that are too big to be manufactured on Earth. It takes some space industry to support all these Radio/Microwave/Infrared/Optical/Ultraviolet/XRay/Gammaray telescopes used singly to provide images and in unison to provide inferometry. Virtually all of this advanced astronomy is impossible on Earth. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 03-Nov-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #33 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 33 Today's Topics: Re: IUS Works Vandenberg Shuttle Flights Technological Bootstrapping We may be seeing them & rebuttal ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 November 1982 1108-EST (Tuesday) From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30) To: space at MIT-MC Subject: Re: IUS Works Would alice!sjb or anyone else care to fill us in on what is new about the Titan 34D? ------------------------------ Date: 2-Nov-82 09:50-PST From: DAUL at OFFICE Subject: Vandenberg Shuttle Flights To: Space-Enthusiasts at mit-mc I have been out to the launch sight. The one observation I have to pass along is that there is no direct observation for the public. The launch site it sitting in a canyon facing the ocean. I realize that these flights will be military and so the public has no business watching. From distant sites at Vandenberg you probably could see the shuttle after it is about 3 times it's height during the launch. Or you could watch it from out in the ocean. --Bill ------------------------------ Date: 2 Nov 1982 2330-PST From: Den Lenahan Subject: Technological Bootstrapping To: space at MIT-MC cc: dlenahan at USC-ISIE Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940. Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161 Re: Bruce Hamilton's question about studies or SF novels that address tech bootstrapping in detail. It may lack a little in detail, but James Blish's "SURFACE TENSION" is an interesting (sf) treatment of the idea. First published in 1952, but I first read it in "The Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Vol 1" edited by Robert Silverberg and published in 1970. Very briefly, the inital thrust of the story is that scientists called panatropes travewl from planet to planet seeding human-like creatures. As the story starts, our scientists crashed where they didn't mean to be, and decide to "seed" the environment anyway before they die. Catch phrases are "The panatropes make adaptations. They take human germ cells and modify them toward creatures who can live in any reasonable environment. The result will be manlike and intelligent." And: "Ordinarily the seeding teams more or less take him through elementary school before they leave the planet, but we won't survive long enough for that." And: "The rest of us can put our heads together on leaving a record for these people. We'll micro-engrave the record on a set of corrosion-proof metal leaves. Some day [our colonists] may puzzle it out." Then the story takes a multi-eon jump and picks up with the "intelligent" spawn attempting to apply what they've learned from the records. The twist comes in that the panatropes maximized their "descendents" chance of survival by adapting them to their world: making them aquatic and near-microscopic. The story is well-done, and very thought provoking. (For those not interested in this, sorry it's on the list, but my attempts to mail to anybody at PARC-MAXC just gets me "Undelivered Mail" kickback messages.) Dennis ------- ------------------------------ Date: 3 November 1982 03:35-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: We may be seeing them & rebuttal To: decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, POURNE at MIT-MC As you say yourself, the universe doesn't comply with your wishes. I'd say it this way, what you want and what really is, are totally uncorrelated, except where you influence that aspect of the way things are, or where you go sour grapes and pretend you like things the way they are. Your wishes for the way intelligent life evolved elsewhere are just that, wishes. You gave me an idea for another theory of life in the galaxy. Intelligent and technological races did indeed evolve many thousand million years ago on early second-generation stars, and many of them (millions) destroyed themselves before they got off their home planets, but a few (hundreds) got into space, met each other, fought for control of the galaxy, and ultimately only one race survived. It controlled the whole galaxy, and to prevent competition, even the potential evolution of competition, it made sure no intelligent species evolved on any planet around any existing star. I can only guess at the means employed: total sterialization of planets that already had several intelligent life forms, setting up orbiting sentinels around planets that hadn't evolved life, programmed to sterialize the planet if any sign of technology appeared, and active personal supervision in those perhaps 5% of star systems where staffed outposts existed. This race purified itself, getting rid of genetic diversity to assure allegance to the race. But due to lack of genetic diversity in this race, a disease spread thru the galaxy and wiped out this species in a few million years, and due to lack of any other intelligent species and active prevention in all existing stellar systems, intelligent life couldn't evolve except on stars that hadn't yet been born out of dust and gas, stars like our own Sun which formed 12,000 million years after the Big Bang, 1,500 million years after the demise of the first great Milky Way Galaxy civilization. Now 16,500 million years after the Big Bang, we're part of the second batch of intelligent technological civilizations working towards developing a space-based civilization (with perhaps 1 chance out of 10,000 of succeeding; in which case we'd be vying with other successful races for the second great Milky Way Galaxy civilization). Yeah, that's more sci-fi than reasonable conjecture. Let's not discuss it too much. I just offer it as one possible theory for why we seem to be alone in this Galaxy, sitting in isolation from other intelligent but non-technological races, unaware of their existance, and NOT seeing any intelligent technological space-based races around our corner of the galaxy although argument seems to say we'd see them if they existed. There are an awful lot of possible theories. I sure hope we get giant space-based telescopes able to detect planets around nearby stars in my lifetime, so I'll personally start to know some of the answers. I hope we develop freezing technology so I can wake up a century from now and see that we've started to get real answers. I hope Stockman isn't the voice of money-for-space in the forseeable future! ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 04-Nov-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #34 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 34 Today's Topics: Vandeberg Shuttle launches what's the number? Shuttle Electrophoresis Experiment what are short term space industries? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Nov 1982 at 1202-CST From: kjm@UTEXAS-11 Subject: Vandeberg Shuttle launches To: DAUL@OFFICE cc: space@mit-mc "...I realize that these flights will be military and so the public has no business watching." Why should the general public not be allowed to view the launches? After all, we do pay for them. Furthermore, I fail to see what critical information a spy could possibly glean from a distance of several miles. Ken Montgomery kjm@utexas-11 ------------------------------ Date: 17 Oct 82 16:53:46-PDT (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!stocker at Ucb-C70 Subject: what's the number? a 900 number for listening in on the shuttle was mentioned here recently, can someone enlighten those of us who don't know as to what it is? ------------------------------ Date: 3 Nov 1982 at 2328-CST From: pyle@UTEXAS-11 Subject: Shuttle Electrophoresis Experiment To: space-enthusiasts@mit-mc I seem to recall that the electrophoresis experiment was to determine if cells (kidney, I think) of different characteristics could be separated using electrophoresis. Zero g was needed since gravity was the dominant force on the cells in earth-bound experiments and could not be sufficiently overcome to affect separation. Keith Pyle (pyle@utexas-11) ------------------------------ Date: 4 November 1982 05:51-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: what are short term space industries? To: VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO cc: space at MIT-AI Going by your message, it looks like industry really won't find it worthwhile to do R&D in space (except as a tax writeoff or in tiny quantities for PR) for a long time. If that's true, we need government to fund space R&D right now and continuing until something profitable has been proven to the satisfaction of industry. Otherwise these little preliminary experiments flying on the STS currently will be scientific curiosities, mostly for PR, that don't get developed into money-making products for a LONG time. Anybody have good rebuttal? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 05-Nov-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #35 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 35 Today's Topics: Military Launch Shuttle flights from Vandenberg AFB Meta-SETI -- Truth and reality Re: Ain"t logic fun?? - (nf) Re: Money for SETI? Space Shuttle vs Space Science ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Nov 1982 1225-EST From: MINSKY at MIT-OZ Subject: Military Launch To: kjm at UTEXAS-11, space at MIT-MC, minsky at MIT-OZ Gee. If they have a war, won't they let us watch that, either? ------------------------------ Date: 4 Nov 1982 1326-EST From: Roger H. Goun Subject: Shuttle flights from Vandenberg AFB To: space at MIT-MC I recall reading that the new shuttle launch facility at Vandenberg AFB will not be used exclusively for launching military payloads. Any flight which requires a polar orbit could be done better from there. That being the case, I don't see any more reason to restrict access to Vandenberg launches than to restrict access to Edwards AFB landings. Can anyone speak with authority on the above? -- Roger ------------------------------ Date: 29 October 1982 20:52-EDT (Friday) Sender: CARTER at RU-GREEN From: Bob To: Robert Elton Maas Cc: Carter at RUTGERS, SPACE at MIT-MC Subject: Meta-SETI -- Truth and reality From: Robert Elton Maas Mortimer Adler is simply brilliant. Applying his view of reality and truth to SETI, we have something like: Objective reality exists independent of our opinions, continues to be the same regardless of whether our opinions are correct (correspond to reality) or not, and would continue to be the same even if we didn't even think about it at all, even if we all died out. Either there is life elsewhere or there isn't. To discover this truth we must collect evidence, conduct experiments, argue and debate, and check out our reasoning ... Has anybody else heard of Mortimer Adler Mortimer Adler is a familiar (if slightly peculiar) media intellectual who has been part of the American scene for 50 years. He is probably best known for his "Syntopticon," which was a part of the "great books" movement. The idea was, approximately, that the best way to give the modern equivalent of a classical education is to have the student read (largely in translation) full texts of the central works of Western thought. He "edited" the Encyclopedia Brittanica for a while. Adler can have an impressive television presence, and from time to time he is rediscovered by someone in a new generation of uneducated reporters. The last such program I saw was an unattractive panegyric by Bill Moyers, surely one of the least educated. Adler's thought seems to consist largely of flogging the proposition that solution to all intellectual problems is to be discovered in the works of Aristotle. He particularly likes the Metaphysics and the Nichomachean Ethics. He makes his case with vigor and intelligence, but this does not alter the fact that the notion is, at least in the view of some, fundamentally silly. One reason it is thought so is that it is so completely divorced from some developments that have taken place since Aristotle wrote. The scientific method, for example. It is thus not surprising that a person with good scientific training has never heard of Adler. In some company, he is not a convincing authority to cite in support of one's views. He is, however, both smart and reasonably respected, vice Carl Sagan. _Bob ------------------------------ Date: 3 Nov 82 12:02:27-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Ain"t logic fun?? - (nf) Article-I.D.: watmath.3779 In-Reply-To: Article uiucdcs.944 Via: Usenet; 4 Nov 82 18:51-PST Dolphins and killer whales, for starters. (Proof is in the size and convolution of the brain). I don't know what the author was thinking about for the third other intelligent species. Rick. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Nov 82 9:37:51-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!watdaisy!arwhite at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Money for SETI? Article-I.D.: watdaisy.22 In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.4051 Via: Usenet; 4 Nov 82 18:50-PST It seems to me that every year we are better able to do things like search for life out there. If we were to discover it while it would be EXTREMELY important we really wouldn't get anything out of it in the short run. I think we should spend our money on the really important things like space travel so that next century we can spend an equivalent amount and turn out with a much better idea as to what is out there when we are using much more advanced technology. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Nov 82 20:46:12-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!seismo!rocheste!emil at Ucb-C70 Subject: Space Shuttle vs Space Science Article-I.D.: rocheste.166 In-Reply-To: Article pur-phy.544 Via: Usenet; 5 Nov 82 1:11-PST I pose the following questions: 1. What percentage of NASA's budget is being consumed by the space shuttle? 2. Should NASA relinquish control of the space shuttle to the Defense Dept and/or private industry? 3. What exactly does NASA plan to do with a space station? 4. Do we need a space station or just more robotic satellites? 5. What plans does NASA have for planetary exploration in the rest of this century? 6. Has NASA been so preoccupied with the shuttle to the exclusion of all else? 7. Is NASA's problem one of publicity? (the major networks seemed to have gotten bored with the shuttle in just three flights.) 8. Are NASA's problems due to the present government or are they symptoms of NASA's loss of vision in the mid-70's? Most of these questions are not my own, but I would like to find out if others have strong opinions on these matters. In essence what I am posing is the question HAS NASA TRADED SPACE SCIENCE FOR THE SPACE SHUTTLE? Emil Rainero (emil) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 06-Nov-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #36 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 36 Today's Topics: The Anthropic Principle What's new about Titan 34D Re: Re: Pournelle's comment on explorati - (nf) Alone? STS Space-Lab Mission Re: Has NASA traded Space Science for the Space Shuttle??? Wanted: Space Station Ideas Re: Number of civilizations per galaxy Alone newsgroup. STS-5 On Schedule -- Launch Time Released Vandenburg flights Vandenburg launches Money for SPACE? Money for SPACE? radio signature of earth more on Galileo's drawings Request Info on STS 5 binary disagreement Re: Request Info on STS 5 Re: vanVandenburg flights request for general shuttle schedule Joe Blow in space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 31 Oct 82 20:33:59-PST (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70 Subject: The Anthropic Principle The article "The Anthropic Principle" by George Gale in the December 1981 Scientific American (That's the beer bubble issue) seems relevant to the extraterrestrial civilization discussion. It concerns itself with the inductions one might make concerning the nature of the universe, given our knowledge of life on earth. I vacillate between thinking the article is hogwash and thinking it's stating the obvious. Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew ------------------------------ Date: 5 November 1982 1010-EST (Friday) From: David.Smith at CMU-10A (C410DS30) To: alice!sjb at UCB-C70 Subject: What's new about Titan 34D From Flight International, 30-Oct-82, p. 1272: Martin Marietta builds Titan 34D, which features a longer first stage and solid-propellant boosters than its Titan III predecessor. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Oct 82 22:28:56-PDT (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: menlo70!sytek!gi!arizona!purdue!ecn-ec.uiucdcs!mcdaniel at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Re: Pournelle's comment on explorati - (nf) I believe that Heinlein pointed out another problem with this: emigration would cause less pressure at home, so the birth rate would increase. If your population is at equilibrium, and you start emigration, the birth rate will increase to cover *all* of the emigration. Apocalypstically yours, Tim McDaniel ({decvax or ucbvax or harpo}!pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcdaniel) ------------------------------ Date: 4 Nov 82 19:03:47-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: hplabs!fraley (Bob Fraley) at Ucb-C70 Subject: Alone? The problem of possible intelligent societies whcih continues to bother me is what we would do once we found one. How would we communicate with them in any meaningful way? On earth, our intelligence is supposedly dwarfed by that of whales, yet we hav not yet managed to communicate with them. Sure, we have managed to train them to do our wishes, but we havn't figured out how to find out what is important to them, how they percieve the world, what makes them happy, or even if they relate to the notion of happiness. We don't know their perception of their society, or their perception of us. While they are not a technological society (as we think of technology), there is some suggestion that we would have difficulty communicating with any other intelligent race which we might encounter. Anyone have any ideas on how such communication would be established? Would it be appropriate to try to develop such skills by trying to communicate with the race from "aquatic space"? ------------------------------ Date: 5 November 1982 1141-EST (Friday) From: Kevin.Dowling at CMU-10A To: space at mit-mc Subject: STS Space-Lab Mission Article in MetalWorking News From October: KRUPP Devises 4 experiments for Space-Lab. West Germany's Fried. Krupp GmbH, Essen, is one of several European companies that will participate in the first manned Spcelab mission of the US Space Shuttle next month. The Krupp-designed experiments will cover these four areas: Magnetic Material: Intermetallic manganese-bismuth is highly magnetic, but difficult to produce on earth because of segregation. When solidified in the weightless environment of space, a finer grain structure and improved magnetic properties can be achieved, A Krupp Spokesman said. Mechanical Properties: A suspension of fine alumina particles in molten copper will be studied as the basis of a model of inclusions in an alloy or metal. The weightlessness of space permits the material to solidify without segregation. Under gravity, the big difference in weight between the alumina and copper would cause the two substances to separate. Metal Foams: The lack of surface tension in molten steel and other metals has been found to be a barrier to the generation of metal foams. Krupp plans to study this further in Zero-G. Thermal conductivity: The rate at which some metals conduct heat is almost impossible to determine exactly under terrestial conditions because of convection. However, precise measurement is possible in space where there is no gravity, and hence no convection. This data would be useful in the design of metallurgical plants, a Krupp spokesman said. ------------------------------ Date: 05 Nov 1982 1024-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Re: Has NASA traded Space Science for the Space Shuttle??? To: space at MIT-MC To answer your question simply, yes. And for good reason. It would be awfully nice if the government would pay for both and extensive space science program and a shuttle program but unfortunately this was not the case. A choice had to be made. And if the choice had been space science to the exclusion of the shuttle, the government probably would have cut NASA back to zero back in the early 70s. As much as I love space science, if a choice had to be made, I am glad they are going with the shuttle program. The scientific exploration of the solar system has been a fascinating program, but poorly run, in my opinion. There has been a definite lack of structure in planetary exploration, and that weakness may be what is holding it back. Admittedly, the lack of structure may be the result of funding problems, and thus beyond the control of those in charge of the various programs, but it exists nonetheless. The major cost of developing a probe mission is not building the vehicle. It is developing the mission team, building the mission control facilities, designing the mission instrumentation, etc. And it is precisely this mission-oriented attitude that leads administrative people to believe that planetary exploration is expensive. Because it is. If you do it that way. Imagine what planetary science would be like if Voyager Mission Control had been designed to handle dozens of probes, instead of just two. And if it could also have been used to control Viking probes (instead of the just-as-expensive control complex for Viking that was built). If the probes themselves had been designed as general purpose bus vehicles, instead of of one-shot special purpose devices. Sure, it's harder, but look at the results. We might have a planetary program today. If JPL wanted to study Venus, they would haul a bus vehicle out of the warehouse, plug in the instruments they wanted >>which are the only new designs necessary for each mission<<, and try and get a shuttle launch. When the Space Operation Center is built, probes might be assembled there according to specifications beamed up from the ground. A minimal time to get a mission flying. I admit there are probably good reasons why it wasn't done that way, mostly involving money. But I also suspect that a lot is due to the Not Invented Here syndrome. The shuttle is an example (NASAs first) of a program designed to get away from a mission-oriented philosophy. I maintain that they planetary program desperately needs to follow suit. --Tom ------------------------------ Date: 05 Nov 1982 1057-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Wanted: Space Station Ideas To: space at MIT-MC --- HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (AP) - You may be better off than you are if NASA decides to swing your idea from a star. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is asking anyone with an idea on how to use space stations to drop them a line. The space agency said it will finance the 16 best ideas to the tune of about $25,000 each. Traditional uses have included servicing satellites, assembling large space missions, carrying telescopes and processing materials. But many of those ideas come from people who have been in the space program for years and the new program will let NASA hear from those outside who have not had a chance to develop their ideas. For more information, write: Dr. Stephen Holt, NASA - Code MFA-13, Washington, DC 20546, or call 202-755-8490. --- ------------------------------ Date: 2 Nov 82 13:13:05-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!CSvax.Physics.els at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Number of civilizations per galaxy Logic doesn't quite provide the right answer. Binaries in which either, 1: the primary and secondary are far apart (Alpha Cent., for example) ,or 2: the primary and secondary are very close (grazing, or nearly so), have appriciable regions where there could be stable planetary orbits. els[Eric Strobel] pur-ee!pur-phy!els ------------------------------ Date: 3 Nov 82 14:42:40-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxj!mhuxi!mhuxv!mhuxm!pyuxjj!colbert at Ucb-C70 Subject: Alone newsgroup. How about making a newsgroup net.space.alone for this debate? (It seems to be filling up net.space). Charles Colbert, pyuxjj!colbert ------------------------------ Date: 2 Nov 82 7:25:52-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: STS-5 On Schedule -- Launch Time Released Flight software was loaded into the Columbia's computers yesterday, and two spacesuits for the spacewalk of Joe Allen and William Lenoir. NASA said that they have had no problems, and the preparations for launch are on schedule. The countdown for STS-5 is set to begin at 0300 EST on 7 November, and launch is scheduled for 0719 EST on 11 November. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Nov 82 12:37:59-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: teklabs!tekcrd!iddic!evp at Ucb-C70 Subject: Vandenburg flights Shuttle flights from Vandenburg will all be polar shots. NASA at one time considered polar shots from Canaveral, but there was no safe place to drop the boosters or the orbiter in the event of an abort forward. The Vandenburg shots will all go south over the water. For most trajectories, there probably won't be too much of a view from L.A., because the orbiter will be too far west of the coast by that time. Ed Post, Tektronix ------------------------------ Date: 1 Nov 82 15:56:52-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Vandenburg launches All launches from Vandenburg take place in an arc between south and west. This is because the coast at this point runs northwest - southeast, and range safety considerations require that the vehicle fly over water as soon as possible after liftoff. This is why polar launches do not take place from Cape Canaveral. For the sun-synchronous polar orbit, which is the most common type of launch from Vandenburg, the launch azimuth is roughly 190 degrees, which is slightly west of south. Phil Karn ------------------------------ Date: 5 November 1982 20:14-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Money for SPACE? To: decvax!utzoo!watmath!watdaisy!arwhite at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Date: 3 Nov 82 9:37:51-PST (Wed) From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!watdaisy!arwhite at Ucb-C70 It seems to me that every year we are better able to do things like search for life out there. I agree. It's like with computer/electronics, every year you get more for your money. Any time you spend money, you wonder if you should have saved it and bought twice as much for the same money a year later. Of course carrying this to the extreme you never buy anything because you're always waiting for something more cost-effective next year. The optimum time to buy something is right when you need it, not earlier (you don't get as much for your money), not later (you don't get to use it in the meantime). Maybe discovering intelligent life elsewhere in the Galaxy will give us the curiosity to develop space instead of quarrel among ourselves, or maybe it'll give us a "common enemy" to unite us. Thus maybe NOW would be a good time for SETI, before the next generation of thermonuclear counterforce weapons. Maybe last year we didn't have the methods and technology for SETI but this year we do. Maybe we don't this year but will next year. We won't know for sure until we actualy succeed, at which point we can look back and say "gee, good thing that new algorithm was developed, it made it possible" or "gee, why didn't we look last year, we could have found ETI with equipment that existed then". - I think the best approach is to spend a little each year, developing the skill, testing the tools and getting an idea what we need to build next, while improving (lowering) the upper bound on the amount of ETI that might exist, until one year we find ETI (or exhaust the galaxy without finding ETI). I think we should spend our money on the really important things like space travel so that next century we can spend an equivalent amount and turn out with a much better idea as to what is out there when we are using much more advanced technology. I agree. Let's get people to stop wasting their money on alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, pizza, and most of all thermonuclear weapons, and instead have them spend the money on development of space travel and space-based industry. ------------------------------ Date: 5 November 1982 20:14-EST From: Hans Moravec Subject: Money for SPACE? To: SPACE at MIT-MC Hey, pizza seems a pretty good value to me. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Oct 82 20:19:11-PST (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70 Subject: radio signature of earth This is a synopsis of "Eavesdropping: The Radio Signature of the Earth", by W.T. Sullivan, S. Brown, and C. Wetherill in the 27 Jan 1978 issue of "Science". The authors report on an extensive and thorough analysis of the probable radio appearance of the earth from ~1 light year. The principal conclusions: 1) The most distantly detectable radio emission is from BMEWS (Ballistic Missile Early Warning System) radar. An Arecibo-like antenna could detect it at ~18 light years. 2) The richest source of distantly detectable radio emission is UHF and VHF TV broadcasting detectable at ~1.8 light years by Arecibo (carriers only, program demodulation would require ~2e4 times the sensitivity.) The authors analyze the appearance of about 2000 major stations due to scheduling, geography, and diurnal and orbital motion of the earth. Broadcasts at frequencies less than 20Mhz are contained by the ionosphere. In the 27 October 1978 issue of "Science", there is a letter from Carl Sagan arguing the implications for SETI policy. W.T. Sullivan, in his reply, mentions that he had since learned of the U.S. Navy Space Surveillance radar, which illuminates the sky from 0 to 33 degrees for a period of about 7 seconds once a sidereal day. It would be detectable at a distance of 60 light years by the Arecibo antenna. I had erroneously recalled this article as being in Scientific American. After an exhaustive search of the indexes from 1974, I turned to the "Readers Guide to Periodical Literature" at my local library. This turned out to be a great resource. I started looking under "Earth" before moving to "Life on other planets", and finally finding it under "Interstellar Communication". There were ~10 entries under this for 1978, many of them reports of and comments on that "Science" article. Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew ------------------------------ Date: 31 Oct 82 21:11:35-PST (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70 Subject: more on Galileo's drawings The problem is not that I can't see as many stars as Galileo drew, it is that I can see many that are not drawn which are brighter than all the candidates for the drawn ones (this is in the Orion drawing.) I think the answer does lie in the limitations of Galileo's telescope. I found in "Galileo at Work" the statement that his telescope had a field of view of 12 minutes of arc. This is on the order of 1/1000 the angular area of the Orion drawing. His drawing was just not very thorough. I think he found a few stars around the brightest (naked eye) ones and drew them at disproportionately large distances from them, leaving out many in the intervening areas. There are two more drawings of the "Head of Orion" and the Praesepe cluster, in addition to the belt and sword of Orion (what I am calling the Orion drawing) and the Pleiades. I observed the Head of Orion and found it to correspond to the drawing about as well as the Pleiades did to theirs. Praesepe comes up too late so I'll see it in a month or so. Galileo's telescope had a concave eyepiece which has the field of view limited by a virtual exit pupil. The exit pupil is the image of the objective formed by the eyepiece. With a modern eyepiece, this image is real and is where the observer places the eye, so that all the light gathered by the objective enters the eye. In this position it does not limit the field of view, which is determined by other factors. In Galileo's telescope the exit pupil fell behind the eyepiece near the eyepiece focal point. One can gain an impression of this appearance by holding one's eye at a distance of five or ten centimeters from the eyepiece of a modern telescope. Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew ------------------------------ Date: 1 Nov 82 13:11:10-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!pyuxbb!mb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Request Info on STS 5 I am thinking about going down to see the next flight of Columbia from Cape Canaveral. I need some information about the mission. (1) Is liftoff scheduled for Nov. 11? (I think I remember that date.) (2) How many days will the mission last? (3) Will it land back at the Cape or at Edwards? (4) Are there any special tips for watching this that I should know about? Any especially good or bad locations? Any need for special passes? Thanks in advance, Mike Burns Bell Labs, Piscataway 201-981-6731 ------------------------------ Date: 2 Nov 82 14:31:07-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: menlo70!nsc!katic at Ucb-C70 Subject: binary disagreement In regard to menlo70!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!fortune!megatest!sun!decwrl!decvax!cca\ !WMARTIN@OFFICE-8@sri-unix's assertion: 1. Binary and multiple star systems are excluded, as they are unlikely to have habitable planets. (I can see logic in this; planets in such systems are likely to be gobbled up by one of the stars, or be in eccentric orbits which cause wide variations in heat, or just receive too much radiation from all those suns.) That would make "Fp" much less than "~1". Asimov had out an article in which he postulated that OUR system was a binary system with no decrease in the habitable zone! Consider the following, replace Saturn with a body of ~10-20 Jupiter masses. This is clearly large enough to be a sun yetr clearly small enough to NOT unduly affect Earth's orbit. While some binary systems may have no habitable zone, it is also possible that others have two! This would obviously change Fp, but I don't know how much. Any math loving astronomers out there wish to give us a guess?? katic (....!nsc!katic) ------------------------------ Date: 1 Nov 82 15:55:04-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Request Info on STS 5 Article-I.D.: alice.1046 Via: Usenet; 5 Nov 82 21:55-PST The liftoff is scheduled for 11 November. I have not heard what time though, but the last two or three have gone off at 1000 or 1100 E?T. The mission will be five days, and it will land at EAFB. If you have some good field glasses, right across the lake would be a nice spot: You get a nice clear picture of the pad and the surrounding land and an unobstructed view of the ascent. Otherwise, you can't get past the 3 mile limit (only press can get up that close, as they are considered 'expendable' by NASA), due to alluminum fallout. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Nov 82 13:13:49-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: teklabs!tekcrd!tekid!richk at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: vanVandenburg flights Article-I.D.: tekid.544 Via: Usenet; 5 Nov 82 21:59-PST Yes, the flights from Vandenburg will be polar shots. The launches will be to the south. (Lucky LA!) I think all launches from the Western Test Center are polar and to the south since there are no land masses between there and the Antartic for garbage to fall on. (Training ICBM launches are suborbital and to the west.) Richard Kurschner ... !teklabs!tekid!richk ------------------------------ Date: 1 Nov 82 23:15:37-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!goutal at Ucb-C70 Subject: request for general shuttle schedule Article-I.D.: decvax.324 Via: Usenet; 5 Nov 82 22:07-PST Can anyone post a table giving STS-#, craft's name, launch and return dates, crew's names, and highlights of mission, starting with the first one back whenever and going as far forward as we have? Thanks. -- Kenn (decvax!)goutal ------------------------------ Date: 1 Nov 82 23:27:08-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!goutal at Ucb-C70 Subject: Joe Blow in space Article-I.D.: decvax.325 Via: Usenet; 5 Nov 82 22:27-PST I was reminded that I have wanted to ask this for some time by the recent article inquiring about experiments which required the presence on the shuttle of the scientist who owns the experiment. Some time ago I ran across an article that gave the weight and the customer cost of some payload or other (on a shuttle). It was a commercial satellite, I believe, so it was the open-market price (not just raw cost, necessarily), and the satellite weight was given in tons. I worked it out, and the cost of carrying a human sized payload at that rate would be about the same as a good-sized vacation, like a Caribbean cruise or tour of Europe. Strictly out of ignorant curiosity, I would like to ask: what equipment would be necessary to support a single person (passenger) in addition to the crew, and what would THAT cost, and on what basis? Surely there must be something about such a prospect that raises the cost to something absolutely prohibitive, or people would have been bidding for payload space long since (not me, mind you; I'm just a humble programmer; I'm thinking of the those folks who drive Porsches and a couple of houses and send their kids to med school all-expenses paid)! -- Kenn (decvax!)goutal ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 07-Nov-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #37 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 37 Today's Topics: Not alone Earth's Signatures The Big Question ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Nov 82 20:12:25-EST (Sat) From: Gene Spafford To: space at Mit-Mc Subject: Not alone Via: GATech; 6 Nov 82 22:14-EST I've just finished reading over the last 15 or so Space digests. I thought I'd subject you all to some comments: 1) If there is other life out there would the fact that they haven't communicated with us prove their intelligence? As a race we seem very quick to attack our own kind for differences as small as skin color, language, and societal economic structure. Would *you* want to associate with us? Announce yourself to a society here on earth --- stick your hand into a hornet's nest; think you'll get anything worth the effort? If I were from another world (interesting thought -- how do you know I'm not?) I'm not sure I'd classify humanity as intelligent although there are some individuals that come close. And I sure would do everything possible to keep out of reach and not let humans know that "we" exist. 2) I think pizza is worthwhile. Heck, they'll even deliver it to my door. I don't even have to leave my living room. Of course, I do have to get up and answer the door.... Seriously though, people are more likely to spend money on pizza than rockets for the simple reason that they can leave off the anchovies on their part, and they get the results in under half an hour. Give me options and a quick return and I'll be glad to finance space research. Just don't schedule any launches during my bowling night, or so it will conflict with Gilligan's Island. Priorities, ya know? Right. We need some painless and/or interesting method to get people to contribute to some future thinking. Maybe we could launch something each week instead of watching the NFL. Hell, for the amount that the players and owners are arguing about, how many shuttle launches could we make? If each video game were to have a $.10 tax per play for NASA, we might be ready with funds for a space colony in a year. Anybody out there buy home video cartridges from Atari? Notice their little comic books that they include with the games? They have Atari pictured as some huge corporation which develops a space probe. Could it be that they're actually *up to something*? I, for one, will hone my skills in front of the video screen for when they start looking for pilots. 3) Some issues back, Hans Moravec said, "Those that choose to stay deserve what they get, whatever that may be." No one commented on that. Why? Why should we suppose that those who wish to stay behind are any less than those who would choose to go? And what about those who simply cannot go? I may choose to stay (if an alternative ever gets offered). Why should I deserve some dubious fate as a result? Perhaps we'd be better off sending the annoying ones away. Let's not finance trips to Mars, let's send some people to visit Sol. I can make some suggestions for the first crew. I look forward to being around to see some kind of space travel and residences away from Earth's surface. I want that to be to the benefit of mankind, wherever mankind may be scattered. We already have too many artificial divisions and "classes." I believe that the ability to choose our own destinies is an important thing to have. I don't want my children to have to go live on Callisto because that is their only real choice. 4) Why is it that every time I see someone talking about funds for space exploration, someone else shows a picture of some poor starving waife in Ghetto, USA? Why don't we start showing those same pictures every time someone starts talking about MX missiles, or about sending some South American martinet another 30 millon dollars to equip his army so as to more efficiently murder the farmers and guard the coca crop? Entropy at work here --- it is so much easier to build things with which to destroy than it is to build a future. Dense pack refers to politicians. 5) (Actually, 1 again). What is intelligence? Someone remarked that we can't communicate with whales. Maybe that's because they don't want to, not because they aren't able. They don't have "technology" (define that too) but neither do they have to worry about nuking themselves, or killing themselves with their own wastes. This is an old argument, but might it be that true intelligence is learning to live in harmony with one's own environment, limit population to reasonable levels, and seek for answers within oneself? Somebody was (seeming to) disparage Zen in an earlier message. We should be very, very careful when we profess to know the answers when we can't even be sure we know the questions. 42. Open for flames, Gene ------------------------------ Date: 6 Nov 1982 2018-PST From: Den Lenahan Subject: Earth's Signatures To: space at MIT-MC cc: hpm at MIT-MC Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940. Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161 From Hans Moravec's 5 Nov message: In the 27 October 1978 issue of "Science", there is a letter from Carl Sagan arguing the implications for SETI policy. W.T. Sullivan, in his reply, mentions that he had since learned of the U.S. Navy Space Surveillance radar, which illuminates the sky from 0 to 33 degrees for a period of about 7 seconds once a sidereal day. It would be detectable at a distance of 60 light years by the Arecibo antenna. If (emphasis on IF) the 60 light year figure is correct, then it's important to understand that the radiation time is much more than the 7 seconds each sidereal day, and the illuminated area is less than the 0 to 33 degrees. The Naval Space Surveillance System (NAVSPASUR) is an element of NORAD's Space Detection and Tracking System (SPADATS). As such, it is in nearly continuous operation. The energy is in a "fence" that is very narrow in its north- south dimension, but wider than the U.S. in the east-west dimension. The energy fence lies along a great circle that passes through San Diego, CA, and Savannah, GA. Hence, the energy is AT 33 degrees north. This is accomplished by a series of transmitters (and receivers, but the receivers aren't of interest in the "signatures from earth" context) located along this 33 degree latitude great circle. The main transmitter radiates 810 kilowatts of continuos wave UHF from Lake Kickapoo, TX. Transmitters located at Gila River, AZ, and Jordan Lake, AL, each radiate 45 kw of UHF to "reinforce" the ends of the "fence". When you consider the nearly continuous operation, and the fact that this orb rotates at 1 rev per 24 hours, IF the 60 light year figure is right, we must look a lot like a big UHF lighthouse or airport beacon. How long have we been operating this beacon? In Aug 1958, the system was up with just one transmitter (the big one at Jordan Lake) and one receiver. In February, 1959, it was a two transmitter system, and on 1 June 1959, the present configuration was operating. If we consider the earliest operation (1958), that signal is presently only 24 light years from earth (give or take 3 light months), so it'll be another 36 years before those alien versions of the Arecibo out there at 60 light years will get their first flash. Also (and I don't know if this makes a difference in space loss and therefore range), the original system was VHF. The change to UHF (called an upgrade, so I assume that implies an improvement) came in 1965. If anyone (anything) does call back, I wonder if we'll see (hear) it at Arecibo, or if the returned signal will cleverly be the same as the outgoing signal (216.980 mHz) and therefore be heard by NAVSPASUR. (Who says the military's not doing its part?) Regards, Dennis ------- ------------------------------ Date: 7 November 1982 02:51-EST From: Bill Gosper Subject: The Big Question To: SPACE at MIT-MC cc: dbl at SU-AI Before Aloneness get exiled from Space (where else is there?), I wanna get in two licks. From issue 21, 21 Oct: DNA may have a lot of backup and error correction, but it is programed to mutate. Any DNA which wasn't able to mutate went into the bit bucket long ago. If you want a machine to mutate you have to programe it to. DNA is programed so that changes have a significant probability of making sense. John White The only other allegation of nonrandom mutation I have seen is Doug Lenat's chapter "Biological Evolution Heuristics Used to Generate Plausible Mutations," in the about-to-be-published proceedings of a conference on learning given at Pittsburgh two years ago. (Editors: Carbonel(l?), Michalski, Mitchel.) Twenty very stimulating pages. Anybody (e.g. J White) got other references? Re planets of binary stars: I've heard (sorry, no refs) that planets are just a condensing star's way of shedding angular momentum. With multiple stars, this reason for planet formation is removed, and thus multiple stars might not have planets. But in "light" of Jupiter, this claim seems to need weakening to require commensurate masses of the dominant companions. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 08-Nov-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #38 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 38 Today's Topics: Those that choose to stay anthropic principle, retransmit attempt radio signature of earth Alone? STS Space-Lab Mission Re: Has NASA traded Space Science for the Space Shuttle??? Not alone --> funding space activities by special tax Not alone Earth's Signatures Earth's Signatures (et else) STS magnetic-materials experiment Extraterrestrial Intelligence ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 07 Nov 1982 0414-PST From: Hans Moravec Subject: Those that choose to stay To: space at MIT-MC Ok, those that choose to go deserve what they get, too. I'm a great believer in personal responsibility for one's fate. The main difference between the stayers and the goers is that there's a lot more to go to than to stay at. The main (deserved) thing those that choose to stay get is all those others who also choose to stay. The message reporting the Sagan letter was not from me, but From: harpo!ihps3!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70 i.e. Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew ------------------------------ Date: 7 November 1982 08:35-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: anthropic principle, retransmit attempt To: SPACE at MIT-MC I think your argument about population filling any void caused by emigration applies only when natural forces (disease, preditors, starvation) limit population. Animals produce many more young than are needed to replace the adults, and most die off. When they're overcrowded, there's less food and more disease, more die off, and the overcrowding is relieved. When they're underpopulated, there's more food, fewer die off, and the void is filled. But we humans have invented medicine and welfare to keep people living when they should naturally die, allowing us to become overpopulated without death increasing enough to bring us back to normal population levels. In technologically advanced countries we've compensated by lowering our birth race due to intellectual and psychological reasons. If we emigrate to space, and don't change our reasons for lowering our birth rate, I see no reason we should automatically fill the population void. Thus it's quite possible in my opinion that the birth rate may remain low and the population problem may actually be solved. ------------------------------ Date: 7 November 1982 08:48-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: radio signature of earth To: harpo!ihps3!ihuxr!lew at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Let's be conservative and say THEY are just like us except they haven't invented that kind of radar that is visible for 60 lightyears, just the normal kind that's visible for 12 lightyears, and THEY have an antenna just like Arrecibo (sp?). I suggest we do a quick survey of each star within 12 light years to see if any of them seem to be emitting radar energy. How many stars is that, abut ten or twenty? (Somebody have a complete list? I seem to recall names like Epsilon Eridani and Tau Ceti and Barnard's star in addition to the two well-known ones of Alpha Centauri (with companions) and Sirius (with companions), but those might be beyond 12 LY. Anybody have a complete list handy? If this fails to detect any of THEM, then I'd be willing to postpone additional funding for a couple years if the budget is really tight. ------------------------------ Date: 7 November 1982 09:52-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Alone? To: hplabs!fraley at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I have some comments on your question. I think we should continue trying to communicate with other intelligent species on our own planet, not just whales, but with more effort. First we need to find an interface between them and us that has enough bandwidth to avoid frustration. Finding a way some animal can use a computer terminal would be one way. Maybe gorillas and chimps could type if the keyboard had large keys. Maybe whales and dolphins could use different sound frequencies for the different keys. Maybe octopusses could put one sucker on each key if the keys were in one long row instead of in rows and columns. In the other direction, I figure all of them could view a CRT about the same as we do. Having established both keyboad-input and CRT-output, we could then teach them simple modes of communication, experimenting to see what they learn easily and what seems to give them too much trouble. Eventually I'd like to see some of them on this network. To:SPACE-REQUEST From:Flipper@UCLA-MarineLand I WANT BE MEMBER THIS DISCUSSION NETWORK. PLEASE INCLUDE ME. One problem with communicating with sea critters and apes is that we don't have much incentive. They would tell us about places we already know about, like the oceans, and most of the time we choose to find the info ourselves instead of taking the pain to ask the sea critters. But with a civilization on another planet, they'd be telling us about places we can't learn about any other way. We'd thus be forced to learn to communicate. Also they'd tell us about technological things that we're interested in. Intelligent but non-technological critters are in some ways more alien to us than more distant technological critters (if they exist). We ought to try to communicate with both kinds of critters, local but non-technological, and remote but technological. As for what useful stuff we might learn, we won't know until we communicate. It's sort of like pure science. First you do preliminary research in the field, and only then do you make some initial guess what it might be useful for. Who could have imagined in 1920 that research into materials that aren't quite insulators but aren't conductors either could result in building amplifying devices that can be made so compact that a whole computing device could be built out of them to fit on your wrist? We have no idea what new ideas we may get from the Tau Cetians, but we'll get a lot (if they exist and we establish communication). ------------------------------ Date: 7 November 1982 10:01-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: STS Space-Lab Mission To: Kevin.Dowling at CMU-10A cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Of the four zero-gee non-segregation mixing-materials experiments, three would seem to be mostly of scientific interest only, but the metal foam experiment is especially interesting to me because I've been advocating hydrogen-filled foam-steel as a way to deliver fuel to Earth, without realizing the lack of surface tension makes that material impossible to create on Earth. It'll be very interesting to see if it or something effective similar (any trapping of large quantities of hydrogen in a common metal like iron) can be made in zero-gee. ------------------------------ Date: 7 November 1982 10:09-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: Has NASA traded Space Science for the Space Shuttle??? To: TAW at S1-A cc: SPACE at MIT-MC That sounds like a good argument for: (1) a space operations center, to hold the spare parts and rocket engines and instruments and communications equipment and fasteners to assemble various missions to the planets and asteroids, as well as the personnel to do the assembly if it takes longer than two weeks (the duration of one STS flight). (2) an ion rocket or solar sail system to make missions to remote places fast and cheap. in addition to the current STS program. ------------------------------ Date: 7 November 1982 10:24-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Not alone --> funding space activities by special tax To: spaf.gatech at UDEL-RELAY cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Video games currently cost $.25/play so I think a tax of $.10 would be much too steep. How about $.02/play? Let me make a wild guess, 1000 video-game arcades in the USA, each has 20 machines, each gets 20 players per night, that's 1000 * 20 * 20 * $.02 = $8000/day, or $240,000/month. I forget how much a shuttle flight costs. If it's a million dollars, then this 2-cent tax will fund one flight every four months. Can somebody supply more accurate figures on the total playage of arcade (pay-per-game) video games and cost of STS flights and come up with a better estimate of the rate at which STS flights can be totally funded by my proposed tiny tax? ------------------------------ Date: 7 November 1982 10:35-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Not alone To: spaf.gatech at UDEL-RELAY cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Given the choice between learning to live in harmony with tiny part of nature on a tiny planet around a small star that will go nova in about 5-10 billion years, and learning how to lift ourselves out of that gravitational well and survive in space so as to live beyond the death of that star and maybe eventually live in harmony with the whole galaxy or even the whole Virgo Supercluster of galaxies, I'll choose the latter. I don't think Zen is the answer. ------------------------------ Date: 7 November 1982 10:41-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Earth's Signatures To: DLENAHAN at USC-ISIE cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, HPM at MIT-MC If the signal is emitted along the 33-north parallel of latitude, then it isn't a great circle, and it's a fixed-point with respect to Earth's rotation so it's not a lighthouse, on continously if you happen to be in just the right direction and off otherwise. Are there *any* nearby stars in just the right direction? ------------------------------ Date: 7 Nov 1982 1247-PST From: Den Lenahan Subject: Earth's Signatures (et else) To: space at MIT-MC Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940. Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161 Several things: 1. The NAVSPASUR radiation is actually along an arc that is part of a great circle that cuts San Diego and Savannah, so i should have said "roughly" along the 33rd parallel. NAVSPASUR transmits straight up, therefore straight down is back toward the Earth's center. In that regard, it's like a lighthouse with a 33 degree uptilt to its beam. If you happen to be at the right angle (and at the right time?), you could get a flash every 24 hours. Anyone care to do the math? The 33 degree uptilt of the energy fence, the 23 degree obliquity of the ecliptic (earth tilt), and whatever tilt our solar system has with respect to the rest of the Orion arm of our galaxy? (No sense going any further than that with a 60 light-year transmitter.) 2. I incorrectly said, in my previous message, that I was quoting from Hans Moravec's msg. I was, in fact, quoting from Lew Mammel Jr.'s message. Sorry....the error was due to a convolution in the universe (i.e., I had my paper folded funny). 3. I realize this isn't the Science Fiction list, but those of you mentioning that whales might be choosing not to communicate with us would probably enjoy Alan Dean Foster's treatment of this idea in his book "Cachalot". 4. I submit that we should be careful refering to humans as a single ("intelligent") group. I have been of the opinion, for quite some time, that we have two distinct species here that both look human, but that one (the subspecies, perhaps) is markedly different. There are things which only the subspecies is capable of, and the rest of us cannot even begin to empathize with or comprehend, let alone consider doing. Three quick examples from a much larger list: brutal rape of an infant; cyanide in Tylenol; tainted Halloween candy. 5. I think I still know someone at Vandenberg AFB who should be able to tell the open/closed base policy for launches. If I can get that info, I'll put it on the list later. Dennis ------- ------------------------------ Date: 7 November 1982 18:43-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: STS magnetic-materials experiment To: SPACE at MIT-MC Forwarded with permission: Date: 7 November 1982 1530-EST (Sunday) From: Kevin.Dowling at CMU-10A To: Robert Elton Maas I agree that the metallic foam is of more than scientific interest, but I also think the magnetic material experimiment could be of immense valuetoday samarium-cobalt magnets have the highest flux density to mass ratio (at least of the commercially available magnetic materials). The experiments to produce even more powerful magnetic materials could result in lighter, even more powerful motors. Direct drive robots (such as those at CMU and the ones being developed at MIT) would be even more workable, not to mention general purpose motors. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Nov 1982 0138-EST From: DVW.AGM at MIT-OZ Subject: Extraterrestrial Intelligence To: space at MIT-MC When talking about extraterrestrial intelligence it seems that most people assume that if we were to encounter ETI (either through direct contact or by radio, etc.) that the ETI would be similar in intelligence, or perhaps somewhat more intelligent. Let us assume that galactic intelligence is normally distributed, and that we represent something near its average. If this is true, then there SHOULD be at least a few extremely advanced races out there. Our solar system is about 4.5 billion years old and our ancestors crawled out of the sea about 400 million years ago. If someone else's ancestors made it out 401 million years ago, and they developed about as slowly as we did, then they would be about a million years (more) advanced. The point is that it is not unreasonable to assume that there is going to be a wide distribution of intelligence within a galaxy of even a few million solar systems. It is also reasonable to assume that our ability to detect ETI is a function of THEIR intelligence, for the more intelligent a species, the greater their capability to modify their environment. Hence, it shouldn't be very difficult to detect at least the most intelligent ETI. John Ball ("Extraterrestrial Intelligence: Where Is Everybody?" American Scientist, 68: 656-663 (Nov/Dec 1980) ) proposes five hypotheses, (I quote, p. 661-662), 1). There is no ETI. 2). ETI is trying to talk to us or at least attract our attention, but we are not yet clever enough to hear or understand. 3). Advanced civilizations don't know that we're here. 4). Advanced civilizations know that we're here but they don't care; they're ig- noring us. 5). Advanced civilizations are discreetly and inconspicuously watching us but are not dabbling. This (last hypothesis) is the zoo hypothesis [see Ball's paper for citations]. As Kupier and Morris point out, our culture may be our only resource of value to ETI: Complete contact with a superior civilization (in which their store of knowledge is made available to us) would abort [our] further development ...By intervening in out natural progress now, members of an extra- terrestrial society could easily extinguish the only resource on this planet that could be of any value to them....To establish that avoidance of open contact is not the most likely behavior, one would need to identify a resource that does not fall into this category. Ball points out the extreme magnitude of out possible intellectual differences: ...our relationship with ETI is probably nothing like the relationship of a primitive human tribe with technological man, which [is an] analogy [that] seems to be in the minds of many who propose ETI searches, but instead is more like the relationship of an animal--a rather primitive animal--with mankind. Now I can imagine talking with mammals and birds, indeed I've done it, although the conversation was on a pretty low intellectual level. But oysters? ... The idea that we shall be welcomed as new members into the galactic community is as unlikely as the idea that oysters will be welcomed as new members into the human community. We're probably not even edible. (Me again): For an excellent debate concerning ETI see the Physics Today of March 1982 (pp. 26-38). This is a collection of letters generated by a previous Physics Today article (April 1981, p.6) by (the infamous/famous) Frank Tipler. Adam Mellis (dvw.agm@mit-oz) ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 09-Nov-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #39 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 39 Today's Topics: Earth's Signatures (et else) --> human species Viewing Vandenberg Launches Arecibo antenna dimensions and 60 light-year range video games ad hoc definition of intelligence Limits to growth shuttle phone number Shuttle on Schedule Human Species Countdown on Schedule Countdown Begins PROXMIRE WINS! space loses! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 November 1982 06:33-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Earth's Signatures (et else) --> human species To: DLENAHAN at USC-ISIE cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I believe you're wrong about the Tylenol killer et al being of a different species. Species is defined as a group of organisms connected by the ability to interbreed, or equivalently in this case by actual recent parent/offspring relationships closed under transitivity. I'm rather sure that these killers are part of our very own species, however much we'd like to dismiss them as being another species. In fact, the genes that dispose them to do such things are in a good percentage of us (maybe all of us). The killers are just a variety not a separate species. -- This brings up a question, are we able to communicate with other members of our own species? What would a member of SPACE-ENTHUSISTS@MIT-MC have of mutual interest to discuss with a New Guinea bushperson or a Zen Buddhist monk or a Valley Girl? Let me extend my statement of an earlier message: we should experiment with establishing meaningful communication with (1) Extra-Terrestials (2) other intelligent species on our own planet (3) lesser species such as insect colonies (Aunt Hillery) and raccoons, and (4) exotic and handicapped humans. Imagine equipping a killer whale, a raccoon, and a deaf&blind&quadraplegic (since birth) human with a computer interface so they can all chat with each other and with us! If we can do that, we might claim the ability to communicate with random ETs. (Of course, with mathematician-ETs we merely have to transmit a self-evident mathematical code, right?) ------------------------------ Date: 8 Nov 1982 1144-EST From: John Sotos Subject: Viewing Vandenberg Launches To: space at MIT-MC You may not have to get too close to the launch site to see something. Some friends of mine in Clearwater, Fla. have seen the shuttle in flight a few seconds after liftoff. And don't forget the night launches (I think the first night launch is STS-6 this January). John Sotos (sotos@nlm-mcs) ------- ------------------------------ Date: 8 Nov 1982 09:49 PST From: Ciccarelli at PARC-MAXC Subject: Arecibo antenna dimensions and 60 light-year range To: Space @ MIT-MC Basing speculations on the size of the Arecibo dish may be shortsighted. After all, one argument for waiting a bit before funding SETI is that one might in principle build immense, fragile, but perhaps steerable antenna structures in space -- both single antennas and interferometers. How far away would our radio emissions be decipherable with a 10 km dish or phased array? /John ------------------------------ Date: 8 Nov 1982 1043-PST From: WILKINS at SRI-AI (Wilkins ) Subject: video games To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Your message of 8-Nov-82 0303-PST The estimate of video games if off by a few orders of magnitude. There are many more machines than you think and they slurp quarters much faster than you think. Your estimate of nationwide consumption more accurately reflects the amount from one city. Billions of dollars are spent per year on these things tho I do not have exact figures at my fingertips. David ------- ------------------------------ Date: 8 November 1982 18:44-EST From: Robert Elton Maas To: HWC at S1-A cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I guess I gotta disagree with you. There's a lot of difference between a money sink and an investment in the future. Scientific experiments in space now are for the most part the latter (investment, not sink). The trouble is, the benefit is more likely to be for society and mankind in general rather than channeled into one company's profits. That makes it unlikely that a company will go beyond small cheap experiments that may be motivated mostly by PR. But government can invest for mankind in general. Look at this hypothetical analysis: Suppose an investment in space results in 40-times payoff, i.e. with 1 unit investment the human race benefits 40 units. Compare a private company versus the government making the investment. The USA invests 1 unit, the world gets back 40 units, the USA's share based on population is about 2 units, the USA's share based on economy is more like 5-10 units. Thus government investment pays off nicely. A large private company controlling 1% of the GNP invests 1 unit, the world gets back 40 units, the USA's share is 5-10 units, the company's share is 0.05 to 0.1 units, the company loses almost all its investment. Thus the government can afford to invest in space but a private company can't. The two main reasons inhibiting a company are (1) until a patentable product is achieved the company has no control over the profits, indeed some other company that hasn't spent all its liquid assets on the investment is in a BETTER position to market the product than the original company that did the research, (2) research is risky with a gigantic payoff if successful but small chance of success, and due to taxes on profit the expected payoff after taxes is much less than the expected payoff by simple computation, whereas the government doesn't suffer this tax problem because it gets the taxes, even if some private company steals the government's idea the government itself gets lots of taxes from the profits as well as indirectly getting the benefit from general improvement in the state of the economy. This may change quickly (in a few years) for some things like manufacturing insulin and other drugs, unless the method isn't patentable and ALL the drug companies get equal rights to what one company invested research money in. -- Does anybody else on this list have some comments on the investment climate in space, on the patentability of methods currently planned for experiment on STS-5, on the likelihood of individual company investments being profitable soon? ------------------------------ Date: 8 Nov 82 10:03:22-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: menlo70!nsc!katic at Ucb-C70 Subject: ad hoc definition of intelligence Article-I.D.: nsc.244 Via: Usenet; 8 Nov 82 15:06-PST For the person who thru the comment something on the order of "three other intelligent species on earth," I provide the following practical definition of intelligence. I submit that any race that does not use it is sutable for food. the definition: an intelligent race is any race that is 1) capable and 2) willing to carry on discourse with other races. Note that we humans (ree Washoe & others) apply. Note that cetacaens don't. katic (....!nsc!katic) ------------------------------ Date: 8 November 1982 21:08-EST From: Bill Gosper Subject: Limits to growth To: SPACE at MIT-MC The volume of a colonization bubble can grow at most as t^3, whereas self-reproduction can explode exponentially (a^t), modulo resources. But these resources (stellar matter) appear to have *infinitesimal* average density, being fractally clustered so as to be accessible only as t^1.29. (Mandelbrot: The Fractal Geometry of Nature. W. H. Freeman, 1982.) However, there are more reasons for all this to be moot than our unimaginable unimaginativeness can even begin to overlook. ------------------------------ Date: 08 Nov 1982 2007-PST From: Ron Goldman Subject: shuttle phone number To: space at MIT-MC a274 1949 08 Nov 82 AM-Shuttle Phone,280 Citizens Can Again Listen In On Astronauts BEDMINSTER, N.J. (AP) - A special telephone service again will allow people to listen to conversations between astronauts on the Columbia space shuttle and ground control. Callers virtually worldwide will be able to use special numbers for the service offered by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and American Telephone & Telegraph Co. for the shuttle's fifth mission, to begin Thursday. ''You're connected automatically and immediately,'' said Carolyn Zachary, spokeswoman for AT&T's Long Lines Department here. From phones in the United States, the number to call is 900-410-6272. When the service was offered to residents of the 50 states - during the Columbia's seven-day mission from June 27 to July 4 - more than 1 million calls were made, she said. Calls averaged three minutes and netted $1.2 million for AT&T, she said. Ms. Zachary said she believed peoples' interest in overhearing the conversations stems from ''a desire to be in on history in the making.'' The service starts Thursday at 6:19 a.m. EST, an hour before the scheduled launching. ''Each domestic call anywhere in the 50 states will cost 50 cents for the first minute and 35 cents for each additional minute, plus tax,'' she said, adding that callers may listen in for a maximum of about 2 1/2 hours before being automatically disconnected. The calls cannot be made from Canada, Mexico or the Caribbean because those countries did not wish to participate. The special number in other countries can be obtained by calling local operators, she said. ap-ny-11-08 2244EST *************** ------------------------------ Date: 6 Nov 82 12:30:06-PST (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Shuttle on Schedule Article-I.D.: alice.1067 Via: Usenet; 8 Nov 82 20:17-PST Preparations for the countdown for the launch of STS-5 were right on schedule going into this morning. The countdown is scheduled to begin tomorrow morning, with the launch set for 0719 EST Thursday, 11 November. Eight hours after launch, a SBS satellite will be ejected, and on the next day, a Telsat satellite will be ejected. Forty-five minutes after each clears the cargo bay, with the shuttle turned away, solid rocket engines will ignite and lift the satellites into geosynchronous orbits. On the 14th, mission specialists Lenoir and Allen will make a joint space walk, America's first in about nine years. The shuttle is scheduled to land at EAFB on the 16th. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Nov 1982 2105-PST From: Den Lenahan Subject: Human Species To: rem at MIT-MC cc: space at MIT-MC Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940. Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161 Quite right. The subspecies should correctly have been called a subvariety. Too bad the genes that distinguish the subspecies manifest in some people. If the genes are in all of us, maybe those of us who can't comprehend the unspeakable acts of the other group have some sort of repressor genes as well. I wonder which genes are favored in intervariety interbreeding? I wonder what the long range results will be after many more generations. Sobering thoughts! A memeber of SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC might not have much of mutual interest with a Zen Buddhist monk or a New Guinea bushperson; but keep in mind not all of us on the list speak with a Boston accent. Give me a call if you're ever in CA, and perhaps I can arrange for you to collect some empirical data on communicating with a valley girl! You might discover that they are really totally tubular and not as grodey to the max as you might envision. For sure. (Tongue firmly in cheek after that last paragraph,) Dennis ------- ------------------------------ Date: 7 Nov 82 15:49:56-PST (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Countdown on Schedule Article-I.D.: alice.1073 Via: Usenet; 8 Nov 82 22:11-PST The early phases of the fifth shuttle countdown were on schedule today, as electrical power inside the orbiter was turned on and the cargo bay doors were closed. The launch window for this flight is forty minutes, the smallest of any of the other four. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Nov 82 9:41:33-PST (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Countdown Begins Article-I.D.: alice.1070 Via: Usenet; 8 Nov 82 22:49-PST The call to stations was announce on time at 0300 EST today and with that began the countdown to the launch of STS-5, scheduled for 0719 EST on Thursday. The first piece of business on the countdown agenda is the checking of the Columbia's electrical systems. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Nov 82 20:45:31-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!aka779 at Ucb-C70 Subject: PROXMIRE WINS! space loses! Article-I.D.: inuxd.202 Via: Usenet; 9 Nov 82 1:01-PST SENATOR PROXMIRE HAS WON ANOTHER TERM! The space program weeps. Senator Harrison Schmitt loses! Double weeps! Wisconsin, I understand--just cows and butter up there, and the dairymen keep voting in their subsidies that we all have to pay... But, New Mexico! HIgh-tech desert, why oh why have you deserted the strongest proponent of the programs that have kept The Land of Enchantment one of the best places to work? Ah, I miss the great southwest, but I am severely disappointed in my amigos. My ten years as a Neuvo Mexicano never prepared me for this turnabout. --Arlan Andrews, once of Las Cruces and White Sands... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 10-Nov-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #40 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 40 Today's Topics: Today's Countdown Schedule STS-5 will break record Huge Soviet Rocket Test watching military launches Re: PROXMIRE WINS! space loses! - (nf) Re: ad hoc definition of intelligence - (nf) Antimatter info request How many quarters. Viewing Vandenberg Launches Re: Today's Countdown Schedule - (nf) NASA Confident Shuttle Will Launch Thursday Where is everyone? Taxes, Video Games, and Ma Bell Halleys Comet Space shuttle history Thank You Adam Space junk threat Re: PROXMIRE WINS! space loses! - (nf) Countdown Behind Schedule Dial-a-Shuttle the ultimate rocket NASA Goes Ahead With Countdown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Nov 82 7:25:09-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Today's Countdown Schedule Today's agenda for the preparations for Thursday's launch include activation of the Columbia's fuel cells, pressurization of fuel tanks, and a review of flight software. Also on today's schedule: washing Columbia's windows. ------------------------------ Date: 09 Nov 1982 0402-PST From: Robert Maas Subject: STS-5 will break record To: SPACE at MIT-MC According to an AP story, this week's launch of STS-5 will be the first time four people have ridden to space in a single spacecraft, the previous record being three. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 1982 13:25 EST From: PATTERSON.Henr at PARC-MAXC Subject: Huge Soviet Rocket Test To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC HUGH SOVIET ROCKET COULD BOOST SPACE CITY By Howard Benedict (AP) MOSCOW  The world's most powerful space rocket, emblazoned with the red star of the Soviet Union, is to be test-fired for the first time next year, according to authoritative sources here. The Soviets hope to to perfect it by 1985 to hurl into orbit the 110-ton core of a mammoth manned space station. Soviet officials won't officially acknowledge that they are developing the huge rocket, code named "G". But they speak openly of their concept for Cosmograd  or "city in the sky". Sources  all of them involved in the nation's space program  provided a rough outline, and a few details, of the massive project that has long been a Soviet dream. It would be occupied year in, year out, by rotating crews of medical researches, astronomers, workers making drugs and other materials, satellite repairman and cosmonauts conducting reconnaissance and other military chores. Some would inhabit this weightless world for perhaps years in long term research projects. Others would work on high-technology construction crews, assembling manned and unmanned rockets destined for the planets and other parts of the solar system. The sources, who asked to remain unidentified, provided these statistics about the "G" rocket: It will stand more than 300 feet tall, generate about 11 million pounds of liftoff thrust and be able to boost more than 300,000 pounds into orbit. The largest rockets ever launched successfully were in America's Saturn 5 series, which propelled astronauts to the moon in the late 60's and early 70's before the series was retired. Each rocket departed Earth on 7.5 million pounds of thrust and could carry more than 200,000 pounds into space. One official said the Soviet goal is to launch a 220,000 pound cylindrical station in 1985 and to initially have 10 to 12 people on board, conducting scientific and defense assignments. American military analysts are concerned that the station could serve as a launching platform for satellite destroying laser weapons. Cosmonaut Konstantin Feoktistov, discussing space station plans without going into dates or other details, said an initial platform could be enlarged by adding modules. "There will be observatory modules and whole plants for manufacturing products in zero gravity," he said. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the U.S. Air Force want to build a large space station but so far have received only a vague commitment from the Reagan administration and a few million dollars to continue studies. Success is by no means assured for the "G" rocket. The Soviets have had problems in the past with a large booster. Three failures in as many launches in the late 60's and early 70's forced them out of the man-to-the-moon race with the United States. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 1982 1420-EST From: Art Evans Subject: watching military launches To: SPACE at MIT-MC In the Nov 8 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology on page 24, in a sidebar on media coverage of a launch of a Titan 34D/IUS, this quote appears: One Air Force official said [Defense Secretary Caspar] Weinberger has decided that, in the future, all military space launches -- shuttle and Titan alike -- will be secret. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 82 12:50:54-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!wombat at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: PROXMIRE WINS! space loses! - (nf) Schmidt lost because the environmental PAC put a lot of money into the campaign against him. He had one of the worst voting records on environmental issues in the Senate. Proxmire's campaign cost him $100. Is there intelligent life in Wisconsin? ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 82 0:31:01-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsovax!hamilton at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: ad hoc definition of intelligence - (nf) not quite. the dolphins may be the capable race, and WE the incapable... wayne ({decvax,ucbvax,harpo}!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsovax!)hamilton ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 1982 20:47:38 EST (Tuesday) From: Roger Frye Subject: Antimatter info request To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Can anyone direct me to some high school level information on antimatter? Where can I find a (possibly higher level) discussion of the current theories on why there should be more than we see and where it might be? -Roger Frye ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 1982 1753-PST From: Den Lenahan Subject: How many quarters. To: wilkins at SRI-AI Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940. Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161 A recent version of 20-20 stated that, last year, four billion quarters (one billion dollars) were fed to arcade type video games. A very small tax on those quarters would provide a sizable income. Unfortunately, it would be hard to attach that tax to space money specifically. The windfall would probably fall into some other tax pool and get divied up among some of those uses for tax dollars that we all know and love so well. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 1982 1757-PST From: Den Lenahan Subject: Viewing Vandenberg Launches To: sotos at NLM-MCS Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940. Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161 Good point John. Last time I was at Vandenberg, I drove from Lompoc (just outside the gate) east to Santa Maria. The road travels up and over a small range between the two cities. I don't know for sure, since it was foggy when I made the return drive, but I suspect the view of Vandenberg from anywhere along the west face of that incline would provide superb viewing. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 82 0:27:49-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsovax!hamilton at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Today's Countdown Schedule - (nf) they gonna check the oil, too? ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 82 7:24:26-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: NASA Confident Shuttle Will Launch Thursday Despite yesterday's problem, NASA is confident that the Columbia will launch on time on Thursday. The trouble, a small leak in a helium tank in one of the steering jet regulators, was termed small enough to allow the system to be used during ascent. The faulty unit was turned off and a backup unit activated. Engineers were evaluating the situation last night, and NASA will make a decision today whether to go ahead with the launch or replace the unit, which would cause a delay of several weeks, as the shuttle would have to be moved back to its hangar. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Nov 82 8:20:31-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70 Subject: Where is everyone? I havn't heard a think on this net for over a week. Has everyone been teleported off this chunk of rock? Fred ------------------------------ Date: 9 November 1982 22:00-EST From: Stewart Cobb Subject: Taxes, Video Games, and Ma Bell To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC There are literally millions of video games in this country, some averaging a quarter every few minutes, 24 hours a day. A penny-a-game tax would probably double NASA's budget. However, there are difficulties in implementing such a tax. There's never before been a national sales tax (which is what this amounts to, in a limited way) because the bureaucratic hassles are tremendous. Besides, it would never get passed -- it's not justifiable, except to space freeks like us. There is another idea, however, for giving NASA some additional funds -- one that is justifiable. Ma Bell has made almost $2 million off the shuttle, without paying NASA a cent (as far as I know). NASA has been providing Bell with the Shuttle audio signal gratis, and Bell has made all of its money just moving the signal around. Why should Ma Bell get all the money? After all, it's the audio signal people are really paying for, not the phone connection itself. Suppose NASA were to charge Bell a user fee for their hookup, to help defray both the costs of the hookup itself and the costs of developing the vehicle that everyone wants to hear? Or, if that can't be worked out, why doesn't NASA make the signal available to anyone who wants to hear it, by broadcasting it on one of the shortwave radio bands? Radio Moscow mentions the cosmonauts in Salyut 7 almost every night -- wouldn't it be nice to have the Shuttle on the next frequency over? Tired of paying Ma, Stewart (hsc at mit-mc) ------------------------------ Date: 8 Nov 82 14:18:19-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm at Ucb-C70 Subject: Halleys Comet Anybody know what the latest news on this faint little object is??? Ron Meyer inuxa!rrm Bell labs - Indy ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 1982 2240-EST From: DVW.AGM at MIT-OZ Subject: Space shuttle history To: space at MIT-MC I remember hearing a rumor a couple of years ago about the beginnings (actually, almost the endings) of the space shuttle. Supposedly, around 1973, the entire shuttle project was up before Congress, and they, in their infinite wisdom, were going to cancel it. At the last moment, the Department of Defense stepped in and volunteered to fund about 75% of the shuttle costs. Can anyone please provide me with some more history on the nature of the origins of the shuttle program? Adam Mellis (dvw.agm@mit-oz) ------------------------------ Date: 8 Nov 82 9:40:34-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70 Subject: Thank You Adam I for one would like to thank Adam L. Bushbaum for posting his articles on Columbia. With so little news coverage this net is the only place I can find current information about how things are going. Thank you Adam. Fred BTL-Indianapolis ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 1982 2351-EST From: DVW.AGM at MIT-OZ Subject: Space junk threat To: space at MIT-MC Last week, someone (my apologies, I forgot who it was) brought up the topic of space debris, and mentioned something to the effect that one might encounter an "occasional meteor." This is a considerable understatement, and the true nature of the problem is significantly different. In the Sept. '82 Physics Today, Reynolds, Rice, and Edgecombe, from Battelle Columbus Labs (pp. 9+) point out that "the risk of collision for operating spacecraft may not just become significant, but might even preclude using certain regions of space in the future due to an uncontrolled growth in the amount of debris." Unluckily for us, "the maximum potential collision risk occurs near 850 km (460 nautical miles), the altitude favored for SUN-SYNCHRONOUS (emphasis added) operations." They indicate five (5) reasons as to why "preventing the growth of debris is of the utmost importance", ... 1). Once debris is deposited in orbit it cannot easily be removed (Orbital speeds are on the order of 8 km/s) 2). The only natural mechanism reducing the amount of debris is orbital decay and Earth reentry caused by atmospheric drag. (This can take many years) 3). Orbital perturbations will randomize the distribution of the debris, making it extremely difficult to "pre-plan" to avoid the debris. 4). Because of large relative speeds between colliding objects (~8 km/s) even small debris pieces can cause extensive damage. 5). ==> Once collisions begin to occur, there is a danger that uncontrollable debris growth (cascading) will result in the near-Earth environment becoming too populated with debris to be usable. (!) They isolate a further problem when they note that "the minimum size of an object that can be tracked using ground-based equipment is much larger than the smallest object capable of causing damage to an operating spacecraft." They note that collision avoidance systems and impact protection ("bumpers") cannot solve the problem, and that the situation is rapidly approaching a critical period: We must consider the on-orbit debris hazards caused by anti-satellite operations. They conclude with an overview of policy recommendations. Particularly interesting note: "The USSR, in its recent manned space-station program, reportedly has been dumping garbage and other items overboard. These items have been observeds from the ground." Adam Mellis (dvw.agm@mit-oz) ------------------------------ Date: 8 Nov 82 16:42:10-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ihuxw!thor at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: PROXMIRE WINS! space loses! - (nf) Article-I.D.: ihuxw.259 In-Reply-To: Article uiucdcs.971 Via: Usenet; 9 Nov 82 22:18-PST Regarding the rather obnoxious question of whether there is intelligent life in Wisconsin, let me answer yes. Let me also remind you that the task of a senator (or rep to congress) is to represent the needs of his or her constituents. Very few of Wisconsin's industries are connected with the space program. (and I believe that has always been the case) So, why should Proxmire push for money for space (sure in the long run the benefits could be tremendous) now? The return on the investment in space for Wisconsin would probably be small right now, however. And the majority of the voters are concerned with immediate results (in Wisconsin, in Florida, or in any other state!). Proxmire wants to keep his job just like the rest of us. Let me also remind you as far as intelligence goes that Wisconsin has one of the finest state University systems in the country. Furthermore, many of the people reading this net may have been trained at those universities in Wisconsin. By the way, we are not totally myopic. Wisconsin was the first state to pass as a referendum, a measure to control the buildup of nuclear weapons. I believe Wisconsin was also one of the first states to provide workmans compensation insurance. Hopefully, we on the net can refrain from further insults of this type and at least attempt a good exchange of ideas. Mark Kohls UW-Milwaukee 1981 Bell Labs Naperville ------------------------------ Date: 8 Nov 82 16:19:52-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Countdown Behind Schedule Article-I.D.: alice.1075 Via: Usenet; 9 Nov 82 23:26-PST The STS-5 countdown fell seven hours behind schedule today when a helium leak was detected in the regulators of one of the Columbia's 44 small steering jets. NASA, however, says that they do not expect the problem to delay the launch, as there are 20 hours of hold time built into the countdown for just such an occasion. They expect the countdown to be on schedule by tomorrow morning. Weather for Thursday morning is expected to be very good. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Nov 82 23:43:18-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Dial-a-Shuttle Article-I.D.: alice.1081 Via: Usenet; 10 Nov 82 1:07-PST People in the U.S. may once again call a special number, starting at 0619 EST Thursday and continuing throughout STS-5, and listen in on ground to shuttle communications and special NASA broadcasts when none of the former are occurring. The number is 900-410-6272 ------------------------------ Date: 8 Nov 82 23:07:54-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Ucb-C70 Subject: the ultimate rocket Article-I.D.: utzoo.2587 Via: Usenet; 10 Nov 82 1:47-PST A recent item in Science (15 Oct 1982, page 274) indicates that there is now a strong suspicion that magnetic monopoles, if they exist, would catalyze the (as-yet hypothetical) decay of the proton. It has been pointed out that the various Grand Unified Theories (the current hot theories in particle physics) all predict that the magnetic monopole would have a very odd structure. In its core, circa 10**-30 cm across (essentially a dimensionless point even on the subnuclear scale), one finds conditions not seen elsewhere in the universe since the Big Bang: the electromagnetic, nuclear, and weak forces are one and the same, and various particles are similarly indistinguishable (for example, the quark, electron, and neutrino are identical). As one moves outward from the core, the various stages of "symmetry breaking" last seen instants after the Big Bang appear, until on the outside the only remnant of the funniness inside is the magnetic field. Now, the core of the monopole is so small that this would seem to be of no practical significance. However, quarks in particular turn out to be able to interact with this core with a probability independent of the size of the core. Exactly what happens to such a quark depends on the details of the particular G.U.T. However, any theory which allows for the decay of the proton also predicts that interaction with a monopole core can transform a quark into an antiquark. Thus, when a monopole wanders into a proton (or neutron), one of the proton's quarks dives into it, comes back out as an antiquark -- and the proton explodes. After assorted intermediate particles go their way, the proton has been converted to energy (plus a scattering of neutrinos). The monopole is unchanged. The bad news is that astronomical evidence strongly suggests that proton decay is impossible, monopoles are extremely infrequent, or the as-yet-unsettled cross-section for the quark/monopole-core reaction is very small. If one assumes that proton decay is possible, that the Cabrera event last spring was really a monopole, and that the cross-section is something reasonable, one expects to see X-ray emission from neutron stars with trapped monopoles, and we don't. Given no X-rays, any sort of plausible cross-section, and proton decay (which is not yet certain, but the early experiments have already given some very suggestive results), the Cabrera event is ridiculously unlikely. The puzzle is unsolved as yet. The good news is that the various proton-decay experiments now being set up will make excellent tests of this theory, because the passage of a monopole through one of their detector chambers would be a truly spectacular event. The REALLY good news is, if the theories prove correct and the negative astronomical evidence can be reconciled somehow, then monopoles are catalysts for the direct conversion of matter to energy. And quite apart from its other uses, that's just what the doctor ordered for powering starships. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 82 15:33:26-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: NASA Goes Ahead With Countdown Article-I.D.: alice.1084 Via: Usenet; 10 Nov 82 2:56-PST Bypassing flight rules that call for a mission scrub in the case of a shuttle backup system failure, NASA today put the countdown back on schedule by saying that the helium leak in a regulator was small enough so as not to affect normal (and above normal) operations. Also today, workers loaded the Columbia's fuel cells with oxygen and hydrogen. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 11-Nov-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #41 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 41 Today's Topics: Countdown Proceeding Smoothly Re: the ultimate rocket Re: watching military launches Re: PROXMIRE WINS! space loses! - (nf) Re: Re: PROXMIRE WINS! space loses! Re: PROXMIRE WINS! space loses! Landing Time Announced Humans Suitable for Food Re: PROXMIRE WINS! space loses! - (nf) Our Friend, William P. Shuttle Launch Crews & Schedule Not Food For Thought RCS regulator a reference Vandenberg Facilities Living alone Ad hoc definition of intelligence Re: SPACE Digest V3 #39 Taxes, Video Games, and Ma Bell ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Nov 82 17:28:45-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Countdown Proceeding Smoothly After NASA's decision to continue with the launch of STS-5 despite the helium leak, the countdown picked up again and has been running smoothly since then. For those of you wondering why the launch window for this flight is so narrow (33 minutes) in comparison with other shuttle shots, one of the new variables included in it is the fact that the shuttle must be at a specific point at a specific time to launch the two satellites. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 82 13:01:08-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!seismo!rocheste!heliotis at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: the ultimate rocket I had been taught that magneteic monopoles do not exist, by definition of magnetism. (Something about what happens to electric fields when relativity is taken into account). Can anyone confirm or contradict this? Jim Heliotis ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 82 3:57:46-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: watching military launches The military has always been secretive about their launches. They often don't even tell people with a good reason to know. Remember the case of the poor guy working alone in the Columbia's cockpit late one night several days before a launch? He felt the shuttle rumble and heard a roar. Thinking that the boosters had somehow ignited, the poor guy dived for the escape hatch. It turned out that the Air Force had decided to launch a Titan III that evening from a nearby pad without telling anybody. I do know of one case where several non-military types I know found out ahead of time about a Vandenburg launch. They were preparing for a scientific Delta launch when word came around to "stay away from pad such-and-such during the following hours today". Of course, they immediately headed for the beach about a mile from the Titan launch pad, and were subsequently treated to the experience of a Titan III flying directly overhead. It was said to rival any 4th of July display. The MPs stopped by to confiscate film, but didn't chase anybody away. Phil Karn ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 82 20:07:44-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!seismo!uwvax!doug at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: PROXMIRE WINS! space loses! - (nf) That is a problem with Wisconsin, Florida, every other state, big business and lots of things - the desire for a quick return on investment. Proxmire is short-sighted. That, in my view, is not a compliment. If it is granted that space exploration is in *everyone's* long term interest then voters, even here in Wisconsin, should push actively for it and throw those out of office who try to stop it. Nobody criticizes Proxmire for not pushing for space exploration. It is his attempts to actively thwart it that irks a lot of people. Doug Lerner doug@uwisc Madison, Wisconsin ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 82 14:59:01-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!kcarroll at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Re: PROXMIRE WINS! space loses! I agree that it is unfair to expect a senator who represents a state in which no space-related industry is based, to "push for money for space". After all, the principle behind having a senate in the first place was to protect the interests of the individual states, by giving the states a part in deciding on legislation that might affect them. Farsighted senators might see that the future interests of their state are tied to the future of the human race as a whole, and that (as I'm sure that most readers of this newsgroup will agree) is dependent on our moving out into space >soon<; however, we can't >expect< a senator to be far-sighted. Wisconsin-enthusiasts might note that space-enthusiasts don't really begrudge them their dairy-subsidies, or argue that Sen. Proxmire is wrong in obtaining thos subsidies. We don't argue that it should be part of Proxmire's job to push for more funds for space. We >do< feel that it >should not< be part of his job to push for >less< funds for space! It is hard to imagine how Wisconsin will benefit from a continued low level of funding for high-tech research throughout the country, unless the funds diverted from the space program were to be funnelled directly into Wisconsin's dairy program (which I'm sure they're not). While I'm sure that there is intelligent life in Wisconsin, I'm not sure that it appreciates the havoc its elected representative is wreaking with researchers in other states. It would be nice if the hypothetical intelligent life would put a muzzle on its senator, and keep him from attacking these researchers, who don't have the resources to defend themselves from senators bent on re-election at any cost (at any cost to anyone but himself, that is to say). Before flaming on this topic, get yourself a copy of some of the good senator's "Golden Fleece" press releases, and ask yourself whether these are fair, reasoned arguments against government spending. (I beleive a book titled "The Golden Fleece Awards" has been published, listing some of these). ---Kieran A. Carroll ...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 82 22:38:49-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: PROXMIRE WINS! space loses! Jerry Pournelle said it all: "Anyone who buys Wisconsin cheese is a traitor to mankind!" ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 82 7:31:48-EST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Landing Time Announced The shuttle will land on 16 November at 0725 PST (1025 EST) at EAFB. Meanwhile, the countdown has been going smoothly since NASA's decision to ignore the slight helium leak. There is a bit of concern over rain at EAFB, the primary landing site, but if it gets too bad, they can use the concrete strip there that STS-4 landed on. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 1982 1203-EST From: Mike Inners Subject: Humans Suitable for Food To: Space at MIT-MC Considering the (lack) of resources expended by humans toward carrying on a discourse with other races, humans are not intelligent by the definition proposed. The amount of money spent on SETI, or research into Cetacean communication is miniscule compared even to the space program budget. Only communication with other primates recieves non-trivial funding. Since willingness to commit resources is the only reliable way I can think of to measure willingness to communicate, I doubt we could be considered 'willing to carry on a discourse'. "...the rest of the book - it's a COOKBOOK!" -- Mike Inners ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 1982 1030-PST From: Tom Wadlow To: space at MIT-MC Date: 5 Nov 82 12:50:54-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!wombat at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: PROXMIRE WINS! space loses! - (nf) Schmidt lost because the environmental PAC put a lot of money into the campaign against him. He had one of the worst voting records on environmental issues in the Senate. It seems to me that the goals of the space movement and the environmental movement are not at all incompatible, and probably very complementary. And yet here is a case where they seemed to clash, and we lost. Space and environmental issues often seem to be on opposite sides of the fence, and this is very unfortunate. Perhaps this is because the space folk are trying to encourage the government to keep doing something and the environmental folk are trying to discourage the government from doing something. --Tom ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 1982 1332-EST From: John Sotos Subject: Our Friend, William P. To: space at MIT-MC A few random points: 1) The number of astronauts in the Congress has not changed. Jack Swigert of Apollo 13 was elected to the House by a 2:1 margin in Colorado. Sadly, he has a touch of lymphoma (I don't know which type) and polymyositis to boot. 2) Glenn for prez in '84? He's big on research, but I've heard nothing specific re the space program. 3) Wisconsin folks seem rather touchy. 4) Regarding space debris, I read that NORAD recently pinpointed an orbiting glove! 5) Proxmire had a hair transplant a number of years ago. Wouldn't it be wonderful to link some facet of hair transplantation and one of his Golden Fleece awards? There's a project for some enterprising (no pun intended) high school/college student! John Sotos ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 1982 1415-EST From: John Sotos Subject: Shuttle Launch Crews & Schedule To: space at MIT-MC A few days ago someone on the net requested a listing of known shuttle crews. The following is from "STS-4 Press Information" published by Rockwell International Office of Public Relations Space Transportation & Systems Group 12214 Lakewood Blvd. Downey, CA 90241 (213) 922-1217, (213) 922-2066 = = = = = = = = STS-6 (January 1983 -- I think this is the first night launch) commander Paul Weitz (Skylab 2 veteran) pilot Karol Bobko (1969 group of astros (MOL)) mssn spec Story Musgrave, M.D. (1967 group, I think.) Donald Peterson (1969 group - MOL) This is the first flight of OV-099, the Challenger and the light- weight external tank. No arm. Two get-away-specials (GAS). = = = = = = = = STS-7 (March 1983) commander Robert Crippen (STS-1) pilot Frederick Hauck (1978 group) mssn specs Sally Ride (1978 group) John Fabian (1978 group) There it is folks, your first American woman in space. This is another Challenger flight. = = = = = = = = STS-8 commander Richard Truly (STS-2) pilot Daniel Brandenstein (1978 group) mssn specs Guion Bluford Dale Gardner Challenger again. This is the first night launch. Bluford will be the first black in space unless the Russians get propaganda hungry. = = = = = = = = STS-9 commander John Young (Geminis 3 & 10, Apollos 10 & 16, STS-1) pilot Brewster Shaw (1978 group) mssn specs Robert Parker (1967 group) Owen Garriott (Skylab 3) Columbia this time. John Young appointed himself to take Spacelab 1 into orbit on this one. The two payload specialists for this flight have been selected now. Someone told me that the American is Byron Lichtenberg and the European is the German, though I ain't really sure. Six folks on one flight! = = = = = = = = That's it for assignments as of Aug. 1982. A couple other notes: STS-15 -- first flight of the Discovery STS-26 -- first flight of the Atlantis STS-1V -- first Vandenberg launch (between STS-33 and STS-34). The Discovery will do the honors. STS-10 -- Department of Defense payload STS-11 -- ditto STS-22 -- ditto STS-25 -- ditto STS-29 -- ditto STS-32 -- ditto STS-18 -- still has room for a payload as of June 1982 STS-19 -- Spacelab 3 STS-21 -- Spacelab 2 (sic) STS-23 -- Space Telescope STS-26 -- German Spacelab flight STS-30 -- Galileo probe STS-31 -- Spacelab 4 -- the dedicated life sciences mission (hurray!) STS-42 -- Europe's Solar Polar satellite The above are from another Rockwell document "Bound for Space: Assigned Cargo for STS Missions 1982-1984" Film at eleven. John Sotos (sotos@nlm-mcs) ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 1982 15:25:07 EST (Wednesday) From: Roger Frye Subject: Not Food For Thought As a vegetarian, I submit that any species having members which try to avoid being eaten should not be used as food. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 1982 at 1451-CST From: kjm@UTEXAS-11 Subject: RCS regulator Is the word "regulator" intended to mean a regulator valve in the RCS pressurization subsystem? If not, what exactly does it mean? KJM at utexas-11 ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 1982 at 1623-CST From: King Ables Subject: a reference Can anybody give me a reference for Robert Bussard's work on his interstellar ramjet idea? The only reference I can find that seems to be very useful is "Astronautica Acta 6" from 1960 but I can't seem to locate a copy of it around here. I would appreciate hearing of other references that might be easier to find. Thanks, -king ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 1982 1458-PST From: Den Lenahan Subject: Vandenberg Facilities Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940. Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161 Please don't cite this as official Air Force position; it is based on conversation with one officer at VAFB, and he wasn't the guy in charge in this area. (The guy in charge will be back next week--if I get more info from him then, or something more nearly official, I'll put it on this list next week.) Unofficial firm rumor: The plans folks at VAFB expect an open base policy during STS launches, and are currently working on how to set up, control, etc. etc. a public viewing area for STS launches. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 82 13:36:18-EST (Tue) From: Gene Spafford Subject: Living alone I'm not necessarily trying to push Zen or any other philosophy, but aloneness is largely a state of mind, especially in some philosophies. Perhaps we will achieve the ability to expand beyond our planetary confines through some power of the mind rather than some technological solution. Perhaps that is why we do not detect any other life in our region of space --- they've all evolved into something which is not detectable by our technology. They've gone "away." As I said before, we should be careful not to think we know the answers when we aren't even sure of the question. You said something about being alone....on a planet full of people with all of their talents and potentials? If you cannot find company in that group do you really think you could be more comfortable light years away? Perhaps you have an unfulfilled need to discuss something with a two-headed intelligent eggplant (with green fur) from Cygnus? My belief is that one can only find fulfillment within oneself. Furthermore, you mention the "imminent" demise of our Sun some billions of years hence. I think that is a far less pressing problem than whether we will survive the next 10 years here. We can create colonies in space or on other worlds, perhaps, but until we can discover (and solve) why we are so self-destructive, why we fear and mistrust each other, and why we disregard our environment (both personal and global), all that we will succeed in doing is to carry those problems with us. I guess the point I'm trying to make involves an examination of exactly *why* one would look spaceward. (Note: I'm arguing a point I don't necessarily agree with. That may be schizophrenic, but we like it.) Really think about why the concept of space travel is exciting...especially if you don't get as excited about the concept of coming back. Is it because there are things here on earth that you'd like to get away from? Is it because you view whatever we'd establish "out there" to be filled with sane, sensible people who would provide an environment more like what you want? Is it because you hope to find intelligence out there that wil give you all the answers? Do you believe that the only hope of our race's survival is to get away from this mess we have made of our world? Is it because we have no frontier here on Earth for you to battle and subdue? (If so, if you believe space to be the final frontier, then you're not looking hard enough.) I'm not going to say what are valid reasons and what are not; my point is that some of the things we seek elsewhere could very well be found within. Perhaps that is why we don't hear from anyone else...they are searching inwards for answers, not outwards for more questions. Philospohically yours (and mine and ours), Gene ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 82 10:35:12-EST (Wed) From: Gene Spafford Subject: Ad hoc definition of intelligence As to the suggestion of an adhoc definition of intelligence as a being both capable and willing to enter into discourse with other intelligences: let me vote no! Who decides "capable" and "willing"? Let me talk about willing first. If I decide not to answer my phone when the Venusians call because I'm taking out the trash or in the bathroom, or maybe I just had a bad day and don't feel like talking, would they understand? Or am I to be fated to "Well, he's not intelligent. Soup's on!" How about capable? Suppose my phone is broken? They can't call in and ET can't call out. Am I capable? Suppose all I have is a phone and they communicate through some visual mechanism -- am I capable? Consider here on Earth.... I don't know Chinese. Am I capable of communicating with someone who only speaks Chinese? If not, and I would interpret "capable" to mean no, does that make the Chinese suitable as a food supply? I hope not -- an hour later I'll need another one. How about humans who have had diseases or injury that paralyze them and prevent them from moving or communicating? I hope to god that none of us should ever develop any degenerative nerve diseases and get visited by aliens while in the hospital. Coma, sleep, hangover....the argument can be continued. What we really are talking about has been debated for centuries. What is "intelligence" is very close to asking "what has a soul?" That's a question I'm not sure any of us can answer with certainty, and I refuse to even try. I remember reading a short story once (science fiction) where an alien had landed somewhere in the south, and a klansman had killed it because "it wasn't white and it looked jewish." He said he wasn't guilty of murder because the thing wasn't human...he was just doing some bug killing. The public response was to define human as someone who wouldn't intentionally hurt another intelligent being; they therefore "exterminated" the klansman. There's a moral in there somewhere. Next time, Gene ------------------------------ Date: 10-Nov-82 16:04:37 PST (Wednesday) From: Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #39 Re: ad hoc definition of intelligence (menlo70!nsc!katic@Ucb-C70) "Note that we humans (ree [sic] Washoe & others) apply. Note that cetacaens [sic] don't." Dolphins are cetaceans, and John Lilly's experiments (among others) show that they are more than willing and able to communicate with us. Whales are another story, since I don't think anyone has done any significant experiments in whale-human communication. But when was the last time you went on a whale watch? Whales know the boats are there to watch, not to harm, and they respond to this knowledge by being friendly. In other words, "Note that cetacaens don't." is at best an erroneous statement. Furthermore, even if they don't communicate with us, they do communicate with each other. Whales sing songs, although their songs don't bear much resemblance to ours. Many whale songs have been identified. These are sets of sounds that appear in a specific order, and are often repeated in that order several times in a row. I don't know who they might be communicating with (themselves, dolphins, other sea creatures) or what. Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't an attempt to communicate, and just because it doesn't seem to be directed towards us doesn't mean that it isn't directed at some other species. Even if your criterion had enough merit to justify the claim "any race that does not use it is sutable [sic] for food", which it doesn't, it is clear from scientific work that has already been done that whales and dolphins do satisfy your criterion, and thus 'aren't suitable for food'. We should remember that it is not all that clear what the term 'intelligence' means, and your two line criterion fails in so many ways as to be useless. There is no consensus on the meaning of the word. There is an extended debate that has been going on for 50 years as to whether a machine can be intelligent. By your criterion, a computer is intelligent under most normal circumstances, although not even the most ardent AI advocates would support the contention for many machines which satisfy your criterion. In my opinion, the SETI depends for its success on finding not just intelligence, but intelligence which is similar to ours. It is useless to go about spouting garbage about what animals or ETs do or don't satisfy some criterion which indicates the presence of something we can't even agree on a definition of. The SETI must be based on a thorough study of the nature of intelligence to be successful. We are still in the infantile stages of that study, so it isn't exactly clear that we will even know when we've found what we're looking for. Your opinion on cetacean intelligence proves my point. -- Larry -- ------------------------------ Date: 10 November 1982 18:11 est From: Dehn.DEHN at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Taxes, Video Games, and Ma Bell It is absolutely false that "there's never before been a national sales tax ... in a limited way". Such taxes are called "excise taxes". There are federal excise taxes on a variety of goods and services, including gasoline, tires, cigarettes, and liquor. It is interesting that you suggest the phone company as a source of revenue -- there is a federal excise tax on telephone service. You may be "tired of paying Ma", but one percent of that is already going straight to Uncle. I think a bit of realism needs to be injected into this discussion. If a billion dollars is spent on video games, a tax such as you propose (a penny per quarter) would raise 40 million dollars. NASA's budget is approximately 6 billion dollars. This is about .2% of the GNP. In order to "double NASA's budget", you need a tax correspondingly large. You need to find an activity that involves 600 billion dollars, and tax it at a rate of 1%; or, an activity that involves 150 billion dollars, and tax it at 4%. It may seem fitting to take money from the alien-murdering youth and spend it on the higher goal of the exploration of space, but it doesn't work out when subjected to common sense and a calculator. -jwd3 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 12-Nov-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #42 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 42 Today's Topics: Vegecide Re: Space vs. environment envirnoment, elections, intelligence Shuttle on shortwave Private message for harpo!ihps3!ihuxw!thor, sending directly doesn't work ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Nov 1982 0853-PST From: Hans Moravec Subject: Vegecide To: frye at BBN-UNIX, space at MIT-MC Date: 10 Nov 1982 15:25:07 EST (Wednesday) From: Roger Frye Subject: Not Food For Thought As a vegetarian, I submit that any species having members which try to avoid being eaten should not be used as food. I think most plants resist being eaten in their own way as vigorously as animals do. True, they can't scream, kick, bite or run, but they struggle silently with chemicals, armor and deception. Fruits are offerings to marginal symbiotes, but I'm sure the plant would rather (in an evolutionary sense) not spend its precious energy growing fruit if had another way to spread seed. It can be argued that domestic animals, no less than domestic plants, are symbiotes of humans , and wouldn't even exist if humans didn't want to eat them. They depend on us to raise and nurture them, we depend on them to be tasty. The distinction between plants and animals is only that plants are so unlike us that we don't empathize nearly as much. Someday, when the pod ships of the intelligent forests of Rigel IV arrive, you vegetarians will get your comeuppance. "Suitable for fertilizer - excellent calcium content". ------------------------------ Date: 11-Nov-82 9:45:47 PST (Thursday) From: Suk at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Space vs. environment To: Tom Wadlow cc: Space at MIT-MC, Suk Tom, I agree with your comment re: Space vs. environment. I am very much in sympathy with most of the discussion on space exploration, etc., but I am also very much in sympathy with most environmental efforts. Admittedly, I contribute a few dollars to environmental causes, and none to any space-related causes, so perhaps I'm biased toward one side. Too bad we can't get things closer together, and urge that a lot of this money be spent in developing space, rather than in developing wilderness, wildlife refuges, etc. Stan Suk Palo Alto ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 1982 1003-PST From: WILKINS at SRI-AI (Wilkins ) Subject: envirnoment, elections, intelligence As Jerry Brown says, "Ecology and technology find a unity in space." We'll have to understand how to not use up our envirnoment before we have large permanent space colonies, so I think environmental concerns are more complementary to the space program than anathema to it. Perhaps Harrison Schmitt does not understand the importance of ecology or perhaps he was lots of rich developer friends. Also, it does not seem right to bemoan elections without looking at the other choice. While Proxmire's opponent may be better than Proxmire, it is not clear than Democratic Senator Bingaman will be that much worse than Schmitt. And while we're bemoaning elections, the biggest loss of all to the space program was Jerry Brown, the only national politician to have the vision and intelligence to understand the importance of space the way most of us on this mailing list do. Other quotes from Jerry: "As for Space Colonies, it's not a question of whether - only when and how." "When the day of manufacturing in Space occurs and extraterrestrial material is added into the economic equation, then the old economic rules no longer apply. Going into Space is an investment. It's not a waste of money, it's not a depleting asset, it's an expanding asset, and through creation of new wealth we make possible the redistribution of more wealth to those who don't have it." Lastly, anyone with even a rudimentary training in philosophy would have a hard time taking the "capable and willing to communicate" definition of intelligence as a serious attempt at definition. It seems like a waste of resources to argue against such a (ridiculous) position. ------- ------------------------------ Mail-From: CMUFTP host CMU-CS-G received by CMU-10A at 11-Nov-82 18:32:51-EST Date: 11 Nov 1982 18:30:46-EST From: Howard.Gayle at CMU-CS-G at CMU-CS-A Subject: Shuttle on shortwave According to Media Network on Radio Netherlands, shuttle communications are being retransmitted by amateur radio station W5RRR in Houston, Texas. Frequencies (kHz) are 14,225 - 14,250; 21,360; or 28,500 - 29,700. The exact frequency used depends on interference and propagation. Transmissions are SSB upper sideband. ------------------------------ Date: 12 November 1982 02:46-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Private message for harpo!ihps3!ihuxw!thor, sending directly doesn't work To: SPACE at MIT-MC Date: 10-Nov-82 20:14:08-PST (Wed) From: MAILER-DAEMON@Berkeley (Mail Delivery Subsystem) To: REM@MIT-MC Subject: Unable to deliver mail ----- Transcript of session follows ----- harpo!ihps3!ihuxw!thor... Connecting to harpo.uucp... AERROR - (n < SLOCKTRIES) CAN NOT GET LCK.SEQLharpo!ihps3!ihuxw!thor... Service unavailable REM@MIT-MC... Connecting to mit-mc.arpa... ----- Unsent message follows ----- Date: 10 November 1982 08:21-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: PROXMIRE WINS! space loses! - (nf) Message-Id: <8210110414.828@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.ARPA> Received: by UCBVAX.BERKELEY.ARPA (3.227 [10/22/82]) id A00828; 10-Nov-82 20:14:08-PST (Wed) To: harpo!ihps3!ihuxw!thor@UCB-C70 Maybe we should arrange to farm out some space-related work to Wisc and other states that have obnoxious active anti-space senators. Then they'd have incentive to be pro-space. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 13-Nov-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #43 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 43 Today's Topics: "High Frontier" -- National defense from space Schmitt's loss What's the rent once you're there? Re: Magnetic Monopoles Vgecide Cetacean Intelligence & Communication New SRB Bolts Close Encounters of the Third Kind STS-5: Mission Facts Day by Day Flight Plan EAFB Lakebed Scratched fuel tank color query Re: fuel tank color query Amateur Radio Relay Frequencies for STS-5 Re: SAtellite locating systems All Systems Go SRB's Found SRB separation Re: Not Alone subdivide net.space Columbia phone number All is Well phone and sattelite - (nf) Re: Day by Day Flight Plan Re: Columbia phone number SBS-C Deployed Re: subdivide net.space Dumping Heat in Space Re: subdivide net.space SBS orbital mechanics Vegecide ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 November 1982 01:40-PST (Friday) From: Allan M. Schiffman To: Space at mit-mc Subject: "High Frontier" -- National defense from space I've been hearing more and more about this lately -- this month's "Analog" editorial mentions a new movie; Edward Teller obliquely referred to it on ABC's "Nightline" two weeks ago as "Mutually Assured Survival". The concept is, for those who haven't heard, to use space platforms for gigantic energy weapons (and 1000+ target tracking systems) suitable for anti-ballistic missile defense. I haven't heard what kind of weapons have been proposed, but I assume particle beams and fission-pumped lasers are among the ideas. The proponents claim TOTAL invulnerability for the platforms against ground-based weapons, and near-total (I assume) protection of the country. No doubt construction will require all the space-industrial technology that has been discussed on this list -- moon-mining, asteroid-mining, "construction shacks", mass-drivers, whatever. Some of the proponents, I suppose, are just space-fanatics like you and me and feel that this is the best way to "package" our current space-industry dreams. {Best in the sense that it's the one that Congress/Military-Industrial-Complex/Public-Opinion/Administration (pick some) will buy.} Well, I've said all this in order to say -- I think the idea is absolutely crazy! I'm not saying that protection from missiles aren't a good thing, I'm also not saying that it's not possible. It just seems obvious to me that this is the ultimate "de-stabilizing" weapon system. {Although, I admit, the same argument applies to any defense that confers "invulnerability".} It's very simple. Say it becomes known to the Soviets that the US will have an effective ballistic-missile defense in N years, and they determine that they can't have one for N+M years. Before year N, both the US and the Soviets have "Mutual Assured Destruction". After year N+M, both sides have "Mutual Assured Survival" (does that mean that both sides playfully lob bombs at each other because they know it won't hurt?). But between year N and N+M, the US has "First Strike Capability". Since the Soviets think (fear) that the US would destroy it if possible, they will expect a US first strike in this period. Solution? In year N-1 or so, the Soviets nuke all US launch sites; probably making a phone call 20 minutes before so the US will know it's a limited strike, hoping that the US retaliation will be similarly limited ("Flexible Response"). -Allan P.S. On a completely different subject: does anybody know of any current planning for the "Heavy Launch Vehicle"? With the Soviet "G" booster news, it might be politically feasible to get limited funding, no? ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 1982 09:58:22-EST From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: space at mit-mc Subject: Schmitt's loss I don't want to get too much into straight politics on the net (or in this digest) but I should point out that Schmitt didn't just have the environmentalists against him; politically he was extremely close to Jesse Helms, who is at least as dangerous as Proxmire. It may be shortsighted, but I'm wary of spending personal energy pushing space with a pain like Helms trying to cut away so sharply at what I consider elementary freedoms here on Earth. Does anyone else remember the early Asimov story about a theocracy that banned space flight? ------------------------------ Date: Friday, 12 November 1982 12:55-EST Sender: KWH at MIT-OZ From: KWH at MIT-MC To: SPACE at MIT-MC Subject: What's the rent once you're there? Once the shuttle is up in orbit, how much does it cost for each day it is there? This includes ground crews, tracking, etc. In the future, will most missions planned to be long, in order to take advantage of being up there? Ken ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 1982 1356-EST From: Tony
  • Subject: Re: Magnetic Monopoles To: space at MIT-MC My E+M prof almost had a fit when the class brought up the subject of magneic monopoles. Seems the only way he had of answering our question was the classical 'Proof by Lack of Counterexample'. Seriously though, there is no theoretic problem with magnetic monopoles, we just haven't been able to find one or synthesize one. Does a real physicist out there have a better answer? Tony Li Rutgers ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 1982 1452-EST From: MINSKY at MIT-OZ Subject: Vgecide Moravec is obviously right. Now that I am tuned to observe carefully, I can see that the vegetables on the plate do indeed do everything in their power to escape being eaten. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 1982 1535-EST From: Patty Ann Hardy To: Young at KL2137 Subject: Cetacean Intelligence & Communication Reply-to: YOUNG at DEC-MARLBORO Two cents on the Cetacean intelligence & communication issue: Lilly was not the first to claim this. In a paper before a philosophical society in 1963 Ashley Montagu marshalled a bunch of anecdotal reports going back to the ancient Greeks, citing repeated instances of dolphin behavior that make no sense if these animals are just animals. This incidents span a considerable length of time and have occured in places as far apart as Greece and Australia ( and most recently, Japan ). They include spontaneous play with children at beaches, documented rescues of drowning humans, instances of novel and apparently organized actions taken by groups of dolphins, and other incidents having distinctly odd overtones. We should spend money on trying to find extraterrestrial intelligence, but I do not think this should be a high priority in space research, considering that it's questionable if we would recognize it if we found it. Those for whom meeting the aliens is THE reason for space research should examine their motives very carefully. Read John Lilly's autobiography THE SCIENTIST for an example of a man who sought nonhuman intelligence because of his unsatisfactory dealings with humans... Pat Hardy via YOUNG at MARKET PS: I heard that there's semiconductor-making equipment, including a high-temperature furnace, aboard Solyut 7. What are they doing up there? ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 82 17:39:07-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: New SRB Bolts NASA replaced the breakaway bolts on the parachute apparatus on the SRB's with solid bolts in hopes of preventing a recurrence of STS-4's booster mishap. In it, the bolts, which connect the parachutes to the boosters, broke away too early and the boosters fell unhindered to the ocean and promptly sank. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 82 17:40:45-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Close Encounters of the Third Kind During the first four hours of STS-5, the Columbia will come within 48 miles of the orbiting Soviet Salyut-7 space station. NASA says the encounter could be close enough for the respective crews to see each other if they are looking in the right direction and if lighting is good. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 82 16:26:52-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: STS-5: Mission Facts Here are the mission facts and figures for STS-5: Launch: 0719 EST, 11 November, 1982, from pad 39A at KSC Orbit: 81 orbits at 184 miles altitude Mission Length: 5 days 2 hours 8 minutes Landing: 0625 Pacific time, 16 November, 1982 Crew: Commander Vance D. Brand, Pilot Robert F. Overmyer, and mission specialists Dr. William B. Lenoir and Dr. Joseph P. Allen Major Objectives: The launch of two satellites, one owned by SBS, the other by Telsat of Canada. Also scheduled is a 3 .5 hour spacewalk by Lenoir and Allen. Next Launch: Following STS-5, Columbia will be taken out of service for about a year for modifications. The Challenger is scheduled to make its debut on 20 January, 1982. It will deploy a communications satellite and a relay satellite. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 82 16:22:44-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Day by Day Flight Plan Here is a day by day flight plan for STS-5: Day 1: Columbia lifts off pad 39A at 0719 EST on 11 November, 1982. One hour after lift off, Vance Brand opens the cargo bay doors to dissipate the collected heat. 6.5 hours after launch, a 90 minute countdown is started, after which a SBS satellite is ejected. 45 minutes after that, with the shuttle turned away, a motor ignites and takes it up into geosynchronous orbit. Day 2: 33 hours after lift off, a Canadian Telsat satellite is ejected, following another 90 minutes countdown. Again, 45 minutes later, a motor ignites to take it to geosynchronous orbit. After this, Columbia's starboard side is turned to the sun and left there for 47 hours. Day 3: Nothing special is planned. Systems will be checked, and there is time to launch a satellite if one couldn't be launched on time. Day 4: William Lenoir and Joseph Allen, mission specialists, don spacesuits and take a 3.5 hour spacewalk in the cargo bay. Following this, an engine left in the cold for two days will be test fired, and the Columbia will be placed nose to the sun for 19 hours. Day 5: Systems are checked for reentry. Day 6: After the 81st orbit, the cargo bay doors are closed and Columbia reenters the atmosphere, landing at EAFB at 0625 Pacific time (yes, I know I said 0725 before, but this article said 0625) ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 82 19:50:25-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: EAFB Lakebed Scratched NASA has decided to scrap plans to land on the dry lakebed at EAFB due to heavy rain there. At the moment, one inch of water covers the lakebed. After the first orbit, the primary landing site will be runway 22, the concrete runway at EAFB, where STS-4 landed. From launch until the completion of orbit 1, the emergency abort site will be either White Sands Missile Range, landing site of STS-3, or the concrete strip at KSC. No delay in launch is expected. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 82 15:49:49-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps4!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!ecn-pa.lebold at Ucb-C70 Subject: fuel tank color query Can someone explain to me why the external fuel tank has an orange color? I noticed this on STS-4 but the first three were white I thought. A person im my office said it was to save about 300# of white paint. Since the tank is made of aluminum(?) I can't figure out where the orange comes from. Thanks, Timothy Lange inuxc/ucbvax/harpo|pur-ee!ecn-pa.lebold Purdue University West Lafayette, IN ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 82 21:47:11-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: fuel tank color query Article-I.D.: eagle.614 In-Reply-To: Article ecn-pa.629 Via: Usenet; 12 Nov 82 20:36-PST The external fuel tank is covered with insulation to protect the tank during ascent and to protect the cryogenic fuels. This insulation accounts for the color of the tank. On the first two missions, the insulation was painted white; all later tanks do away with the paint, saving weight. Phil Karn ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 82 0:57:15-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Amateur Radio Relay Frequencies for STS-5 Now you can finally start saving money with that expensive HF SSB station. The FCC has granted the amateur radio clubs at Johnson Space Center and JPL authority to rebroadcast STS-5 communications, so you don't have to waste money calling the Dial-It number. W6VIO will transmit on 224.04 mhz; this may not be too useful outside of Pasadena. However, W5RRR at JSC will transmit on 28.6, 21.36, 14.28 or 14.23 mhz, depending on conditions. (The following information just came from an AP wire story.) Phil Karn, KA9Q ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 82 23:38:14-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: SAtellite locating systems Two Canadian pilots were rescued recently from the wilderness of northern BC because their ELT beep was picked up by a geosynch locator satellite. Rick. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 82 6:17:23-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: All Systems Go At 2300 EST last night, NASA officials gave the word to continue with the launch countdown, and 50 minutes later, hydrogen and oxygen began pouring into the shuttle's external tank in the last pre-launch activity. If all goes well, the Columbia will lift off at 0719 EST. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 82 11:03:43-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: SRB's Found Article-I.D.: alice.1098 Via: Usenet; 12 Nov 82 23:10-PST Two recovery ships tracked and sighted the SRB's used in STS-5. They are said to be floating on the ocean and doing well. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 82 11:27:01-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!seismo!rocheste!mayer at Ucb-C70 Subject: SRB separation Article-I.D.: rocheste.228 In-Reply-To: Article eagle.617 Via: Usenet; 12 Nov 82 23:48-PST I saw some very long distance shots on CBS. During the film, I noticed the video pausing every few seconds. Is there any chance they had a computer tracking the rocket flare? The pauses could have been the tracker getting lost and forwarding an old image. Anybody know? Jim Mayer seismo!rochester!mayer allegra!rochester!mayer ------------------------------ Date: 13 November 1982 03:00 est From: Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Re: Not Alone Reply-To: RMann.HDSA%PCO-Multics at MIT-MULTICS To: Space at MIT-MC (1) From: RMann.HDSA 11/12/82 1441.0 mst Fri Date: 12 November 1982 14:40 mst From: RMann.HDSA Subject: Re: Not Alone To: {mbx >udd>HDSA>Schauble>meetings>space} Perhaps the reason we don't "hear" anyone out there is because everyone who has lasted long enough has learned to use tachyons. Who would want to wait around for a hundred years to find out the answer to her message she sent today when he could have found out the answer to his message yesterday ? ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 82 11:00:39-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!pyuxbb!pyuxdd!pyuxjj!mhuxm!mhuxh!mhuxa!mhuxt!wald at Ucb-C70 Subject: subdivide net.space Article-I.D.: mhuxt.1142 Via: Usenet; 12 Nov 82 23:57-PST This group is of interest but is a bit overwhelming. I sugest the following as potentially reasonable subdivisions: net.space.life - for all the debates about ETs, life out there, etc net.space.use - industry, space stations, etc. net.space.events - (truncated at the n) not to be confused with net.columbia, for discussion of eclipses, Halley's comet, auroras, etc. bob waldstein mhuxt!wald ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 82 13:29:47-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!zeppo!dlm at Ucb-C70 Subject: Columbia phone number Article-I.D.: zeppo.376 Via: Usenet; 13 Nov 82 0:07-PST Does anyone know the phone number to call to hear the astronauts. I understand you can call for 50 cents a minute. It would probably be fun to call so if you know the number, please post it this newsgroup. -Debbie Manning ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 82 7:30:16-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: All is Well Article-I.D.: alice.1101 Via: Usenet; 13 Nov 82 0:18-PST The astronauts aboard the Columbia woke up today to find out that nothing wrong had happened. The ship is in near perfect condition after its launch. Today's activities include the launch of Telsat of Canada's Anik satellite, in the same manner as yesterday's SBS-C launch. Two recovery ships off the coast of Cape Canaveral expect to latch on to the two floating (!) SRB's today in preparation for their tow back to the Cape. Two parachutes used in their descent were used for the same purpose on STS-2. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 82 16:49:01-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!pfc at Ucb-C70 Subject: phone and sattelite - (nf) Article-I.D.: whuxlb.792 Via: Usenet; 13 Nov 82 0:20-PST #N:whuxlb:4600005:000:418 whuxlb!pfc Nov 11 16:32:00 1982 I just called the phone number for the shuttle. Got the communications just as they were being picked up from Guam. Heard Mission Control give the indication to the shuttle that the first sattlite was deployed on target with "better than average coning" (for those of you who know what that means). The sound is excellent. Enjoy, enjoy. This could become addictive. How much are we (AT&T) making off the phone. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 82 12:06:00-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!presby!seismo!rocheste!gary at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Day by Day Flight Plan Article-I.D.: rocheste.229 In-Reply-To: Article alice.1090 Via: Usenet; 13 Nov 82 0:56-PST This may be a dumb question, but how does opening the doors dissipate heat? I thought you needed something to transfer heat TO, i.e. matter. Is it that space isn't a perfect vacuum, or that they are still in some atmosphere after 1 hour? not afraid to name my sign, "slippery when wet" ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 82 14:23:12-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!mhtsa!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxj!mhuxi!macrev at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Columbia phone number Article-I.D.: mhuxi.17 Via: Usenet; 13 Nov 82 1:27-PST The number was posted earlier today (by Andy, I believe). Dial (900)410-6272 and enjoy. Mike Lynch Still lost in Short Hills ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 82 20:19:24-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: SBS-C Deployed Article-I.D.: alice.1099 Via: Usenet; 13 Nov 82 1:38-PST The SBS-C satellite was deployed right on time today, about 8 hours after the launch of STS-5. Spinning at 51 rpm, the satellite was ejected from the cargo bay into space. 45 minutes later, with Columbia's belly to the satellite, its own motor ignited and took it into an elliptical orbit near the geostationary altitude. On Saturday, a second motor will finalize its orbit. Tomorrow, Canadian Telsat's Anik satellite will be deployed in the same manner. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 82 20:32:17-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: subdivide net.space Article-I.D.: alice.1100 In-Reply-To: Article mhuxt.1142 Via: Usenet; 13 Nov 82 1:47-PST What you don't realize is that net.space is gatewayed into the ARPA SPACE at MIT-MC, i.e. all messages from the ARPA side going into their digest are broken up and submitted to net.space There is no way to submit them selectively to a subgroup, so all the ARPA messages would go to net.space anyway. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 82 20:35:06-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!eisx!pyuxbb!u1100s!dad at Ucb-C70 Subject: Dumping Heat in Space Article-I.D.: u1100s.141 In-Reply-To: Article rocheste.229 Via: Usenet; 13 Nov 82 2:07-PST You only need some "thing" to tranfer heat to for convective heat loss. Radiative heat loss works just fine in space as long as the stuff you are radiating towards is cooler than you are. In other words, you can radiate towards "empty" space or even the Earth, but you can't radiate towards the sun. You are correct in saying that convective heat loss does not work in space. The insides of the payload bay doors have glossy radiating surfaces. You can see them in the pictures. Doug Davey (longing to be up there too) pyuxbb!u1100s!dad ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 82 18:19:43-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: npois!cbosgd!djb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: subdivide net.space Article-I.D.: cbosgd.2805 In-Reply-To: Article mhuxt.1142 Via: Usenet; 13 Nov 82 2:17-PST A subdivision would be just fine with me, but I can't help thinking that the name net.astronomy should be used for discussion of "space events" like Halley's comet, eclipses, telescopes, etc. David Bryant cbosg!djb ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 82 23:54:48-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: SBS orbital mechanics Article-I.D.: eagle.624 Via: Usenet; 13 Nov 82 2:26-PST >From what I could discern by watching the SBS ejection, the orbital mechanics and sun angles appear very similar to standard procedure with expendable launch vehicles. When the SBS payload was ejected, the shuttle was making a descending (north to south) equator crossing over the Pacific Ocean. The shuttle was oriented with the velocity vector towards the bottom, the earth off the starboard wing, and the sun off the port wing. (It was local noon at the "launch site.") Thus, when SBS-3 was ejected, its engine's thrust vector was pointing against its velocity vector. (If it had fired immediately, the payload would have reentered). The 45 minute delay placed the actual firing 1/2 orbit later, near an ascending (south to north) equator crossing at "local midnight" over the Indian Ocean. Since the spacecraft was spinning with its axis fixed in inertial space, the engine's thrust vector was now properly pointed in line with its velocity vector. After the burn, SBS-3 went into an elliptical orbit with the burn point becoming the perigee. The semimajor axis of the ellipse is in the sun- earth line, which is common for geostationary transfer orbits because of thermal constraints. It also minimizes orbital perturbations by the sun. Apogee occurs at "local noon", so that the satellite does not spend much (if any) time in eclipse. Normally, this kind of orbit is achieved with night launches on conventional launchers. Due to the earth's oblateness, the apogee precesses several degrees after several orbits to coincide with an equator crossing near the final geostationary latitude. At this point, the apogee kick motor on the satellite is fired and it then stops moving relative to the earth. Phil Karn ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 1982 0222-EST From: MINSKY at MIT-OZ Subject: Vegecide To: space at MIT-MC In fact there is an essay on this subject by Robert Benchley, called "Why Should Salt Suffer". ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 14-Nov-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #44 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 44 Today's Topics: Re: Not alone Launch STS-5 "High Frontier" -- National defense from space Maneuvering Engines Fired to Correct Orbit Re: Not Food For Thought Military launch security lost heat. Following the wind Anik Launch -- Experiment Botched more on SSI 3 year shuttle schedule Message of 12-Nov-82 12:47:18 Taxes, Video Games, and Ma Bell ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Nov 82 23:36:10-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Not alone Article-I.D.: watmath.3837 In-Reply-To: Article ixlpc.4054714 uwvax.661 Via: Usenet; 13 Nov 82 2:56-PST This reminds me of a story I once heard (sorry, no source) about von Daniken on Easter Island. He spent an enormous amount of time wondering how the primitve natives, who were still around, managed to move those huge stones into position. In any case, he asked a tribal elder, expecting to hear legends that he could construe as prehistoric ET interference...instead, the elder said "Oh, you want some of those stones moved?" - in the afternoon, a few of the villagers had carted them into new positions... Rick. [AAAArgh!!!!! - it was certainly NOT vonDaniken who is as reliable a source as the National Enquirer. The natives were, in fact, shown carving, moving and erecting (with progressivly stacked timbers piled under the incrementally levered statue) a somewhat crude version of the Easter island statuary (they were out of practice, and sort of hurrying). I saw it on TV about four years ago on either a National Geographic special, in which case the instigator was probably Thor Heyerdahl, or on a Nova, in which case the person who asked was a scientist with a less publicly known name. -- HPM] ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 82 9:08:07-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!allegra!psuvax!burdvax!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70 Subject: Launch STS-5 Article-I.D.: inuxc.510 Via: Usenet; 13 Nov 82 4:07-PST The launch was the super! The weather allowed much better camera coverage than the others. ABC showed images of the SRB Sep which were absolutely incrediable. Godspeed Columbia Fred BTL/Indy ------------------------------ Date: 13 November 1982 08:12-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: "High Frontier" -- National defense from space To: Schiffman at SRI-KL cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I think this has already been adequately discussed on ARMS-DISCUSSION. Interested people should consult those archives for detailed discussion. Briefly, if we install defensive capability we must be sure USSR gets it just about the same time we get it. Exact synchronization is impossible, but if it takes 3 years to implement and one side gets a month or two ahead or behind it doesn't hurt enough to matter. This applies both to space-based and other defense as well to disarmament. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 82 11:32:50-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Maneuvering Engines Fired to Correct Orbit Article-I.D.: alice.1102 Via: Usenet; 13 Nov 82 4:58-PST Vance Brand and Robert Overmyer today fired the Columbia's maneuvering engines to correct the ship's orbit. The orbit was slightly elevated by the dispatch of the SBS-C satellite yesterday. Later today, Telsat of Canada's Anik satellite will be launched. Also, student experiments on board the shuttle were activated this morning. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 82 12:23:38-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxj!mhuxi!macrev at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Not Food For Thought Article-I.D.: mhuxi.20 Via: Usenet; 13 Nov 82 5:26-PST And I submit that I'm mighty curious about which member you're trying to eat!!!! ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 82 15:55:41-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!CSvax.jrs at Ucb-C70 Subject: Military launch security Article-I.D.: purdue.442 Via: Usenet; 13 Nov 82 6:17-PST As paranoid as the military is about security for their secret launches, the practice is usually quite humorous. To wit: The "secure" shuttle launch pad being readied at Vandenburg AFB was used once in a previous incarnation as a set for an episode of the old "Bionic Woman" TV series. While working at KSC, we became quiet adept at determining whether a secret launch was about to take place by how much attention the normal gate guards paid to incoming traffic during rush hour. - Jeff Schwab ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 82 1:03:23-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!CSvax.Physics.piner at Ucb-C70 Subject: lost heat. Article-I.D.: pur-phy.567 Via: Usenet; 13 Nov 82 6:19-PST The shuttle RADIATES heat into space. Stop and think, the sun does not need air between here and there to warm the earth. All bodies with a temperature above absolute zero radiate a "black body" spectrum. I suggest you get a basic physics text such as Halliday & Resnick and look up black body radiation. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 82 19:29:36-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: UNKNOWN.G.asa at Ucb-C70 Subject: Following the wind Article-I.D.: populi.451 Via: Usenet; 13 Nov 82 6:18-PST "I would also dispute that the test for state myopia is whether or not they pass a nuclear arms reduction referendum. I think it more a test of follow-the-wind." -- Mark Mallett (11/8/82) I think mindless, knee-jerk remarks like this have more in common with passing wind than following it. You don't like Proxmire? Fine. As a taxpayer, I'm glad to have him around, and I'm pleased he can get re- elected on a campaign budget of $100. (They've got good sense in Wisconsin.) You opposed to arms reduction? Well, I'm for it, and I find the pro-nuke mutual admiration society in this newsgroup tiresome. And if you'd like to know where much of your money goes that could otherwise be spent on the space program (assuming, of course, you're more interested in facts than in scapegoating Proxmire), you might want to read Admiral Hyman Rickover's statement to the Joint Economic Committee of Congress [reprinted in the NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, March 18, 1982, pp. 12-14]. Among other things, Rickover, the prime mover of the development of our nuclear submarine forces, advocates nationalization of the arms industry [p. 13], and states that "the most important thing we could do is start in having an international meeting where we first outlaw nuclear weapons to start with, then we outlaw nuclear reactors too..." [p. 14]. Proud to add that I voted for The Freeze in CA, John Hevelin ucbvax!G:asa ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 82 19:55:59-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Anik Launch -- Experiment Botched Article-I.D.: alice.1107 Via: Usenet; 13 Nov 82 6:36-PST Telsat of Canada's Anik-C satellite was launched on time and on target today, as the Columbia completed its major goal of its first commercial flight. On Sunday, the last goal, a spacewalk by William Lenoir and Joe Allen, will take place. Meanwhile, Joe Allen admitted to having partially goofed in performing one experiment. He was a bit late in starting the sponge cell experiment but said he would try to do the rest of it on time and make up for his goof. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 82 16:27:26-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: menlo70!hao!cires!harkins at Ucb-C70 Subject: more on SSI Article-I.D.: cires.1958 Via: Usenet; 13 Nov 82 6:38-PST i just stumbled across a rather well done story about the folks that got Space Services, Inc. going, how the first rocket blew and how the second one flew in the Nov. issue of Texas Monthly; a lot more colorful than the usual news accounts we all saw... ernie harkins ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 82 13:00:55-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: teklabs!tekcrd!tekcad!keithl at Ucb-C70 Subject: 3 year shuttle schedule Article-I.D.: tekcad.259 Via: Usenet; 13 Nov 82 6:39-PST Someone expressed interest in the schedule for the shuttles. The following schedule is culled from the November issues of Space World and Astronautics& Aeronautics. Much more information there... Shuttle Flights: # OV- Crew Comments 5 102 11/11-15/82 4 Comsats; SBS-C and Telesat E, EVA 6 99 1/20-23/83 4 TDRS-A, CFES Electrophoresis System first flight Challenger, light ext. tank, 104% thrust 7 99 4/20-26/83 4 satellites, CFES, Sally Ride first US fem. in space 8 99 7/ 4- 7/83 4 satellites, CFES, 109% thrust, high perf. solids 9 99 10/ 1- 8/83 6 Spacelab 10 99 12/14- ?/83 ? DOD, Teal Ruby Sat. 11 102 1/29-2/5/84 12 103 3/18-23/84 first flight Discovery 13 99 4/17-22/84 Solar Max rescue, Long Dur. Exposure Facility(LDEF) 14 102 5/17-22/84 15 103 6/12-15/84 16 99 7/ 8- ?/84 ? DOD 17 102 8/ 3-10/84 18 103 8/28-9/2/84 19 99 9/23-10/1/84 Spacelab 20 102 10/18-25/84 21 103 11/13-20/84 Spacelab 22 99 12/ 9- ?/84 DOD 23 102 1/ 9-16/85 24 103 2/ 2- ?/85 DOD 25 99 2/28-3/3/85 Space Telescope, Retreive LDEF 26 102 4/ 1- 6/85 27 99 5/ 1- 3/85 Galileo 28 104 5/29-6/5/85 Large Structures Test, first flight Atlantis 29 102 6/25-7/2/85 Spacelab 30 99 7/23-28/85 31 104 8/17-? /85 DOD 32 102 9/14-21/85 Keith Lofstrom uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!keithl CSnet: tekcad!keithl@tek ARPAnet:tekcad!keithl.tek@udel-relay ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 1982 1402-EST From: The Mailer Daemon To: LS.RHK at MIT-EECS Subject: Message of 12-Nov-82 12:47:18 Remailed-date: 13 Nov 1982 1222-EST Remailed-from: LS.RHK at MIT-EECS Remailed-to: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC Message failed for the following: space-digest at MIT-OZ: -No such mailbox at this site. ------------ Date: 12 Nov 1982 1247-EST From: LS.RHK at MIT-EECS Subject: Anti-matter To: frye at BBN-UNIX, space-digest at MIT-OZ For an introduction to particle physics that is painless and interesting, may I recommend a book called "The Dancing Wu Li Masters". It should be available at any book store. You also might want to read "The Tao of Physics" Robert Kassel Ls.RHK at MIT-EE ------- ------- ------------------------------ Date: 13 November 1982 18:55-EST From: Stewart Cobb Subject: Taxes, Video Games, and Ma Bell To: Dehn.DEHN at MIT-MULTICS cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC Sorry, I didn't realize that it looked like I was supporting the video-game tax. My intention was exactly the opposite. But I would like to see Bell pay NASA some money for the use of what is essentially an audio program. Legally, I don't believe an audio program is any different from a television program. Can't NASA copyright their audio or something? Stewart ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 15-Nov-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #45 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 45 Today's Topics: Following the wind Re: Joe Blow in space - (nf) Re: video game space tax Orange Re: Not alone Quarters ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 November 1982 07:52-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Following the wind To: UNKNOWN.G.asa at UCB-C70 cc: HPM at MIT-MC, REM at MIT-MC Outlawing nuclear reactors because they use the same material (Uranium&Plutonium) as nuclear bombs is like outlawing love because it uses the same material as murder (human emotions). Outlawing nuclear reactors because they are dangerous, while not outlawing burning coal and fossil fuel, is like outlawing whispering because it disturbs the neighbors at night but not outlawing firecrackers. You have any other reasons for advocting outlawing nuclear reactors? (Gee, I think I said that beautifully. HPM, you may save it if you like it too.) ------------------------------ Date: 4 Nov 82 18:25:56-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!mj at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Joe Blow in space - (nf) I read in TIME magazine lately (the issue with the catalogs on the front) that JS&A Sales Group is offering passenger space on a shuttle flight! They haven't set a date (or a price) yet, but they are negotioationg with NASA and expect to send up 6 lucky **RICH** people some time in the not-so-distant future. Mark Johnson decvax!pur-ee!mj ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 82 1:23:40-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: teklabs!tekcrd!tekcad!keithl at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: video game space tax Taxing videogames? ...another goddam libertarian...oh well... We like space exploration. Video game players like video games. Why should we tax their hobby, and they not tax ours? I.E., all future shuttle flights devoted to zero-g fabrication of high speed video game components. Sounds silly, doesn't it? ...but, I hear you reply, space is GOOD for us, and benefits everyone... Well then, if space benefits everyone, why not tax everyone by getting the money from the general fund? Perhaps space is wonderful enough to force at gunpoint the folks at Thiokol to work overtime building SRB's, or lock people into the Rockwell plant until they build a fifth shuttle. Why pick on video game players? Taxation is for generally agreed upon social goals, and I'm afraid we space freaks have done a poor job of convincing taxpayers and congresscritters that space exploration is a worthy goal. I suggest that those who want more taxation for space exploration start convincing other people likewise, or get up the money to pay for it themselves. Perhaps by building and operating video games and donating the profits to NASA. Afraid to waste quarters in video games, but demanding the freedom to; Keith Lofstrom uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!keithl CSnet: keithl@tek ARPAnet:keithl.tek@rand-relay ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 82 14:59:22-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: teklabs!tekcrd!iddic!evp at Ucb-C70 Subject: Orange The external tank is made of aluminum, as ecn-pa.lebold pointed out, but is covered with an orange colored foam insulating material. This material not only keeps the liquid H2 and O2 cold during launch preparations, but protects the tank from fairly intense heating caused by shock waves that form between the orbiter and the tank during ascent. The paint was thought to be necessary during initial design to help insulate the tank from sunlight and other heat sources, but is no longer considered necessary, and the quite significant mass savings directly translate into payload capacity (since the tank is taken almost into orbit). - Ed Post (... teklabs!iddic!evp) ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 82 17:00:31-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: hplabs!intelqa!omsvax!bc at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Not alone I agree with R.E. Maas' sentiments about wanting to enter into harmony with as much of the universe as possible, since it is exactly that ability (plus the ability to remake the universe should the harmony be off) which has made homo sapiens? so successful so far. But please, let's quit trying to put Zen on one side or the other of this argument. Zen takes no stand on whether to sit at home or go out. It teaches how best to do that which you are doing, by being in harmony with yourself as you do it. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 82 14:21-EST (Fri) From: Steven Gutfreund To: space at Mit-Mc Subject: Quarters The last figure I heard about money spent on arcade games alone was 100 billion quarters and rising. - Steven Gutfreund ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 16-Nov-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #46 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 46 Today's Topics: Shuttle Audio Not Alone 100% oxygen Vegecide OASIS November meeting at JPL Shuttle sighting Phone Charges? SRB Recovery SRB Recovery Delayed SRB's Retrieved -- Spacewalk Postponed Wings but no feet Updated STS-5 Orbital Elements STS-5 orbital elements Power Failure at Mission Control Re: EAFB Lakebed Scratched - (nf) Is anyone there? Intelligent life defined. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 November 1982 21:53 est From: Dehn.DEHN at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Shuttle Audio To: HSC at MIT-MC cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC Perhaps NASA could copyright the audio (and video) signals from the shuttle, and attempt to charge for the right to bring these signals to the public, but it would probably be counterproductive. I assume that the current policy is to give these signals away free, for the publicity value, as a service to those interested in space for scientific and technical reasons, and simply as a way of giving the taxpayer something of a "progress report" on what is being done with his money. The fact that the same signal is being broadcast on radio (as reported in this digest) and is often used by the broadcast media as part of their programming, leads me to believe that AT&T is simply taking advantage of free information, over which they have no monopoly, and selling the service of bringing it to your telephone. Note that they do the same thing with the time of day, and pay no royalties to anyone for that. All of this would be unnecessary if there were better broadcast coverage. Wouldn't it be nice if cable TV operators dedicated one of their spare channels to space coverage (based on a straight NASA feed, no interpretations or interruptions by anchormen) during shuttle missions? -jwd3 ------------------------------ Date: 15 November 1982 20:34 est From: Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Not Alone Reply-To: RMann.HDSA%PCO-Multics at MIT-MULTICS To: Space at MIT-MC Perhaps the reason we don't "hear" anyone out there is because everyone who has lasted long enough has learned to use tachyons. Who would want to wait around for a hundred years to find out the answer to her message she sent today when he could have found out the answer to his message yesterday ? ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 82 13:31-EST (Mon) From: Steven Gutfreund To: space at Mit-Mc Subject: 100% oxygen Via: UMASS-COINS; 15 Nov 82 19:34-EST A couple questions about the EVAs: 1. Does anyone know why they use 100% oxygen in the suits? (is it merely so that they can hold more oxygen and stay out longer?) (does it make suit design easier?) 2. Are they really using 100% oxygen or is there 2% CO(2) so that they do not hyperventilate? 3. Are they running at sea-level pressure, or is it less? 4. What's the big advantage in the two piece suits, they look more rigid to me. 5. Why do they need complete suits? Why not just a helmet and their thermal "spaghetti" suits? 16psi is not too much for the skin to handle (just look at our feet). 6. Why don't they use tubes from the ship to give oxy/nitrogen mix if self-contained suits can only use 100% oxygen. I guess the questions show I have a lot to learn can anyone give me a start. - Steven Gutfreund ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 82 19:21-EST (Mon) From: Andrew Cromarty To: space at Mit-Mc cc: cromarty.umass-coins at UDel-Relay Subject: Vegecide Via: UMASS-COINS; 15 Nov 82 19:44-EST I suspect that aliens will find that we are not especially tasty, but that we are very good for belts and shoes. asc ------------------------------ Return-path: KATZ@USC-ISIF Date: 15 Nov 1982 1140-PST From: Alan R. Katz Subject: OASIS November meeting at JPL To: bboard at USC-ISIB, bboard at USC-ECL, space at MIT-MC cc: katz at USC-ISIF The OASIS general meeting for November: COMPUTER VIEWS OF SPACE Dr. James Blinn, JPL Dr. Blinn will be speaking on the process of computer animation as used for the Voyager missions to Jupiter and Saturn. Computer animation is used to plan camera sequences and for working out the orientation of the spacecraft. Saturday, Nov. 20th, 7:00 pm Will be held at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory Von Karman Auditorium (Take the Berkshire Off Ramp of the Foothill Freeway in Pasadena- La Canada, then left on Oak Grove Road to JPL. People at ISI- there is a map posted on the window in my office) Admission is free, Guests are welcome Alan ------- ------------------------------ Date: 14 Nov 82 5:00:09-PST (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: mhtsa!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Shuttle sighting Article-I.D.: eagle.629 Via: Usenet; 15 Nov 82 2:27-PST Based on the orbital elements I obtained last night, I ran off some optical sighting predictions for my sister and her husband who live near Miami. They successfully sighted the shuttle exactly where my program had predicted they would. The shuttle was unmistakable. It was very bright white, and moving west to east much faster than an airplane would appear to move. Phil Karn ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 82 13:44:47-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm at Ucb-C70 Subject: Phone Charges? Article-I.D.: inuxa.168 Via: Usenet; 15 Nov 82 3:17-PST Does anybody know what the charges for the 900 number to listen in on shuttle communications are? I know you get socked with a 50 cent fee initially, but what is the charge per minute? A guy could go broke if he gets to caught up in the action. Ron Meyer inuxa!rrm Bell labs - Indy ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 82 13:15:17-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70 Subject: SRB Recovery Article-I.D.: inuxc.513 Via: Usenet; 15 Nov 82 3:21-PST Apparently they are having difficulty in getting the SRB's back again. Poor weather conditions on the ocean is giving the recovery crew's a great deal of trouble keeping the SRB's floating. Fred BTL/ Indy ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 82 15:13:56-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: SRB Recovery Delayed Article-I.D.: alice.1105 Via: Usenet; 15 Nov 82 3:23-PST Recovery of the two STS-5 SRB's was delayed at least one day today as rough seas snapped two air lines attached to the boosters. It will take a day to pump out the water from them and then tow them back to Port Canaveral. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Nov 82 0:04:39-PST (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: SRB's Retrieved -- Spacewalk Postponed Article-I.D.: alice.1112 Via: Usenet; 15 Nov 82 4:02-PST Two recovery ships today brought the STS-5 SRB's into Port Canaveral, from where they will be shipped to their manufacturer for refurbishment for use on a later flight. The retrieval was delayed a day due to rough seas. Meanwhile, NASA has postponed until Monday tomorrow's planned spacewalk. The postponement came after William Lenoir called in sick with motion sickness. If worse comes to worse and he is still not better by Monday, Joe Allen could take the walk alone, but that would bend mission rules which call for a two man EVA. NASA broke radio silence after the astronauts had gone to bed tonight to instruct them to swap Monday's schedule with Sunday. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 1982 1751-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Wings but no feet To: space at MIT-MC Date: 12 November 1982 01:40-PST (Friday) From: Allan M. Schiffman Subject: "High Frontier" -- National defense from space . . . . The concept is, for those who haven't heard, to use space platforms for gigantic energy weapons (and 1000+ target tracking systems) suitable for anti-ballistic missile defense. I haven't heard what kind of weapons have been proposed, but I assume particle beams and fission-pumped lasers are among the ideas. I sometimes wonder if it ever occurs to some people to do a little reading before launching into massive flames about subjects like this. Apparently, all Mr. Schiffman knows of High Frontier is what little he has seen on television. The basic concept of HF is not to launch massive battlestations, but rather hundreds of small (6 or 8 fit into a shuttle cargo bay) satellites, each equipped with dozens of interceptor missiles. These missiles are tipped with small non-nuclear explosive charges. The satellites also contain a sensor array, used for detecting ICBMs on their boost phase. When a missile is detected, and it has been decided that it is hostile, one or more of the interceptors is launched, destroying the missile long before it can hit any ground target. The idea of HF is to produce a workable ABM system without developing new technology. Thus, particle beams and lasers are not major considerations at this point. Another primary point of HF is to develop a space based industrial capability, using the same vehicles and techniques needed to put up the ABM system. The proponents claim TOTAL invulnerability for the platforms against ground-based weapons, and near-total (I assume) protection of the country. No doubt construction will require all the space-industrial technology that has been discussed on this list -- moon-mining, asteroid-mining, "construction shacks", mass-drivers, whatever. Sigh. Let me quote from the High Frontier report: ''With regard to impermeable or invulnerable defenses, there never has been, nor ever will be a defensive system which could meet such criteria. Such perfectionist demands ignore the purposes of defenses and the effects of strategic defense on deterrence. Defenses throughout military history have been designed to make attack more difficult and more costly -- not impossible.'' In addition, the High Frontier system is designed to be implemented with existing technology, so lunar mining and the like is not what they intend to do. The system is also designed to be inexpensive, compared to the current arms race. The report projects a total cost of $35 billion spent through 1990. Not $35B per year. Total. Does anybody know the corresponding numbers for MAD for the next seven years?? I bet they are a lot higher than this. Well, I've said all this in order to say -- I think the idea is absolutely crazy! I think it is absolutely crazy to make a snap judgement like that without benefit of correct information. There are certainly problems with the HF proposal. In all probability, it will never be implemented as it is proposed in the report. The question of de-stabilization is an important one, and has not yet been properly addressed, to my knowledge. But it is most certainly *not* a crazy idea. If we can find a path from where we are today to a state of reasonable checks and balances between our weapons systems and the Soviets, we will have won a great deal. --Tom ------------------------------ Date: 14 Nov 82 4:07:03-PST (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: mhtsa!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Updated STS-5 Orbital Elements Article-I.D.: eagle.628 Via: Usenet; 16 Nov 82 1:37-PST Updated element set for STS-5, courtesy again of the Goddard Space Flight Center. (My friend there was very busy this evening. He says that they are the primary tracking facility at the moment because of a power failure at Houson. Rumor has it that somebody popping popcorn in a microwave oven in the basement blew the fuses!) Phil ---------------------------------------------- Satellite: sts-5 Epoch time: 82318.08417663 Sun Nov 14 02:01:12 1982 UTC Inclination: 28.4655 deg RA of node: 49.6153 deg Eccentricity: 0.0003574 Arg of perigee: 266.3829 deg Mean anomaly: 139.6376 deg Mean motion: 15.86846206 rev/day Semi major axis: 6689.27 km Period: 90.746034 min Apogee: 318.36 km Perigee: 313.58 km ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 82 21:10:47-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: mhtsa!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: STS-5 orbital elements Article-I.D.: eagle.625 Via: Usenet; 16 Nov 82 1:57-PST STS-5 orbital elements, courtesy of the Goddard Space Flight Center: Epoch time: 82317.00027189 (Nov 13 1982 00:00:023.491 UTC) Inclination: 28.4686 deg Right Ascension of Ascending Node: 57.6164 deg Eccentricity: .0016157 Argument of Perigee: 263.4690 deg Mean anomaly at epoch: 52.2153 deg Mean Motion: 15.86499833 orbits/day some secondary numbers: Semi Major Axis: 6690.25 km Anomalistic Period: 90.765846 min Apogee: 327.71 km Perigee: 306.09 km I derived these elements from a position-velocity fix taken at the epoch time. I understand that the measurements of position are accurate to about 100 meters. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 14 Nov 82 9:45:18-PST (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Power Failure at Mission Control Article-I.D.: alice.1113 Via: Usenet; 16 Nov 82 2:02-PST A small part of Mission Control experienced a power failure last night around 2300 EST. The reason was not as exciting as the one Phil posted, unfortunately. The reason released by NASA for the outage was a small electrical fire on the first floor of the building. The loss of power was confined to a small part of Mission Control and it was very quickly fixed. Among the controls affected was the monitor that shows where the Columbia is in orbit; that function, along with the others affected, was switched to the backup control center at the Goddard Space Center. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Nov 82 8:44:20-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!pfc at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: EAFB Lakebed Scratched - (nf) Article-I.D.: whuxlb.789 Via: Usenet; 16 Nov 82 2:04-PST #R:alice:-109400:whuxlb:4600003:000:29 whuxlb!pfc Nov 11 08:11:00 1982 So much for the DRY lakebed ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 82 16:29:14-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ihps3!ihldt!ll1!sb1!mb2b!uofm-cv!paul at Ucb-C70 Subject: Is anyone there? Intelligent life defined. Article-I.D.: uofm-cv.147 Via: Usenet; 16 Nov 82 2:06-PST Definition of intelligent life forms: They know where they are on the food chain, and put other species in the feed bag. For example, people eat goats, cows, etc. Chickens' chow = pebbles, anything on the ground. You don't see a herbivore (i.e. vegetarian) pull into a 7-11. Only for carnivores (carnivores = incisor teeth better than bicuspids and molars). As they say, don't grind -- bite! ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 17-Nov-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #47 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 47 Today's Topics: money for space Michner's SPACE Stayers and Goers the occultation of Mars LANDING OF STS5 ''And that's the way it is, from 200 miles above the Pacific. . . .'' SPACE Digest V3 #46 Star's loss of angular momentum ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 November 1982 07:03-EST From: Oded Anoaf Feingold Subject: money for space To: SPACE at MIT-MC Foo, vidgames at least keep the kids off the streets. Lez tax cigarettes ($30,000,000,000/yr?), booze ($80,000,000,000/yr) and advertising (>$70,000,000,000/yr) for some SERIOUS space money. Who could argue with 2%? And of course the bell-making industry (>$3,000,000/yr). For who will put the bell on the cat? (I volunteer.) Oded ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 1982 0809-PST From: Richard M. King Subject: Michner's SPACE Has anyone read it? Would they be willing to provide a book review? Dick ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 1982 (Monday) 2009-EDT From: HAGAN at Wharton-10 (John Hagan) Subject: Stayers and Goers "The meek will inherit the earth; the rest of us will go to the stars..." --Kid. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 1982 1346-PST From: Richard M. King Subject: the occultation of Mars Does anyone know whether and when it will be visible from the San Francisco area? Dick ------------------------------ Date: 16-Nov-82 13:58-PST From: DAUL at OFFICE Subject: LANDING OF STS5 To: space at mit-mc It was just beautiful! The sun was just rising as the shuttle and it's chase plane swept in front of the orange sunrise with elongated gray high clouds. It was worth the trip from San Francisco! --Bill ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 1982 1421-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: ''And that's the way it is, from 200 miles above the Pacific. . . .'' To: space at MIT-MC This week's issue of TV Guide claims that many TV networks and newspeople are jockeying for the position of covering a future Shuttle mission . . as passengers. The big mission will be covering the flyby of Halley's Comet, using the Shuttle as an observation platform. But there is also talk of putting a reporter in orbit before then. Walter Cronkite, Jules Bergman and many other well-known news folk are said to have volunteered. ------------------------------ Date: 16 November 1982 22:22-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: SPACE Digest V3 #46 To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC Tonight's MacNeil/Lehrer report was about recombinant DNA R&D. It gave me an idea for another way lots of ETI could have developed without filling the galaxy. Suppose each society with space technology also has recombinant DNA technology, and suppose each at some point develops a powerful world government which uses recombinant DNA technology to eliminate from its populace the desire to revolt against the government. To prevent wild variations from breeding elsewhere and then coming back in force, the desire to travel away from the central star&planet system is spliced out. Eventually the central government collapses but not before the species is totally devoid of the desire to spread thru the galaxy. Due to the genetic predisposition to following the central government and not revolting, similar central governments develop from time to time and purge the race of mutations and ancient revolt-genes that hadn't been found previously, so over long time the race stays quite pure by our standards. Finally after 10 billion years the star burns out and the race dies, but meanwhile it has lived a long stable life over an appreciable fraction of the age of the Universe. Perhaps when we go out to other stars we'll find many such races on random yellow stars. P.s. the concensus of people interviewed seemed to be that combining human and non-human genes into a hybrid organism is so abhorrent to most people that it ought to be made totally illegal. I don't think it's abhorrent at all. In fact I think making hybrid monkey-humans or dolphin-humans etc. might be an interesting way to create organisms that can comunicate with both humans and the other species, acting as translators/interpretors in our attempts to communicate with other races. Once we develop the technology we might apply it to ETIs we meet and thus develop Earth/NonEarth hybrids. These hybrids would also expand the variation of creatures in which our genes find themselves, thus enhance the survival of our genes thru difficult circumstances where a pure race might uniformly die out (such as some disease or environmental poison). Funny how parochial most people are. ------------------------------ Date: 17 November 1982 01:34-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Star's loss of angular momentum To: RWG at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Apparently just about all yellow-dwarf stars like the Sun have low angular momentum whereas blue-giant stars (the kind that burn themselves out in just a few million years then go supernova and turn into neutron stars or black holes) spin rapidly as predicted from the nebular hypothesis (whorlpool of gas&dust condenses to form star and planets at same time, with central portions spinning fastest because everything is at orbital velocity). The question has arisen why class K stars (yellow dwarfs) have lost the angular momentum they should have had originaly. Observations lately have shown that most of them have strong stellar winds, whereas class B and A stars (blue giants) don't. A theory is that these winds take angular momentum away from the star. Here's a quote from the current (November) Sky&Telescope, page 438: "Probably some physical mechanism common to all these stars, such as strong winds of ionized particles interacting with interstellar magnetic fields, has slowed the solar-type stars but not the hotter B- and A-type stars." Unless for some reason type B and A stars don't have planets, or in their short lifetime they haven't had time to slow down by tidal action of the planets, it looks like wind (ejection of particles) beats out planetary-tidal drag as an explanation, but this question isn't yet really answered for sure. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 18-Nov-82 0304 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #48 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 48 Today's Topics: JS&A, High Frontier, SRB's Half of us, half of them. Taxes,Video Games and Ma Bell Shuttle suits & 100% oxygen ETI Dolphin inelligence CETI (more) Money for Space Someone's there. Intelligent life redefined. Re: SPACE Digest V3 #46 the occultation of Mars (November 19) Shuttle communications heard NASA news briefings Cause of Houston electrical fire EVA (spacewalk) Spacewalk Set for Tomorrow Re: PHONE? Shuttle Coverage on Cable News Network PHONE? Re: NASA news briefings Re: Michner's Space Re: 3 year shuttle schedule Orbital Element explanation Re: 3 year shuttle schedule black holes JPL photos To John Hevelin (sorry readers) Landing Preparations TV commentator overkill Re: Black Holes Re: Phone Charges? Re: SRB separation pictures - (nf) Re: NASA news briefings - (nf) Re: envirnoment, elections, intelligence **LANDING** Re: Re: PROXMIRE WINS! space loses! - (nf) 311 Shuttle Launches Planned? shuttle landing Re: 311 Shuttle Launches Planned? Re: Re: PROXMIRE WINS! space loses! - (nf) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Nov 1982 0622-PST Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-8 Subject: JS&A, High Frontier, SRB's From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin) A mixed bag of comments/queries: A recall hearing or reading about the JS&A "passengers on shuttle flights" business; it is supposed to be in their latest catalog (which I have not yet received, if I am still on their mailing list). I cannot recall the source of my info, but the idea was that it was NOT for 6 "rich" people; they were selling lottery tickets at $20 each for the 6 seats. I think the idea was that they were going to buy payload bay space and somehow put in people instead of cargo. This was all totally WITHOUT the approval of NASA or anyone with any authority in the matter. The NASA people were said to be "displeased" with the whole thing... (JS&A is Jules [?] Sugarman & Associates; a very successful mail-order company specializing in high-tech gadgets and the like.) High Frontier: I caught the last few minutes of a local public-TV interview show which was discussing the topic, and had General Graham as the main guest. The costs were estimated to be from $15 billion in three-five years to $50 billion over 12 years; the first figure would apply if the project were performed in a "Manhattan-Project" style of isolated total committment; the latter figure would apply if the same tasks were performed using the normal military procurement and planning and managerial techniques used for current weapon systems acquisition. SRB's: What ever happened to the recovery process for the last shuttle flight's SRB's? Were they completely recovered, partly recovered, or is the effort still under way, or was it abandoned? Last I recall was that only part of one or both were retrieved. Regards, Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 1982 1025-EST From: LS.RHK at MIT-EECS Subject: Half of us, half of them. To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Human / non-human hybrids are fine if we have successful mutations, but would you like to be the one who has to kill a failure. Would this be considered murder (or half-murder)? Clearly, we can't try any hybrids until we can ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that we will get what we want. Practical hybrids are far off in the future when we will fully understand our DNA. Perhaps we never will reach this point of understanding (I hope). The suggestion of human / ETI hybrids makes an important assumption: life out there is based on carbon and DNA. I doubt that our DNA could be joined to work with the genetic material of a Si based life form. Even if we did make these hybrids, what makes you think that communication will be possible? Much of our speech comes from the mind and not our physiology. If a hybrid were made from the genes of a Frenchman and an Englishman, would he be bilingual? Furthermore, would he have tea and croissants or crepes and kidney pie? Would he drive on the left or right? Robert Kassel------- ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 82 9:37:47-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: menlo70!sytek!gi!frank at Ucb-C70 Subject: Taxes,Video Games and Ma Bell How about a tax of 25% of all cocaine sold in America and Puerto Rico?? That would really raise a lot of money for the space program. Frank Ayala General Instrument Corp. Research & Development Lab Chandler,Arizona ------------------------------ Date: 17 November 1982 1349-EST (Wednesday) From: David.Smith at CMU-CS-A (C410DS30) To: gutfreund.umass-coins at udel-relay Subject: Shuttle suits & 100% oxygen 1. Why 100% oxygen? The astronauts need a certain partial-pressure of oxygen, but they do not need sea-level pressure. If the suit were further inflated with nitrogen, then it would balloon much worse than it does, and the astronaut could move only with difficulty, if at all. 2. A small amount of CO2 to avoid hyperventilation? I think it would be the other way around. The urge to breathe is caused by the presence of CO2, not the lack of oxygen. If the oxygen supply is perfectly normal, while amount of CO2 is abnormally high, then the person would hyperventilate. (Maybe a small amount of CO2 to avoid hypoventilation, but that could be supplied by the astronaut himself, given a proper flow rate.) 3. Sea level pressure? No. It sticks in my mind that Apollo used 5 psi of pure oxygen, and that the suits used lower pressure than that. I don't know the pressure used in the Shuttle suit, but I am confident that it would not be over 5 psi. 4. Why 2-piece suits? So you can mix & match upper and lower body sizes, and not have to tailor a new suit to each astronaut. 5. Why use a pressure suit at all? Well, for one thing, at low enough pressure (above 60,000 feet), the blood will boil at body temperature. I don't know that the example of the feet demonstrates anything. The soles of the feet experience overpressure. -- David Smith @ cmu-cs-a ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 1982 1457-EST From: DVW.AGM at MIT-OZ Subject: ETI Perhaps when we go out to other stars we'll find many such races [that have no desire to explore space] on random yellow stars? Robert Elton Mass Oh? If what you say is indeed common, then it's quite likely that WE won't have a desire to explore extrastellar space in a few decades (assuming, of course, that the type of genetic engineering that you talk about is possible -- after all, it's hard to believe that the desire to explore is unrelated to general intelligence rather than to some specific gene site). Adam Mellis (dvw.agm @ MIT-OZ) ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 1982 1500-EST From: DVW.AGM at MIT-OZ Subject: Dolphin inelligence To: space at MIT-MC Although there are many well-documented reports of dolphins rescuing drowning humans (by carrying them toward shore), there is an odd lack of data on dolphins that have carried humans AWAY from the shore. I hope that the reason is obvious, ... I don't believe that we can attribute intelligence to dolphins until (if ever) we are able to communicate with them. The chances at present for this look slim. Adam Mellis (dvw.agm@mit-oz) ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 1982 1503-EST From: DVW.AGM at MIT-OZ Subject: CETI To: space at MIT-MC It appears that a popular belief concerning Communication with Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence is that we aren't smart enough to talk to them, i.e. they're using tachyons, while we're still using MERE photons. However, if they really want to talk to us it would seem likely that they would use as many different methods as they could. Even within the electromagnetic spectrum there are a number of wavelengths that seem particularly good for interstellar communication. These would include the celebrated "watering hole" around 21 cm, so named because there's little interference from any galactic sources (dust clouds, etc.). ... unless, of course, they had the equivalent of a Proxmire, ... Adam Mellis (dvw.agm@oz) ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 1982 1505-EST From: DVW.AGM at MIT-OZ Subject: (more) Money for Space To: space at MIT-MC I was listening to the radio a few days ago, and they decided to stop playing music and put on some stupid "comedy" records. The first was a recording of "Father Guido Sarducci" (the spelling program didn't know the name either) of Saturday Night Live fame. Well, he managed to start talking about space exploration, and said something to the effect that he was going to start the "people's space program." (No relation to the PRC.) His basic idea was that since he needed 250 million $, he would get 250 million people each to donate a dollar, and then have a lottery to determine who out of those 250M would get to go into space. Of course, in a sense, that's why the federal government is there -- to collect money (taxes) for our common good. But since the government seems to be neglecting (amoung other things) the space program, I think that some sort of lottery of this nature could be a good fund-raiser for NASA. And if THEY don't want to try that, then I'm sure that some random individual could really profit by holding a lottery for a ride into space. After all, wouldn't you be willing to pay $5 for even a small chance to live out a dream? I recently read in this net, something to the effect that a company is trying to get NASA to sell them space for human riders on the space shuttle. The person reporting this indicated that the people would have to be RICH. Well, they might just have to LUCKY. Adam Mellis (dvw.agm@oz) ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 17 November 1982 18:46-EST Sender: DVW.CYNDI at MIT-OZ From: DVW.CYNDI at MIT-MC To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Subject: Someone's there. Intelligent life redefined. Re: "They (intelligent life) know where they are on the food chain, and put other species in the feed bag." Now hold it!! Intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with the food one eats. I, for one, have not experienced any loss of intelligence since becoming a vegetarian. Although, by your definition, I should have. In fact, I would consider our species far more intelligent if we realized that feeding grain and other vegetable matter to animals we raise for food is a highly ineffcient way to feed a starving world. There is a big difference between having the correct teeth with which to eat animals, and actually eating them. (Human teeth are marginal, anyway). And, as to this entire argument, I would find a horse (an herbivore) far more intelligent then a chicken (which eats bugs) or even a mink or ferret (both of which eat flesh). True, it does take intelligence to know where one is on the food chain. It's what you do with that knowledge that makes the difference. Cyndi Norman M.I.T. ------------------------------ Date: 17 November 1982 1914-EST From: Lars Ericson at CMU-10A Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #46 To: Space-Enthusiasts@mc, lars.ericson Does anybody have a reference to the "High Frontier" report referred to in this digest? One contributor quoted from it, so I suppose it is unclassified. Thanks, Lars ------------------------------ Date: 17 November 1982 19:39-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: the occultation of Mars (November 19) To: SPACE at MIT-MC cc: KING at KESTREL Sky&Telescope has tables in the November issue. Places from Boston/Chicago/Denver North get a near-miss instead of an occultation, while Halifax NS gets an almost grazing occultation (22:28-22:37 UT = 9 minutes) and Norfolk VA gets a moderately short occultation (22:04-22:34 UT = 30 minutes). San Juan PR gets an almost central occultation (lasting from 22:01 to 23:32 UT = 1 hr 31 min). Places in the West get the incident in broad daylight (Los Angeles gets it 19:52-20:40 UT which is about noon local time; whereas Norfolk VA gets it 22:04-22:34 UT which is just after sundown local time). The only places listed which get an after-sundown occultation are Halifax NS, Norfolk VA, and San Juan PR. Columbia SC and Miami are borderline, with the sun setting partway thru the occultation. Therefore, if you're East of the Columbia/Miami line and simultaneously South of the Boston/Denver line, you'll get an occultation in dark. West of there but still South of the Boston/Denver line you need binoculers or telescope to see a daylight occultation, North/East you get a pretty non-occultation, and North/West you lose completely with a daylight miss. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 82 13:17:18-PST (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Shuttle communications heard Article-I.D.: eagle.627 Via: Usenet; 17 Nov 82 18:38-PST I am currently hearing Columbia/Houston communications being relayed on 28.6 Mhz. Part of the problem in hearing them is that the astronauts have been very quiet. The transmissions do not include the "broadcast status report" that the 900 number does. Phil Karn ------------------------------ Date: 14 Nov 82 13:53:46-PST (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: NASA news briefings Article-I.D.: eagle.630 Via: Usenet; 17 Nov 82 19:28-PST If you get a chance, listen to the end-of-shift flight briefings via the 900 number. Its very enlightening. Right now, a couple of hotshot journalists are driving the power failure subject deep into the ground. They seem to think their holy mission is to uncover sinister government coverups and plots. They keep asking the same questions over and over again, and the flight directors keep giving the same perfectly acceptable answers: that it was not critical to the mission, that there was no reason to wake up the crew just to tell them, etc. etc. But some journalists are never satisfied. I have a lot of admiration for the flight directors who seem to remain candid and unflappable in the face of all this crap. I am really disgusted with the shoddy journalism practices that cover the shuttle missions. Even when a network condescends to granting the masses a tiny shred of a video transmission, some so-called "science editor" insists on talking over the audio with comments like "Gee, I wonder what that is that the camera is looking at", when if they would just SHUT UP AND LISTEN, they might find out. They might even learn something (but I doubt it.) Phil Karn PS. There. I feel much better already. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Nov 82 16:09:53-PST (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Cause of Houston electrical fire Article-I.D.: eagle.631 Via: Usenet; 17 Nov 82 19:37-PST Contrary to my earlier unofficial rumor, the cause for the electrical fire that took the tracking displays down at Houston last night for about 2 hours was a faulty splice in aluminum building wiring. There are four power busses feeding control room equipment, one of which was feeding the tracking computers. This was the one that failed. The outage occurred because it was not a critical portion of the flight. Had it been (e.g., launch, landing), they would have been running a backup computer on a different circuit and changeover would have been almost instantaneous. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 82 15:42:16-PST (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!stocker at Ucb-C70 Subject: EVA (spacewalk) Article-I.D.: pur-ee.647 Via: Usenet; 17 Nov 82 19:40-PST If any of you out there hear exactly when the EVA is going to take place, (from tv news, etc) please post on the net so we'll all know when to watch tv tommorrow, assuming the networks pick it up. thanks, dave stocker pur-ee!stocker ------------------------------ Date: 14 Nov 82 23:13:42-PST (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Spacewalk Set for Tomorrow Article-I.D.: alice.1114 Via: Usenet; 17 Nov 82 19:51-PST William Lenoir said he was feeling much better today, and NASA has scheduled the spacewalk for tomorrow morning starting at 0750 EST. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 82 16:16:04-PST (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ihps3!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!CSvax.sbm at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: PHONE? Article-I.D.: purdue.449 In-Reply-To: Article pyuxcc.387 Via: Usenet; 17 Nov 82 19:53-PST Sorry to post old news, but there have been a couple of requests for the phone number to listen in on the shuttle communications since the article announcing it was posted, so I thought I would post it for newcomers and people that don't pay attention. It's 900-410-6272. Steven B. Munson Purdue University ------------------------------ Date: 14 Nov 82 17:03:57-PST (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!duke!unc!kh at Ucb-C70 Subject: Shuttle Coverage on Cable News Network Article-I.D.: unc.4257 Via: Usenet; 17 Nov 82 19:52-PST If you get Cable News Network on your TV, you should watch for the coverage of the shuttle. This (Sunday) morning, they carried the live TV from the shuttle every time it passed over the U.S. They had it for about 15 or 20 minutes at a time. They showed them eating a meal (breakfast or lunch?), still no coffee with cream. On the next orbit, they were conducting some of the student experiments. Though they call it "live" coverage, it must go through two or maybe three satellites before it gets to your house. The signal could be delayed over a second. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 82 0:47:21-PST (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxa!mhuxh!mhuxm!pyuxjj!pyuxcc!djs at Ucb-C70 Subject: PHONE? Article-I.D.: pyuxcc.387 Via: Usenet; 17 Nov 82 19:08-PST What is the 900 phone number ??? Please!!! Also, what are the charges? Thank you ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 82 9:27:53-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihps3!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!stocker at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: NASA news briefings Article-I.D.: pur-ee.650 In-Reply-To: Article eagle.630 Via: Usenet; 17 Nov 82 20:38-PST For those of you that didn't get up early this morning or for some other reason missed what was supposed to be the EVA (spacewalk) this morning, you didn't miss much as both the suits Joe Allen was to use had pressurization trouble. They still might make it tonight but it doesn't sound promising. Joe talked to Houston about it but TV watchers couldn't tell what they were saying because the stupid commentators talked right over them trying to tell us what Joe was saying. NBC went right to a commercial in the middle of the video, CBS had a habit of showing live pictures from their commentator in Houston (BIG DEAL). Amen too Phil Karn and his complaints about shuttle news coverage. dave pur-ee!stocker ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 1982 2053-PST From: Den Lenahan Subject: Re: Michner's Space To: space at MIT-MC Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940. Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161 As I recall, several messages regarding Michner's novel were on the list some time ago (a couple or three months maybe?) Can anyone (Ted Anderson maybe) remind us how to tap the archives? ------- ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 82 8:26:28-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!seismo!rocheste!heliotis at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: 3 year shuttle schedule Article-I.D.: rocheste.234 In-Reply-To: Article tekcad.259 Via: Usenet; 17 Nov 82 21:17-PST Does anyone know when a ship other than Columbia will first be used? ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 82 23:36:24-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Orbital Element explanation Article-I.D.: eagle.633 Via: Usenet; 17 Nov 82 21:39-PST I got some questions about the STS-5 orbital elements I posted over the weekend. Here is a narrated explanation of what each of the numbers mean. I hope this answers some questions. Numbers such as these are available for free from NASA for virtually any object in orbit. With some tracking programs (available in BASIC, Fortran and C) you can plug in these numbers and determine where the satellite is (or will be) at any given time and when it will pass above your horizon. Phil Karn --------------------------------------------------------------------- STS-5 Orbital elements (no longer valid due to maneuvers, unfortunately) Epoch time: 82318.08417663 This is the time at which all following numbers are valid. It is represented as year 82, day of year 318, fraction of day .08417663 (in Universal Time.) In English, this time was Sat Nov 13 21:01:12 1982 EST. Inclination: 28.4655 deg The angle of the orbit plane to the earth's equator. This is determined by the "launch azimuth", ie, the compass direction in which Columbia travels during launch. The lowest possible value, which gives maximum payload capacity, is obtained by launching due east and is the latitude of the launch site. Unfortunately, low values mean poor visibility from northern observers, since Columbia never travels farther than 28.4655 degrees north or south latitude. RA of node: 49.6153 deg The Right Ascension of the point in the orbit where the Columbia crosses the earth's equator going south to north. Right Ascension is the astronautical equivalent of longitude, except that it doesn't rotate with the earth. This value is the only one that varies with the launch time, and is one of the factors that sets a "launch window." Eccentricity: 0.0003574 A measure of the ellipticity of the orbit; the definition is the same as in analytic geometry. 0 = perfect circle, 1 = parabola, 0 < e < 1 is an ellipse, and > 1 is a hyperbola. The Voyager "orbits" past Jupiter and Saturn have eccentricities > 1. Arg of perigee: 266.3829 deg The angle in the orbit plane between the northbound equator crossing and perigee (closest approach to earth). A value of 0 means the perigee passage occurs as the shuttle crosses the equator going north; values between 0 and 180 mean perigee occurs in the northern hemisphere, etc. Argument of perigee is undefined for a perfectly circular orbit (which of course "never" happens.) Mean anomaly: 139.6376 deg The position of the shuttle along its orbit at the instant of the epoch. This value increases at a constant rate from 0 to 360 deg over an orbit, regardless of the orbit's eccentricity. Mean motion: 15.86846206 rev/day The number of orbits (perigee passages, actually) in one day. This sets the period (time to complete an orbit) of the satellite. Semi major axis: 6689.27 km Half the straight-line distance between the apogee and perigee points. Knowing the Mean Motion allows you to compute the semi-major axis, and vice versa. Period: 90.746034 min Time of one orbit from perigee to perigee. Equal to 1440/mean motion Apogee: 318.36 km Maximum altitude above the (oblate) earth. Perigee: 313.58 km Minimum altitude above the (oblate) earth. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 82 22:24:20-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: 3 year shuttle schedule Article-I.D.: alice.1128 In-Reply-To: Article rocheste.234 Via: Usenet; 17 Nov 82 21:51-PST Challenger will make its debut flight in January, 1983. Discovery will be unveiled in December, 1983, and will fly sometime early in 1984. Atlantis will roll out in December, 1984, and will fly sometime in 1985. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 82 15:48:10-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm at Ucb-C70 Subject: black holes Article-I.D.: inuxa.169 Via: Usenet; 17 Nov 82 21:59-PST Why don't we get into a discussion on black holes. I am interested in this topic, but I must admit I have very little knowledge of the subject. I believe a quite interesting and entertaining discussion could be carried on over this net. Also, I have a specific question for anyone on the net who may be knowledgeable about black hole theories. I have seen reference on the "horizon" of a black hole. What is this exactly and how (if it is related) does this effect the Schwartzchild radius????? If anyone replies to this, please post it on the net instead of sending me mail. Then the rest of the world can benefit from the theory. Ron Meyer inuxa!rrm Bell labs - Indy ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 82 15:58:39-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm at Ucb-C70 Subject: JPL photos Article-I.D.: inuxa.170 Via: Usenet; 17 Nov 82 22:02-PST Does anyone know if JPL photos are available to be purchased by the general public. I'm interested in pictures from the Mariner, Viking and Voyager missions. I would like the complete frames which contain not only the picture but contain specific information on the picture (e.g. any processing for constrast enhancement) content. Ron Meyer inuxa!rrm Bell labs - Indy ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 82 0:39:03-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!ittvax!sii!mem at Ucb-C70 Subject: To John Hevelin (sorry readers) Article-I.D.: sii.233 Via: Usenet; 17 Nov 82 22:10-PST c My apologies to you people who are reading this article, which is directed primarily at John Hevelin. I have been publicly insulted (I must say that it is most unpleasant), and I feel that that deserves a public reply. ----- I expressed no opinion on Proxmire. I made no indication of my personal stand on arms reduction. I gave no pro-nuke view. Nor, importantly, did I give insults (such as "mindless"), use irrelevant descriptions ("passing wind"), or use obvious sophisms ("knee-jerk"). The phrase "knee-jerk" comes from the involuntary muscle reaction caused by hitting the tendon just below the knee. It is used to describe standard reactions to standard stimuli; especially to statements or actions which are not particularly well thought out. It refers especially to your whole article, since you reacted to your own thoughts, and not to what I said. Name-calling is a technique used when intelligent arguments are either not to be had, cannot be originated by the name-caller, or are not expedient. This technique is unfortunately effective. Humorous but meaningless phrase-turning is used to show the wit of the person making the remark. It has no other merit. ----- If you would care to discuss interpretations of defense-oriented referendums, I would be happy to do so by mail, following a public apology from you. Mark Mallett ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 82 7:34:25-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Landing Preparations Article-I.D.: alice.1129 Via: Usenet; 17 Nov 82 22:28-PST The Columbia was preparing to land today, after yesterday's fail attempt at a space walk. Officials are calling the mission a complete success though. Landing is scheduled at 0934 EST at EAFB. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 82 9:20:24-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!cwc at Ucb-C70 Subject: TV commentator overkill Article-I.D.: mhuxt.1145 Via: Usenet; 17 Nov 82 22:38-PST And football fans think Howard Cosell is bad!! ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 82 5:12:32-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!deimos!houxi!5941ux!kek at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Black Holes Article-I.D.: 5941ux.145 Via: Usenet; 17 Nov 82 23:09-PST In response to inuxa!rrm (Ron Meyer) question on black holes: The German astronomer Karl Schwarzschild determined the field equations describing space-time in the vicinity of a spherical lump of matter. His solution states that if the mass is compressed within a certain radius (called the Schwarzschild radius) space-time is so severely distorted that nothing, even light, is able to escape. To put it another way, the "local gravity" cannot be overcome. The Schwarzschild radius (R) for a body of mass M is: R = 2GM/c**2 where G is a constant of proportionality known as the universal gravitational constant, and c is the velocity of light. Thus the Schwarzschild equations define how compressed a body would have to become to create a black hole. (Actually, Michell and Laplace hinted at such a possibility nearly a century before Schwarzschild put it all together). A body thus compressed (e.g., a collapsing star) disappears from view since light is unable to escape from its surface (it has become a black hole). The boundary of the black hole is called the "event horizon" because nothing inside can ever pass to the outside. The event horizon is a one-way boundary: you can check in but never out! This boundary coincides with the Schwarzschild radius. Even if the mass inside continues to collapse into a "singularity", the event horizon remains the same, the Schwarzschild radius. This holds true for simple non-rotating black holes. Rotation adds some complexity. As a couple examples, the Schwarzschild radius for our sun is just under 3 kilometers (it's nominal radius is about 700,000 km) and for the Earth is a little less than one centimeter! Three good references on the subject that I have read are: GRAVITY, BLACK HOLES AND THE UNIVERSE Iain Nicolson John Wiley & Sons - New York 1981 MONSTERS IN THE SKY Paolo Maffei The MIT Press - Cambridge, Mass and London, Eng (1980) BLACK HOLES - THE EDGE OF SPACE, THE END OF TIME Walter Sullivan Anchor Press / Doubleday - Garden City, NY (1979) Ken Kepple Bellabs - Holmdel 5941ux!kek ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 82 11:16:16-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ihuxb!genesis at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Phone Charges? Article-I.D.: ihuxb.163 In-Reply-To: Article inuxa.168 Via: Usenet; 17 Nov 82 23:25-PST The fee for the first minute is $0.50 , with each minute thereafter is at $0.35. Russ Sehnoutka BTL - IW ihps3!ihuxb!genesis ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 82 10:46:26-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!sb1!mb2b!uofm-cv!cja at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: SRB separation pictures - (nf) Article-I.D.: uofm-cv.153 In-Reply-To: Article whuxlb.790 Via: Usenet; 17 Nov 82 23:28-PST The camera observing the SRB separation was ground based, and was used on all STS missions to track the shuttle, except in one case where it was too cloudy to get a good picture. By the way, this camera was also used to provide long-distance visuals of the Apollo launches, but staging occurred at a much greater altitude so the coverage wasn't as spectacular. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 82 9:31:06-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsovax!kline at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: NASA news briefings - (nf) Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.1048 Via: Usenet; 17 Nov 82 23:49-PST #R:eagle:-63000:uicsovax:2400002:000:574 uicsovax!kline Nov 15 08:11:00 1982 Journalists are famous for getting scientists and engineers steamed. Another good example I heard was at one of the press briefings for Voyager II. This was right after they had discovered the `braided' F-ring around Saturn, and the two `shepherd' moons S26 and S27. To add to the sensationalism of the photos from the spacecraft by saying that the F-ring didn't obey the laws of physics. One of the JPL scientists exploded with "Of course they obey the laws of physics!!!" He was really hot, too. The journalist, unmiffed, left the comment in the report to his editor. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 82 12:55:15-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!arlan at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: envirnoment, elections, intelligence Article-I.D.: inuxd.208 In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.3998 Via: Usenet; 18 Nov 82 0:32-PST Maybe Jerry Brown's defeat was a loss to space endeavors, but I can only think that his only contribution to space was to occupy too much of it. Any one who has said he looked to the late, nearly-forgotten Mao as an inspiration is an idiot, no matter that he may happen to be right on ony one other subject. A visionary? No way; Brown contributed as much to personal freedom as Andropov. --arlan andrews, btl/abi, indy. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 82 15:45:56-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: **LANDING** Article-I.D.: alice.1130 Via: Usenet; 18 Nov 82 1:33-PST (Sorry this is a bit late) The Columbia touched down to yet another picture perfect landing today half a minute early, at 0633 EST. Weather conditions were less than ideal, with a heavy cloud cover, but Vance Brand put the Columbia down right on the center line on runway 22 at EAFB. NASA plans to ferry Columbia back to KSC next week, and then it will face a 10 month overhaul, providing space for Spacelab and taking out some of the bulky test flight equipment. Also next week, Challenger is scheduled to move to the VAB. NASA has rescheduled STS-5's canceled space walk until STS-6 or STS-7, aboard the Challenger. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 82 12:43:14-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Re: PROXMIRE WINS! space loses! - (nf) Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.1049 Via: Usenet; 18 Nov 82 1:39-PST #R:uwvax:-67000:uicsl:11100004:000:194 uicsl!preece Nov 15 09:05:00 1982 I imagine that given the dairy subsidy program Proxmire so ably defends, it doesn't make much difference whether we buy the cheese or not; what we don't buy in the store we buy as taxpayers... ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 82 8:38:15-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!zeppo!whuxk!houxm!houxa!houxn!bsk at Ucb-C70 Subject: 311 Shuttle Launches Planned? Article-I.D.: houxn.310 Via: Usenet; 18 Nov 82 1:52-PST I just finished reading a news article that mentioned the above fact in passing. What does "311 Shuttle Launches Planned" mean? They certainly aren't booked, are they? For that matter, how many are currently booked? Finally, how far ahead is ththe 311th launch? Thanks, B. Katz BTL Juniper Plaza houxi!houxn!bsk ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 82 10:00:03-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!stan at Ucb-C70 Subject: shuttle landing Article-I.D.: floyd.837 Via: Usenet; 18 Nov 82 2:10-PST Last night on the news, they said that the shuttle used 2/3 of the paved runway before coming to a complete stop. How long is the runway? Evidently Nasa would like a crosswind landing as soon as possible. Is this to test out the craft's airworthiness?? Also, will this newsgroup be named net.columbia forever, even though Columbia will not fly for another year? How about net.shuttle? Stan King ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 82 15:54:02-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: 311 Shuttle Launches Planned? Article-I.D.: alice.1132 In-Reply-To: Article houxn.310 Via: Usenet; 18 Nov 82 2:01-PST Shuttle launches are booked (i.e. the cargo bay is already rented out) up until 1987 or 1988. This in no way covers 311 shuttle launches though! ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 82 12:43:14-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Re: PROXMIRE WINS! space loses! - (nf) Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.1049 Via: Usenet; 18 Nov 82 1:39-PST #R:uwvax:-67000:uicsl:11100004:000:194 uicsl!preece Nov 15 09:05:00 1982 I imagine that given the dairy subsidy program Proxmire so ably defends, it doesn't make much difference whether we buy the cheese or not; what we don't buy in the store we buy as taxpayers... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 19-Nov-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #49 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 49 Today's Topics: Administrivia: "The time has come", the walrus said... Re: black holes - (nf) Post Mission Facts Someone's there. Intelligent life redefined. a minor correction Re: Wings but no feet black holes To John Hevelin (sorry readers) Shuttle overhaul Landing Preparations Re: shuttle landing Re: Shuttle overhaul spades Did anyone listen to... JS&A shuttle passenger lottery Re: 100% oxygen High Frontier and Michener's SPACE High Frontier, Internetwork mailing list ABM systems Why Atlantis? Several Things Shuttle radio ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Nov 1982 1548-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: Administrivia: "The time has come", the walrus said... To: space at MIT-MC A problem has developed with this mailing list. Perhaps you've noticed. By way of introduction let me explain how I fit in. I am the moderator of the SPACE Digest. This is a mailing list that (at least originally) lives on the ARPANET. Incoming messages are queued and each night automatically compiled into digest form and sent out to the distribution list. I exercise (almost) no editorial control over the content of this list since it is compiled automatically. I do keep a fairly close eye on it, but I'm not usually logged in at 3AM when it gets sent out, so many messages go out without any human oversight. If this digest wasn't automatic I wouldn't have time to run it. The usenet connection to the space mailing list is fairly recent. Mail sent to SPACE@MC is forwarded to a file at S1-A for incorporation into that day's digest and also to an address at SRI-UNIX where it enters the unix network bulliten board system. They get the individual messages not complete digests. Unix messages sent to the space BBoard, are forwarded to the same file on S1-A for inclusion in the digest that the ARPANET people see. Yesterday's digest came to more than 1000 lines. This is very much longer than is optimal and something must be done to cut down on the volume. Few people can afford to spend the time required to pore through such a mass of material on a daily basis. If you've checked a recent digest you may have noticed that virtually all the message come from usenet people. One reason for this is probably that there are a lot of people out there. There are something like 1-2 hundred direct recipients of the ARPANET digest. Judging from the relative volumes of mail there must be many thousands of usenet readers. Another part of the explanation is that the bboard system encourages fast interaction. The once-a-day nature of the digest is itself an effective limiter of the volume of mail. Perhaps most people don't realize that every offhand comment sent to SPACE gets read by a thousand people. Some people have suggested that I shut off the usenet connection. If I did this the volume of SPACE mail would drop to almost nothing. Virtually all the mail comes from unix sites. Others have suggested that I try to restrict the subject matter. This is clearly appropriate in some cases, but much harder to guage in others. Another problem that agravates the situation is that most ARPANET people cannot reply directly to senders of messages from unix sites. It seems that the usenet-arpanet connection is substantially oneway. Thus people are tempted to send messages that could be personal replys via the whole digest. To make things still worse, there of often considerable delay in usenet messages arriving at the arpanet. Thus we get to see messages about the space walk days after the shuttle has landed. We also get several replies to questions or replys to questions we never saw since the large delay introduces appearent causality violations. Ideally, I would like to see the oneway problem fixed. Second I would like to make the unix people observe the once-a-day digest character of the arpanet digest. This might encourage more thoughtful and considered submissions and discourage offhand comments that don't contribute much of substance. Third, I would like to remove the hugely variable time delay between sending a message and its appearence in the digest. Sadly, NONE of these things are likely to come to pass, at least not soon. I solicit ideas for solutions to these problems, especially from knowledgable unix people. If the arpanet community shuts off this flood of unix mail the unix people will mostly fail to even notice. We must come to some sort of accomodation. One thing I can do is to try a discourage topics of discussion that stray too far afield. If I notice in time I can strike messages from the digest. When I do this I will try and send a message to the sender letting them know. But I usually can't reach senders on usenet, so their messages will just get deleted. Since I can't talk to those people such dicussions will rage on usenet without help from the arpanet community, and will inevitably overflow into the space digest anyway. I can send out public messages to everyone trying to discourage errant topics but I doubt the efficacy of this. Mostly I can only urge people to realize that they are talking to lots of other people when they send messages to SPACE and that brevity, precision and relevance are the key concepts. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 82 20:34:32-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcdaniel at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: black holes - (nf) I've heard that an outside observer can determine the mass and charge (among other things) of a black hole. How do the gravitrons and virtual photons get out? ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 82 17:30:24-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Post Mission Facts Confirmed flight time for STS-5 was 5 days, 2 hours, 14 minutes, and 25 seconds, bringing Columbia's logged flight time to 24 days, 16 hours, 3 minutes, and 8 seconds. Columbia will begin its trip back to KSC on 21 November. STS-6, Challenger's first flight, is now scheduled to launch on 24 January, 1983, but NASA says that may be delayed a few days as work on the Challenger, officially designated Orbiter Vehicle 99, is a bit behind schedule. ------------------------------ Date: 18 November 1982 07:30-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Someone's there. Intelligent life redefined. To: DVW.CYNDI at MIT-MC cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Hear! Hear! Glad you jumped on those people trying to link carnivore habits with intelligence. True it takes some intelligence to hunt an animal for food, but we're talking about much more intelligence than that when talking about SETI and CETI and technological civilization developing space. The difference between that level of technological competance and simple carnivore hunting cunning is not necessarily related to the food you eat. I do dispute one point you made, that people who choose to feed a starving planet with non-animal foods are smarter than those who choose to feed them with meat. It seems to me that a truly smart society would find a way to raise meat in space and deliver it to Earth so that everyone could have a choice about what to eat instead of being forced to be vegitarians or starve, because of a vegitarian version of Stockman being in control of things. With abundant sunlight to power things in space, and sufficient development of relevant technology, it would seem the "Green Revolution" (energy used to make fertilizer, used to make plants grow abundantly, used to feed animals, used to feed humans) possible once again. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 82 21:45:52-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Ucb-C70 Subject: a minor correction The correct name of the organization responsible for the second satellite launched by the latest shuttle mission is "Telesat Canada". Not "Telsat of Canada" or "Canada Telsat". Sorry, Adam. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 82 13:22:43-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!rabbit!wolit at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Wings but no feet Sorry, Tom, but I agree with Allan Schiffman. As reported a few weeks ago in Aviation Week, the High Frontier ABM interceptors are only one part of a comprehensive ABM proposal that DOES include fission-pumped laser weapons, exoatmospheric and low-altitude missiles (like Nike-X or LoADS), WOULD involve 1000+ interceptors, and WOULD end up costing well over $35 billion over the life of the project. (Besides, anyone who believes DoD cost estimates this early in a project probably also believes in the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, and Great Pumpkin as well.) And whether or not it ends up costing less than MAD over the same period of time is irrelevant, since not only are the generals not about to give up MAD for a pig-in-a-poke ABM system, but once we put up an ABM system like this, you can be damn sure the Rooskies are gonna do the same, and then you're gonna see an arms buildup in spades. The best way to protect our deterrent force (and population) from a 1st-strike attempt is to get our ICBMs out of those fixed targets and off the continental US. ------------------------------ Date: 18 November 1982 07:52-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: black holes To: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC It seems to me that there have been so many fine articles in recent years in Scientific American and other popular journals about black holes that there's no need to duplicate that information here. From recent messages I'm beginning to think most of you people on USENET never read any scientific magazines (black holes) or watch the evening news on TV or even read this digest (when first non-Columbia STS will be). ------------------------------ Date: 18 November 1982 07:55-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: To John Hevelin (sorry readers) To: decvax!ittvax!sii!mem at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Shouldn't defense-oriented referendums be in ARMS-DISCUSSION instead of in SPACE?? ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 82 9:39:14-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ihuxe!dalka at Ucb-C70 Subject: Shuttle overhaul What exactly is NASA going to do to the shuttle??? I've heard they're going to add lots of new equipment to it. Someone I talked to went so far as to say they were going to put new computers in it........ Ken Dalka ihuxe!dalka ------------------------------ Date: 18 November 1982 08:03-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Landing Preparations To: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I'm getting weary of NASA officials calling something a "complete success" after an obviously major aspect of the flight was a failure. That space walk is important! It can wait, but then the info to be derived must wait, there's less time to process the info for when it's needed, there's less confidence in the equipment, and if an emergency comes up in STS-6 there's no prior practice at all whereas if this had been a success and STS-6 had an emergency the spacewalk would have had prior practice from STS-5. I can accept "virtual total success" for a Voyager that returns so much new info beyond our wildest expectations (a mission to Jupiter is extended to Saturn and only one piece of equipment half-breaks-down, and we discover thousands of ringlets), but I cannot accept "total success" in STS-5 when one of the four major activities fails completely (the four are: launch&recovery, deplying commercial satellites, on-board scientific/engineering experiments, and spacewalk trial). ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 82 16:08:27-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: shuttle landing The crosswinds test is merely to see how the shuttle, which has no power on landing, handles when landing in crosswinds, which prevail at the strip at KSC, where NASA would eventually like to land shuttle missions. As for net.columbia, we have been over this many times before, and the consensus was not to change it but to stay with net.columbia for reasons of sanity and to honor out first space shuttle. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 82 16:11:35-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Shuttle overhaul The overhaul will basically consist of the following: 1) Equipment used for the test flights (to gather data on the shuttle's performance) will be removed. 2) The ejection seats will be taken out of the cockpit. These were deactivated for STS-5, but NASA will actually now take them out to make more space in the cockpit. 3) The cargo bay will be strengthened. 4) More space will be provided in the cargo bay, and it will be outfitted to carry Spacelab. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 82 14:37:44-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70 Subject: spades We already have an arms race in spades. The next bid is no-trump. ------------------------------ Date: 18 November 1982 11:37-EST From: Thomas L. Davenport Subject: Did anyone listen to... To: SPACE at MIT-MC ...the rebroadcast of shuttle communications on the lower ham radio bands? Is it worth my while to set up my old receiver to check it out the next time around? -Tom- ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 82 11:57:08-EST (Thu) From: (BAD ADDRESS) wmartin at BRL(BAD ADDRESS) , martin at BRL To: space at Mit-Mc Subject: JS&A shuttle passenger lottery JS&A is Joseph Sugarman & Associates (not Jules, as I had guessed before) and their toll-free number is 800-228-5000 (in Nebraska 800-323-6400). The catalog says to call the latter number (800-323-6400) "for inquiries"; in Illinois, call (312) 564-7000. The corporate offices are in Northbrook, IL (60062). I just called JS&A about this and got the following information: They are holding such a lottery, but it doesn't cost anything to enter. The $20 comes from this: they are selling some sort of poster and certificate for $30.00, or $20 if you order something else at the same time. I have to wait until I receive the catalog to find out details on this. As a separate promotion, you send them your name and address and are entered in the lottery for being one of the "first civilian passengers" on the shuttle. Don't know any more until I receive the catalog. Call them and ask for one; it's a neat catalog full of gadgets and nice to have for itself alone. Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 1982 12:27:19-EST From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: gutfreund.umass-coins at udel-relay Subject: Re: 100% oxygen Cc: space at mit-mc re (2), I expect you mean hyp\o/ventilate; emergency oxygen for revival (e.g., on football fields, at fires) is 5% CO2 because without that the breathing reflex would shut down entirely. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 1982 1118-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: High Frontier and Michener's SPACE To: space at MIT-MC The High Frontier report is available from: High Frontier Suite 1000 1010 Vermont Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 It costs $15. The L-5 Society sells them as well as a lot of other valuable space literature. Michener's SPACE: I thought it was excellent. The book describes more of the WHY of space exploration and the Space Program then the HOW. For instance, you learn of the set of fortunate coincidences that caused the Marshall Space Flight Center to get its name, and what amazing results that name change had. There are also (surprisingly) quite a few ''inside'' references to science fiction. I thought it was easily worth the hardback price. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 1982 1300-PST From: Alan R. Katz Subject: High Frontier, Internetwork mailing list To: space at MIT-MC cc: katz at USC-ISIF High Frontier: Many objections I had to the original message about High Frontier have been already addressed. I have talked with Gen. Graham (sp?) a few times. He did NOT start out by being a space advocate regardless of speculations to the contrary. He did NOT originally think space was wonderful, his original motivation was to find a stratagy different from MAD, and asked: What areas are we ahead of the Russians in? He came up with space as the answer to a problem, then raised some money and hired some people to work out the technical details. Many of us start out with the premise that space is good, then find ways of justifying it, it is gratifying when someone looks for the solution to a problem, and comes up with space as the answer. Also, as has been mentioned, the purpose of the system is not to be able to defend totally against any and all ICBMs, but to defend against some of them. He orignally expected defense against only 10% of the missles, the fact that it turns out to be 70 to 90% makes it even better. More on this issue can be found in the High Frontier Study. (It is availible from High Frontier, I dont have the address handy, but can get it at home is someone wants it). ******************************************** Another point: This mailing list is an INTERNETWORK mailing list. That means there is more than ONE network worth of people reading it. In particular, this is NOT the net.space list only. There are many people on the Arpanet reading this and to us it is the SPACE mailing list. It has seemed to me for some time that many people in USENET are totally unaware that there are other people out here, and talk about do such and such to net.space or creating another spinoff list called net.foo. Also, a number of times it seems we in the arpanet get messages which are responses to other messages that we have never seen. Sorry for the flame (sort of) but this has been getting annoying for some time. Alan ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 1982 1316-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: ABM systems To: space at MIT-MC Perhaps I should define the terms I have been using. High Frontier is the name of a proposed ABM system that was generated by the Heritage Foundation, and subsequently presented to the president. It consists of a point defense (Swarmjet missles) for missle silos and a bunch of orbital platforms with interceptor missiles. It was designed with quick implementation and low cost in mind. In addition, it is designed to foster the growth of space industry, as well as be a defensive weapons system. It was not generated by the Department of Defense. There are indeed proposals for orbital ABM systems involving particle beams and lasers, but they have been originated by DoD. These systems do little, if any, good to the national economy or to the promotion of industrial expansion into space. It seems to me that if we can reach a stage where both the US and USSR have a reasonable ABM system, we will be a lot better off than we are today. The system becomes stable (more or less) at that point, rather than the critically damped system of MAD. In addition, the presense of an ABM system gives you one more step of indirection before The Big One. Another chance for everybody to calm down and think things through. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 1982 1657-EST From: TYG at MIT-OZ Subject: Why Atlantis? To: space at MIT-MC Does anyone out there know why the fourth shuttle is being named Atlantis? If we have to name a shuttle after a mythological location, how about Barsoom?! tom galloway ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 1982 2144-PST From: Den Lenahan Subject: Several Things To: space at MIT-MC cc: dlenahan at USC-ISIE Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940. Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161 1. A double-amen to Karn et al comments about commentators. At least Jane Pauly tried, though. After I had yelled, "Shut up" six or seven times, Jane finally said, "Why don't we just be quiet and listen?" And she and her two colleagues (one of whom was a trained but not-yet-flown astronaut) actually were quiet for a short time (too short, albeit) while the STS audio was piped through. 2. JS&A catalog Number 9 (the latest one) does offer a shuttle ride. By their own admission, they have "petitioned NASA to be the first company to book commercial air travel on the Space Shuttle" but "...we haven't received a firm answer from NASA regarding our position." What the ad really is is a ploy to sell a Mark Rickerson poster for $30 (or $20 if you buy anything else). If I recall correctly, JS&A pushed Mark Rickerson posters a couple years ago with some sort of deal wherein subscribers would always be offered first chance at a new poster at a guaranteed low price, even when Mark Rickerson becomes famous and his poster-prices go way way up. 3. For Ron Meyer, and others interested in black holes: depending on what level you want to start reading at, may I add these titles to those suggested by Ken Kepple? THE COLLAPSING UNIVERSE, Isaac Asimov; Walker & Company, New York. (typical Asimov easy-to-read treatment) BLACK HOLES AND WARPED SPACETIME, William J. Kaufmann, III; Freeman & Company, San Francisco. and second the motion to consider Walter Sullivan's BLACK HOLES - THE EDGE OF SPACE AND TIME. 4. Would it be possible for everyone (some do this already) to indicate their location either in the header element or signature of their messages? Some message origins belie the sender's true location. (After my smart-alerk remark about Boston accents to REM of MIT-MC's remark about Valley Girls, I found out that REM is nearly a neighbor here in California). 5. For those interested in Phil Karn's explanation of orbital elements. The inclination as determined by launch azimuth is obtained quite simply: i = arcos (cos(lat)*sin(az)), with lat being the latitude of the launch site and az being the launch azimuth (north = 0, east = 90 etc). If you happen to know the dimensions of the ellipse but not the mean motion, you can backtrack via period = sqrt((a/178.77)**3) where a is the semi-major axis in nautical miles. Dennis ------- ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 82 20:54:03-PST (Thu) From: Iglesias.UCI at Rand-Relay To: space at Mit-Mc Subject: Shuttle radio Via: uci; 18 Nov 82 23:10-PDT Does anybody know if the radio transmissions from the next shuttle flight will be rebroadcast like they were this time? Does anybody have any suggestions for a particular brand/model of radio to pick these up (I know it has to be able to pick up shortwave; I am in the LA area so I would be picking up the broadcast from the station around here)? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 20-Nov-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #50 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 50 Today's Topics: Re: Half of us, half of them. Re: SPACE Digest V3 #48 Suits Spacewalk May be Delayed Eyewitness of Launch A book on space. Re: Shuttle Overhaul shuttle phone cost Spacewalk Canceled Space Suits Re: SPACE Digest V3 #46 They are not alone Spacewalk at Least Postponed Again Re: Wings but no feet It takes more than teeth (to give you smarts) Columbia Condition shuttle velocity? shuttle velocity (again) Pressureless Space Suits Re: vanVandenburg flights Vandenberg Launches Endorsed Re: Spacewalk Set for Tomorrow pressure and the human body Re: 100% oxygen Re: Phone Charges? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Nov 1982 1206-EST From: LS.RHK at MIT-EECS Subject: Re: Half of us, half of them. To: REM at MIT-MC cc: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Your message of 18-Nov-82 0711-EST You have me all wrong. I am not saying that we should not "play" with recombinant DNA. What I am saying is that we will never be able to understand our own DNA enough to perform the type of experiments you suggest. As far as birth defects go, many people who know that their child will have a birth defect abort the pregnancy because they feel it is not right to bring such an individual into the world. Furthermore, would you allow your wife to take DES knowing that it would harm your child? I think not. I am merely stating that we cannot experiment with DNA research in the same manner as we experimented with electricity. The risks outweigh the benefits. Robert Kassel ------- ------------------------------ Date: 19 Nov 1982 1212-EST From: LS.RHK at MIT-EECS Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #48 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Your message of 18-Nov-82 0616-EST The next shuttle mission will use a new orbiter.... CHALLENGER ------- ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 82 11:24:27-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: teklabs!tekcrd!iddic!evp at Ucb-C70 Subject: Suits Article-I.D.: iddic.121 Via: Usenet; 19 Nov 82 17:23-PST The suits run at 2.5 psi pure oxygen. This puts the partial pressure of oxygen at the same value as it is at sea level. The reason they run at such a low pressure is that the joints of the suit (especially at the fingers) are very difficult to move at higher pressures -- the internal pressure tends to straighten the joints out, and the astronaut has to fight against this force to hold onto tools, etc. The reason they don't want umbilical cords on the suits is fairly obvious: the first time you tried to grab a spinning satellite and got your oxygen supply wrapped up in the solar panels, you'd be out of a job. (A new definition of 'severance pay'). This is in fact a major part of the Solar Max rescue mission. The satellite is spinning at 1-2 rpm, and there is no way to stop it from spinning because the fuse that blew controls the stabilization mechanisms. The astronaut will cruise over to the satellite, grab onto it, then use the suit maneuvering system to stop the spinning. The Canada arm will then move it into the payload bay, where the fuses will be replaced. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 82 12:11:07-PST (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Spacewalk May be Delayed Article-I.D.: alice.1108 Via: Usenet; 19 Nov 82 17:33-PST Due to William Lenoir's increasing case of space motion sickness, NASA may delay tomorrow's spacewalk until Monday. Also, Joe Allen could perform the EVA alone. Though Lenoir has it more severely, Robert Overmyer also experienced space sickness, but he is over it now. Meanwhile, NASA expects the two SRB's to be in Port Canaveral by late afternoon. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 82 13:12:45-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: mhtsa!alice!npoiv!eisx!pyuxbb!tomh at Ucb-C70 Subject: Eyewitness of Launch Article-I.D.: pyuxbb.300 Via: Usenet; 19 Nov 82 17:32-PST I flew down to Fla. to watch the launch. Got a spot on the Banana River about 8 miles from the lauchpad. Lots of people and excitement before the launch. Lots of fire, smoke, and noise during the launch. It was AWESOME. Much better in person than on TV. Definitely worth the trip. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 82 10:52:23-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: npois!houxm!houxa!houxi!houxy!houxw!rbc at Ucb-C70 Subject: A book on space. Article-I.D.: houxw.108 Via: Usenet; 19 Nov 82 18:17-PST On the subject of the "High Frontier" (of which I know little). There is a book that goes into the use of space for power, industry and war. It is called "Space Power" by G. Harry Stine, (Ace Books). It covers the entire industry neeeded before the use of space will become reality. The coverage of the military uses (read anti-missile) are very good. The discussion of the financing was covered better then I could follow. The impact on society of space is coverd with comparisons to the past (such as how the invention of the horse stirrup changed the way war was fought). Even though I bought the book by mistake (it LOOKED like a SF-novel) I couldn't put it down. I now believe in power satelites... Robert (where can I buy a shuttle ticket) Connaghan Bell Labs Holmdel, N.J. houxw!rbc ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 82 15:57:36-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: npois!houxm!houxa!houxi!deimos!orion!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!ihuxb!genesis at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Shuttle Overhaul Article-I.D.: ihuxb.165 In-Reply-To: Article inuxc.519 Via: Usenet; 19 Nov 82 18:48-PST I heard that they also plan to install a galley for cooking in Columbia. Don't ask me how they can cook up there, seems to me everything would just fly around, regardless where they put it. Russ Sehnoutka BTL - IW ihps3!ihuxb!genesis ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 82 10:15:38-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!stan at Ucb-C70 Subject: shuttle phone cost Article-I.D.: floyd.834 Via: Usenet; 19 Nov 82 18:50-PST I heard that the cost for the 900 number for shuttle com was 50 cents for the first minute and 35 cents for each additional minute. The NYT had a tiny article yesterday in which an AT&T spokesman in Bedminster said that about 500,000 calls were received, including 150,000 from overseas. Overseas calls were not allowed on previous flights. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 82 15:49:54-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Spacewalk Canceled Article-I.D.: alice.1117 Via: Usenet; 19 Nov 82 18:51-PST NASA today canceled the planned 3.5 hour space walk because of a faulty fan that should circulate oxygen through one of the two space suits. Officials suspect a water buildup to be the problem but could not remedy it despite troubleshooting efforts. The astronauts made plans to come home tomorrow, on schedule, landing at 0933 EST at EAFB. NASA is calling the mission a 100% success despite the spacewalk letdown. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 82 7:29:16-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Space Suits Article-I.D.: alice.1149 Via: Usenet; 19 Nov 82 19:18-PST NASA said that engineers yesterday duplicated one of the two problems with the space suits aboard STS-5. They reproduced a pressure regulator failure; the regulator, supposed to provide 4.2 pounds psi pressure, only supplied 3.7 ppsi, the level it gave on the flight. The other problem, the failure of an oxygen circulator fan, will be the subject of today's tests. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 82 14:03:16-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: hplabs!intelqa!omsvax!bc at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #46 Article-I.D.: omsvax.222 In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.4139 Via: Usenet; 19 Nov 82 19:56-PST This is in reply to R. E. Maas' categorization of negative reaction to the creation of human/non-human hybrid organisms as "parochial." I don't think that reaction is necessarily as thoughtless a reaction as he seems to think. There are severe ethical and moral questions in creating a sentient being (if it's not, it won't fulfill the purpose of translator) whose viability and quality of life is open to great question. Consider that many people reject the idea of allowing a genetically damaged fetus to come to term or even be conceived, e.g. Down's Syndrome, Tay-Sachs disease, Huntington's Chorea, etc. etc. Many parents feel that it is immoral to bring a damaged child into the world if a choice exists. Recognize that we would have *NO* way of a priori knowing how a hybrid sentient would perceive the world, or relate to other sentients. It's a widely held scientific opinion these days that much of any animal's behavior and relationship to other beings is rooted in its evolution and thus its genotype. What does this mean for a hybrid, especially one of the more exotic types where the non-human genetic material is also non-primate? What kind of life would the creator of the hybrid be wishing on the created being? It is certain that in many ways such a being would be more alone than any human has ever been. The fundamental question is what obligations the creator of a life, whether parent or biologist, has to that life, and what degree of certainty is required. That question is answerable, as are all the knotty moral questions, by each person for himself alone. I'm not myself necessarily opposed to the creation of hybrid sentients. There is a chance that such beings would be greatly gifted by the expansion of their perceptions and relationships relative to ours. The issues are not, however, as simple as progress versus parochialism. It's essential that anyone considering actions with consequences as important (for some one person, if not for the race as a whole) as these consider all discussion very carefully before deciding on action, and that he recognize the responsibility which the action entails. Bruce Cohen ...!intelqa!omsvax!bc ------------------------------ Date: 19 Nov 82 8:52:53-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: hplabs!intelqa!omsvax!dps at Ucb-C70 Subject: They are not alone Article-I.D.: omsvax.226 Via: Usenet; 19 Nov 82 20:00-PST If I were to try to advise other intelligences in the galaxy of my existence, I would pick a clear and distinctive way to do it. The plaque used on Pioneer seems to me a muddy way to do it. The message is too high level and too dependent on understanding our way of percieving the universe around us. I would, instead, pick a tight focus transmission (e.g., masers or lasers), aim it first at nearby stars, and send a unique transmission. To make as clear as possible that the transmission was not a natural phenomenum, like a pulsar of complex period, I would send at least 3 channels with distinct patterns. The main channel, for instance, could send SOS in good old morse. A second channel, would send . -- ... ---- perhaps, representing the first four integers. The third channel might send either a morse alphabet, or a sequence of binary numbers (how many bits per number? how do you seperate numbers? Do you use straight binary, or a Gray code?). The point of these three channels is to send a set of very short, very repetitive (low-level) messages *each differing from its companions in period* which will identify themselves as messages. It is also hoped that the message is simple enough to be properly decoded. Only after decoding these messages (a kind of rosetta stone) would any transmission of text be reasonable. Otherwise, the message would contain too much information to be decoded, and contain too many assumptions on the nature of decoding. Yes, English (particularly written English) is highly redundant, and analyzers can easily find its patterns, but the analyzers are human and understand the channel and the type of messages it is used for, and the redundancy is on a fairly high level. An alien coming on English text, and if in the form of radio transmissions it would not even represent in form the senses we percieve the universe with *and thus remove many decoding clues*, would lack the knowledge of how we convey emotion and emphasis -- very important decoding tools for written English. A maser/laser transmission would not, of course, be done from the Earth's surface. It could be done from, say, a geo-synchronous orbit, aiming at different targets day and night. (The 24 hour period superimposed might provide more interest for alien analyzers). Or, if this leaves the signal too swamped by Sol's output, the platform might have to be boosted out of the plane of the ecliptic...how far out would be needed for a transmission to Alpha Centauri or Barnard's Star? ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 82 7:30:32-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Spacewalk at Least Postponed Again Article-I.D.: alice.1116 Via: Usenet; 19 Nov 82 20:06-PST NASA today detected a bad fan in one of the two space suits to be used in today's space walk. The fan is supposed to circulate oxygen around the suit while the wearer is in space. Despite efforts by NASA to get it working, it wouldn't, and they put off the spacewalk again, noting the possibility that it could be canceled from this flight. The flight could also be extended up to two days, or one astronaut could walk alone. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 82 16:13:45-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!CSvax.Physics.els at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Wings but no feet Article-I.D.: pur-phy.572 In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.4106 Via: Usenet; 19 Nov 82 20:19-PST What is this High Frontier proposal??? Have I missed something?? I thought that it just refered to O'Niell's space colonization ideas! By the way, that ABM satellite system sounds pretty good, even more so since the Soviets have one of those type satellites up there already. Could someone please provide a specific citation on that? I believe it was Cosmos 1276. els[Eric Strobel] pur-ee!pur-phy!els ------------------------------ Date: 16 Nov 82 12:18:58-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: UNKNOWN.G.asa at Ucb-C70 Subject: It takes more than teeth (to give you smarts) Article-I.D.: populi.459 Via: Usenet; 19 Nov 82 20:22-PST I don't see many intelligent life forms of any kind pulling into 7-11s.... Being a predator is not an a priori indication of superior intelligence, and it is certainly unfair to compare the intelligence of wild predators with that of domesticated animals (which have had intelligence bred out of them for thousands of years). Farley Mowat, in NEVER CRY WOLF (his classic book on wolf-caribou interactions), found that the wolves were only able to catch and kill very young, very old, or very sick caribou; the collective strength of a herd of adult caribou made the bulk of the herd more than a match for even a pack of wolves. Furthermore, he discovered that when they were unable to get caribou, the wolves lived off field mice -- a fine alternative, but scarcely, I think, indicative of any superior intelligence.... Judging purely by teeth and position in the food chain, we might consider sharks to be nearly our equals in intelligence.... I would suggest that one standard for evaluating the "intelligence" of a species would be the extent to which "social programming" has replaced the limitations of "genetic programming" -- that is, those species who CONSCIOUSLY modify individual and collective behavior for a CONSCIOUSLY chosen end are "more intelligent" than species which rely solely on genetic programming (however successful such programming is). By this definition, homo sapiens can be distinguished from ants, even though ants are a highly-successful life form. Thus, human beings might well choose NOT to be predators for reasons of health, religious belief, or environmental concerns. John Hevelin ucbvax!g:asa ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 82 23:11:39-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Columbia Condition Article-I.D.: alice.1147 Via: Usenet; 19 Nov 82 20:27-PST The Columbia came back to Earth in near perfect condition after STS-5. Only two small tiles were missing, and two others were nicked. During the maximum braking test, one of the disk brakes on Columbia's main landing gears locked and the tire on that brake suffered a slow leak. It did not burst though. Meanwhile, an investigation into the spacesuit problems has been launched, and NASA hopes to have a reason for the failures of the suits within a week and recommendations on what to do about them in two weeks. For the next three weeks, Brand, Overmyer, Allen, and Lenoir will undergo the intensive post-flight debriefings now common after shuttle flights. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 82 19:05:10-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!dawes at Ucb-C70 Subject: shuttle velocity? Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.698 Via: Usenet; 19 Nov 82 21:27-PST ~r collet ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 82 19:14:27-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!dawes at Ucb-C70 Subject: shuttle velocity (again) Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.699 Via: Usenet; 19 Nov 82 21:27-PST OOPS. Sorry about previous null message. If this is a question the answer to which is well-known, please excuse my asking it, and answer by mail. The question is simple: what is the maximum velocity attained by Columbia during the recent flight. Robin Dawes ...decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!dawes ------------------------------ Date: 19 Nov 82 10:19-EST (Fri) From: Steven Gutfreund To: space at Mit-Mc cc: pourne at Mit-Mc Subject: Pressureless Space Suits Via: UMASS-COINS; 20 Nov 82 1:02-EST re: David.Smith's replies o The CO (2) is necessary, but to prevent hypoventilation (as was pointed out to me, football players get oxygen with 5% CO (2) otherwise the breathing reflex is inhibited) o The NYT reports that shuttle suits were supposed to be at 4.3 psi but even though Lenoirs suit only got up to 3.7 psi it was acceptable. This gets me to my disagreement with you. I do not know what 3.7 psi translates to in feet, but I would not be surprized if it is over the 60,000 feet. (these things tend to go exponential) You state that "at low enough pressure (above 60,000 feet), blood will boil at body temperature". Well perhaps this would occur for blood directly exposed to the atmosphere. But the human blood pressure is maintained at a constant pressure by the heart and associated arterio/ vascular system, it does not matter what the pressure outside the skin is. The question to me seems to be: can the skin maintain a 16 psi pressure differential without the body bloating up, aterial dialation, and a massive drop in blood pressure. If so, then I maintain that pressureless thermal spacesuits are a viable alternative. I have remembered the SF story with astronauts that do not need suits, it is in an anthology by Jerry Pournelle: "High Justice". (I highly recommend this anthology for those who want to argue about the economic viability of space). Do you have any independent justification for pressureless space-suits Jerry? - Steven Gutfreund ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 82 12:17:07-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!sdcsvax!sdchema!djo at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: vanVandenburg flights Article-I.D.: sdchema.279 In-Reply-To: Article gsp86.157 Via: Usenet; 19 Nov 82 22:36-PST murray at intelqa; the first sts launch from vandenberg will be in mid 1985. they will launch south into a polar orbit. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Nov 82 7:31:14-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Vandenberg Launches Endorsed Article-I.D.: alice.1165 Via: Usenet; 19 Nov 82 22:56-PST The California Coastal Commission, after having received an Air Force plan for water conservation at Vandenberg, yesterday unanimously endorsed future shuttle launches from the base. They had initially voted to reject the launches, fearing an overconsumption of water by the shuttle program and the MX testing program going on there. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 82 12:31:36-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!sdcsvax!sdchema!djo at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Spacewalk Set for Tomorrow Article-I.D.: sdchema.281 In-Reply-To: Article alice.1114 Via: Usenet; 19 Nov 82 22:58-PST The spacewalk scheduled for Monday has been cancelled. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 82 21:08:24-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70 Subject: pressure and the human body Article-I.D.: ihuxr.212 Via: Usenet; 19 Nov 82 23:26-PST The question of the human body's ability to withstand low pressures has intrigued me for a long time. I have heard of the 100% O2 environment and wondered what absolute pressure is maintained. I haven't seen an answer to this yet. Is it as low as the partial pressure of oxygen at sea level ( 3+ psi )? This would surprise me, but I can't think of any fundamental reason ruling it out. I do see a big problem though, in exposing yourself to pressures below the vapor pressure of water - about 2 psi at 37c. It seems to me that you would just explode, or at least get an instant case of the bends that would be a hundred times worse than any diver ever got. I know Arthur Clarke has a pet theory that you could survive by holding your breath, but I am extremely doubtful. Note that the ability to withstand large overpressures has no bearing on this question. Who has the straight poop? Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew ------------------------------ Date: 18 Nov 82 14:07:05-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: 100% oxygen Article-I.D.: eagle.635 In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.4110 Via: Usenet; 19 Nov 82 23:37-PST The reason pure oxygen is used in the shuttle suits is as follows: Suits are easier to design and offer less resistance to movement if the pressure differential between inside and out is as low as possible. Using pure oxygen allows the suit pressure to be minimized while maintaining the same partial pressure of oxygen for breathing. You certainly don't want to use pure oxygen at normal (1 bar) pressure; it represents a serious fire hazard. I'm curious if the fire hazard of pure oxygen at low pressure is still greater than air at normal pressure, assuming, of course, that the oxygen partial pressures are the same. Does anyone know? Phil Karn ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 82 12:22:34-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!sdcsvax!sdchema!djo at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Phone Charges? Article-I.D.: sdchema.280 In-Reply-To: Article inuxa.168 Via: Usenet; 19 Nov 82 23:46-PST $.50 per minute. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 21-Nov-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #51 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 51 Today's Topics: Oxygen use at low pressures Re: Space walk under low pressure Re: Shuttle hardware and software query ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Nov 82 15:02:17-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!eisx!pyuxbb!jb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Oxygen use at low pressures This information was gathered from several publications prepared for glider pilots involved in high altitude soaring. Generally speaking, to maintain a reasonable level of arterial oxygen, supplemental breathing oxygen is required above 12,000 feet. At about 34k feet ambient pressure is down to about 1/4 atmosphere, and you must be breathing 100% oxygen. Above that altitude, pure oxygen is required at more than ambient pressure. Oxygen systems used above 30k feet effectively pressurize the lungs, reversing the normal ventilation cycle (exhaling takes a conscious effort, while inhaling is passive). Above about 50k feet, ~.11 atmosphere, a pressure suit or capsule is required to pressurize the entire body. Boiling of body fluids becomes a problem at about 63k feet, .06 atmosphere. It would seem to me that breathing pure oxygen at .1 atmosphere would be asking for trouble. However, a pressure in the neighborhood of .2 would be workable. Anybody have more information? By the way, the world record for altitude in soaring flight is 46,267 feet, set in 1961 in the U.S. At that altitude, a pilot has about 12 seconds of useful consciousness if the oxygen system fails. My personal high point in a glider is a little over 30k feet. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Nov 82 19:33:58-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!duke!bcw at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Space walk under low pressure I'm not sure where I read this (in this group? New Scientist? Science? I'm not sure), but I seem to remember that there have been experiments with putting chimps or other apes into **very** low pressure situations (like maybe < .01 atmospheres), and the results seem to indicate that this is not fatal, if it is short enough. The figures I remember are that consciousness ends in about 10-15 seconds for the chimps, and if they are revived at that point they seem to have no particular long-lasting injury. Presumably for humans it would be a bit longer - maybe 15-20 seconds. That doesn't mean that the consciousness is very useful (it might be rather delirious towards the end for example), but the popular science fiction ideas about "exploding" or whatever are untrue. There are several problems: it is true that with extended exposure to very low pressures bodily fluids will boil, causing dehydration and maybe injury to the microstructure of cells. Also, if exposure is due to explosive de- compression, the victim would probably have quite a coughing fit to remove the air from the lungs down to a lower pressure; this would probably make any type of emergency measures more difficult, especially in a 0-g environment where the coughing would probably propel the victim away from safety or into equipment. I doubt very seriously that there would be any way to have "just a thermal suit with an oxygen mask," because there would be some pretty severe problems with the seal on the mask and with prolonged skin exposure to low pressure. It might be possible to have some type of suit like a diver's wet suit which had a very low pressure but which was more flexible than modern space suits, though; the difficulties with this would be in making something like that which would seal properly and which wouldn't cause the joints to stiffen under the pressure. Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University ------------------------------ Date: 19 Nov 82 16:10:14-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ihldt!ll1!sb1!mb2b!uofm-cv!dave at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Shuttle hardware and software query (Of course, no guarantee, written or implied, about the accuracy of any of the following, though I think it's correct.) There are five computers controlling the operation of the shuttle. Four of them comprise the main system and the fifth is an independent backup computer in case the first four completely fail. All five computers are IBM AP-101 aviation computers, developed in the mid-1970's for military aircraft. The primary computer consists of four computers running the same program. Voting is done to determine the majority's result (sort of a democracy). A big problem is the synchronization of the computers to make sure that they are in lock-step. The backup computer is also communicating with the primary computer at all times. You might recall that a timing problem between the primary and backup computers caused a delay in the first flight in April 1981. IBM Federal Systems Division in Houston did the software for the primary computer. There are about half a million "lines of instructions," whatever that means. (.5M bytes of object? .5M lines of assembler? .5M lines of Fortran?) Rockwell did the software for the backup. By having a different company do the backup software, chances of a common software error in both programs were reduced. (One could argue that the backup computer should also have been designed and manufactured by a different company to reduce chances of a common hardware fault in all five machines.) I believe the computers are (or at least they should be) physically located in different places on board the shuttle to reduce the chances of fire, explosion, collision, etc. from destroying all computers simultaneously. Similarly, the power supplies are probably as independent as possible. The computers on the shuttle (unlike previous manned spacecraft) are central to the safety of the craft. For example, the pilots do not have direct hydraulic control of the aerodynamic surfaces (flaps, etc.) on the shuttle. Rather, the pilots give their commands to the computer; the computer interprets those commands and drives the surfaces. If the computers should fail, there would be no control of the shuttle during reentry. Hence, the concern for the reliability of the computers is much greater for the shuttle than has been the case for previous space flights. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 22-Nov-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #52 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 52 Today's Topics: assorted questions on pressure Shuttle Software Re: shuttle landing Shuttle Overhaul NASA as a Pollyanna ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Nov 1982 15:57:49-EST From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: space at mit-mc Subject: assorted questions on pressure (a) When I was taking flying lessons we were taught that the pressure dropoff is about 1 inch of mercury per thousand feet at low levels. 3.7 psi (1 psi ~= 2 iom) sounds like a lot less than 60K feet, even allowing for tapering. (b) Clarke specifically states (e.g. in "Take a Deep Breath") his assumption that short-term survival in airless conditions would require venting oneself as effectively as possible---emptying the lungs, leaving the mouth wide open, and hoping that the eustachian tubes are clear so you don't lose an eardrum; his guesstimate was that you could survive this way for about a minute. (c) Skin as a barrier shouldn't stand anywhere near 15 psi for any length of time. First, skin is quite porous; the surfaces that have the fewest hair follicles (e.g., palms and soles) have the highest possible rate of water loss through sweating. Consider that the cross-sectional area of major arteries, which withstand a peak pressure of ~200 torrs (~4 psi), is mostly wall---which in turn is much solider tissue than skin. I'd like to see evidence countering this, but I doubt there will be any; I don't remember enough physiology to explain clearly but I seem to recall other mechanical reasons why non-coverall pressure suits wouldn't work. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Nov 82 14:09-EST (Sun) From: Steven Gutfreund To: space at Mit-Mc cc: harpo!ihnp4!ihldt!ll1!sb1!mb2b!uofm-cv!dave at Ucb-C70 Subject: Shuttle Software Not only did they have Rockwell write the backup software for IBM, but they paid Rockwell a bonus for each bug they found in the IBM software. I thought this was a very cute way to try and overcome the "software reliability" crisis, -> pay a competitor to find the bugs in your programs. - Steven Gutfreund (roi de soleil) ------------------------------ Date: 19 Nov 82 8:07:26-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!csc at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: shuttle landing Our *first* shuttle was the Enterprise -jan ...watmath!csc ------------------------------ Date: 17 Nov 82 14:03:36-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!ralph at Ucb-C70 Subject: Shuttle Overhaul My information on the shuttle overhaul indicates, among other things: o Removal of instruments installed for the test flights. o Additional crew seats an whatnot to allow up to 6 people on board. o Modifications to the cargo bay to handle the European SpaceLab. o Upgrades to the main engines. o Addition/Upgrades to the onboard electronics, although the computers were not mentioned specifically. o Replacement of some of the famous tiles with the new ablative heat blanket. I'd be interested in any other info anyone has. Ralph Keyser BTL Indianapolis inuxc!ralph ------------------------------ Date: 21 Nov 82 15:57:36-PST (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70 Subject: NASA as a Pollyanna Article-I.D.: watmath.3897 Via: Usenet; 21 Nov 82 23:38-PST Robert's objections to NASA's hype are understandable, but, still, think of NASA's position: anything other than a total success will bring the Wisconsin Wolf down from the capital, waving golden fleece awards in his right hand and budget cuts in his left. Faced with that sort of reaction, it's not surprising that NASA tends to regard any flight that doesn't kill the astronauts or leave Columbia a smoking hole in the ground as a "total success". The Pollyannish rhetoric of NASA has a long history, for precisely this reason. Remember, in 1962 Gus Grissom lost his capsule on reentry, and NASA still called the mission - with all data lost - a "total success". Rick. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 23-Nov-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #53 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 53 Today's Topics: Space may be for the rich after all... (JS&A) Spacecraft environments Low-pressure suits Air Pressure in suits. Piggyback Delayed Pressureless Suits Shuttle Arrives at KSC on Time After All You could look it up Oxygen use at low pressures Shuttle Software NASA as a Pollyanna ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Nov 1982 0739-PST Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-8 Subject: Space may be for the rich after all... (JS&A) From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin) To: space at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[OFFICE-8]22-Nov-82 07:39:44.WMARTIN> Received my JS&A catalog and have more info on the "shuttle passenger" contest/lottery/whatever: It doesn't cost anything to enter. If you don't want to buy the poster and certificate, you just send in your name and address to get notified when they have more concrete information. (If you don't buy anything, I don't know how carefully they will preserve this name & address, but who knows...?) The certificate is a thing with your name that says you have a reservation for consideration on the first passenger flight, plus various fine print which legally absolves them from doing anything. The poster is a silly-looking picture of a bunch of planets hanging in space, all close together in a totally unrealistic and impossible manner. Poster and certificate are $30, $20 if you buy anything else, too. They look to me to be worth something less than $2.00, actually... OK, so what do you get if you "win"? Reading the catalog page and picking out the real meaning from the verbiage, it looks like you get a chance to spend upwards of $5,000 to pay your way. They compare it to the cost of an "around-the-world" tour (which it is, actually, I guess...). This factor was not mentioned to me by the person on the phone when I asked them about it, nor was it in the news items I heard or read. All in all, it sounds much like a scheme to sell overpriced posters... Disillusionedly, Will Martin ------------------------------ Mail-From: CMUFTP host CMU-CS-IUS received by CMU-10A at 22-Nov-82 13:43:41-EST Date: 22 Nov 1982 13:26:38-EST From: Wilson.Harvey at CMU-CS-IUS at CMU-CS-A To: space@mit-mc@cmua Subject: Spacecraft environments I remember a few years back, when the Apollo-Soyuz mission was about to take place, that one of the big problems with linking the two spacecraft was the Soviets used a different environment in their cabins. Namely, I thought that their cabin environment was close to 'normal' earth environment i.e. a mixture of Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen, and Oxygen. I don't remember what the pressures were. I was just wondering why we use an environment of ~100% Oxygen and the Soviets used a different one. What are the benefits, if any, of the one over the other. (I do remember that the Soviets could perform welding experiments in space where we could not). Can anyone else confirm this, or am I totally out of the ballpark? Thanks, Wilson ------------------------------ Date: 22 November 1982 1413-EST (Monday) From: David.Smith at CMU-CS-A (C410DS30) To: Steven Gutfreund Subject: Low-pressure suits I see that my statement about boiling blood has been defended better than I could have myself. But let me point out that boiling has to do with the fluid's vapor pressure matching the ambient gas pressure. You can boil water either by raising its vapor pressure (by heating it), or by reducing the required vapor pressure (by lowering the ambient gas pressure). Back in the early '60s, National Geographic ran an article called "The Long, Lonely Leap." It was about a fellow named Kittinger who tested a new high-altitude parachute system by jumping from a balloon at 102,000 ft. As he jumped, or just before, one of his gloves lost pressure. He landed with a hand painfully swollen to the point of unusability. I think it took something like four hours for his hand to recover. Here are some standard atmospheric pressures taken from the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. (Sea level pressure is > 1000 millibar because the assumed sea level temperature is the pilot's 59F standard.) Altitude Pressure Meters Feet millibars psi ------------------------------- 0 0 1013.25 14.84 11000 36089 226.32 3.315 20000 65617 54.748 .802 32000 104987 8.678 .127 47000 154200 1.204 .0176 75000 246062 .0245 3.59e-4 This shows that the 60000 or 63000 foot level provides considerably less pressure than is in the astronauts' suits, even with Lenoir's down to 3.7 psi. If we use this sea-level pressure and the 21% oxygen figure, we get an oxygen partial-pressure of 3.1 psi. So the astronauts are running a bit rich. Maybe they could use 3.1 psi of O2, plus another pound of N2, if they want the suits over 4 psi. On the other hand, maybe they need the oxygen. During Gemini, astronauts tended to fog up their face plates while trying to do real work. David Smith ------------------------------ Date: 22 Nov 1982 1803-EST From: Tony
  • Subject: Air Pressure in suits. The air pressure on earth decreases roughly by one p.s.i. per thousand feet. Thus, the 4.2 p.s.i. is roughly about what you would experience at 11,000 feet. This is certainly acceptable for work, but you wouldn't want to do any wind sprints. :-) ------------------------------ Date: 22 Nov 82 7:28:22-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Piggyback Delayed Article-I.D.: alice.1186 Via: Usenet; 22 Nov 82 18:16-PST The Columbia completed part one of its flight back to KSC yesterday, as its 747 landed at Kelly AFB in Texas for refueling. But bad weather there has forced postponement by one day of the last leg of the trip, now set to land at KSC tomorrow. Meanwhile, the Challenger's rollout to the VAB is now scheduled for no earlier than 1800 EST today, due to delays with a hydraulic line. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Nov 82 22:32-EST (Mon) From: Steven Gutfreund To: space at Mit-Mc cc: david.smith at Cmu-10a Subject: Pressureless Suits Via: UMASS-COINS; 23 Nov 82 0:59-EST I'm still not sure I have gotton a definitive answer on this: 1. The linear heuristic that the pilot gave for turning feet to millibars of Hg, was obviously flawed. David.Smith's quotations from the CRC are obviously more correct. 2. The comments about Dave of 2001, are not exactly relevent. I am assuming a pressure helmet with some sort of seal that will work. (BTW, I just saw this film last night again, and the scene is pretty believable, I was just not sure how he positioned the pod so well with no rear window). The two major arguments against pressureless suits at this moment seem to be: (1) without pressured suits, exhaling becomes too hard (2) Blood starts boiling when the body is is exposed to vacuum. Counter-arguments to (1) (1) is a good argument, But humans are pretty good about building up lung power for exhaling. Just look at Tuba players, people who can do artificial respiration for hours, or those incredible bagpipe players. I wonder if one could not train ones lungs to produce enough counter pressure against 3.7 psi. If not, why not an elastic band around the chest. This way, the 3.7 psi air forced into the lung will do work which is stored in the band, which can then help the person exhale. (2) Do you really think that if I put my hand in a vacuum bottle, my blood will start to boil? Forget the misleading stuff about persperation, and concetrate. Why is it that blood boils at lower pressures? Just as David.Smith says: "it is a liquid immersed in a lower pressure ambient environment". This can only be accomplished by the artery and vein walls expanding. Will this really happen if a the body is exposed to a mere 16psi differential? The balloonist falling from 102,000 probably had a severely swollen hand due to frostbite (but I could be wrong). I would not be surprized if pressureless suits are not realistic, but I still think that the evidence has not yet been presented here to shoot it down. - Steven Gutfreund ------------------------------ Date: 22 Nov 82 16:11:07-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Shuttle Arrives at KSC on Time After All Article-I.D.: alice.1188 Via: Usenet; 23 Nov 82 0:16-PST The Columbia arrived at KSC today on time after all. The storm front that NASA said would delay the arrival by a day had dissipated by morning, and NASA decided to go ahead and try to fly the remaining 3 hours to Canaveral. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Nov 82 17:35:45-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70 Subject: You could look it up Article-I.D.: ihuxr.217 Via: Usenet; 23 Nov 82 2:02-PST The 1973 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica contains the following paragraphs in the article "Space Exploration", under the heading "The Vacuum of Space": Exposed to such a vacuum environment, the unprotected human being would have less than 15 sec. of consciousness because of the swift onset of acute hypoxia, and immediate, catastrophic decompression symptoms including bends, chokes, palsies, and ebullism. The last term is defined as the profuse evaporation or "boiling" of body fluids. To protect the astronaut against the vacuum of space, typical U.S. spacecraft are designed to contain a normal operating pressure of 5 psia (pounds per square inch, absolute) of 100% oxygen, and a minimum emergency pressure of 3.5 psia. --------------------------------------------- Some comments on other net.space submissions: Venting your lungs would surely "freeze dry" them rapidly. Your heart maintains a pressure DIFFERENCE between the venous and arterial systems. It cannot pressurize the whole circulatory system. Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew ------------------------------ Date: 23 November 1982 05:21-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Oxygen use at low pressures To: harpo!npoiv!eisx!pyuxbb!jb at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Thanks for the fine info. That sounds like a good manual. One more question, does it say how long at zero pressure the human body can remain before boiling of body fluids causes damage to the body? (Like is it just a half second from vacuum to death, or could somebody "hold their breath" for 5 seconds while turning the pressure back on after an accidental depressurization?) ------------------------------ Date: 23 November 1982 05:32-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Shuttle Software To: gutfreund.umass-coins at UDEL-RELAY cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I think that's a great idea! I wonder if they also paid IBM for finding bugs in Rockwell's software? ------------------------------ Date: 23 November 1982 05:38-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: NASA as a Pollyanna To: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Date: 21 Nov 82 15:57:36-PST (Sun) From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70 Remember, in 1962 Gus Grissom lost his capsule on reentry, and NASA still called the mission - with all data lost - a "total success". Sigh, I must have missed that particular hype. Yeah, that one sure beats the STS hype. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 24-Nov-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #54 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 54 Today's Topics: deputy Ames director not impressive notes on spacecraft atmospheres space non-suits Nonairtight Pressure suits Keeping SPACE just that! HR4286 Spacecraft Environments Re: JPL photos Challenger Moved to VAB ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 November 1982 08:52-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: deputy Ames director not impressive To: SPACE at MIT-MC cc: POURNE at MIT-MC In Monday's edtion of the Peninsula Times-Tribune, staff writer Dave Farrell interviewed Angelo Guastaferro, deputy director of Ames Research Center in Mountain View. His answer to the question about permanently inhabited space station was depressing, while his answer to the question about why spend money in space showed he didn't understand (or think important) many of the reasons I think development of space is important. Here are those two verbatim, with my comments after each: Q. Are we moving toward a permanently inhabited space station? A. I don't think it'll happen in my lifetime. I'm 50, so I'm saying by the time I'm 75, we might see an extension of some sort of space platform or space station where useful things are taking place. They will be man-visited and man-occupied for short periods of time. But I don't consider that a permanent presence in space. I think we'll start building toward that. [Comment by REM: Gee, 25 years from now we still won't have a permanent space station, not to mention an L-5 colony? That would be tragic if he's right.] Q. A fundamental question is, "Why spend so much money on space projects when there are so many things that need to be done on Earth?" How do you answer that one? A. First, the space program is important to people from a national prestige standpoint. They wouldn't want to live in a country like the United States without believing they are the best and that they are the intellectual leader. It isn't by accident that every shuttle and every U.S. spacecraft and every U.S. astronaut carries an American flag. It is symboic. One of the first things done on the moon was not to put up a NASA sign. It was to put up a U.S. flag. Second, (the missions) help you understand yourself. Going to Venus and being able to measure it is like an experiment in terms of saying, "It is so far from the sun. It might be spinning a different way. Why does that planet have the sulphuric cloud? Did something happen there that is going to happen to us?" You could start doing comparative planetology, not because you're curious about Venus, but to help understand yourself. It's what we call global habitability. We start understanding the biosphere and the geosphere in a very inward sense. The third thing to consider isthe pioneering spirit of this country -- the same thing that makes you as an individual want to climb that mountain. I think it is part of our nature. [Comment by REM: That second reason is a good one, but the first and last are in the realm of Golden Fleece reasons for spending 1% of our national budget! This NASA/AMES official left out (1) materials and maybe even energy from space (2) innovations in manufacturing (3) survival of our species and society via dispersial of habitat beyond Earth (4) understanding of evolution of Universe on the large scale (via astronomy) to understand our final destiny. Unless the interview was grossly truncated, I think this official short-changed the space program.] ------------------------------ Return-Path: Date: 23 November 1982 09:20 est From: CLJones.Multics at MIT-MULTICS Subject: notes on spacecraft atmospheres To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC A couple of notes on spacecraft atmospheres: From the beginning, the Soviet manned spacecraft have used "Earth-like" air--a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen in roughly the same proportions and delivered at roughly the same pressure as sea level here. For various reasons, all American spacecraft used pure oxygen at 5 psi. Among these reasons are the fact that the nitrogen has to be lifted into space, and our early boosters just didn't have that kind of excess capacity, and the fact that the plumbing is more complicated with a two gas system (unless you just deliver compressed air and vent it overboard, which means you have to carry even more nitrogen). For EVA, a low pressure is necessary to allow any flexibility in your suit. If you lower the pressure, you must increase the oxygen content to stay near the same partial pressure (since EVAs are strenuous, it is actually a good idea to increase the partial pressure of oxygen). Even the Soviets have their cosmonauts breathe pure oxygen when outside of the ship. Skylab was the first US craft to have a mixed gas environment, although I believe it was 80% oxygen and 20% nitrogen at a reduced pressure (I don't recall what it was). It was also the first US spacecraft with an air-lock, so that astronauts could decompress and purge the nitrogen from their blood before EVAs. The shuttle is the first US spacecraft with an "Earth-like" atmosphere. Yes, one of the problems that had to be overcome when Apollo and Soyuz docked was the atmosphere difference. This was accomplished by having the Soviets fly with a reduced cabin pressure, and having the US carry a docking module which was used as a compression/decompression chamber to allow crew members to pass from one craft to the other. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 1982 0938-PST From: Richard M. King Subject: space non-suits To: space at KESTREL cc: king at KESTREL I was doing a bit of thinking about the stuff that has wafted over the net concerning suitless space suits. First, I offer several facts. I apologize in advance for possible errors in memory. 1) The pressure inside a systemic vein (the lowest pressure found in the bloodstream) is 40 mm Hg. This pressure is maintained by the various elasticities of the parts of the bloodstream; NOT by the heart. I seem to remember that the pressure in the pulminary vein was somewhat lower, but I don't remember any exact figure. This would not be a problem because the pulminary circulation is embedded in the lung, which is pressurized. This figure is referenced to ambient. The boiling point of water at 37 deg C is considerably less than 40 mm. 2) A rule of thumb used by divers is that a sudden reduction of pressure by a factor of two is safe. A diver can immediately go from 10 meters to the surface, or 30 meters to ten meters. While blood pressures are too low for this distinction to matter, I suspect that it is blood pressure rather than external pressure that can be halved with impunity. 3) The skin is pretty impermiable when it wants to be. When I swim vigorously (in a "fresh water" pool) I invariably need a drink of water. This would not be the case if the skin were permiable. We have to account for the observation that the balloonist that dropped from 102,000 feet had a swollen hand when he landed. Consider the following thought experiment: place a person in a box and put one of his arms through a hole in the wall. Provide the hole with gaskets so a pressure differential can be maintained, and increase the pressure of the room from 1 atm. to 1.5 atm. I think we would find that the victom's hand had swollen when the experiment was finished. So the problem was probably the pressure DIFFERENTIAL. This means that we have to find out what differential is tolerable, and how accurately any garment ("space leotard") has to fit the curves to avoid excessive discomfort. I claim that this research can be done on the ground, in comparitive safety, by working in small steps with volunteers. Dick ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 1982 8:41-PST From: dietz at usc-cse at USC-ECL Subject: Nonairtight Pressure suits To: space at mit-mc As I recall, the idea behind the porous pressure suit is to support the skin so that it can withstand the body's internal pressure. It needn't be airtight to do this (just around the head, for breathing). The porosity allows evaporative cooling; much simpler than current suits. Didn't NASA test one of these things several years ago in a vacuum chamber? I seem to recall that it worked well. Someone should ask Pournelle about this. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 1982 12:56 PST From: Fiveash at PARC-MAXC Subject: Keeping SPACE just that! To: SPACE@MIT-MC cc: Fiveash In light of Ted Anderson's message regarding the length and subject matter in the Digest, I agree on the dilemma. Can't the subject of nuclear war pros and cons be discussed through the AntiWar^ DL????? It seems to me the Space DL gets *stuck* on issues that aren't clearly related to SPACE. Maybe I have a misunderstanding of what this DL is called as to the literal meaning of it. Could be that I am setting myself up for a SPACE DL flame.......BUT... I am pro SPACE and am on other DLs for other subject matter/issues. C'mon, can't the stuff thats nonrelavent be kept to the relavent DLs???????? Suz ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 1982 1355-PST From: Robert Maas Subject: HR4286 To: SPACE at MIT-MC After waiting about 3 months I finally received from McCloskey's office a copy of [97th congress, 1st session, H.R.4286] which was proposed by Gingrich, "To establish a national space and aeronautics policy, and for other purposes." I haven't yet received the other bill I ordered. HR4286 has some nice stuff but seems to have a few errors or confusing places. On page 2, line 22, after saying the nation's space program has suffered for its lack of an open-ended series of connected long-range goals, it says "An appropriate first step would be the design, development, and construction of a permanent, manned, multipurpose space operations center in low Earth orbit." The obvious question is "first step towards what?". It really should say "An appropriate first step towards remedying this situation would be ...". On page 4, line 7, it says "The continued exploration and utilization of the solar system, including the Moon and Mars, is important ..." I think asteroids should have been included as more important for utilization than Mars! Maybe Mars is fascinating, but it'll be the asteroids not Mars that we really utilize. On page 5, line 15, it says our solar system exploration capability during the first decade of the 21st century should provide options for "Moon bases, manned missions to Mars, a Moon settlement, manned missions to Venus, and a Mars settlement." First of all, I think a manned to Venus would be very uncomfortable and result in virtually instant death for the astronauts. If a mere orbit of Venus is proposed, that ought to be stated clearly, since the manned mission to Mars is in the same paragraph and likely to be a landing eventually. Furthermore, manned missions to the asteroids, possibly even a permanently-manned mining colony ought to be included here. On page 12, line 20, among technological capabilies that ought to be developed, it says "deep space booster system for manned solar system exploration". I think it also ought to mention that this deep space booster will be used to return raw materials, maybe even complete intact asteroids, to near-Earth for further processing to recover minerals and delivery of the resultant minerals and products to Earth and to near-Earth colonies. Since bringing back materials by robot vehicles is likely to be much more common than manned exploration missions, this use for the deep space booster system really ought to be included. Otherwise the bill (15 pages total) looks like a step forward. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 1982 1549-PST From: Den Lenahan Subject: Spacecraft Environments To: space at MIT-MC cc: dlenahan at USC-ISIE Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940. Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161 I recall one distinct disadvantage of 100% oxygen from about 1967 or so. Astronauts Grissom, Chaffe & White lost their lives in what should have been a small fire if not supported by the 100% O2 environment. I also recall that, after the accident, someone said that the same thing couldn't happen in zero-G. That it would have just (?) been a flash, since no convection would occur in zero-G, and hence the fire would expend the local oxygen and quit burning. Also, had a similar accident occurred under a G'd environment, and had the explosive hatch bolts been in place, there was some speculation that the crew might have escaped. (Not during certain flight phases, obviously.) Dennis ------- ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 82 12:40:58-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxj!mhuxi!aluxz!ltn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: JPL photos Article-I.D.: aluxz.18 In-Reply-To: Article inuxa.170 Via: Usenet; 24 Nov 82 0:33-PST At least as of a year and a half ago, JPL photos were for sale through the Caltech bookstore. Their address is: Bookstore Caltech 1201 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125 They generally have packets of photos from different missions, etc. (Also photos from the Hale Observatories, i.e. Mt. Palomar, etc.) I don't know how much information is included regarding image processing or contrast enhancement; probably not much. But the bookstore might also be able to tell you where you can get the info. For technical info, another source might be: JPL Public Information Bureau 4800 Oak Grove Drive Pasadena, CA (???) Les Niles Bell Labs, Murray Hill (aluxz!ltn) ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 82 15:24:11-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Challenger Moved to VAB Article-I.D.: alice.1193 Via: Usenet; 24 Nov 82 2:32-PST At 0458 EST today, the shuttle Challenger began to roll to the Vehicle Assembly Buidling. A little later, workers were securing it there and will now begin the process of attaching it to its external tank and two SRB's in preparations for STS-6. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 25-Nov-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #55 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 55 Today's Topics: Re: Shuttle Software dullness reason for media coverage space non suits US spacecraft atmospheres Low-pressure space suits :-) The Apollo Fire SPACE Digest V3 #53 pressure vs. breathing Boiling Blood ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Nov 82 23:20:30-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ihldt!ll1!sb1!mb2b!uofm-cv!dave at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Shuttle Software Paying a competitor to find your bugs is indeed a good way to encourage the IBM guys to write good software and to reassure yourself that the software is fairly correct. But it worries me a bit that the people writing the backup software were even looking at the primary code. One approach (which apparently wasn't used) to developing fault-tolerant software is called N-version programming [Chen and Avizienis]. N different versions of the same program are written independently from the same specifications; during execution, all N version are executed, the results are compared, and the majority answer accepted. One of the safeguards in having someone else write the backup code is that it should be done independently, without bias. Thus, if IBM made some subtle fault in the structure of their program, the fault might also have been inherited by the Rockwell software. With their budget constraints, NASA appears to have been more concerned with the primary software--getting that right--and hoping that they never have to rely on the backup software. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Nov 82 12:20:07-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: menlo70!nsc!katic at Ucb-C70 Subject: dullness reason for media coverage In my opinion, NASA is making a deliberate effoer to make the space exploration dull--with good reason. Do you want to hear it over our local tv station each time an airliner takes off from the local airport? In the same manner, NASA would like the exploration of space to become a commonplace exent that is not noticed for any special reason. katic (....!nsc!katic) ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 82 17:15:45-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ihuxt!iasia at Ucb-C70 Subject: space non suits Excuse the ignorance but are you discussing suits for working outside. If so how will these porous or skin tights deal with the temperature problem. specifically dissapating heat. Wouldn't a person tend to get rather warm on one side and cold on the other? Possibly a reflective suit would handle this. Just curious. B. Taylor IH BTL x6797 ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 1982 0931-CST From: Clyde Hoover Subject: US spacecraft atmospheres To: space at MIT-MC The principal reason that U.S. spacecraft used 100% O2 at 5 psi was that this meant the hull could be thinner and lighter, which was important because, until the Saturn V, the boosters available to NASA were MUCH smaller than those available to the Soviets. They had BIG rockets for their BIG and HEAVY nukes, so the Soviets could afford to have the heavier hulls to hold sea-level pressure. More spacecraft weight also cut down upon its capabilities (which matters when sending things to the Moon - less structural weight equals more maneuvering fuel, and/or more science). The shuttle was designed from the start to use an Earth-normal atmosphere, which means that before going EVA it is necessary to purge the nitrogen from the bloodstream to prevent the bends. There is yet another reason for space suits that no one has mentioned - radiation. The layers in the suit are designed to stop some of the most prevelant types of particles whipping around (at least the Apollo moon suits were), something important if you are going to be galavanting around outside your ship for very long and want to, among other things, have normal children (or not die of radiation poisioning). -Clyde ------------------------------ Date: 24 November 1982 1257-EST (Wednesday) From: David.Smith at CMU-CS-A (C410DS30) To: space at MIT-MC Subject: Low-pressure space suits :-) From the science section of the latest Newsweek: Both the fan in Allen's suit, which circulates oxygen for breathing, and the pressure regulator in Lenoir's, which keeps astronauts' bodies from exploding in the near-vacuum of space, failed on the ground, just as they had in flight. So there you have it, from the highest authority. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 1982 12:02-PST From: dietz at usc-cse at USC-ECL Subject: The Apollo Fire That apollo fire occured on the ground. They had pure O2 at one atmosphere pressure, giving a partial pressure of O2 three times normal. Lots of things burn under these conditions. Subsequent flights used an O2 and (I think) argon mixture during launch. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 1982 0302-PST From: Ted Anderson Subject: SPACE Digest V3 #53 To: SPACE at Mit-Mc Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at Mit-Mc Via: Su-Ai; 23 Nov 82 7:16-EST Via: UMASS-ECE; 24 Nov 82 1:08-EST SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 53 Today's Topics: Space may be for the rich after all... (JS&A) Spacecraft environments Low-pressure suits Air Pressure in suits. Piggyback Delayed Pressureless Suits Shuttle Arrives at KSC on Time After All You could look it up Oxygen use at low pressures Shuttle Software NASA as a Pollyanna ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Nov 1982 0739-PST Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-8 Subject: Space may be for the rich after all... (JS&A) From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin) To: space at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[OFFICE-8]22-Nov-82 07:39:44.WMARTIN> Received my JS&A catalog and have more info on the "shuttle passenger" contest/lottery/whatever: It doesn't cost anything to enter. If you don't want to buy the poster and certificate, you just send in your name and address to get notified when they have more concrete information. (If you don't buy anything, I don't know how carefully they will preserve this name & address, but who knows...?) The certificate is a thing with your name that says you have a reservation for consideration on the first passenger flight, plus various fine print which legally absolves them from doing anything. The poster is a silly-looking picture of a bunch of planets hanging in space, all close together in a totally unrealistic and impossible manner. Poster and certificate are $30, $20 if you buy anything else, too. They look to me to be worth something less than $2.00, actually... OK, so what do you get if you "win"? Reading the catalog page and picking out the real meaning from the verbiage, it looks like you get a chance to spend upwards of $5,000 to pay your way. They compare it to the cost of an "around-the-world" tour (which it is, actually, I guess...). This factor was not mentioned to me by the person on the phone when I asked them about it, nor was it in the news items I heard or read. All in all, it sounds much like a scheme to sell overpriced posters... Disillusionedly, Will Martin ------------------------------ Mail-From: CMUFTP host CMU-CS-IUS received by CMU-10A at 22-Nov-82 13:43:41-EST Date: 22 Nov 1982 13:26:38-EST From: Wilson.Harvey at CMU-CS-IUS at CMU-CS-A To: space@mit-mc@cmua Subject: Spacecraft environments I remember a few years back, when the Apollo-Soyuz mission was about to take place, that one of the big problems with linking the two spacecraft was the Soviets used a different environment in their cabins. Namely, I thought that their cabin environment was close to 'normal' earth environment i.e. a mixture of Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen, and Oxygen. I don't remember what the pressures were. I was just wondering why we use an environment of ~100% Oxygen and the Soviets used a different one. What are the benefits, if any, of the one over the other. (I do remember that the Soviets could perform welding experiments in space where we could not). Can anyone else confirm this, or am I totally out of the ballpark? Thanks, Wilson ------------------------------ Date: 22 November 1982 1413-EST (Monday) From: David.Smith at CMU-CS-A (C410DS30) To: Steven Gutfreund Subject: Low-pressure suits I see that my statement about boiling blood has been defended better than I could have myself. But let me point out that boiling has to do with the fluid's vapor pressure matching the ambient gas pressure. You can boil water either by raising its vapor pressure (by heating it), or by reducing the required vapor pressure (by lowering the ambient gas pressure). Back in the early '60s, National Geographic ran an article called "The Long, Lonely Leap." It was about a fellow named Kittinger who tested a new high-altitude parachute system by jumping from a balloon at 102,000 ft. As he jumped, or just before, one of his gloves lost pressure. He landed with a hand painfully swollen to the point of unusability. I think it took something like four hours for his hand to recover. Here are some standard atmospheric pressures taken from the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. (Sea level pressure is > 1000 millibar because the assumed sea level temperature is the pilot's 59F standard.) Altitude Pressure Meters Feet millibars psi ------------------------------- 0 0 1013.25 14.84 11000 36089 226.32 3.315 20000 65617 54.748 .802 32000 104987 8.678 .127 47000 154200 1.204 .0176 75000 246062 .0245 3.59e-4 This shows that the 60000 or 63000 foot level provides considerably less pressure than is in the astronauts' suits, even with Lenoir's down to 3.7 psi. If we use this sea-level pressure and the 21% oxygen figure, we get an oxygen partial-pressure of 3.1 psi. So the astronauts are running a bit rich. Maybe they could use 3.1 psi of O2, plus another pound of N2, if they want the suits over 4 psi. On the other hand, maybe they need the oxygen. During Gemini, astronauts tended to fog up their face plates while trying to do real work. David Smith ------------------------------ Date: 22 Nov 1982 1803-EST From: Tony
  • Subject: Air Pressure in suits. The air pressure on earth decreases roughly by one p.s.i. per thousand feet. Thus, the 4.2 p.s.i. is roughly about what you would experience at 11,000 feet. This is certainly acceptable for work, but you wouldn't want to do any wind sprints. :-) ------------------------------ Date: 22 Nov 82 7:28:22-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Piggyback Delayed Article-I.D.: alice.1186 Via: Usenet; 22 Nov 82 18:16-PST The Columbia completed part one of its flight back to KSC yesterday, as its 747 landed at Kelly AFB in Texas for refueling. But bad weather there has forced postponement by one day of the last leg of the trip, now set to land at KSC tomorrow. Meanwhile, the Challenger's rollout to the VAB is now scheduled for no earlier than 1800 EST today, due to delays with a hydraulic line. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Nov 82 22:32-EST (Mon) From: Steven Gutfreund To: space at Mit-Mc cc: david.smith at Cmu-10a Subject: Pressureless Suits Via: UMASS-COINS; 23 Nov 82 0:59-EST I'm still not sure I have gotton a definitive answer on this: 1. The linear heuristic that the pilot gave for turning feet to millibars of Hg, was obviously flawed. David.Smith's quotations from the CRC are obviously more correct. 2. The comments about Dave of 2001, are not exactly relevent. I am assuming a pressure helmet with some sort of seal that will work. (BTW, I just saw this film last night again, and the scene is pretty believable, I was just not sure how he positioned the pod so well with no rear window). The two major arguments against pressureless suits at this moment seem to be: (1) without pressured suits, exhaling becomes too hard (2) Blood starts boiling when the body is is exposed to vacuum. Counter-arguments to (1) (1) is a good argument, But humans are pretty good about building up lung power for exhaling. Just look at Tuba players, people who can do artificial respiration for hours, or those incredible bagpipe players. I wonder if one could not train ones lungs to produce enough counter pressure against 3.7 psi. If not, why not an elastic band around the chest. This way, the 3.7 psi air forced into the lung will do work which is stored in the band, which can then help the person exhale. (2) Do you really think that if I put my hand in a vacuum bottle, my blood will start to boil? Forget the misleading stuff about persperation, and concetrate. Why is it that blood boils at lower pressures? Just as David.Smith says: "it is a liquid immersed in a lower pressure ambient environment". This can only be accomplished by the artery and vein walls expanding. Will this really happen if a the body is exposed to a mere 16psi differential? The balloonist falling from 102,000 probably had a severely swollen hand due to frostbite (but I could be wrong). I would not be surprized if pressureless suits are not realistic, but I still think that the evidence has not yet been presented here to shoot it down. - Steven Gutfreund ------------------------------ Date: 22 Nov 82 16:11:07-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Shuttle Arrives at KSC on Time After All Article-I.D.: alice.1188 Via: Usenet; 23 Nov 82 0:16-PST The Columbia arrived at KSC today on time after all. The storm front that NASA said would delay the arrival by a day had dissipated by morning, and NASA decided to go ahead and try to fly the remaining 3 hours to Canaveral. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Nov 82 17:35:45-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70 Subject: You could look it up Article-I.D.: ihuxr.217 Via: Usenet; 23 Nov 82 2:02-PST The 1973 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica contains the following paragraphs in the article "Space Exploration", under the heading "The Vacuum of Space": Exposed to such a vacuum environment, the unprotected human being would have less than 15 sec. of consciousness because of the swift onset of acute hypoxia, and immediate, catastrophic decompression symptoms including bends, chokes, palsies, and ebullism. The last term is defined as the profuse evaporation or "boiling" of body fluids. To protect the astronaut against the vacuum of space, typical U.S. spacecraft are designed to contain a normal operating pressure of 5 psia (pounds per square inch, absolute) of 100% oxygen, and a minimum emergency pressure of 3.5 psia. --------------------------------------------- Some comments on other net.space submissions: Venting your lungs would surely "freeze dry" them rapidly. Your heart maintains a pressure DIFFERENCE between the venous and arterial systems. It cannot pressurize the whole circulatory system. Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew ------------------------------ Date: 23 November 1982 05:21-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Oxygen use at low pressures To: harpo!npoiv!eisx!pyuxbb!jb at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Thanks for the fine info. That sounds like a good manual. One more question, does it say how long at zero pressure the human body can remain before boiling of body fluids causes damage to the body? (Like is it just a half second from vacuum to death, or could somebody "hold their breath" for 5 seconds while turning the pressure back on after an accidental depressurization?) ------------------------------ Date: 23 November 1982 05:32-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Shuttle Software To: gutfreund.umass-coins at UDEL-RELAY cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I think that's a great idea! I wonder if they also paid IBM for finding bugs in Rockwell's software? ------------------------------ Date: 23 November 1982 05:38-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: NASA as a Pollyanna To: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Date: 21 Nov 82 15:57:36-PST (Sun) From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70 Remember, in 1962 Gus Grissom lost his capsule on reentry, and NASA still called the mission - with all data lost - a "total success". Sigh, I must have missed that particular hype. Yeah, that one sure beats the STS hype. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 1982 20:54:26-EST From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: gutfreund.umass-coins at udel-relay Subject: pressure vs. breathing Cc: space at mit-mc You \\may// have a point on the true effects of pressure on the ability to breathe, but your analogies are way off; in particular, total pressure in bagpipes and tubas is \not/ high (can't give you numbers, but for comparison an organ will run 70-90 mmHg) while in artificial respiration you're balancing your active muscles against somebody else's inactive ones. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 82 09:53-EST (Tue) From: Steven Gutfreund To: space at Mit-Mc cc: david.smith at Cmu-10a Subject: Boiling Blood Via: UMASS-COINS; 24 Nov 82 22:47-EST It seems to me, that in order to show that pressureless suits are infeasable due to "hot blood" one would have to show one of two things: a. A documented case of someone whose blood boiled or had massive blood temperature elevation due to being exposed to a vacuum. b. The mechanism or statistics that show how the blood vessels expand when the body is exposed to a vacuum. However, there still may be an out. There must be some sort of drug that can constrict and stiffen the blood vessels. Afterall, alcohol is a good dialator of blood vessels. Could not such a drug be used to decrease the problem of lower blood pressure and consequent temperature rise? - Steven Gutfreund ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 26-Nov-82 1122 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #56 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 56 Today's Topics: dullness reason for media coverage space non suits Diving, Low pressure Space Suits Astronauts Address (request) Digest Check Re: Spacecraft environments Low/no pressure suits ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 November 1982 06:41-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: dullness reason for media coverage To: menlo70!nsc!katic at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Although I wouldn't want to hear everytime a 747 takes off from SFO, it might be interesting to hear every time an Orion P3 takes off from Moffet field with new interesting scientific experiments on board. Likewise I'd like to hear how the STS-5 experiments went, especially the metal foam!! Anybody hear even one word about it since the launch two weeks or so ago? ------------------------------ Date: 25 November 1982 06:46-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: space non suits To: harpo!ihnp4!ihuxt!iasia at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC It seems to me blood circulation adequately handles temperature differences such as standing in a snowfield with the warm sun on your back. Reptiles do it better, sitting flat on a cold rock with their back (upperside) to the Sun, getting warmed all the way thru in preparation for vigorous activity. Space would have less convection from the cold (dark) side so I don't think the problem would be too bad (can an expert confirm my opinion?). ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 82 10:21:39-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70 Subject: Diving, Low pressure Space Suits Article-I.D.: inuxc.528 Via: Usenet; 25 Nov 82 5:31-PST RE: Article by Richard King " A rule of thumb used by divers is that a sudden reduction of pressure by a factor of two is safe." While perhaps that statement is considered true for gas coming out of your blood stream as is the case for the bends it is not at all true in terms of being "safe". All scuba divers are taught to ascend no faster than their bubbles and to breath normally. The greatest danger is not from the bends but from not letting your lungs ( which have been pressurized to compensate for the hydrostatic pressure) purge the two or more times the amount of air they can safely hold at the surface. If this is not done the lungs can rupture forcing large gas bubbles into the blood stream which have a nasty way of stopping the flow of blood to the brain. This problem is the greatest danger to untrained people trying to dive. Something happens to their air flow, they panic and try to reach the surface HOLDING THEIR BREATH. The results are usually fatal or worse. I don't know how this affects some of the other arguments flying around the net about low pressure space suits, I just didn't want people getting the wrong idea and try to scuba dive in their pools because it is "less than 10 m" and therefore safe. With out proper training IT IS NOT SAFE EVEN IN 6 FEET OF WATER. HAPPY THANKSGIVING ALL Fred - BTL INDY ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 82 15:12:19-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!rael at Ucb-C70 Subject: Astronauts Address (request) Article-I.D.: inuxc.529 Via: Usenet; 25 Nov 82 5:50-PST Does anybody know if there is an address where personal letters to the Columbia's astronauts can be mailed? If so, could somebody post it or mail it to me? Thanks, Dan Vanevic BTL Indianapolis inuxc!rael ------------------------------ Date: 22 Nov 82 9:38:17-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: Onyx.harymudd at Ucb-C70 Subject: Digest Check Article-I.D.: ucbonyx.327 Via: Usenet; 25 Nov 82 6:46-PST Could the Digest administrator please check if I am still on the Space Digest Mailing List. I haven't seen it since November 9 and before that time I have been recieving it intermittingly (whatever). Thanks. (Have to post this. Mail keeps rejecting me...) The One And Only, Philip L. Wing U.C. at Berkeley "Indiana Jones" ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 82 14:34:30-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Spacecraft environments Article-I.D.: utzoo.2635 Via: Usenet; 25 Nov 82 7:49-PST American spacecraft have historically used pure oxygen as their internal atmosphere for three reasons: 1. You can get by with less pressure (since it's the partial pressure of oxygen that is the main consideration for breathing) and hence lighter cabin walls. 2. It is much easier to monitor the partial pressure of oxygen if you don't have large amounts of other gases. Monitoring is obviously necessary, and it is difficult to build a box that responds only to the oxygen pressure. Total pressure is easy to measure. I believe this problem has gotten easier in recent years with better sensor technology. 3. EVA suits must use the lowest pressure possible to keep the joints as flexible as possible -- the suits are pretty stiff even so -- and going from cabin atmosphere to suit atmosphere is simplest if they are as similar as possible. Even in the early American shots, the cabin pressure was somewhat higher than suit pressure, but pressure changes are much easier in a pure-oxygen atmosphere. No worries about the bends. My impression is that #1 was never a big thing and #2 was serious in the beginning but is not too much trouble now. #3 is still a nuisance: I believe that a shuttle EVA starts with an in-cabin preparation period during which the astronaut is breathing pure oxygen through a mask to get the damned nitrogen out of his body. Fire is not a serious risk to spacecraft in operation. Although I believe the nitrogen in normal air is considered to have some damping effect on fires, a similar partial pressure of oxygen means a similar degree of fire hazard. In addition, it is very difficult for a fire to keep going in free-fall, since there are no convection currents to keep a steady stream of air going into it. The Apollo fire would not have been serious in space. Problem is, on the ground the pressure inside a spacecraft must not be greatly lower than atmospheric, since the walls are not built to stand outside pressure. Before the Apollo fire, this meant that the Apollos carried 16 psi of pure oxygen when on the pad, and that *is* a major fire hazard. I believe this was changed to normal air, with a transition to low-pressure pure oxygen during climb. ------------------------------ Date: 25 November 1982 21:00 est From: Boebert.SCOMP at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Low/no pressure suits To: space at MIT-MC When in the Air Force I received an extensive set of briefings on Gemini (I was part of a group being recruited to be MOL controllers). I distinctly remember one film which purported to show a spacewalking astronaut temporarily without a glove. I was amazed, being full of the 50's SF doctrine that this sort of thing made you go blooie. Anybody have more info on this incident? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 27-Nov-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #57 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 57 Today's Topics: "A penny for your thoughts", or "NASA puts money where our mouth is" Re: Low/No Pressure Suits A question concerning Sirius Challenger Mated to ET and SRB's Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Nov 82 05:36-EST (Fri) From: Andrew Cromarty To: space at Mit-Mc cc: cromarty.umass-coins at UDel-Relay Subject: "A penny for your thoughts", or "NASA puts money where our mouth is" Via: UMASS-COINS; 26 Nov 82 6:03-EST The following short note appeared in the 26-Nov-82 issue of Science magazine (Volume 218, No. 4575, pp.870-871, (C) AAAS, 1982). It may be of considerable interest to many readers of this digest. [Begin quotation] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NASA Looks for Thomas Edisons As the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) tries to build a case for a permanent, manned space station, agency officials are anxious to protect themselves from a criticism often leveled at the space shuttle: that the hardware was designed and built before the agency really got around to consulting the shuttle users. So this time NASA has commissioned the eight largest aerospace firms to identify user needs and architectural options for the space station; the agency's own science and applications offices are drawing up lists of what they could do on a station; and all of NASA's outside advisory committees have been asked to give advice. The traditional constituencies have been engaged. Now, who has been left out? "The Thomas Edisons", says Stephen Holt, a member of NASA's space station task force. "The people with bright ideas, who follow the space program closely, but who are not in the traditional constituencies." Most of the people in the space establishment have been around a long time, he says. They talk to each other constantly, and their ideas tend to equilibrate. So there has been some concern among the NASA advisors themselves that a few truly innovative ideas for a space station are being missed. With this in mind, the task force has gotten about $200,000 to go out and find these hypothetical Edisons. "The idea is to award modest grants to about 16 people," says Holt. "We want a three-page proposal on an idea appropriate to the scientific or technical utilization of a space station, a curriculum vitae -- we're looking for people with technical capability, so that will exclude high school students -- and a plan to develop the idea within 6 months." "It's not clear yet what we are after," he adds, "except perhaps fresh people who don't yet know what can't be done." -M. Mitchell Waldrop. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [End quotation] That's all the information I have on the grants. Incidentally, on the same page there's another article which discusses the current administration's change of heart (if one can call it that) in the direction of increased funding of civilian aeronautics, motivated largely by the recognition that aeronautics has military applications (surprise) and the perception of a sort of, well, aeronautics gap (shades of Dr. Strangelove) -- at least compared to "Europe and Japan, where governments directly underwrite a great deal of R & D." The article closes by noting that the Administration has urged NASA and DoD to work jointly to keep under wraps any information potentially worth classifying, while simultaneously importing as much of the unclassified technology literature from other countries as they can. cheers, asc ------------------------------ Date: 26 Nov 1982 2041-PST From: Den Lenahan Subject: Re: Low/No Pressure Suits To: space at MIT-MC Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940. Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161 One bit of information in support of the lost glove on the Gemini flight (Boebert's msg): one of the "gee whiz" pieces of information briefed in the [then] Space Defense Center in Cheyenne Mountain, to the evening public tour groups, was that the Center was responsible for tracking all manmade objects in space, "including a dropped camera and an astronaut's glove." This would seem to imply that the glove was lost on a spacewalk. It'd be hard to lose one of those things out an open window! Dennis ------- ------------------------------ Date: 26 Nov 82 0:51:42-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70 Subject: A question concerning Sirius Article-I.D.: watmath.3939 Via: Usenet; 26 Nov 82 23:01-PST I have been pondering a rather Sirius matter of late (not my pun, Larry Niven's), and I thought I'd post it to the net. Now, according to what I know of the theory of stellar formation, all constituents of a stellar system form at roughly the same time (cosmically speaking). In fact, if any constituents of the system form earlier than others, then the larger ones form first. Now, the Sirius system consists of two stars: a hot, bright, young blue star (Sirius-A) and a white dwarf companion (Sirius-B). The white dwarf is a burned-out corpse of a G or K class star. The problem is that the smaller companion should have had a longer lifetime than Sirius-A, since hot blue-white stars burn their fuel much faster than cooler yellow or red ones. Therefore, if the two stars formed at the same time (which they should have), Sirius-A should have become a black hole or a neutron star long before Sirius-B left the main sequence. And yet it didn't. I can see three possibilities: first, that stellar systems don't congeal at roughly the same time; or, second, that one of the two stars is a capture. The third possiblity, which I discount, is that the white dwarf burned faster. In any case, *I* don't know the answer. Do any of you? Rick McGeer. decvax!watmath!pcmcgeer (USENET) ------------------------------ Date: 26 Nov 82 19:58:00-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Challenger Mated to ET and SRB's Article-I.D.: alice.1198 Via: Usenet; 27 Nov 82 0:31-PST The Challenger was mated to its external tank and solid rocket boosters Wednesday morning in preparations for STS-6. The operation was delayed about 8 hours when a bolt snapped and a replacement had to be installed. Later this week, technicians will check gas, electrical, and fluid connections to and from the ship. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Nov 82 19:59:53-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia Article-I.D.: alice.1199 Via: Usenet; 27 Nov 82 1:46-PST Radar imaging taken during STS-5 has revealed a vast ancient river system in the now Egyptian Desert. The area, which used to be a rich grassland, is now a vast dry desert. The radar pictures, able to probe 15 feet down into the dry surface, showed the riverbeds of what used to be a river system as great as the Nile. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 28-Nov-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #58 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 58 Today's Topics: Shuttle coverage on TV Re: Boiling Blood Dr. Strangeglove Re: Gingerich's space policy bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sender: wegeng.wbst @ PARC-MAXC Date: 27-Nov-82 14:02:39 EST Subject: Shuttle coverage on TV To: Space at MIT-MC From: Wegeng.wbst at Parc-Maxc I have mixed feelings about the lack of good, consistant coverage of the Shuttle's latest flight. As has been stated previously, the idea of spaceflight becoming "routine", and therefore not newsworthy seems to be desirable. As the general public becomes used to the idea of regular shuttle flights I believe that they will come to accept it more, and therefore less inclined to consider it to be a waste of money. We take for granted the benefits of space research, even though we don't always realize the source of those benefits. The public doesn't care where something came from if it works and helps. Now what we need is for the public to take for granted the source of those benefits, and the lack of good TV coverage seems to indicate that this is coming. On the other hand, I too would like to be able to learn of the results of shuttle experiments. Perhaps what is required is just more effort on the part of those interested to find the information. I have interests in other fields which do not get publicity, so to get information on those fields I subscribe to magazines, etc. which cover them. Not as fast as a TV report, but usually more detailed (and less biased). ==dw ------------------------------ Date: 27 November 1982 1931-EST (Saturday) From: David.Smith at CMU-CS-A (C410DS30) To: Steven Gutfreund Subject: Re: Boiling Blood CC: space at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Steven Gutfreund's message of 23 Nov 82 09:53-EST Message-Id: <27Nov82 193149 DS30@CMU-CS-A> You want A documented case of someone whose blood boiled or had massive blood temperature elevation due to being exposed to a vacuum. I can't give you anything of the sort. All I can point to is the excerpt from the pilot's manual that someone posted recently. (Sorry, I forgot the name.) But what's this about blood temperature elevation? Nobody ever said that vacuum raised the blood temperature. Boiling is caused by reduced gas pressure. I see two dimensions by which space suits can be classified: by pressurization, and by thermal control. Three types of pressurization are gas pressure (full-pressure), elastic garment pressure (partial pressure), and none. Thermal control can be active or passive. Current space suits are gas-pressurized, with active thermal control. Air force pilots wear partial-pressure suits, which use garment elasticity and inflatable tubing to apply pressure to the body. I think these suits exclude the hands, feet, and head. Their main purposes are to apply external pressure to the rib cage and abdomen, and to serve as G-suits. U-2 and SR-71 pilots wear full-pressure suits. (The astronauts on STS-1 through -4 wore SR-71 suits.) I just can't see a non-pressurized suit succeeding, whether or not blood boils. 3.1 psi inside the lungs, with 0 psi at the outside of the chest, is a tremendous force. I'll bet bagpipers don't generate anywhere near that. At a minimum, you need external pressure on the thorax and abdomen. I believe that pressure (gas or elastic garment) must be applied to the whole body. If pressure is taken off one part (say, a cell), it will see a differential of 0.8 psi between inside and outside, as long as there is still liquid water in it, no matter how far it has already expanded. (I came up with 0.8 psi because that is the pressure at 65000 feet.) If the skin is sufficiently impermeable, then a partial-pressure suit might work. The neck seal must hold gas pressure on the head end, but it would not subject the wearer to a sudden change of skin pressure (unless that is what it takes to get the gas seal). If the skin is (sufficiently) impermeable, then the pressure supplied by the (permeable) garment would keep the body fluids from boiling. The questions to answer are (1) Is the skin sufficiently impermeable, and (2) can a practical neck seal be made? There must be a reason that pilots who fly planes over 65000 feet are given full-pressure (=gas-pressure) suits, as BACKUP systems. Here are my rough & ready thoughts on thermal control. In low earth orbit, you spend around 40 minutes at a stretch in darkness, so you need something to keep you warm. That may just require good insulation, but maybe you need a heater. (Do the present space suits have heaters?) On the other hand, working in space gets quite strenuous, and you can easily overheat. But there's that insulation stopping you from radiating your excess heat. Enter an active cooling system. Note: astronauts (e.g., Cernan on Gemini 9) have overheated while working in space, even with active cooling. David.Smith @ cmu-cs-a ------------------------------ Date: 27 November 1982 1940-EST (Saturday) From: David.Smith at CMU-CS-A (C410DS30) To: dlenahan at usc-isie Subject: Dr. Strangeglove CC: space at MIT-MC Message-Id: <27Nov82 194013 DS30@CMU-CS-A> "It'd be hard to lose one of those things [a space glove] out of an open window!" I think it would be a lot easier to lose one out the hatch than off the hand of the astronaut. With an astronaut outside, yanking on the umbilical, while the pilot fires jets to keep the spacecraft straight, it would be quite simple for anything to fly out the hatch that wasn't tied down. Gemini had two very big hatches. If anyone can document the bare hand story, I'd be very intrigued. David.Smith @ cmu-cs-a ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 1982 1315-EST From: VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO To: space at MIT-AI cc: redford at SHORTY Subject: Re: Gingerich's space policy bill Message-ID: <"MS10(2055)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11874798275.53.583.3765 at DEC-MARLBORO> I seem to be cast in the role of permanent pessimist on this list, so: ~= (flame on) It's a good thing that Gingerich's space bill did not mention mining the asteroids, or he would surely become a Golden Fleece award candidate. Basing a space industrial policy around a low value-added industry like mining is crazy. All your high-tech, hand-crafted, incredibly expensive space vehicles would have to compete with steam shovels in Minnesota. Iron ore in this country sells for about a thousand dollars A TON; it'll take a hell of a lot of tons to make back your ~ $10^11 investment. Of course, as our mineral reserves are depleted that price will rise. But we really don't know what's out in the asteroid belt, and we don't have the technology to bring it back. It's easy to scribble down a design for a solar-powered mass-driver asteroid pusher, but it's also easy to scribble down a design for a Saturn V. Tens of billions of dollars of R and D would have to go into it. Once you do get out there it takes several years to bring an asteroid back, and in the meantime you're paying interest on all that capital. Even mining Antarctica or the deep sea floor looks attractive by comparison. The same objections apply to generating energy in space. The end product is not particularly valuable, it takes an enormous amount of start-up capital, the technology is non-existent, and it can already be done readily on Earth. If it's cheap to put solar cells in geosynchronous orbit, it would be almost free to put them on your rooftop. The energy output per unit area is less (by about a factor of six, I think), but it would be vastly easier to install and maintain the array, and the electricity would be easier to distribute. No, if you want to manufacture things in space, find something that's easy to handle and of high value, like on the order of ten thousand dollars a kilogram (hmmm, like cocaine synthesis?). Bulk industries like mining and energy are for very long term, like >30 years. = (flame off) John Redford (vlsi@dec-marlboro) -------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 29-Nov-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #59 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 59 Today's Topics: "A penny for your thoughts", or "NASA puts money where our mouth is" Re: Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia correction to anti-mining flame Re: A question concerning Sirius Explosive decompression Recreational use of space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 November 1982 08:34-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: "A penny for your thoughts", or "NASA puts money where our mouth is" To: cromarty.umass-coins at UDEL-RELAY cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I object to the restriction that a use for a space station must be scientific or technical. I'd like to see it used as a setting for movies that have real zero-gee special effects (in addition to all the scientific and manufacturing stuff I want done there). Why are they making that (in my opinion) arbitrary restriction on use? ------------------------------ Date: 27 Nov 82 17:58:31-PST (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia Article-I.D.: watmath.3945 In-Reply-To: Article alice.1199 Via: Usenet; 28 Nov 82 5:32-PST Now, there is an argument for Proxmire. I can hear it now: Columbia discovered dry river beds under the desert, which promptly were used by the Egyptian government for an irrigation system, which in turn turned the Egyptian desert into fertile farmland, which in turn made Egypt independent in dairy products, which hurts the farmers of Wisconsin (those god-like creatures...) Seriously, this discovery may be the most important made by STS-V. If the Egyptians really do use the riverbed for irrigation, I wonder how many will credit Columbia and the space program for the discovery? Damned few, I'll bet. Rick. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Nov 1982 1231-EST From: John Redford To: space at MIT-AI cc: redford at SHORTY Subject: correction to anti-mining flame Message-ID: <"MS10(2055)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11875576837.18.583.5032 at DEC-MARLBORO> Correction to my flame about asteroid mining: the US steel industry produces about a hundred million tons of steel of year and earns about a hundred billion dollars. Therefore, the stuff that rolls out of the mill costs a thousand dollars a ton, not the iron ore itself as I previously said. The ore probably goes for a couple of hundred dollars a ton. /jlr -------- ------------------------------ Date: 28 Nov 82 17:23:18-PST (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxj!mhuxi!aluxz!ltn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: A question concerning Sirius Article-I.D.: aluxz.20 In-Reply-To: Article watmath.3939 Via: Usenet; 28 Nov 82 20:01-PST Question: Did Sirius A, now a young, hot, blue star, and its companion, Sirius B, a white dwarf and presumably the dead hulk of a G or K star (which should have a much longer life than its hotter companion) form at the same time, or if not, how did the system form? Answer: The two stars did form at the same time, in the same place. Originally, Sirius B burned much hotter and brighter than its companion. Millions of years ago, the Sirius system appeared much brighter from Earth than it does today. Sirius B quickly used up its hydrogen (and then its helium, too) and 'died.' I'm not sure, it may have gone nova and lost some material that way, too. But it was not massive enough to collapse into a black hole or neutron star, and did not go supernova. A star doees *not* have to be a G or K type (yellow dwarfs, like our Sun) to end up as a white dwarf. Only the most massive stars will end up as black holes or neutron stars. Les Niles Bell Labs, Murray Hill (aluxz!ltn) ------------------------------ Date: 29 November 1982 00:28-EST From: Keith F. Lynch Subject: Explosive decompression To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC, SF-LOVERS at MIT-MC cc: KFL at MIT-MC I think the recent discussion about whether astronauts can survive in zero pressure misses the point. The human body is a lot tougher than most people seem to think. I wouldn't be surprised if someone goes streaking on the Moon someday. But if we are in space to stay, spacesuits must be not merely survivable, but reasonably comfortable as well. We should be talking about what the ideal spacesuit environment is, not about what is the minimum survivable. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 28 Nov 82 21:58-EST (Sun) From: Andrew Cromarty To: rem at Mit-Mc cc: space at Mit-Mc, cromarty.umass-coins at UDel-Relay Subject: Recreational use of space Via: UMASS-COINS; 29 Nov 82 4:33-EST "I object to the restriction that a use for a space station must be scientific or technical. I'd like to see it used as a setting for movies that have real zero-gee special effects (in addition to all the scientific and manufacturing stuff I want done there). Why are they making that (in my opinion) arbitrary restriction on use?" -- REM at MIT-MC I hardly disagree with you. But it is fair to say that the purpose of NASA's making these funds available is their explicit recognition of their narrowness in thinking creatively about space and how we might explore and use it, so even they agree with you in principle, if not as to the specifics of your proposal. Beyond that, it scarcely needs pointing out that artistic activities are given short shrift in government funding in general; space funding is a microcosm of federal money management in general, right down to the revival of the program because of its military potential. This is in turn a reflection of the role of science and technology in our culture and perhaps especially its obvious utility to centralized governments such as that ruling the United States. Perhaps you should submit a proposal and see if you can convince them to change their mind! Even if you don't succeed in getting the flicks made, at least they will have been exposed to the idea that there's more to space than laser bases and telescopes. And NASA needs to have that said to them, even if they can't understand it yet. asc ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 30-Nov-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #60 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 60 Today's Topics: SIR (Shuttle Imaging Radar) Re: Astronauts Address (request) - (nf) Fire Hazards in Space Egyptian rivers Re: Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia - (nf) Zero psi and Skinsuits Recreational use of space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Nov 82 0:51:50-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: SIR (Shuttle Imaging Radar) Article-I.D.: eagle.655 Via: Usenet; 29 Nov 82 3:31-PST I believe it was the second flight of Columbia which carried the Shuttle Imaging Radar experiment that discovered the hidden Sahara rivers. The current issue of Scientific American has an excellent article on the results of this experiment, as well as a similar radar flown on Seasat several years ago. Part of the delay in getting results from these experiments was probably the enormous amount of computing required to process the raw radar data. According to the SciAm article, a Cray-1 can work in about 1/10 real time (ie., it would take 10 seconds on a Cray-1 to process one second of data.) ------------------------------ Date: 28 Nov 82 22:25:44-PST (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!zeppo!whuxk!houxm!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!coletti at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Astronauts Address (request) - (nf) Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.1139 Via: Usenet; 29 Nov 82 6:01-PST #R:inuxc:-52900:uiucdcs:8500004:000:642 uiucdcs!coletti Nov 28 21:20:00 1982 Back in the 60's there was a Scientist/Astronaut named Brian O'Leary who wrote a book called "The making of an ex-astronuat" (he never went up). The book has some very interesting observations, but that's another story... Anyway, he once received a card from London, England in just 3 days with the address: B O'LEARY ASTRONAUT U.S.A. It appears that not too much precision is required... On the more practical side, their offices have always been at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas. Another possibility is: , Astronaut NASA John F. Kennedy Space Center Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899 ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 1982 09:55 PST From: DMRussell at PARC-MAXC Subject: Fire Hazards in Space To: SPACE@MIT-MC cc: DMRussell.PA@PARC-MAXC, decvax!utzoo!henry@Ucb-C70 From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Spacecraft environments Article-I.D.: utzoo.2635 Fire is not a serious risk to spacecraft in operation. ..... In addition, it is very difficult for a fire to keep going in free-fall, since there are no convection currents to keep a steady stream of air going into it.... I wouldn't have thought that this would be a problem! Sure, there wouldn't be any convection currents, but there is a steady flow of gas thoughout the spacecraft. I believe that they install fans to move the air around and thereby avoid sleeping astronauts dying from anoxia. (Without the fans, exhaled breath would tend to sit in a O2 defficient pool around a sleepers face in zero-g.) Thus, a flame might be able to exist in the shuttle because the fans would supply it with enough O2. The air circulation system had an interesting side effect in Skylab. Since the net flow of air was in one direction (i.e. toward the intakes), anything that was dropped or lost would end up on the fan's covers. So, whenever Joe astronaut lost something, all he had to do was to wait for a while, and it would eventually turn up on the intake gratings. -- Dan Russell -- ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 1982 9:52-PST From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL Subject: Egyptian rivers To: space@mit-mc Origin: usc-cse Via: Usc-Cse; 29 Nov 82 10:31:24 Two corrections. First, it was STS-2 (not 5) that discovered the rivers, using the SIR-A synthetic aperture radar. Second, the rivers could hardly be used to irrigate crops, as they haven't carried any water for thousands of years. They are buried under meters of sand. The sand was very dry, so the microwaves from SIR-A could penetrate it down to the bedrock, uncovering the riverbeds. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 82 12:00:48-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hp-pcd!everett (Everett Kaser) at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia - (nf) Article-I.D.: hp-pcd.497 Via: Usenet; 29 Nov 82 14:54-PST #R:alice:-119900:hp-pcd:3400001:000:589 hp-pcd!everett Nov 29 09:45:00 1982 From: Everett Kaser hplabs!hp-pcd This is in response to the first response. You seem to have missed something. The discovery was of *dry* river beds. It's hard to irrigate from *dry* river beds. (i.e. there used to be water there, but no more; that's why it's desert now.) Other than what this discovery can tell us about the climate in ages gone by, the other really exciting possibility is that they may be able to discover ancient settlements (circa 10,000 years old) preserved beneath the sands. Supposedly, excellent possible cites for such have been spotted from the data. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 82 13:19-EST (Mon) From: Charles Weems To: space at Mit-Mc cc: david.smith at Cmu-10a Subject: Zero psi and Skinsuits Via: UMASS-COINS; 29 Nov 82 19:40-EST This latest sequence of notes seems to have split into the questions of "What would really happen to an unprotected human in a sudden depressurization?" and "Why do spacesuits need to be so bulky?". I thought I'd throw in my two cents worth on each of these subjects. First, what would happen in a depressurization? Someone asked if any experiments had been done. The answer is, unfortunately yes. According one of my biologist friends, some German scientists conducted a series of low pressure experiments on prisoners from the concentration camps during WW2. These were slow depressurizations. The results weren't pleasant. Let's assume that you're in a spacecraft, breathing pure oxygen at about 6psi. (The effects are only worse if the pressure is higher or the gas mix isn't pure O2.) Lets also assume that the loss of pressure isn't instan- taneous but is still fairly rapid -- say it takes 15 seconds to reach zero. Then start timing. One thing that will happen is that the gas trapped in the lungs will try to expand. If you hold your breath (which isn't hard, we can easily lock up quite a bit more lung pressure than is good for us), the pressure will force your diaphragm down, displacing your viscera. (remember, your diaphragm is used to expanding your lungs). At some point the lungs would rupture, causing severe internal bleeding. This could be compensated for by some sort of corset or other pressure garment around the torso. (But we're assuming you're just wearing you're overalls.) The other alternative is to release the gas pressure from the lungs as quickly as possible, but in a controlled manner. If you didn't panic and had practiced doing this, it wouldn't be too hard (your lungs won't burst instantly, and besides, we're assuming that the pressure doesn't reach zero all that fast). You would need to get the lung pressure down to about 2psi to be manageable by your diaphragm. At this point the gas mix becomes important since a normal atmosphere mix at 4psi is about as low as you can go without reversing the direction of oxygen transfer across the membrane in your lungs. With pure oxygen, 2psi should keep it going the right way. (Although other things will start to happen, but we'll get to that in a bit.) It will also be important for you to widely open your mouth to clear the pressure from your eustachian tubes and inner ear. If you have a slightly stuffed up head, too bad, your eardrums will burst. Almost immediately, your nose will start to bleed -- the vessels in your nasal lining are very sensitive to pressure differentials. Other thin membranes will also start to bleed very quickly. These include your lips and mouth lining (since you had to open your mouth), excretory tract linings and (in women) vaginal lining. Perhaps most disabling will be that the insides of your eyelids, tear ducts and even your eyeballs will start to bleed (all those little vessels that make your eyes look bloodshot will burst very quickly). You will also have problems with any gas in your digestive tract. This will expand or displace the viscera and cause severe cramps. (Although that will probably be among the least of your worries.) At 2psi the linings in your lungs will start to bleed but not massively (the higher the original pressure the greater the bleeding will be). Assuming that you don't pass out from the pain, or lose control, how long could you last? One limiting factor is how long you could remain conscious. Once you lose control and the pressure in your lungs escapes, they will hemorrhage massively and there will be no chance of reviving you. Considering various reflex reactions and the loss of blood to the brain due to embolisms, 15 seconds is a reasonable estimate. You would probably be severely impeded in any effort to restore the pressure after the first 10 seconds. Assuming you spend the first 5 seconds reacting and venting your lungs and eustachian tubes, that doesn't leave much time to act. Just for argument's sake, lets say that you were wearing a protective face mask and a corset, and that your exposed mucous membranes were also protected. How well would your skin act as a space suit? Not very well. The skin is less than one percent as permeable as the lining in your lungs, but that's still fairly permeable. Someone pointed out that when they go swimming, they come out thirsty because they don't absorb water. All this implies is that the skin is relatively impermeable to water (good thing too, or you'd drip all over an awful lot). Actually it's not even all that impermeable to water. For one thing it's covered with pores through which you sweat. It's also that permeability that makes your skin shrivel up when you keep it in water for a long time. It is very permeable to quite a number of things including a variety of carcinogenic solvents and most gases (your skin actually breathes to a small extent -- this helps make up for the fact that blood vessels don't run right at the surface). The real problem, however is that your skin is very elastic. Due to the large internal fluid pressures it would ballon up almost instantly. This is how the decrease in pressure is transferred through the skin at first. The pressure decrease results in the fluid pressure within the capillaries bursting them. This is further aided by bubbles of gas forming (disolved gasses in the fluids come out of solution) which block flow in the capillaries, thus causing local pressure increases which burst more capillaries. Thus soon after depressurization the small vessels near the skin's surface would begin to rupture due to the formation and expansion of bubbles of gases dissolved in the blood. (It should be noted here that this mechanism is the same one at work in the membrane bleeding discussed above. The vessels are simply much closer to the surface and more numerous in these areas. This is really what people mean when they refer to the boiling of body fluids in a vacuum. Although the fluids themselves will evaporate too, the process will not be quite as rapid due to surface effects. Note that it doesn't matter that the vessel walls can hold the fluid pressures under normal external pressure. For one thing that external pressure is a real help to them. They will expand when that pressure is removed. For another the vessel walls are also permeable to the disolved gases.) The vessel rupturing would proceed at a much slower rate than in the lungs, however it would still be very quick. In addition, there will be some genuine 'boiling' of body fluids, although it might be better to call this rapid evaporation. The combination of this with the sudden reduction in pressure in tissue near the surface will lead to rapid and intense cooling. At some point fairly early on, some of that tissue will actually freeze. This will block flow in the deeper vessels and cause some rupturing there. Even the frozen fluids would continue to evaporate through sublimation. To an observer, you would first appear to ballon up like a Macy's Parade baloon character, then a cloud of 'steam' would appear around you. The length of time that you could survive can be looked at two ways. There is the time, after which, the damage is too great to be repaired and death will inevitably occur though perhaps not for some time if pressure is restored. Then there is the time at which you would expire if no pressure restoration occured. The maximum time for recovery is somewhere in the range of 15 to 30 seconds. (Although with anything over 15 seconds, the quality of the recovery might be questionable.) The time at which death will occur is somewhere around 45 seconds. In both of these cases, the limiting factor has become the point at which embolisms stop the flow of blood to the brain. In an explosive decompression this can happen in as little as 5 seconds. The above figures assume that the pressure doesn't go to zero instantaneously, but at some nonetheless rapid rate (reaching zero in, say, about 15 seconds). Unconsciousness would occur within a second or two after blood flow to the brain stopped (the neurons sense and react to this very quickly) and death would follow very soon after. Hence, although Dave in the 2001 scenario might have survived (the suit he had on would have been a great help) he would not have come out of the air lock fit and trim and ready to tear HAL apart. Because of his missing helmet, he would have probably lost his vision due to vessel breakage in his retina his eardrums would have ruptured (and bled) and he would have had a really bad nosebleed, bleeding lips and mouth (and his hair would have been pretty messed up too). Not a pretty sight. OK, lets assume you're wearing some skin tight elastic suit that covers your body and seals cleanly with a face mask, but is permeable to gasses. This prevents your internal pressure from ballooning your body. Now how long? Still not very long. Again, the gas permeability will allow the gasses near the surface to come out of solution. This will transfer the pressure drop inside fairly quickly (albeit not quite as quickly) and cause bubbles to form in the blood which will eventually cut off the flow to the brain. Since the whole body is involved, these build up very rapidly. Perhaps this would push the times to about 30 seconds to recover and 60 seconds until death. The cooling will also occur in this case, so a case of nearly total frostbite might also result. I doubt that anyone could survive such a condition even if the pressure was restored quickly. Note, however, that exposing a small part of the body, sufficiently far from the brain (as the blood flows), wouldn't necessarily be fatal. The embolisms would tend to disperse before they reached the brain. The exposed area would probably be severely injured but (if the exposure wasn't too long) might actually recover with proper treatment. Now, there are several reasons why current space suits are gas pressured and so bulky. First of all, gas pressured suits are more comfortable. The circulating gasses help remove perspiration and the various waste products in it. (some of the components of perspiration are actually toxic) If we had a gas impermeable skinsuit, it would have to be permeable to perspiration and all of its toxic components. If it were, then evaporative cooling would become a problem and require additional heating energy to compensate. (Except when you were in direct sunlight, when it would still not be sufficient to cool you.) Another problem is that an evaporative system like this would pollute the vacuum around the spacecraft. This wouldn't be a permanent condition, but it would prevent such things as infrared telescope work while anyone was doing an EVA. Without the evaporation, all that's needed to keep the astronaut warm is a good layer of insulation. In fact the current suits don't have any heating systems -- they (like the shuttle) only need to provide for cooling. The astronaut provides more than enough heat when well insulated. Another comfort factor is that the pressured suit isn't skin tight. Imagine trying to work for any length of time with tight elastic wrapped all around your body -- it just isn't going to stretch in all of the directions you need to move in. (If it did, it wouldn't keep you from expanding.) Hence you'll get fatigued fairly quickly. The gas pressured suit on the other hand may be a little stiff, but you can move it just about as easily in any direction -- and it's not going to have all of that skin friction and elastic resistance to muscle flexure and skin movement. Lets assume too that you could make this thing with built in insulation, cooling and a non-stick internal surface (except in the gloves and other places where some internal skin friction is needed). (This kind of thing gives materials science people nightmares, by the way.) We still have to remember that we'll doing work in this thing for long periods on EVA. Thus it will be necessary to have extra wear protection in areas that rub together (such as armpits, crotch, insides of joints, etc.). Unfortunately these also happen to be areas of maximum perspiration and will need more permeability. It would be nice too to have several layers of back-up pressure holding material or perhaps just a fast puncture sealing property in the skinsuit. It would also be nice to have something that stopped some of the radiation -- a foil of any dense material would do to stop the low energy alpha particles. Finally the skinsuit material would have to be amenable to shaping or to cutting and joining in a gas tight manner (and with no weakness at the seams). The current space suits accomplish all of this by using several layers of different materials, combined with a gas pressurization and circulation system. Even if a miracle skinsuit fabric was developed, it's unlikely that it would be used because it still doesn't provide air for the skin to 'breathe'. As mentioned above, the skin actually breathes to compensate for the fact that blood vessels don't run right on the surface. Although it wouldn't kill you to have the skin sealed off for a fairly long period, it would get rather uncomfortable on any long EVA's. The conclusions we can draw from all of this are: The skin makes a very poor spacesuit and even in the best of conditions couldn't keep you alive for more than a minute. The materials do not yet exist to make a non-gas-pressurized suit that would be practical for long periods. It would be possible to make such a suit for short EVA's or emergency use, but it would probably be even more difficult to put on, and too uncomfortable to wear continuously as a safety backup. chip weems weems.umass-coins@udel-relay ------------------------------ Date: 30 Nov 82 03:06-EST (Tue) From: Andrew Cromarty To: rem at Mit-Mc cc: space at Mit-Mc, cromarty.umass-coins at UDel-Relay Subject: Recreational use of space Via: UMASS-COINS; 30 Nov 82 4:01-EST "(1) You're saying even if somebody in NASA likes my idea for space movies, it's "not their department" so they by law are required to officially ignore my suggestion?" --REM at MIT-MC No, that's not what I said, although it certainly may be true. I don't know to what extent NASA's use of their money is restricted, either in this case or in general. Rather, I suggest that they are unlikely to fund your suggestion because the decision as to whom to fund will be forged by people who are at best dedicated technofreaks, and more likely professional bureaucrats, neither of whom I would expect to be predisposed to non-technological uses of space. Indeed, if they already were so predisposed, then it seems unlikely that they would have issued a statement that is so obviously a paean to Serious Technological Uses of Space. But then, of course, are we less guilty than they? The bulk of what appears in this digest is no less of a paean to technology. How often do participants discuss the use of space for art? Everyone would seemingly prefer to hear about all the neat gadgetry on this STS flight, or to flame about exobiology. I'm a technofreak too, but I couldn't survive very comfortably on the Earth without the arts, and certainly would not need them the less were I in space. As much as I would personally like to be in space, I don't delude myself that it would be so fascinating 24 hours a day that I'd never even notice an absence of, say, music or theater in my environment; and what do astronauts see of the arts now? We should expect life in space to be substantially more *boring* than on Earth for a long time to come, if only because it's so underdevloped -- no, *un*developed -- that there just wouldn't be much to do, except hard work. (2) Perhaps I (or Pournelle) should write to somebody at NASA, as an eyeopener only, not for effect, and also write to whoever funds public TV stations to cause Ballet and Theatre to show on PBS, for effect? Is that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or some other agency? -- REM Sure, write to the National Endowment for the Arts if they still have any money after Reaganomics. But again, my suggestion is not that people write "as an eyeopener only"; rather that the only effect we can reasonably expect initial proposals of this sort to have is that of eyeopener. In fact, I'm quite concerned that the people who are establishing space development policy (did I say "development policy"? Hah!) are not attending to the problems of making space liveable. I might be willing to exclude L5'ers and the like, who are making some attempt to plan entire habitats. But at least on the basis of what I see coming out of NASA, their idea of people living in space is that they don't, and if they do it's for short periods, during which time they perform Government-Approved Serious Technological or Scientific Work. If we are to successfully populate space, then it is trivially apparent that we shall need the full range of human activities going on there -- or at least the peacable ones -- and I'm hardpressed to say that NASA recognizes this. But maybe if people start saying it at them, they'll eventually catch on. ...Then again, maybe not. They want space next week at NASA if they want it at all, which to them seems to mean flashy space shots instead of more efficient jet launches for shuttles, military funding, and perhaps a nod in the direction of potential space industry. (That is, some people at NASA seem to want it so bad they can taste it, while others shake their heads and say "maybe in the next century....", with the latter group apparently dominating NASA at the moment.) Sounds pretty gloomy, come to think of it. Maybe we need private funding of space ventures just to ensure that something actually comes of space development. [No Statist flames meant to be invited by this observation.] asc ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 01-Dec-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #61 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 61 Today's Topics: SPACE Digest V3 #60 Atlantis re -> shuttle imaging radar :=) Shuttle Coverage on TV more pressure discussion Rockwell Settles out of Court Mariner I and STS Journalists Suits and 100% Oxygen How to fund the space program National strike Re: blood boiling and unpressure suits Space Recreation & Politics Suits needed - some facts Evolution of the Space Suit: book review and comments Little lost glove The infamous Lost Glove ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 November 1982 06:46-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: SPACE Digest V3 #60 To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC By the way, if you haven't yeard yet, last Thursday the weather satellite over the Pacific Ocean failed (the infrared sensor stopped working so we can't observe cloud formations any more). If it had failed a week earlier Hawaii wouldn't have known about that hurricane in the detail we've grown used to. Currently we in California don't have the forecasts of storms and nice pictures of them we've grown used to in recent years. An older satellite is being reativated (at least they're trying to reactivate it) now to provide at least some cloud images over the Pacific. ------------------------------ Return-Path: Date: 30 November 1982 09:20 est From: CLJones.Multics at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Atlantis To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC I don't know if this has been mentioned (delivery of the digest has been a trifle spotty recently), but the name Atlantis was chosen as a name for one of the shuttles because it was the name of a Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute research vessel. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 82 11:40:58-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!stan at Ucb-C70 Subject: re -> shuttle imaging radar In addition to the article in Scientific American, there are good articles in the recent IEEE Spectrum and Proceedings of the IEEE. I think they were both written by the same group, so that the Proc. article fills out the details of the Spectrum article. Although they would like to digitally process images in real time, there are optical "tricks" that have been used to process such images for the past 20 years or so. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Nov 1982 1152-CST From: Clive Dawson Subject: :=) Shuttle Coverage on TV To: space at MIT-MC For those of you familar with the paradox of interesting vs. uninteresting numbers, I offer the following "proof" that all future manned space launches are destined to receive live TV coverage forever: As the frequency of launches increases and they become more and more routine, the TV networks will eventually decide that such an event is no longer newsworthy and therefore does not deserve live coverage. Yet this event itself (i.e. the fact that launches have passed below the newsworthiness threshold) would certainly be a milestone in the space program. Naturally such a launch immediately becomes newsworthy again, and the networks show up in force. Q.E.D. :=) ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 82 15:24:48-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70 Subject: more pressure discussion Steven Gutfreund posed the question, "Do you really think that if I put my hand in a vacuum bottle, my blood will start to boil?" My answer is, "No, the pressure in your hand must stay at your body's pressure - but your hand will very likely burst." (I am assuming a seal at the wrist.) Here we have a contrived example which fulfills the condition so often erroneously presumed to obtain when a human body is exposed to a vacuum. The condition being a pressure difference of 16 psi. I doubt that the suction required to create a "hickey" is more than 2 psi. Now imagine 8 times that. I think Steven's reference to a "mere 16 psi" is completely unwarranted. Try blowing on a tire gauge sometime (in the privacy of your own home, of course.) I've never been able to register anything at all. I think it usually takes one or two psi to move the gauge. Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 82 20:04:12-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Rockwell Settles out of Court Rockwell International Corporation agreed today to pay the U.S. Government $1.5 damages in a civil suit filed by the Justice Dept. The settlement comes out of the three year investigation by the government into charges that Rockwell charged work on an Air Force satellite contract to the space shuttle program. No criminal charges were levied due to lack of evidence. ------------------------------ Date: 30 November 1982 2306-EST (Tuesday) From: Kevin.Dowling at CMU-CS-A To: space-enthusiasts at mit-mc Subject: Mariner I and STS Journalists Does anyone have more information on Mariner I regarding it's mission being aborted because of a program error? The two reports I've heard are: NASA was forced to explode the 1962 spacecraft Mariner I when it veered off its course due to a misplaced hyphen in the mathematical calculations. The same only it was a misplaced comma in a FORTRAN DO Loop... (something like DO 30 I = 10.1 vs. DO 30 I = 10,1 perhaps?) - - - - - - - - - - Three memorable quotes from TV journalists covering STS missions I've heard are: STS-1 John Chancellor after listening to mission-control-to-shuttle talk: "That was some very complex talk, by some very contemporary people" STS-4? Some woman journalist after the shuttle had taken off and the cameras were tracking it: "Don't they get ill flying upside down like that?" STS-1 Tom Brokaw (about STS launch problem): "So, the problem it how to fool the computers?" Joe Kerwin: "Yes, that's what life's all about." ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 82 20:29:31-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!wivax!linus!genradbo!mitccc!jfw at Ucb-C70 Subject: Suits and 100% Oxygen >From jfw Tue Nov 23 20:27:36 1982 To: David.Smith@cmu-a Subject: Shuttle suits & 100% oxygen Cc: jfw The urge to breathe is caused by the presence of CO2 in the bloodstream. When the bloodstream does not have enough CO2, the breathing reflex stops being triggered. Hyperventilation occurs when someone realizes that they aren't trying to breathe "fast enough", and decides to correct this (which in a normal atmosphere makes things worse, since it removes the rest of the CO2 in the blood). Since astronauts don't go through that, I would guess that they simply know not to worry about it. John Woods jfw@MIT-Ccc@Mit-Mc, or ...!decvax!genradbo!mitccc!jfw (you are lost in a maze of twisty little uucp paths) ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 82 15:08:55-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!bstempleton at Ucb-C70 Subject: How to fund the space program Article-I.D.: watmath.3958 Via: Usenet; 30 Nov 82 21:33-PST It occurs to me that if we were seriously worried about funding dropping for the space program, we could stop it. Have you ever considered not just how many people support the space program but just exactly who they are? It seems to me they are all pretty powerful people. If we wanted to, and were firm enough in our convictions, a strike by supporters of the space program could shut down the entire country completely - more so than any strike by teamsters or air traffic controllers ever could. (I've long been of the opinion that computer programmers could do the very same thing) Now, my personal opinion is that any sort of strike action is bad, but if they really cut back on space research, then Sen. Proxmire, watch out! ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 82 17:23:45-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70 Subject: National strike Article-I.D.: watmath.3959 Via: Usenet; 30 Nov 82 21:33-PST Are you turning into a functionalist in your old age, Brad? In any case, Brad (watmath!bstempleton)'s suggestion should be rejected on both moral and practical grounds. Supporters of the space program are not a cohesive and well-organized lot: that's why the program has been kicked around by Proxmire and friends. If we can't organize a letter-writing campaign, how in the devil are we going to organize a nationwide strike behind the vague objective of more space funding? People may be behind the program, but it's a low-priority item for most of them, and not something they'd strike for. Second, such an action would damage the United States. I don't think that any supporter of NASA or the program would willingly do that - certainly I wouldn't, and I don't think I'm unique. Finally, Brad's suggestion is ugly. Even if such a strike could be called, the winning of it would tarnish the program forever. The great strength of the space program is that it is an idealistic crusade. The innocence of the program - and of its supporters - is therefore its greatest asset, and is a prize that must not be risked. Rick. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Nov 82 0:29:20-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: blood boiling and unpressure suits Article-I.D.: watmath.3961 In-Reply-To: Article utzoo.2649 Via: Usenet; 30 Nov 82 22:02-PST There is an easy way to settle this: take a monkey up in Columbia and toss him out, wearing a wet suit, oxygen tank and face-covering helmet. If the monkey is alive after 15 minutes or so, then the pressureless space suits probably work. Of course, the crew of Columbia (or Challenger) will have to put up with a monkey for a few days. Rick. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 82 17:12:03-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!seismo!rocheste!bukys at Ucb-C70 Subject: Space Recreation & Politics Article-I.D.: rocheste.270 Via: Usenet; 30 Nov 82 22:04-PST It's OK with me if Hollywood or GM or whoever is allowed to use the shuttle or space station for "trivial" purposes, as long as they do not displace any "serious" users, and as long as they pay through the nose (meaning real cost + good share of development cost). I do not agree that the government has any duty to allow such use at any price less than that. In other words, Lucasfilm-imitators deserve no government subsidies for cute zero-g film techniques. Just think, if the government held fewer purse strings people would have less excuse for complaining about those purse strings being jerked around. Further discussions of the revolutionary idea of "limited government" should take place in "net.politics" PLEASE. Liudvikas Bukys ...!seismo!rochester!bukys ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 82 21:31:55-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!utcsstat!ian at Ucb-C70 Subject: Suits needed - some facts Article-I.D.: utcsstat.446 Via: Usenet; 30 Nov 82 21:46-PST Somebody asked for some facts on the `survival in free space' discussion. Here are a few facts. Not the final answer though! You could not survive in free space by breath-holding without a pressure suit. (You might, as has been said, survive the loss of a glove if the suit were sealed at the cuff to prevent pressure loss). Otherwise, the air trapped in the lungs would expand (the chest viscera being reasonably flexible) and burst the alveoli (lung sacs about the diameter of the thickness of a cigarette paper). The air which escapes enters the chest cavity, and from there will usually enter the pulmonary circulation; bubbles of air in the blood lodge in inconvenient places like the brain, spine, etc. This accounts for a high percentage of the SCUBA fatalities attributed by non-diving coroners and an ignorant press to `drowning'. Refer to Miles & Mackay, page 67, for gory details, including photographs (see notes). They further add (same page): ``In an attempt to find just where the lung damage was occurring Wright carried out further experiments on fresh unchilled cadavers. He found that the intra-tracheal pressures required to induce trauma were 80 mm.Hg in an unbound corpse, 93 mm.Hg with an abdominal binder and from 133-190mm.Hg in those where both chest and abdomen were bound.....''. Not sure if a pressure suit would provide the same effect as the binders used here; I suspect not. For conversion, 760 mm.Hg approx.==14.7 psi. It is left as an exercise to see how little change of pressure can be tolerated in leaving a capsule for free space without a suit, before death ensues. You might make it, but don't ask me to go first! ``Further support for the belief that it is stretching rather than excess pressure which causes the lung damage comes from the well-established fact that very high intra-pulmonary pressures, such as those which occur in violent coughing, can be tolerated without harm.'' (ibid, p69). The answer? Not yet, sorry, just a few facts. Ian Darwin, Toronto, Canada. uucp: decvax!utzoo!utcsstat!ian Programmer, SCUBA instructor (PADI), etc. Notes (roughly in refer(1) format). %A Stanley Miles and D. E. Mackay %T Underwater Medicine %I Adlard Coles Limited %C London %D Fourth Edition, 1976 %P 66-69 [I haven't read the following work, just extracted the citation from Mile's bibliography.] %A M. S. Malhotra and H. C. Wright %T The effect of a raised intrapulmonary pressure on the lungs of fresh unchilled bound and unbound cadavers %I Medical Research Council %R R.N.P.R.C. Report U.P.S., 189 [Don't ask me about RNPRC - Royal Navy something-or-other - ask a Limey] %D 1960 ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 82 16:05:03-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70 Subject: Evolution of the Space Suit: book review and comments Article-I.D.: ihuxr.222 Via: Usenet; 1 Dec 82 0:17-PST Inspired by the net discussion, I have been reading "Suiting up for Space, the Evolution of the Space Suit" by Lloyd Malan; I'm about 2/3 finished. It has an excellent history of early efforts, revealing that all the suggestions made on the net were being actively explored in the late forties. The partial pressure suit, which David Smith has described, was more advanced than the full pressure suit through the fifties. Everybody wanted a full pressure suit but the mobility and ventilation problems were very hard to solve. I realized from the illustrations that the partial pressure suit was familiar to me from many illustrations of pilots standing next to their aircraft. These suits are more impressive looking than the full pressure suits of the sixties, which look baggy when uninflated. The outstanding pioneer of the partial pressure suit was Dr. James P. Henry, who put in many hours in pressure chambers. An incident is described in which his hand swelled up like balloon at an equivalent altitude of 58,000 ft. He concluded that this was due to water vapor in the tissues since the condition reversed with no ill effects. Note that this was under conditions where the ambient pressure was marginally below water vapor pressure. Later tests showed that one could survive with a partial pressure suit (with gloves!) at 106,000 feet. The suit was never considered suitable for routine use in vacuum conditions. There is an illustration of an advanced "mechanical restraint" suit, developed around 1960 by Hans Mauch, which leaves most of the body at low gas pressure, effectively using the skin as a bladder. This suit may have been alluded to in the net.space article "Nonairtight Pressure suits". I don't no what became of this line of development, although the author does mention that Mauch's efforts influenced the design of the Mercury pressure suit. The author quotes a first hand description of a decompression incident in which the subject's face plate blew off at 70,000 feet (equivalent.) The subject loss consciousness immediately. He reported hearing a sound like "zzzzzzzzzzit", and the next thing he knew he was being revived after emergency repressurization. The author goes on to state, "I have been tested in altitude chambers to 47,000 feet at least five times. I can assure the reader that gases in an unprotected body expand swiftly and painfully." The book also contains a long description of Eugene Cernan's experience with his EVA. It is quoted from an anonymous NASA doctor. It contains the statement "A leak in one of the gaskets around his wrist could have killed him." I think Boebert's recollection of a gloveless EVA is ludicrous, as is Keith Lynch's suggestion of lunar "streaking". Granted, the body would not explode like a bomb in a vacuum, but it would still experience multiple fatal catastrophes. I still maintain that "Dave's" suitless EVA in 2001 is a gross impossibility. Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 82 01:06-EST (Wed) From: Charles Weems To: space at Mit-Mc Subject: Little lost glove Via: UMASS-COINS; 1 Dec 82 3:58-EST The glove was lost by Ed White on the first American spacewalk (Gemini 4). He wasn't wearing it at the time. I don't know the details, but perhaps they had a different set of gloves (maybe more flexible?) for non-EVA activities and one of these got loose. chip weems weems.umass-coins@udel-relay ------------------------------ Date: 30 Nov 1982 2041-EST From: Ron Subject: The infamous Lost Glove To: space at MIT-MC A friend tells me that the lost glove was only a removable outer glove and its loss doesn't expose skin. (ron) ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 02-Dec-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #62 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 62 Today's Topics: Space Recreation & Politics Rockwell Settlement Challenger Moved to Launch Pad Lost Glove Dave Bowman's Space Walk, et al. Re: Rockwell Settles out of Court - (nf) How to fund the space program It's the Arts Space Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 December 1982 06:25-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Space Recreation & Politics To: harpo!seismo!rocheste!bukys at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I think I agree with you. Although perhaps NASA should fund some getaway special where a small explosion in zero-gee vacuum is filmed to give us the basic idea how much different those special effects will be from ones filmed on Earth, movie studies should pay their own way when making special-effects for movies en masse in space. But NASA should permit that kind of use before they permit random people just wasting shuttle time for a vacation flight that won't return even a bunch of exposed movie film. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Nov 82 16:58:49-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!genradbo!mitccc!jmturn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Rockwell Settlement Article-I.D.: mitccc.200 In-Reply-To: Article alice.1216 Via: Usenet; 1 Dec 82 4:33-PST $1.5 what? Million? Billion? (I suspect million, but who knows?) James ------------------------------ Date: 30 Nov 82 15:20:31-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Challenger Moved to Launch Pad Article-I.D.: alice.1219 Via: Usenet; 1 Dec 82 7:02-PST The Challenger was today rolled to launch pad 39A in preparations for STS-6, now set to launch on 24 January, 1983. The six hour rollout, which began at 0419 EST, was completed without a hitch. The next major task in the pre-launch preparations will be a 20-second test firing of the Challenger's main engines, now set for 20 December. ------------------------------ Date: 1 December 1982 13:52 est From: Boebert.SCOMP at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Lost Glove To: Space at MIT-MC I'm glad my note sparked some comments; I do want to clarify/reiterate that I wasn't asserting the truth of the barehanded spacewalk, I was simply reporting what I heard at a briefing at Houston. I was a 2LT at the time, and the briefer was an LCol, and under those circumstances you don't (or didn't, at the time) jump up and say "That's impossible!" I still would like to know exactly what happened. If somebody is certain it was Ed White and somebody else has an address I would like to write him and ask. Earl ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 1982 1357-EST From: PDL at MIT-XX (P. David Lebling) Subject: Dave Bowman's Space Walk, et al. To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Your message of 27-Nov-82 0602-EST This is summarized from the "Bioastronautics Data Book" (2nd Edition), a NASA publication. It refers to several animal studies which show a similar response in several species to decompression to near-vacuum conditions (1-2mm Hg). It then says, extrapolating those results to humans: "Some degree of consciousness will probably be retained for 9 to 11 seconds. In rapid sequence thereafter, paralysis will be followed by generalized convulsions and paralysis once again. During this time, water vapor will form rapidly in the soft tissues and somewhat less rapidly in the venous blood. This evolution of vapor will cause marked swelling of the body to perhaps as much as twice its normal volume unless it is restrained by a pressure suit. (It has been demonstated that a properly fitted elastic garment can entirely prevent ebullism at pressures as low as 15mm Hg absolute). ... Venous pressure will meet or exceed arterial pressure within 1 minute. There will be virtually no effective circulation of the blood." "...survival was the rule if recompression occurred within about 90 seconds." "...some animals have died within seconds of decompression and a few others have had severe, lasting central nervous system damage." The qualifier "some" is not too encouraging, but I'd call it possible if unlikely. Note also the remark about preventing ebullism (vaporization of body fluids) with an "elastic garment". It looks like the non-bulky spacesuit has been tried and works, but only to a point. Dave ------- ------------------------------ Date: 30 Nov 82 16:59:02-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!zeppo!Anonymous at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Rockwell Settles out of Court - (nf) Article-I.D.: zeppo.395 Via: Usenet; 1 Dec 82 18:31-PST #R:alice:-121600:zeppo:6300001:000:14 zeppo!Anonymous Nov 30 16:45:00 1982 how much????? ------------------------------ Date: 2 December 1982 01:05-EST From: Jacob Moskowitz Subject: How to fund the space program To: decvax!utzoo!watmath!bstempleton at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC ...Have you ever considered not just how many people support the space program but just exactly who they are? It seems to me they are all pretty powerful people. If we wanted to, and were firm enough in our convictions, a strike by supporters of the space program could shut down the entire country completely... A very interesting suggestion. But assuming most space nuts are R&D/Engineering types, what about the familiar problem of strikes by such workers, whose contributions and hence economic effects may not be felt for months or even years ? ------------------------------ Date: 30 Nov 82 11:29:37-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!kcarroll at Ucb-C70 Subject: It's the Arts Article-I.D.: utzoo.2651 Via: Usenet; 1 Dec 82 22:48-PST It will come as a surprise to some, but NASA has long demonstrated an appreciation of the arts. Certainly during the 60's, they went to a fair amount of trouble to introduce various painters and graphic artists to all aspects of the space program, on the principle that history was being made, and that it would be nice to have artists there to record it for posterity. I've seen a number of the paintings that were produced at the time, including one by Norman Rockwell (i think) of Gus Grissom (I think) suiting up. Unfortunately, I can't remember just >where< I saw these paintings; some, however, ought to be in a book titled "The National Air and Space Museum", a marvelous picture-book tour through that museum. I'm not sure what the current state of NASA's art program is; however, rumour has it that they are considering reserving a berth on a future shuttle flight for an artist of some sort, for the same reason as before. Fact has it that Jeanette Robinson, the wife of SF writer Spider Robinson, is actively seeking to fill that berth. She dances professionally, and co-wrote a novel (Stardance) which described dancing in zero-g; she plans to see what sort of a dance she coold do in the shuttle's cargo bay. At the moment, she's looking around for a cheap supplier of pressure-suits (although the pressureless space-suit that's been discussed for the last couple of weeks would surely be more appropriate for dancing (once it's developed) than the standard NASA-issue suit...) -Kieran A. Carroll ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 82 7:32:52-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Space Suits Article-I.D.: alice.1221 Via: Usenet; 2 Dec 82 0:02-PST Technicians have found what they are calling a tentative reason for the failure of the two space suits aboard STS-5. Apparently, in Bill Lenoir's suit, a pressure regulator broke down because a few pieces of plastic that are supposed to keep tension on springs were never installed. They termed this due to a lack of quality control. In William Allen's suit, a fan broke down because of a ''fluke mechanical failure.'' ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 03-Dec-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #63 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 63 Today's Topics: Re: Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia - (nf) I should have read one more chapter Lost Glove Re: A penny for your thoughts, or NASA puts money where our mouth is NASA on Space Suits NASA broadcasts of shuttle Re: SPACE Digest V3 #60 STS-6 Space Walk Ed White December OASIS: "Skynet 2000" Movies in space, and idea for George Lucas Long strings of galaxies Re: Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia - (nf) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Nov 82 20:28:24-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsovax!etistw3 at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia - (nf) ***** uicsovax:net.poems / ihuxe!pjane / 3:36 pm Nov 15, 1982 How easy the breath that kills a flame. How hard to kindle that light again. Cold words kill and kind words kindle. By words withheld, a dream may dwindle. Unknown author. Sugar ihuxe!pjane ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 82 10:53:22-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70 Subject: I should have read one more chapter Article-I.D.: ihuxr.224 Via: Usenet; 2 Dec 82 3:33-PST I reported having read 2/3 of "Suiting up for Space: the Evolution of the Space Suit" by Lloyd Mallan. from the material I had read so far, I drew the conclusion that "Dave's" entry into the airlock without a helmet was a "gross impossibility", as I put it. Well, the next chapter was about animal experiments and it included an account of some chimp experiments designed to answer the question: "Can a healthy, unprotected mammal survive swift decompression of a pressurized cabin flying through a vacuum?" The chimps were decompressed rapidly from 35,000 feet to the near vacuum of 150,000 feet. Their period of useful consciousness ranged from 3.6 to 29.7 seconds. They were left at 150,000 feet for up to 210 seconds. The result: "Chimpanzees have demonstrated they can survive explosive decompression from 35,000 feet to the near-vacuum of 150,000 feet for three-and-a-half minutes without any noticeable residual ill effects after a four-hour recovery time." This leaves me with a lot of questions about the experiment. It seems like they would have died from anoxia in 3.5 minutes. Did they have oxygen masks? Also, it seems to be a contradiction of a lot of statements and implications made earlier in the book. At any rate, it looks like "Dave's" EVA has to be promoted from grossly impossible to marginally possible at least. Put more simply: I WAS WRONG! Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew ------------------------------ Return-Path: Date: 2 December 1982 08:17 est From: CLJones.Multics at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Lost Glove Yes, it was an outer glove of Ed White's which floated out the hatch when he was doing his EVA. I recall seeing pictures of it floating away in Life magazine. You could look it up--the spacewalk was in June of 1965 I believe. You will not be able to write to Ed White as he was one of the three astronauts to perish in the Apollo pad fire. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 82 16:38:08-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: npois!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxx!ignatz at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: A penny for your thoughts, or NASA puts money where our mouth is Sorry to hit the net with this, but it's the old uucp->ARPA bugaboo... Go to space to shoot null-g special effects? Come on! They do very well now, and for a fraction of the cost moving a film crew and actors up there would cost, even with the shuttle. Not to mention the hazards of working in a low-pressure environment with untrained personnel... ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 82 16:50:14-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: npois!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxx!ignatz at Ucb-C70 Subject: NASA on Space Suits *sigh*. I, too, now contribute to the drivel. I just talked to a fellow named Dave Alter at Johnson Space Center in Houston, to whom I was shuttled when they found out I wanted an informed statement on this. When queried on "mechanical restraint suits" (note the quotes), his response was, "They did look at such things. They were ruled out for the type of things we are doing. Partly was the technical difficulty of actually covering all the various openings we (humans) have; partly was finding some material which could protect the skin sufficiently via mechanical restraint, have the partial permeability to allow perspiration and heat dissipation without being permeable enough to allow decompression, and finally to provide proper thermal control when you don't have convection cooling/heating. I have to go to a meeting, it's been fascinating..." (this at 4:30 his local time...right.) Let's let it go now. Dave Ihnat ihuxx!ignatz ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 1982 08:43 EST From: wegeng.wbst at PARC-MAXC Subject: NASA broadcasts of shuttle To: Space at MIT-MC A good while ago someone mentioned that NASA transmits shuttle launches via satelite, and that local cable tv companies might be able to receive the transmissions. I mentioned this fact to my local cable company and they seemed interested, so could someone forward the details to me? Does anyone know of a cable company that has actually done this? Thanks. Don Wegeng Xerox Corp Rochester, NY Wegeng.WBST@Parc-Maxc (arpa) seismo!rochester!rocksvax!dw (uucp) intelqa!rocks34!dw (uucp) ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 82 10:20:13-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ihldt!ll1!otuxa!we13!burl!rcj at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #60 Robert Elton Maas noted in an earlier article that the weather satellite over the Pacific had suffered an infrared failure. THE???? satellite. What did he mean THE -- is there only one? I find that difficult to believe. Anyone have any further info? The MAD Programmer (alias Curtis Jackson) Western Electric - Burlington, NC (919) 228-3814 or Cornet 291 ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 82 23:47:12-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: npois!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: STS-6 Space Walk NASA has extended the flight time of STS-6 by two days to allow astronauts to take a space walk, now planned for that mission. A full flight schedule should be out in two weeks. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 1982 at 1210-CST From: kjm@UTEXAS-11 Subject: Ed White To: space@mit-mc Ed White (along with Virgil Grissom and Roger Chaffee) died in the fire which occurred during an Apollo 1 countdown test. Ken Montgomery KJM at Utexas-11 [Thanks also to Clive Dawson for providing the date: January 1967, And to David Smith for providing another answer to this query. -The Moderator] ------------------------------ Date: 2-Dec-82 23:28:55 PST (Thursday) From: Hamilton.es at PARC-MAXC Subject: December OASIS: "Skynet 2000" To: Space@MC cc: Hamilton.es TIME: Saturday 11 December 7 pm PLACE: The Aerospace Corp., El Segundo, CA Building A-1, on El Segundo just west of Aviation SPEAKER: Dr. Charles L. Gould, Manager, STS Utilization Planning, Rockwell International TOPIC: "Skynet 2000": a potential global communications system of the future. This concept was first presented at the United Nations Space Conference in Vienna last August. ADMISSION FREE; THE PUBLIC IS WELCOME. OASIS is the Southern California Chapter of the L-5 Society --Bruce ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 82 2:19:48-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!bstempleton at Ucb-C70 Subject: Movies in space, and idea for George Lucas Article-I.D.: watmath.3965 Via: Usenet; 2 Dec 82 23:49-PST A recent mention of movies in space brought back to me an old idea that I have had for some time. It might be neat if this message got to Lucasfilms, although I won't be surprised if they have not already thought of this. The idea is to make a movie in the space shuttle, a science-fiction one. Such a movie would be about the near future exploration of space. The special effects would be great and you could get real weightless shots. The nice thing is that this is quite possible. A director like George Lucas or Steven Spielberg could afford to rent one shuttle flight, although it would make the movie perhaps the most expensive ever made. They could recover the cost because: a) The film would become an instant classic, as the first movie made in space. People would see it even if it were crap. b) A name like Lucas making an SF movie would cause millions to see it even if it weren't in the shuttle. The interesting point is that you could probably simulate the weightless conditions with special effects right on earth for less then the rental of a shuttle. The reasons to take the shuttle are a) You can advertise that you shot the film in space and b) The director gets to go up on the shot, probably to act as cameraman as well, and thus realizes the dream of many an SF person, which is to go into space. Find actors that can stand the free-fall and I'd be glad to crew such a mission. NASA might also approve because of their plan of taking artists into space to bring back the message of space to the people. What better way to do it than a Lucasfilms movie? ------------------------------ Date: 3 December 1982 04:27-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Long strings of galaxies To: SPACE at MIT-MC In case you missed this in Tuesday's newspapers or AP wire, astronomers using radiotelescopes in Puerto Rico and West Virginia have discovered a string of galaxies 700 million lightyears long, stretching from Pegasus to Ursa Major as viewed from here. Compare this to the Virgo supercluster which is only about 50 megaparsecs (160 million lightyears) from end to end. This find leads credence to the theory that the Universe was initially mostly uniform on the large scale but then collapsed in places to form long narrow strands of material that later formed chains of galaxies, and then yet later formed lumps along these strands and at intersections of strands which developed into superclusters of galaxies; while leading away from the alternative theory that the first collapsing was into whorlpools of matter that formed clusters of galaxies. (Note that in the large context, galaxies and clusters of galaxies are pointlike, being finite in all three dimensions, whereas strands are linelike, being infinite in one dimension and finite in the other two. The Universe seems to have locally collapsed in a linelike rather than pointlike or planelike way.) Why may this be important to space travel? If the Universe consists of a web of connected strands instead of isolated superclusters, it'll be easier to reach all parts of the Universe because it'll be possible to derive energy for propulsion while travling along strands instead of having to coast with essentially zero energy input along great voids from one supercluster to another. Thus once we acquire the ability to jump between neighboring galaxies in a cluster we may suddenly be able to circumnavigate the whole Universe instead of just the Virgo Supercluster. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 82 16:26:36-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!utah-cs!sask!hardie at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia - (nf) Article-I.D.: sask.99 In-Reply-To: Article hp-pcd.497 Via: Usenet; 3 Dec 82 2:17-PST This is a picky detail but is it not more accurate to say that the instruments on board the satellite launched by Columbia did the detecting of things like dry riverbeds? Columbia itself was the 'delivery truck'? (Which does not detract from Columbia at all - MORE POWER TO IT I say!) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 04-Dec-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #64 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 64 Today's Topics: CCD imaging arrays Re: Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia - (nf) designing space suits Reagan speaks in Brazil A little bit too picky.... [development] and the current arguments Re: A penny for your thoughts, or NASA puts money where our mouth is ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Dec 82 13:58:47-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm at Ucb-C70 Subject: CCD imaging arrays I'm interested in obtaining some CCD imaging arrays for amateur astronomical research projects. I know the device are extremely expensive, but does anyone have an inside track to some low cost (or free samples). I think an array of around 480 x 380 ( Fairchild makes such a device ) would be very nice for our applications. Signed, almost afraid to post this because I am asking for the impossible!!! Ron Meyer inuxa!rrm Indiana Astronomical Society ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 82 14:14:25-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia - (nf) Sigh. You're right, of course. I had hoped that the riverbeds would serve as major channels, but I forgot that they must as well be conveniently placed. I hadn't thought about the other angle. That *is* exciting. Rick. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Dec 1982 at 1144-CST From: kwebb@UTEXAS-11 Subject: designing space suits To: space@mit-ai cc: kwebb The space suit discussion has been very interesting so far. I'm surprised that Jerry Pournelle hasn't contributed since he used to design spacesuits, according to an article he wrote (called "About Those Brass Brassieres", from Destinies, Vol.2, No.3, Summer 1980). He refers to NASA Report CR-1892, "Development of a Space Activity Suit" by James Annis and Paul Webb, published in 1971. The SAS consists of a tight-fitting porous garment with a ring seal around the neck and a bubble helmet. The garment is for support; skin holds in the air and sweat provides the air-conditioning. An outer Thermal- Micrometeorite Protective Garment, also porous, would also be worn. During the study, several suits were build and tested in vacuum chambers; they proved more comfortable than standard space suits. Nasa has apparently done nothing with the suits since. For more information, see the Destinies article, or ask Jerry, or write for the report. Kirk Webb, KWEBB at UTEXAS-11 ------------------------------ Date: 03 Dec 1982 1041-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Reagan speaks in Brazil To: space at MIT-MC . . . . . From Brazil's futuristic capital, Reagan flew to this throbbing city of 12 million, crowded skyscrapers, narrow streets and noisy traffic. He spoke and met with business leaders here in a mosaic-and-stone palace used by the governor of the state of Sao Paulo. In the first trace of ceremony during this visit, soldiers in scarlet jackets and plumes stood at attention for his arrival. To his audience of 1,000, he said: ''Estamos como Brazil e nao mudamos,'' which he translated as, ''We are with you Brazil, we will not waver.'' The audience, however, applauded only once during the speech, when Reagan disclosed an offer for cooperation in space exploration. Specifically he invited Brazil to send an astronaut to train with the United States ''so that Brazil and the United States can one day participate in a shuttle launch together as partners in space.'' nyt-12-02-82 1812est ------------------------------ Date: 03 Dec 1982 1009-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: A little bit too picky.... To: space at MIT-MC Date: 1 Dec 82 16:26:36-PST (Wed) From: harpo!utah-cs!sask!hardie at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Egyption Rivers Discoved by Columbia - (nf) This is a picky detail but is it not more accurate to say that the instruments on board the satellite launched by Columbia did the detecting of things like dry riverbeds? Columbia itself was the 'delivery truck'? (Which does not detract from Columbia at all - MORE POWER TO IT I say!) No it is not more accurate. The dry riverbeds were detected on the second (or perhaps the third) flight, using instruments mounted in the cargo bay. The two satellites launched by STS-5 were communications satellites, not remote sensing devices. --Tom ------------------------------ Date: 3 Dec 1982 16:31:11-EST From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: space at mit-mc Subject: [development] and the current arguments This was written when there was virtually no attention, even on the crackpot level, given to those who talked about colonizing space. We seem to supply ourselves with destructive dreams. Chief among these is the Space Dream. It goes like this: We have made such a mess of our world that it is of no use to attempt to bring order out of our chaos. So save our best efforts for teh next green world. Tomorrow the moon, next week the planets, next year the galaxy. We'll spread through teh heavens, and our seed will be the bronzed, steel-eyed pioneers, and their fertile women, making green wonderlands for us in the sky. That dream, Dake, eaes the conscience of those who are doing less than their best. Thus it saps our energies. `This is man's world. We must live here. We will never reach the stars.' I would like to see every man believe that. And then if, in a thousand years, we break free, it will be pure profit---and we will have something besides hate and conflict to take along with us on the gleaming ships. from BALLROOM OF THE SKIES by John D. MacDonald, copyright 1952 ------------------------------ Date: 4 December 1982 04:26-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: A penny for your thoughts, or NASA puts money where our mouth is To: npois!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxx!ignatz at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Date: 1 Dec 82 16:38:08-PST (Wed) From: npois!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxx!ignatz at Ucb-C70 Go to space to shoot null-g special effects? Come on! They do very well now, All the special effects I've seen have ranged from incorrect to grossly idiotic. Things like smoke from explosions billowing and rising on the Moon or in orbit are idiotic. The best effect I saw was in Silent Running where the fireball grew and faded without rising, and where pieces of the exploded spacecraft passed by the camera along straightline trajectories in full perspective. But the fireball did seem to be self-contained as if pressing against ambient gas pressure even though this was supposed to be in deep space out near Saturn. Please tell me where you've seen truly correct special effects which look like the LEM takeoff (bits of material flying up and back down along near-parabolic trajectories) or the equivalent in an inertial frame (bits flying along near-linear trajectories), with smoke particles and fireball plasma and gas doing likewise (not billowing or contained in any way) because of very very very small ambient gas pressure. Or how about a movie about people in spacecraft that don't have artificial gravity, where they glob their "glass" of water instead of drinking it in the usual way, where every so often something loose drifts by the camera and they have to nonchalantly snatch it out of the air and stow it somewhere, where bulkheads DON'T fall loose from the ceiling and crush somebody against the floor. Let's have a realistic movie about the first manned trip to Mars, which definitely WON'T have artificial gravity on the spacecraft! You ever see one like that? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 05-Dec-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #65 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 65 Today's Topics: Special effects How to fund the program Truly correct special effects Shuttle in Science Re: :=) Shuttle Coverage on TV Re: deputy Ames director not impressive ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Dec 1982 0630-EST From: DVW.AGM at MIT-OZ Subject: Special effects To: rem at MIT-MC cc: space at MIT-MC I am disappointed that you do not consider 2001: A Space Oddessy to be en excellent example of realistic special effects. From the pen floating in the weightless cabin (apologies to those who aren't familiar with the movie) to the EVA that Dave did without as helmut (which IS possible -- Clarke and Kubrick took a lot of noise for that scene, but they did their research too, and they're right), the movie is scientifically consistent. Adam Mellis (dvw.agm@MIT-OZ) P.S. Has anyone heard about 2010: Oddessy Two? I hear it's sort of a loser. ------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri Dec 3 13:56:12 1982 From: decvax!watmath!bstempleton@Berkeley Subject: How to fund the program Message-Id: <8211041222.10535@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.ARPA> Received: by UCBVAX.BERKELEY.ARPA (3.227 [10/22/82]) id A10533; 4-Dec-82 04:22:55-PST (Sat) To: JMSK@mit-mc Cc: space@mit-mc It is true that a lot of space program supporters are R&D types whose work stoppage would not be felt for some time, but consider what would happen if a) Most computers in the country were shut down, including those that run transit and traffic systems, aircraft control, governement cheques and payroll of all companies. b) Shipping and the postal service rely on their administrators and computers too. Again, I'm not advocating this as a good thing for us to do, it's just interesting to think what power would lie in our hands were it our wont to use it. ------------------------------ Date: 4 December 1982 07:37-EST From: Stephen John Kudlak Subject: Truly correct special effects To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS at MIT-MC I think 2001 did a very good job, along with (as you mentioned) Silent Running. Of course, both Silent Running and Alien had good specials, but assumed artificial gravity of some sort. Trivia note: A technical error is seen in 2001 where Floyd is on his way to the moon and drinks through a straw. The liquid (probably viscous) slips down in the straw a couple of inches due to gravity on the drink. This is the only one I noticed, but they didn't attempt any spectacular explosions either. The landing of the Aries stirred up the appropriate dust and it traveled in the appropriate arc, though. FFM ------------------------------ Mail-From: CMUFTP host CMU-CS-G received by CMU-10A at 4-Dec-82 10:21:54-EST Date: 4 Dec 1982 07:41:53-EST From: Howard.Gayle at CMU-CS-G at CMU-CS-A Subject: Shuttle in Science The 3 December issue of Science contains 7 reports on shuttle science, including pictures of those famous dry riverbeds. The report titles are: "Use of the Space Shuttle for Remote Sensing Research: Recent Results and Future Prospects," "Shuttle Imaging Radar Experiments," "Subsurface Valleys and Geoarcheology of the Eastern Sahara Revealed by Shuttle Radar," "Mineral Identification from Orbit: Initial Results from the Shuttle Multispectral Infrared Radiometer," "Carbon Monoxide Measurements in the Troposphere," "Initial Analysis of OSTA-1 Ocean Color Experiment Imagery," and "Feature Identification and Location Experiment." ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 82 20:27:31-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!zeppo!whuxk!houxm!ihnp4!ihldt!ll1!otuxa!we04-3b!princeto!dpd at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: :=) Shuttle Coverage on TV Article-I.D.: princeto.116 In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.4499 Via: Usenet; 4 Dec 82 2:17-PST Actually I envision a cable station devoted to covering space travel which will be a continuous event. Similar to the gavel to gavel coverage of Congress on the (I think) USA Network. People who read netnews will subscribe to this channel which will be more interesting than netnews. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Dec 82 17:02:35-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: hplabs!intelqa!omsvax!bc at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: deputy Ames director not impressive Article-I.D.: omsvax.250 In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.4328 Via: Usenet; 4 Dec 82 18:03-PST Well, this is interesting. Let's take it a point at a time: "They will be man-visited and man-occupied for short periods of time. But I don't consider that a permanent presence in space. I think we'll start building toward that." [Comment by REM: Gee, 25 years from now we still won't have a permanent space station, not to mention an L-5 colony? That would be tragic if he's right.] Tragic indeed. But what does he consider a short period of time? Under six months? In that case we ALREADY have a permanent presence in space, at least some of us (the Russians) do. If he insists on longer, I will bet a bottle of Chivas to a Coke that the criterion wil be fulfilled by the Russians within 5 years. The huge booster they are reported to be perfecting has to be intended to ferry large masses for the construction of permanent stations. [Comment by REM: That second reason is a good one, but the first and last are in the realm of Golden Fleece reasons for spending 1% of our national budget! This NASA/AMES official left out (1) materials and maybe even energy from space (2) innovations in manufacturing (3) survival of our species and society via dispersial of habitat beyond Earth (4) understanding of evolution of Universe on the large scale (via astronomy) to understand our final destiny. Unless the interview was grossly truncated, I think this official short-changed the space program.] Yes, though short-changed may be an inadequate word. Maybe sabotaged is better. I note that he completely left out the latest party line at NASA: the military purpose. And REM has left off a number of reasons which might have more immediate impact on a taxpayer: placement and repair of sattellites (we still can't do that in high orbit, even with the shuttle), and research other than astronomical which can have economic benefit, or can improve quality of life, to name a couple. Lines of research which might prove fruitful are medical investigations into effects of zero-g on physiology, wide-area sensor studies of geology and topography, and studies of the upper atmosphere from above. Granted, not all these things require manned spaceflight, but they'd be a lot easier and cheaper to do if done from a permanent station than from a series of specialized robots. Bruce Cohen Intel ...{pur-ee,hplabs}!intelqa!omsvax!bc ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 06-Dec-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #66 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 66 Today's Topics: Mis-information Wanted Re: deputy Ames director not impressive images from Voyager, STS and Interstellar Telescope Mission 1 2001 special effects: Liquid in the straw ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Dec 82 13:56:43-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: teklabs!tekchips!marcw at Ucb-C70 Subject: Mis-information Wanted Article-I.D.: tekchips.162 Via: Usenet; 5 Dec 82 4:30-PST The staff at the Kendall planetarium at OMSI, the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry, is starting production of a new show called (for the time being) "What's Wrong with this Picture?". The show will be present common misconceptions about astronomy and provide the correct information upon which the misconception is based. You can help by sending us your favorite misconceptions. Please reply directly to me (address shown below) or to: Dwight Gruber OMSI - H. C. Kendall Planetarium 4015 SW Canyon Rd. Portland, OR 97225 (503) 222 - 2828 All entries should be postmarked no later than Thursday, 9 December, 1982 (we're working with a rather tight schedule). If you're the first to suggest a particular misconception, you will be included in the credits for the show. Thanks for the mis-information... Marc Wells via uucp: ...!{dec | ucb}vax!teklabs!marcw (Please do not route return mail through "ucbcad" if possible, thanks.) via CSNET: teklabs!marcw@tek via ARPAnet: teklabs!marcw.tek@rand-relay ------------------------------ Date: 5 December 1982 19:12-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: deputy Ames director not impressive To: hplabs!intelqa!omsvax!bc at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I think you misunderstood my point about "we" not having a permanent presence in space even in 2000. I was speaking of the USA not the USSR in the "we". I think the USSR will reach the point of overlapping missions within a couple years (at most 5) after which time there will never be a moment without a soviet astronaut in space. (That's my precise definition of permanent manned presence in space, overlapping manned space missions from that time onward to the distant future.) By comparison that deputy NASA director would have us with only 2-week or slightly longer (perhaps a month or two) missions all the way thru to 2000, with no permanent structure in space for them to visit, and by the time "we" establish a permanent presence the soviets will be doing grander things we can only speculate at now (L-5, O'Neill LEO city, manned Mars orbiter, full military fleets commanded by an admiral or general in space, etc.). P.s. for comparison, permanent unmanned space presence was established in 1957 with Sputnik 1. There's never been a moment since then without at least one active man-made satellite in space. ------------------------------ Date: 5 December 1982 19:50-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: images from Voyager, STS and Interstellar Telescope Mission 1 To: SPACE at MIT-MC Does anybody on this list know how good the pictures starfields from Voyager would be and how much maneuvering fuel it would take to aim the camera to take a bunch of pictures of nearby stars to get good paralax measurements? I wouldn't want to spend Voyager's fuel taking pictures and lose Uranus and Neptune, but if taking pictures is free except for expense of personnel and computers on Earth processing the data then I think we ought to do it. Anybody know for sure how feasible it is to use Voyager camera together with Earth or STS camera to get accurate paralax measurements of nearby stars? The current (December) issue of Sky&Telescope (on page 528) has a pair of pictures from the IECM camera-photometer on STS. One was an hour after the payload bay doors were opened on STS-2, totally ruined by streaks from debris still floating by the camera. The other was during a "quiet period" on STS-4 when stars as faint as 9th magnitude were visible in broad daylight. The latter picture seemed to be good quality. I wonder if Voyager does that well? I'm thinking it might be reasonable to send a small space telescope out on a mission of its own just for the sake of accurate parallax measurements. Perhaps after we develop the ion rocket we can send a continuously-accellerating probe out beyond our solar system in just a year or so to get much improved parallax measurements on stars hundreds of light years away. Maybe out first genuine interstellar space mission, out a lightyear or so from here, won't be to look for life but rather just to get parallax measurements on distant galaxies to compute more accurately the Hubble constant, and thus the age of the Universe. (Note that parallax measurements aren't affected by dimming by intervening gas&dust as Cephid-variable and average-bright-galaxy methods might be. They're affected only by curvature of space caused by intervening massive objects.) ------------------------------ Date: 5 Dec 1982 2216-EST From: Robert W. Kerns Subject: 2001 special effects: Liquid in the straw To: space at MIT-MC If I were designing a drink container for space, I would give the the container a small amount of hysterisis, to give exactly the behaviour noted. Probably just the right amount of stiffness in a plastic bag would do the trick. ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 07-Dec-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #67 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 67 Today's Topics: Forbidden Planet explosion ; 2001 flaws Re: images from Voyager... Misconceptions 2010: Oddesy Two Burning Oxygen Asteroid mining ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Dec 82 22:32:26-PST (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ihuxr!lew at Ucb-C70 Subject: Forbidden Planet explosion ; 2001 flaws "Forbidden Planet" had a good planet explosion effect at the end. To start with, the explosion was viewed from a great enough distance that the planet appeared initially point-like. The explosion itself appeared as a luminous circle which expanded rapidly in radius and then faded (all in silence.) Not beyond criticism, I suppose, but infinitely superior to the firecracker effects in Star Wars. It looked a lot like the upper atmosphere dye explosions which were launched from Virginia in the sixties. Remember them? Also, a technical flaw in "2001" is the existence of "star drift" to indicate the stately motion of the "Discovery". I would guess that they knew it was wrong but left it in anyway. "2001" also had billowing gas and dust in the lunar vacuum. Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew ------------------------------ Date: 6-Dec-82 14:30:35 PST (Monday) From: Lynn.es at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: images from Voyager... In-reply-to: Robert Elton Maas's message of 5 December 1982 19:50-EST To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: REM at MIT-MC, Lynn.es Very creative idea to make parallax measurements, but it needs some more work to be practical. Parallax measurements now are practically useless beyond a few hundred light years, because the measurements get smaller than the noise. The size of the measurements is proportional to baseline (normally the distance across the earth's orbit, by which photographs 6 months apart differ) and proportional to telescope focal length (or image scale). The loss in focal length between our large telescopes (tens of meters) and Voyager (I think a meter or so) loses more than its present distance gains in baseline (about 12 AU instead of 2 that we get with the earth). In fact the loss of radio contact at perhaps 50 to 100 AU will prevent us from ever getting much accuracy gain using Voyager. At least the attitude adjustment gas should not be a factor in Voyager 1, since its electrical camera platform maneuvering mechanism (which does not use the jets) is still working. As for sending out a probe with ion rocket, let's say we can get a light year away in a reasonable time. Now we are talking gains of 30,000 in the baseline. But it will take one heck of a transmitter and antenna to get the data back to us, say a million times more effective than what is on Voyager. And the baseline improvement would barely get a marginal measurement on the nearest galaxy. We would need at least another factor of 1000 to get good distances for the Hubble constant. Now indirectly it would improve measurements by cepheid variable or other means, because they are calibrated by parallax measurements of nearby objects. But this indirectness probably means only a slight increase in cepheid distance accuracy, and still won't help the intervening material problem with it. The large space telescope may be able to get us better parallax measurements by reducing the noise (atmospheric disturbances of the incoming light) rather than increasing the measurement. I would estimate the improvement to be about a factor of 10. /Don Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 6 Dec 82 19:17:28-EST (Mon) From: the soapbox of Gene Spafford To: space-enthusiasts at Mit-Mc Subject: Misconceptions marcw @ teklabs asked us for our favorite misconceptions. The only problem is, I don't know which of the things I believe happen to be misconceptions! Maybe they all are.... Could it be that the moon isn't the sun at night, and that the world may not be flat? Perish the thought! Lest anyone think I'm poking fun at Marc, let me just point out that language is so much fun I just couldn't resist. :-)> Spaf ------------------------------ Date: 6 Dec 1982 2054-PST From: Den Lenahan Subject: 2010: Oddesy Two To: dvw.agm at MIT-OZ cc: space at MIT-MC Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940. Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161 I wasn't too impressed with 2010. It answers some of the questions left open by 2001, but, on the other hand, the open-endedness of 2001 was one of its pluses. I was going to say that the conversations in 2010 sounded too much like Mr. Wizard lecturing a Jr. High student. Especially when the other person responds, "I didn't know that!" to something that's almost intuitively obvious to a casual observer, let alone a scientist. But, over dinner tonight, I was reading the review in the January issue of Discover, and they say it even better: "The humans in this spacescape are hard to distinguish from one another; most sound like Clarke carrying on a conversation with himself." If you've read Michner's 'Space' you'll have a feel for Clarke's dialogue. However, if you're really curious to know what happened to David Bowman and the Discovery, this is the only way to find out! ------------------------------ Date: 3 Dec 82 2:29:40-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!genradbo!mitccc!jmturn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Burning Oxygen Article-I.D.: mitccc.208 In-Reply-To: Article azure.1499 Via: Usenet; 6 Dec 82 21:16-PST "Pure Oxygen burns so nicely" It is more accurate to say that pure oxygen promotes oxidation so nicely (no big surprise there...) The key thing to remember is that a spark in a pure oxygen atmosphere doesn't cause the room to blow up, but if the spark lands on a couch, the couch is going to be awfully likely to combust in quick fashion. The reason you don't smoke when O2 is in use is to prevent your seat/the floor from going up if you drop the bloody thing. Flaming without Oxygen James ------------------------------ Date: 6 Dec 82 13:21:25-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!rjs at Ucb-C70 Subject: Asteroid mining Article-I.D.: floyd.914 Via: Usenet; 6 Dec 82 23:12-PST I've heard that one way of making space technology profitable would be to mine metals from the asteroid belt. How can this metal be brought safely to earth? It seems that you would need to bring vast quantities down to be worthwhile, and I've heard that dropping meteorites of respectable size onto the earth is a good way to drastically change the environment for a long time. Of course: mail answers to me and I'll summarize. Robert Snyder floyd!rjs ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 08-Dec-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #68 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 68 Today's Topics: Re: :=) Shuttle Coverage on TV asteroid mining Re: Burning oxygen Clarke's 2010 Burning Oxygen Asteroid mining Foam metal delivery ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Dec 82 19:27:31-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: :=) Shuttle Coverage on TV NASA does use a domestic communications satellite to relay shuttle video and audio. My understanding is that Satcom F-1, transponder 9 is used for this purpose (although I don't have a satellite receiver to verify it.) Satcom-1 was the original "cable TV" satellite, used until Satcom-3R became operational as the prime satellite for cable television programs. When 3R went on line, 1 was repositioned and is now used only lightly for special contract services such as NASCOM. Since most cable operators have only a single dish pointed at 3R, they are unable to carry NASCOM. Newer or richer companies might have a spare dish (and receiver) that could be used during shuttle flights if enough people expressed their interest. In my case, the local company told me before STS-4 that they were willing to carry NASCOM if I found out for them the appropriate transponder, as long as it was on 3R; they were obviously unable to provide coverage. Phil Karn ------------------------------ Date: 7 Dec 1982 0943-EST From: Lantz at RUTGERS (Brian Lantz) Subject: asteroid mining To: space at MIT-MC I believe that the idea is not to use asteroids to supply metals to the earth's surface, where they are relatively plentiful, but to use them in earth orbit where they are extremely expensive. Brian Lantz ------------------------------ Date: 7 Dec 1982 0957-EST From: Ron Subject: Re: Burning oxygen To: space at MIT-MC In reply to James (mitccc!jmturn) message. Hmm, so I guess now we have seen an anerobic flamer? Of course on this list there are often quite a few "flames in a vacuum." (ron) ------------------------------ Date: 7 Dec 1982 1402-EST From: MINSKY at MIT-OZ Subject: Clarke's 2010 To: space at MIT-MC I was immensely impressed by Clarke's new book. Almost every short chapter develops an interesting idea. (Some years ago he said the skyhook novel would be his last book and he would then just go fishing.) As for literary criticism, if you want appealing character development, try Shakespeare - but you won't get many new ideas for our time. Most critics complained that the characters in 2001 were boring missed Clarke's and Kubrick's principal intent - to show how immature and trivial today's Man seems against the background of the universe. ------------------------------ Date: 7 December 1982 20:52-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Burning Oxygen To: decvax!genradbo!mitccc!jmturn at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I think you're confusing the transitive and intransitive verb "burn". Something can burn meaning it itself burns, or something can burn something else . The Sun doesn't burn, it just glows, but it burns you. Oxygen doesn't burn, but it burns things. That's just a quibble on English usage, but here's something factual you missed. The reason you don't smoke in oxygen atmosphere is because it's not much fun having the whole cigarette burn at high temperature in a flash fire that lasts about 1 or 2 seconds, not even giving you time to get the damn thing out of your mouth before it scalds your lips. That of course assumes you can light the thing in the first place. If you use a match, it'll scald your finger instantly as the match burns as fast as the cigarette would, not giving you time to touch it to the cigarette before it's all burned up. You'll have to use the flint from a cigarette lighter (an empty lighter should work fine) placed within spark distance of the cigarette. Then you'll successfully set your cigarette on fire and burn your lips as above. The chance that the cigarette might be still burning 3 seconds after you are done with it and might fall on upholstery and set it afire is the least of your worries. ------------------------------ Date: 7 December 1982 20:57-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Asteroid mining To: harpo!floyd!rjs at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC I've proposed several times over the past year or two to make foam steel or foam whatever-metal, of such low density that it floats in the lower atmosphere. Once delivered in this way from Low Earth Orbit to Low Floating Station, it can be towed around and then partly deflated to bring it gently to ground level. Assuming a non-oxidizing gas such as Hydrogen can be found to inflate this foam, and assuming foam-metal can be made in the first place (experiment on STS-5, I'm still waiting to hear the results), any other problems with this method? ------------------------------ Date: 07 Dec 1982 2250-PST From: Hans Moravec Subject: Foam metal delivery To: space at MIT-MC My friends at Livermore have thought about this, and have come to an even nicer variant - namely the metal foam can have its cells filled with VACUUM. If you do the calculations, you find that almost any meterial is easily strong enough under compression to make a flyable vacuum balloon; the practical problem is simply buckling of the skin. Foam with the appropriate bubble size solves the problem. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 09-Dec-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #69 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 69 Today's Topics: Spacesickness Re: [development] and the current arguments How to fund the program Tsiolkovsky movie? Re: asteroid mining Re: Spacesickness Re:Foam metal delivery ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mail-From: CMUFTP host CMU-CS-G received by CMU-10A at 8-Dec-82 12:49:56-EST Date: 8 Dec 1982 12:47:54-EST From: Howard.Gayle at CMU-CS-G at CMU-CS-A To: Space-Enthusiasts@mit-mc Subject: Spacesickness The 10 December 1982 issue of Science contains a short but disturbing article on spacesickness among shuttle crews. Half of all crew members suffer from it. It begins a few hours after launch and lasts about 2 days. There are no known objective predictors of who will suffer (e.g., motion sickness on Earth), although NASA doctors can guess correctly more often than not. Current drugs (scopolamine + Dexedrine) are not always effective, but biofeedback looks promising. Even though this is a serious problem, astronauts are understandably embarrassed and reluctant to discuss it. Comment: if this problem is not solved, it could be a powerful argument for a space station, since everyone seems to recover after a couple of days. ------------------------------ Date: 8 December 1982 19:36-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: [development] and the current arguments To: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Date: 7 Dec 1982 22:49:14-EST From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX I consider the whole space-colonization scenario highly improbable. ... [Re Europeans settling the New World after Columbus] it was feasible for almost any set of fools to hire a ship and set out. \That/ is the unpredictable breakthrough that will hold up colonization. Good point. To everybody: what can we do to create a situation in space analagous to the post-Columbus period, when everyone knew the New World existed, that it was harsh and dangerous and risky but at least it was possible to go there and set up camp if you were determined enough and could raise the money for a ship and crew? Perhaps we should set up space stations that hardy volunteers can inhabit, we send them supplies enough to get by but they are expected to maintain equipment and perform tasks for us and work toward food self-sufficiency by raising plants on board using the sunlight that is so abundant there? Or maybe we should just make travel to space convenient and let volunteers create their own space station? Or should we just sit by idly waiting for a miracle to occur? Opinions? ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 9 December 1982 00:06-EST Sender: FEINBERG at MIT-OZ From: FEINBERG at MIT-MC To: decvax!watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley Cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Subject: How to fund the program In-reply-to: The message of Fri Dec 3 13:56:12 1982 from decvax!watmath!bstempleton at Berkeley Gee, I guess you guys never heard of the Pinkerton Programming Staff! ------------------------------ Date: 7 Dec 82 17:56:19-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: teklabs!tektroni!tekcad!keithl at Ucb-C70 Subject: Tsiolkovsky movie? Article-I.D.: tekcad.295 Via: Usenet; 8 Dec 82 22:20-PST I've heard rumors of a Soviet-made film about Tsiolkovsky, the Russian rocket pioneer, and that the movie is showing in a theater in New York. Would any NY area net users care to elucidate for us provincials? If this film exists, can we have a review? If it's worth seeing, I'd like the name of the distributor, so we can get it out here. From the injun-filled rain forests of Oregon... Keith Lofstrom uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!keithl CSnet: keithl@tek ARPAnet:keithl.tek@rand-relay ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 82 10:39:10-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rocheste!emil at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: asteroid mining Article-I.D.: rocheste.301 In-Reply-To: Article tekcad.295 Via: Usenet; 8 Dec 82 22:26-PST The most likely way of asteriod mining is using a mass driver on an asteroid/moon to propel material into earth orbit for satellite construction, etc. Another method is to return with a nice sized asteroid by either ion/mass driver/etc. propulsion. Emil ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 82 23:31:31-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: hplabs!faunt (Doug) at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Spacesickness Article-I.D.: hplabs.1033 In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.4743 Via: Usenet; 9 Dec 82 1:24-PST The new AW+ST has an article that says that DOD is worried about astronauts ability to perform tasks shortly after launch, and that NASA is saying that it has been blown up out of proportion. The astronauts are feeling defensive about the issue, and it has affected morale. There are also Privacy Act implictions in releasing medical information. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 82 21:42:02-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rocheste!emil at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re:Foam metal delivery Article-I.D.: rocheste.303 In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.4720 Via: Usenet; 9 Dec 82 1:40-PST Hate to put a damper on foamed metals, but ... According to Curtis Watts, an aerospace/materials technology comsultant, ("Space Factories a Long Way Off", High Technology Nov/Dec 82 pg. 23), "tests showed that metals solidified in space form imperfect spheres that would have to be ground for use as ball bearings; the process is better done on earth. Similarly, metal foamed in space proved to be *nonuniform* ." Areas that still show great promise include: * Continuous flow electrophoresis (to obtain highly pure pharmaceutical products) * Single crystal devices for electronics or electro-optics from silicon, gallium arsenide, mercury cadmium telluride, and other compounds. * Exotic glasses for high-index-of-refraction lenses, fiber optics, & lasers. * Composites for high-strength magnets, and other novel or high-purity metals or alloys. * Unusually shaped parts, including high performance turbine blades. These are just a few ideas, lets hear of others. Emil Rainero P.S. Its the only way NASA will ever get to build a manned space station. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 10-Dec-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #70 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 70 Today's Topics: Re:Foam metal delivery Electrophoresis Oxygen Fires re spacesickness Congressional Coverage Sandbags and Experimental Safety Sorry all you hardware people ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 December 1982 07:38-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re:Foam metal delivery To: hplabs!hao!seismo!rocheste!emil at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC You say metal foam can be made, just it isn't uniform? That's encouraging, better than if it couldn't be made at all due to lack of surface tension. How badly nonuniform is it? Bad enough to prevent use for delivering metals to Earth by floating the foam down? (It would seem a slight nonuniformness would merely mean the foam isn't uniform in density, thus would be heavy on one side, and thus sink with the heavy side downward. An extreme nonuniformness would however cause the lightest part to be too weak to hold under stress while the heaviest part would come crashing to Earth. Which is closer to the actual state of nonuniformness?) Could it be made more uniform in a subsequent experiment by bubbling it more carefully, or does it inherently push toward a particular nonuniform state such as a gradient of density from the center to the outside of the mass of foam? P.s. thanks for providing the first info about the result of the experiment. ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 9 December 1982 10:05-EST From: BATALI at MIT-MC Subject: Electrophoresis I'm extremely interested in the continuous flow electrophoresis experiments on recent shuttle flights. Does anyone have pointers to journals or reports describing the results of these tests? Also: is there any canonical place to get the latest on space industry research? Besides AW&ST? BATALI@MIT-OZ ------------------------------ Date: 9 Dec 1982 8:44-PST From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL Subject: Oxygen Fires When the cigarette fire reaches your lips it doesn't "scald" them. Under high enough partial pressure of oxygen (perhaps less than one atmosphere) the human body itself will sustain combustion. Anyone have the exact point at which this happens? As I recall it is a very important consideration in using hyperbaric chambers. An interesting aside... I recall reading that if the partial pressure of O2 in the Earth's atmosphere was just fractionally higher then wet (green) wood would burn very easily, and we wouldn't have any plants. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Dec 1982 17:14:39-EST From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: space at mit-mc Subject: re spacesickness It sounds like nobody in NASA has been keeping up with mundane medical journals; I have seen a number of references in the past few months to the efficacy of ginger in blocking motion sickness. The experiment involved a really brutal twisting chair (virtually everyone who didn't get medicine, including some who were known to be less susceptible to motion sickness, either were sick or stopped the test before the set time had run out); ginger (I think they used freshly powdered root, but the abstract I just dug out was unclear) was more effective than Dramamine in preventing sickness. Ref: LANCET, 1 (8273). 1982., p. 655-657. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Dec 82 1:10:18-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!genradbo!mitccc!jmturn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Congressional Coverage Is provided by CSPAN, the Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network. USA Network provides sports, rock, and other such. Not afraid to get off the subject, James RARPA: RG.JMTURN@MIT-MC ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 82 9:58:17-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: teklabs!tektroni!tekcad!keithl at Ucb-C70 Subject: Sandbags and Experimental Safety I am experimenting with a device that moves a 20 kilogram steel strip at up to 200 m/s (eventually MUCH bigger and faster; space launch, anyone?), and I'm looking for references on sandbag stopping power and similar safety systems. We have the Army Ballistics Research Lab on the net; can anyone there suggest some papers or books? Keith Lofstrom uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!keithl CSnet: keithl@tek ARPAnet:keithl.tek@rand-relay ------------------------------ Date: 9 Dec 82 8:28:57-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: npois!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxt!dwv at Ucb-C70 Subject: Sorry all you hardware people O.K. I admit that STS-1 had a software problem. My source (who I thought was reliable) who works for NASA at KSC told me it was hardware. See if I ever listen to him again. Doing some independant research I found some technical info on the problem. My heart is still in hardware despite my present hacking. Not afraid to say I screwed up. Dave Vollman BTL IH p. s. Maybe John Chancellor can help me debug this program I'm working on ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 11-Dec-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #71 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 71 Today's Topics: Oxygen Fires Re: Recreational use of space Re: A question concerning Sirius Experimental Safety Re: Spacesickness Re: Forbidden Planet explosion ; 2001 flaws Metal foam ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 December 1982 07:17-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Oxygen Fires To: dietz%usc-cse at USC-ECL cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Re "if Earth had more Oxygen" -- You're mistaken. It's the plants that made the oxygen in the first place. At first it was a toxic waste product that quickly killed off most lifeforms (things like tetanus for example that can't stand oxygen). Later creatures evolved protective mechanisms, and creatures that could burn organic materials in oxygen to produce energy evolved, for example animals. If the plants ever made so much oxygen that their own bodies burned up, there'd be a big fire and afterward there wouldn't be so much free oxygen around. In fact that sort of happens now. Forest fires are natural. When there are too many trees crowded together too tightly and they are too dry, a fire starts and burns some of them down, decreasing the number of easily flammable trees around. Luckily the whole planet doesn't dry up at the same time, so these fires seldom spread over whole continents and thus seldom cause extinctions, and also luckily there's lots of lightning to start fires at all sorts of randomtimes when not enough dry timber has built up to have much of a big fire at all. Of course this negative-feedback loop could be unstable, but fortunately it isn't in Earth's case, it nicely limits itself to where just the driest of the plants in the driest of climates catch fire, the rest just get eaten by bacteria when they die, and the oxygen level stays at a reasonable level (at least we think it's reasonable. I'm sure Tetanus would disagree). ------------------------------ Date: 6 Dec 82 9:23:07-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!orion!lime!we13!burl!rcj at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Recreational use of space Where would "Filmed on location" come from if we didn't have jets to get filmmakers from one place to another? My point is, we gotta have a reliable space station up there before we can film, paint, dance, and sing in it. Hell, they just very recently came up with a zero-g toilet designed for female plumbing!!! These things take time (and a lotta money), Curtis Jackson (...!floyd!burl!rcj) ------------------------------ Date: 9 Dec 82 14:21:06-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!orion!lime!we13!otuxa!nwuxc!inuxc!pur-ee!CSvax.Pucc-H.Physics.els at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: A question concerning Sirius The way I understand it is: 1) The two stars formed, one a rather largish(sp?) star, the other a smaller, but longer living, star; 2) Big one reaches end of lifetime, with two likely possibilities, a) becoming a red giant, the larger one's outer atmosphere comes within capture range of the little one, which captures enough hydrogen to be 'rejuvenated' into a B or A class star, after which the former red giant collapses into a white dwarf (now lacking the mass to become something more exotic) b) becoming a nova, the larger one ejects material, then the rest of a) repeats. 3) The end result is a binary consisting of an A or B (possibly an O, but these don't hang around on the main sequence very long) star, and a white dwarf, a combo much like Sirius. Hope this clears things up, els[Eric Strobel] pur-ee!pur-phy!els ------------------------------ Date: Friday, 10 December 1982, 08:42-EST From: Robert W. Kerns Subject: Experimental Safety To: Space at MIT-MC Date: 8 Dec 82 9:58:17-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: teklabs!tektroni!tekcad!keithl at Ucb-C70 Subject: Sandbags and Experimental Safety I am experimenting with a device that moves a 20 kilogram steel strip at up to 200 m/s (eventually MUCH bigger and faster; space launch, anyone?), and I'm looking for references on sandbag stopping power and similar safety systems. We have the Army Ballistics Research Lab on the net; can anyone there suggest some papers or books? I would recommend the Pulse Field Technology Safe-T Force Field. It meets all OSHA standards for material objects to 60 km/s, but due to the high-frequency pulsed nature of the field (which accounts for the low cost), it is not suitable for sheilding radioactives. It has an option for an energy storage bank to allow the absorbtion of large energy pulses of low duty cycle with smaller, less expensive heat sinks. Thus when you begin throwing boxcars around, you will have a clear growth path without needing to divert a small river to dissapate the energy. We have been using this system for two years now, with very good results. There has been only one failure to date, when a janitor unplugged it to plug in his vacuum cleaner. Unfortunately, this reduced our lab and the building next door to rubble, but the battery backup option allowed the Safe-T Field unit to come through unscathed. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Dec 82 12:46:00-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!genradbo!grkermit!garry at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Spacesickness What about the USSR's astronauts. Are they pursuing any studies in this or do they just demand their "boys" (please no flames) put up with spacesickness The Baer ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 82 13:38:33-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!bstempleton at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Forbidden Planet explosion ; 2001 flaws 2001 did have billowing gas and dust, but that was in the middle of engine exhaust. Aside from the straw, the major flaw in 2001 is that they walk like they have gravity in the pod bay, when it is not part of the rotating wheel and thus has none. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Dec 1982 1502-EST From: MINSKY at MIT-OZ Subject: Metal foam To: space at MIT-MC To complain that metal doesn't foam in space uniformly is like complaining that dishes don't break into perfect little squares when you drop them. Of course the first foaming experiment isn't perfect. But what if you extrude the stuff through orifices that inject bubbles powered by suitable vibrators, to make perfect lattices, etc. Along with REM, I've long felt that foam steel would be a great building material. I wonder how hard people have really tried to make it here, in fact, by using more cleverness? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 12-Dec-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #72 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 72 Today's Topics: Challenger ME Test Firing Scheduled re: Space Sickness Foamed Metals Re: Special effects - (nf) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Dec 82 20:09:52-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Challenger ME Test Firing Scheduled The three main engines of the space shuttle Challenger will be test fired on 18 December, starting at 1100 EST. The test firing will be the first time all three engines in question have been fired at the same time. There was a similar event preceding STS-1. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Dec 82 11:55-EST (Fri) From: Steven (Roi de Soleil)Gutfreund To: space at Mit-Mc Subject: re: Space Sickness According to the information I have recieved, space sickness after launches is fairly new. It really only started with the Shuttle. The theory is that one is more likely to get motion sickness in the large and expansive shuttle environment, than those cramped Mercury capsules. Thus, the fix seems easier than a permenant space station (did you really think they would put up a space station just because the astronauts get sick?) - steve ------------------------------ Date: Saturday, 11 December 1982, 21:14-EST From: Stewart Cobb Subject: Foamed Metals To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC One of my professors here, who is into materials processing in space (he flew a crystallization experiment aboard Skylab) discussed foamed metals with me recently. Apparently, the problem is that most metals have surface tensions that are too high for foaming to work. When you try to make such a foam, you get loosely connected globs of metal. High surface tension has never been a problem on Earth -- it is masked by our one-gee field -- so there has never really been any research on making metals with lower surface tensions. What you need is a detergent-analog that won't break down at the melting point of whatever metal you're using (probably lunar aluminum or asteroidal steel). This constraint rules out organic detergents, leaving alloying as the only apparent means of reducing surface tension. Apparently, there is no one currently doing research into such alloys. The aforementioned professor offered to help me set up such a research project, and I may take him up on it. Stewart Cobb hsc @ mit-mc ------------------------------ Date: 10 Dec 82 18:54:10-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!arlan at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Special effects - (nf) I once asked Arthur C. Clarke about the errors of 2001 [over coffee one nightat UNC-G, Greensboro, NC] and he replied that one very beAutiful scene had to be excised from the movie--that ofthe lunar city with its gardens and people walking around as if under 1 G. However, as he also pointed out, the interior shots on the moon had one G, and most people have never noticed. Also, fen have pointed out that you can seeStanley Kubrick's image in a reflection from a space suit mask as the men enter the excavation around the monolith. Another point: whereas a stunt man broke his back in 2001 scene inside HAL, no astronaut has broken his/her back to date, evevn though a few Russians suffered fatal injuries. --arlan andrews, american bell, incorporated--indianapolis, in ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 13-Dec-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #73 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 73 Today's Topics: Shuttle Fins Precious Metals in Mexico Astronomical Misconceptions Refealed ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Dec 82 7:22:17-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Shuttle Fins Precious Metals in Mexico Infrared radio pictues taken on STS-2 have been analyzed more, and scientists think that there may be deposits of gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc, and other precious metals in the Baja Californian Desert between Rossario and Bahia de los Angeles. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Dec 82 14:42:21-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: teklabs!tekchips!marcw at Ucb-C70 Subject: Astronomical Misconceptions Refealed I want to thank all of you who sent in your favorite astro- nomical misconceptions, the response was great. So great that I hesitate to submit all the replys to the net for fear of raising the ire of those who hate 300+ line articles. If there is enough interest in a complete copy of all the responses, let me know and I will post it to the net. Interestingly enough, there were not many duplications (you all have different misconceptions?). Space craft "woosh- ing", stars moving behind a space craft and Pluto's unusual orbit (sometimes the eighth and other times the ninth planet) were the most commonly duplicated responses. My thanks to Gene Spafford (spaf.gatech@UDel-Relay) for pointing out my own intellectual chauvinism; one persons misconception may be another persons fact. This is under- scored by the example of Mercury's rotation. It was once held as "fact" that one side of Mercury always pointed toward the sun, it is now believed (more correctly, we hope) that this is not the case. It is a bit presumptuous to tag ideas as "misconceptions" without acknowledging our own fallibility. James Turner (mitccc!jmturn) asked to have the "winners" posted. Rather than posting all the replies (for space rea- sons noted above) I'll post *MY* favorite from each person who replied. The people and their "misconceptions" are listed in the order in which their response reached me. *********************************** David Wright (cornell!ddw) Rockets work by pushing against the atmosphere. *********************************** Lew Mammel, Jr. (ihuxr!lew) You could do a whole series of impossible appearances of the moon. A good one would be the moon as it appears in the northern hemisphere (upright "face"), with penguins in the foreground. *********************************** Rich Amber (tektronix!rich) Some of the "what's wrong with this picture" things I like are things like photos printed backward in magazines that mislead the people. Things like a night view with half moon on western horizon and brightly lit portion facing up (obviously impossible). And paintings of Saturns rings that give the impression they're solid. *********************************** Jeff Bradford (tektronix!tekcad!jeffb) A mis-concept I had was that the southern cross was the analog to the north star; i.e. it marked the south pole. *********************************** Roger Wells (tektronix!tekid!rogerw) Velikovsky was a creationist [I know, this isn't astronomical, but don't tell him. (Well, he's dead anyway.) Amazing though, the number of people who assume because he disagreed with standard science, he automatically agreed with anyone else who disagreed with standard science. Matter of fact, evolution plays a part in his so-called theory.] *********************************** Phil Karn (eagle!karn) The crescent moon with stars between the "points". *********************************** Don Lynn (lynn.es@parc-maxc) I have heard people express the thought that astronomers spend their time trying to find new stars. This is as absurd as geologists looking for new grains of sand. In fact, the numbers show it is worse. The real searches are for stars or groups of stars with distinctive properties (the observational astronomers), or for theories that explain such properties (the theoretical astronomers). *********************************** Steve Strassmann (straz@mit-oz@mit-mc) Measuring the distance to stars by timing round-trip reflection of light off of the star's surface (one friend of mine, a respected tailor, thought "they" use sonar!) *********************************** James Turner (decvax!genradbolton!mitccc!jmturn) I would have to say my favorite piece of knowledge "everyone knows" is the 'fact' that Pluto is the ninth planet from the sun. Of course, the right way to phrase this is really "Pluto is *usually* the ninth planet from the sun..." When I handed the collection of responses over to the plane- tarium folks, they informed that, while production of the show is being started now, it takes a long time to write the script, research and film the graphics, produce the sound track, develop the special effects and so on. Thus the show is not scheduled for performance until early next spring. So, if anyone out there didn't get a chance to submit their favorite "misconceptions", feel free to do so, it may still be possible to incorporate them into the show. Thanks again to all who responded, Marc Wells via uucp: ...!{dec | ucb}vax!teklabs!marcw via CSNET: teklabs!marcw@tek via ARPAnet: teklabs!marcw.tek@rand-relay ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 15-Dec-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #74 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 74 Today's Topics: Geminids Earliest space sickness Article on shuttle flights ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Dec 82 8:38:34-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: npois!houxm!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70 Subject: Geminids I was out observing the evening of dec 11-12. Besides getting turned into a popsicle I noticed that the Geminids were active, with counts of about 10 per hour. This was two days before the peak which should be the morning of the 14th at 7 A.M. EST, judging from the count I saw on Sat, a peak rate of 40-50 meteors per hour is not unreasonable. So if you live in a reasonably dark sky area, getting up an hour or two before work tomorrow morning will probably give you quite an active meteor shower. Fred BTL/ABI INDY ------------------------------ Date: 13 December 1982 1008-EST (Monday) From: David.Smith at CMU-CS-A (C410DS30) To: space at MIT-MC Subject: Earliest space sickness The first space-sick astro/cosmonaut was Gherman Titov, who did 17 orbits in Vostok 2 in 1961. When the Russians disclosed that several of their cosmonauts had been space-sick, it was widely interpreted here as a sign of superior training that the American astronauts did not get sick. But when we got the larger Apollo, our astronauts started getting sick, too. Two of the Apollo 8 astronauts (Borman/Lovell/Anders) got sick. They didn't tell mission control about it until the problem was over, because they didn't want to be called back. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Dec 1982 0600-PST Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-8 Subject: Article on shuttle flights From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin) To: space at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[OFFICE-8]13-Dec-82 06:00:55.WMARTIN> Readers of this list may well be interested in an article in the Nov. 8, 1982 issue of the NEW YORKER magazine, page 128, entitled "Letter from the Space Center". It is one of those typical NEW YORKER descriptive pieces but it has lots of detail info on the shuttle flights which I haven't seen anywhere else. Will Martin ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 16-Dec-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #75 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 75 Today's Topics: Intensity of Space Sickness? Dr. Forward in the News Saturn V staging film query Re: A question concerning Sirius re: Astronomical misconceptions - the moon's "upright" face. Greetings from space anniversary ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Dec 1982 08:14 PST From: DMRussell at PARC-MAXC Subject: Intensity of Space Sickness? To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: DMRussell.PA@PARC-MAXC Does anyone have a feel for "how sick" space sickness makes you feel? If it's anything like seasickness, I'm not sure I'd want to be in the same shuttle with someone who has space sickness, let alone trusting them to pilot the thing around. Is it as intense as ordinary, land-based motion problems? Or is it just feeling queasy? Also, why did the problem (apparently) first surface in American astronauts when they moved into larger ships? An educated guess would say that you can't get sick when packed like a sardine into a Gemini or Mercury, but that the free space of Apollo or Soyez allows your hard-wired inertial guidance to get confused from so much visual motion uncoordinated with your own. Or was it just that the early flights weren't long enough for the adrenelin "high" to have worn off? -- DM Russell -- ------------------------------ Date: 15 Dec 1982 14:12-PST From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL Subject: Dr. Forward in the News To: space@mit-mc The following article appeared in New Scientist (Dec. 2, 1982, page 563): "How to flatten spacetime" The general assumption that an object in orbit around the Earth experiences zero gravitational forces is not quite true. The orbital motion precisely cancels the Earth's gravitational force only at the object's centre of mass. At other points, there is a small residual gravitational field know as the gravity gradient tide, which arises from the gradual decrease of the Earth's gravitational force as distance from the planet increases. Such forces can produce a force of 1.0E-7 m/sec^2, or 1.0E-8 of the force generated by the Earth's gravitational field at sea level, at points only 3 cm from the sattelite's centre of mass, according to Robert L. Forward of the Hughes Research Laboratories in Malibu, California. In addition, the mass of the object also produces its own gravitational field, producing a "self gravity" of comparable magnitude. These residual effects could make it impossible to achieve the perfect "zero gravity" environment envisioned for space-based experiments on gravitational measurements or materials processing. In practice, residual forces are far above the theoretical minima, particularly in manned spacecraft. Forward points out that "a sneeze by a crewmember in a 100-tonne spacecraft will induce an acceleration of 1.0E-3m/sec^2, or 1/10,000 of the force of gravity at the Earth's surface. Manned spacecraft thus probably will not be suitable for experiments requiring extremely low residual gravity. However, in a paper in @i(Physical Review D) (vol. 26, p. 735) Forward proposes ways to reduce residual effects in small volumes by as much as a factor or 1000 below what would otherwise be the theoretical minimum in unmanned craft. To reduce gravity-gradient tides, says Forward, a ring of mass would be ideal, but from the practical standpoint, though, it is sufficient to use six spheres in a ring that has a plane perpendicular to a line from the central object to the centre of the Earth. Six 100-kg spheres would produce a counter-tide that could reduce tidal accelerations by a factor of 100. The affected volume would increase with distance from the Earth, from the size of a box of bath powder in near-Earth orbit (about 100 km altitude) to the size of a birthday cake (30 cm in diameter and 20 cm thick) in geosynchronous orbit at 23000 km. Forward developed the "gravity-gradient-compensator" for a science-fiction novel he wrote, @i(Dragon's Egg), which was first published in 1980. He needed the gravity-tide cancelling ring to let humans approach within 400 km of a neutron star, inhabited in the novel by a rapidly-evolving life-form. Without the compensation, the gravity-tide forces close to the neutron star would have been enough literally to tear the people apart. In his paper in @i(Physical Review), Forward also proposes a different approach to reducing self-gravity. For a disc shaped object, external guard rings and guard caps could smooth out edge effects, the object could be rotated, and two exterior massive spheres cuold serve to lower the gravitational forces inside the disc. In one example, Forward calculates that self-gravity should be reduced by a factor of 2000. Any practical applications of the proposals are likely to be 15 or 20 years away. Gravitational fields a millionth or less than that of the Earth should already be possible in free-orbiting unmanned sattelites, and these are low enough for the first experiments in growing materials and producing pharmaceuticals. However, Forward feels certain that demands for higher-quality materials will eventually lead to a need for reducing gravitational fields below the natural levels. >From a theoretical standpoint, gravitational forces are the physical manifestation of the curvature of spacetime, induced by the mass of objects such as the Earth. Thus reducing gravitational forces is tantamount to flattening spacetime, and Forward concludes: "One would think that there would be a good scientific use for a chunk of flat space the size of a hatbox, but except for gravitational clock experiment, I have not thought of one [yet]." ------------------------------ Date: 15 Dec 82 0:43:29-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Saturn V staging film query Here's a trivia question I've wondered about occasionally. Virtually everybody has seen that classic film footage taken looking back from the bottom of the second stage of a Saturn V as the first stage falls away, followed by the interstage adapter ring. From the quality of the image (it's shown in the movie "To Fly"), it's obvious that it was film, and not video. My question is, how did they get the camera back? From what I've read about the Saturn V, the launcher was practically in orbit at second stage separation and I'm sure that the second stage would burn up upon re-entering. Any ideas? Phil Karn ------------------------------ Date: 12 Dec 82 17:34:48-PST (Sun) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: A question concerning Sirius Thanks, Eric. Your reply does clear things up a lot. However, it adds fascinating new questions. We know that Jupiter almost became a star: it sill radiates more heat than it receives from the sun. When the sun goes into the red giant stage, is it possible that Jupiter could borrow enough mass from the sun to become a G or K star with a companion white dwarf (remnants of the sun)? Or would Jupiter's orbit be enclosed by the red giant? If it would, is there any chance that Saturn could pull that sort of trick? If so, and if we can move the Earth when the Sun goes into the Red Giant stage, then the Earth might outlive the Sun (at that point, of course, our interest in the Earth is likely simply to be a museum of the past, but we might still want to save it). Rick. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Dec 1982 2047-PST From: Ross Finlayson Subject: re: Astronomical misconceptions - the moon's "upright" face. To: ihuxr!lew at UCB-C70 CC: space at MIT-MC, RSF at SU-AI The full moon resembles a "face" even in the southern hemisphere - in fact, the face of a man with a moustache! It turns out that one of the "northern hemisphere eyes" becomes the "southern hemisphere mouth" and vice versa. Try it some night by turning your head upside down and looking at the moon. Better still, make a trip down to the southern hemisphere - after all, it is summer there now! Ross. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Dec 1982 2107-PST From: Bud Spurgeon Subject: Greetings from space anniversary To: space at MIT-MC While idly looking through a compendium of events I happened across the following; "Christmas Greetings From Space Anniversary Dec. 19 At 3:15 p.m. E.D.T., Dec 19, 1958, the U.S. Earth satellite, Atlas, began first radio voice broadcast from space, a 58-word recorded Christmas greeting from president Dwight D. Eisenhower 'to all mankind America's wish for peace on earth and good will toward men everywhere.' Satellite had been launched from Cape Canaveral on previous day." -from "Chases' Calendar of Annual Events" We've come a long way since then! -Bud ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 17-Dec-82 0304 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #76 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 76 Today's Topics: Saturn V film Geminid Report Dr. Forward in the News Re: A question concerning Sirius Re: A question concerning Sirius space endurance record set Newsweek flaming The Blivit in the B-Ring Observation Report Asteroid Mining results The Thing in the Rings Skylab book, space sickness - (nf) Re: A question concerning Sirius Viking I Contact Lost Re: Dr. Forward in the News Color of the moon? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Dec 1982 0943-CST From: Clyde Hoover Subject: Saturn V film To: space at MIT-MC NASA has always festooned manned space vechiles with cameras to record almost anything of interest. The entire launch complex is covered with TV cameras, every catwalk and blast pit. Some of the more spectacular pictures of the Apollo program came from those cameras. My favorites were the one UNDER the main engines, so you could watch those beasts fire up (and disintegrate the camera) and at the base of the mobile launcher (watching those HUGE hold down arms snap back). The launch vechiles were outfitted with special film cameras to record important events. These cameras are then released (in this case, soon after the first stage seperation). Since the Saturn V was only about 20-30 miles up (past most of the atmosphere), but far short of orbital velocity, the cameras splashed into the Eastern Atlantic and floated there waiting to be recovered. On the last shuttle flight, one of the networks showed a brief NASA film clip of the external tank seperation taken by a camera in the orbiter (from a previous flight). That camera stayed with Columbia and was removed after the orbiter's return to Earth. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 82 8:24:16-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70 Subject: Geminid Report Article-I.D.: inuxc.553 Via: Usenet; 15 Dec 82 19:43-PST Geminids Meteors I managed to drag myself out of bed and watch part of the shower this morning.From 3 A.M. EST to 3:20 I counted 19 meteors, then some high cloud cover moved in and cut the count down to about 10 for the next hour after that the skies in light-polluted Indianapolis cleared off somewhat and the count was up to 20 for the 30 min from 4:30 to 5 AM at which time I decided to pack it in. Observations: While this was the most active shower I have seen the meteors were all pretty slow moving with only a few leaving trails. The shower had a mix of colors from green to yellow to red with few of the brilliant white or blue white meteors of other showers such as the Persuids. Thats all I can think of right now, I need to find something to wake me up and pray that nothing important happens this morning. Please excuse any grammar etc...... Fred BTL/ABI INDY ------------------------------ Date: 16 December 1982 12:03-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Dr. Forward in the News To: dietz%usc-cse at USC-ECL cc: SPACE at MIT-MC At the start of that article Mr. Forward is beating a dead horse. Not even network newscasters are referring to the STS environment as "zero-gee" now. They're referring to it as "micro-gravity". This is one case where Jules Bergman et al were one step ahead of yours truly! (I.e. now "everybody knows there's no such as zero gravity.") Mr. Forward is saying microgravity isn't enough, nanogravity is needed. Well, for many experiments microgravity is quite sufficient. When it isn't, his ideas for achieving nanogravity are interesting. But I'd prefer developing SEPS so we can go to deep space where nanogravity is the default rather than trying to cancel curvature in LEO. Also in deep space you can cancel nano-gravity to achieve pico-gravity if you have instruments able to measure the nano-gravity and algorithms&computers to compute the placement of the masses to cancel it. FROM:37'28N122'08W415-323-0720, about 3 miles from Stanford ------------------------------ Date: 16 December 1982 12:20-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: A question concerning Sirius To: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Oh boy, you've repeated the fallacy I've heard so many times I've just got to reply! We know that Jupiter almost became a star: it still radiates more heat than it receives from the sun. What do you mean by "heat"? If you mean infrared: No, Jupiter emits microwave, not infrared, mostly. Same with any other planet. If you mean thermal convection: Obviously not, it's surrounded by a vacuum. That leaves "total radiant energy", which is what I always assume you-all mean when you make this claim. But I claim every planet, Earth et al, does the same, radiates more energy than it receives. A planet receives mostly near-infrared and some visible light (Sun is radiating blackbody at somewhee around 5000K with minor absorbtion lines that don't significantly affect things and minor X-ray and other emissions that are almost as insignificant), and depending on its temperature a planet re-radiates, mostly in microwave with some deep infrared, every Joule of energy it receives, plus a little extra it generates internally from radioactive decay and gravitational collapse, plus a little more as its insides gradually cool towards the surface temperature. Thus every planet emits a teensy more energy than it receives. The same is true of just about every massive object in the universe. Deep space absorbs all this waste heat, and would get hotter over the billions of years if the Universe weren't expanding so fast. What you-all really mean to say is that Jupiter gives off more than twice as much heat as it receives, i.e. its internal source of heat (gravitational collapse and cooling of interior mostly) is more than its external source of heat, so that its radiated energy is more due to internal than external sources. Equivalently its personal contribution to radiated energy is greater than what it receives from the Sun. This is a significant statement that I'e never heard stated correctly by anyone who could make that statement with authority. (It may even be false! How am I to know??) But the statement you made (quoted above) and that I've heard elsewhere, is a triviality that is literally true of Earth et all, even the Moon! ------------------------------ Date: 16 December 1982 12:35-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: A question concerning Sirius To: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC, POURNE at MIT-MC, koolish at BBN-UNIX Date: 12 Dec 82 17:34:48-PST (Sun) From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70 When the sun goes into the red giant stage, is it possible that Jupiter could borrow enough mass from the sun to become a G or K star with a companion white dwarf (remnants of the sun)? Or would Jupiter's orbit be enclosed by the red giant? What I heard/read was that the Sun's red-giant stage would about reach the orbit of Mars, maybe a little further. I doubt Jupiter could yank gas from such a distance, and the solar wind would be rushing by so fast and Jupiter would be such a small target I doubt much gas would be collected by Jupiter. Perhaps Pournelle or Koolish has more info about current theories of stellar evolution as applied to Sun. If so, and if we can move the Earth when the Sun goes into the Red Giant stage, then the Earth might outlive the Sun ... As the Sun expands we'll have to gradually move the Earth away or else put a shade "tree" between Earth and Sun. Eventually we'll have to move or totally-shield the Earth if we want to preserve it as a historical landmark. (Gee, literally a little chunk of land in the vastness of Dyson spheres and space-mobile homes and recreational space-vehicles and solar-wind sailboats and Bussard ramjets etc.) We may want to move Venus much earlier to let it cool off so we can make manned landings on it to learn its geology and to experiment with its climate.) Adding to its orbital energy by tugging an asteroid just ahead of it in orbit would seem to be a way to move it out without physically stressing it too much. A slight continuous accelleration over a million years ought to do the trick in very-plenty of time before the Sun's nova stage 5-10 billion years hence. ------------------------------ Date: 16 December 1982 12:45-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: space endurance record set To: SPACE at MIT-MC Nobody reported it here yet so I might as well: A few days ago the Russian cosmonauts came down after being up for over 200 days to set a new manned-space endurance record. No details here, my memory is sketchy. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 1982 1103-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Newsweek flaming To: space at MIT-MC This weeks issue of Newsweek contains a column (My Turn, in the front) that is pretty flamingly anti-space. It is a pretty classic argument: *Obviously* there is no such thing as extraterrestrial life, and anyone who says there is is indulging in "a comic-strip view of the universe". He then goes on to say that since there is no intelligent life in the universe, wouldn't all those millions that we are spending on SETI be better spent making the Earth a better place to live. The worst part about this guy is that his one-paragraph biography at the end of the piece lists him as: "a scientist who has worked on Apollo and other space shots", thus giving him some measure of credibility. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 82 15:35:35-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hao!csu-cs!silver at Ucb-C70 Subject: The Blivit in the B-Ring Article-I.D.: csu-cs.1921 Via: Usenet; 16 Dec 82 3:38-PST Does anyone have further information (or conjecture) on the radio source apparently in the B-Ring of Saturn? See Richard Hoagland's two-part article in the 8212 and 8301 issues of Analog. It seems there's a weird, inexplicable source of broadband emissions that correlates with a narrow gap in the rings, discovered by the Voyagers. Alan Silverstein Hewlett-Packard Engineering Systems Division ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 82 11:27:18-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm at Ucb-C70 Subject: Observation Report Article-I.D.: inuxa.175 Via: Usenet; 16 Dec 82 3:19-PST Location: 8417 Christiana Ln, Indianapolis Ind. Conditions: Very good Time of observation: 9:00 - 9:45 pm EST Objects observed: M35,36,37,38,42 Three meteors from the Geminid shower were also sighted. Two of them were fairly dim with no tail approx. magnitude 4.0. The third was approx. mag. of 0.0 white in color and covered about 15 degrees across the sky. I would have tried to see more of the shower but I was very tired and cold! Also a magnitude estimate was attempted of the variable star: S Aurigae color 6.7, period 578d designation 052034 However, I had difficulty in locating the star field and could not be absolutely certain I could identify the variable. Therefore, no magnitude estimate was attempted. I believe this star is at a minimum in it's cycle, approx. magnitude 11, thereby making identification of it among several dim stars very difficult. Ron Meyer inuxa!rrm Bell labs, Indy Secretary Indiana Astro. Society ------------------------------ Date: 15 Dec 82 16:17:01-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!rjs at Ucb-C70 Subject: Asteroid Mining results Article-I.D.: floyd.964 Via: Usenet; 16 Dec 82 3:48-PST Many thanks to all who answered my question about the safe return to earth of metals mined in space. As promised, here is a summary of responses. I have not included information supplied directly to the net, just that which was mailed to me. 3 of the 5 respondants thought that bringing the metals to the earth's surface was not the most economical thing to do, and one of the others thought that only relatively rare metals such as platinum should be broght to earth. The favored alternative was to use the metals for construction in space, either of things to be used in space (space stations, etc.) or finished products to be space shuttled down to earth. Using metals mined in space to create things to be used in space is considered economical because of the large cost of boosting metal into space from the earth. If metals are to be brought to the earth, two major methods were discussed. 2 respondants suggested building a large, simple (no engine) shuttle out of some of the metal to be used to glide the rest of the metal down to earth. 2 respondants suggested melting a big glob of metal and injecting air to make it foam (or make it foam without air to create cells surrounding vacuum). The idea is to get the density down low enough that it floats on water or lower atmosphere, then drop it down to earth. The concept of foam steel (or other metal) has been discussed on the net since my submission. The following references were provided for further reading: The NASA summer studies Toward Distant Suns by T.A. Heppenheimer The Third Industrial Revolution by G. Harry Stine The Fertile Stars by Brian O'Leary I will not exist netwise till Jan 3, 1983 (vacation and all), so sending further mail to me will probably not be productive. Robert Snyder floyd!rjs ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 1982 1436-PST From: Tom Wadlow Subject: The Thing in the Rings To: space at MIT-MC I talked with Hoagland at Baycon a few weeks ago, and he says that the data from the Stanford radiotelescope is still being analyzed. They plan to use the Very Large Array soon, and he spoke of a television special sometime early next year. For those of you that have not read the Analog article, the story is this: One of the Voyager experiments heard a series of radio-energy bursts as it approached Saturn. These bursts were very broad banded (i.e. they seemed to be present no matter what frequency the Voyager reciever was listening to) and found to be periodic. The calculated period was approximately 10 hours 10 minutes. That fact, plus the postulation that the lower frequencies heard would not have been able to punch through the Saturnian atmosphere, lead some people at JPL to conclude that the source is in orbit in the ring plane. Further analysis also seems to show that there is only one object making all this noise, which means that this thing is releasing megawatt (or even gigawatt, if the band of transmission is much greater than the band of the Voyager reciever) quantities of energy into the rings occasionally (on the order of hours). Further confirmation was sought. The Voyager Photopolarimetry experiment data was checked (This is the experiment where the light from Delta Scorpii was measured as it passed behind the rings, to determine thickness). The PPS found a football stadium sized gap in the B ring, smack in the center of a 3000 mile wide "solid" (no light got through) band. Resonances with the known moons do not account for the gap (There are gaps that are caused by each of the moons). The period of an object in this gap would be 10 hours 9 minutes and 50 some odd seconds. There is quite a bit of speculation as to what the "thing" is. One favorite of Hoagland's is a Primordial Black Hole (PBH). The model in that case would be a black hole that has cleared a space in the rings, or possibly caused the rings to begin with, by repeatedly bashing into a moonlet. It would be nourished by occasionally sucking in ring material, so that it would not evaporate (a la Stephen Hawking and his fuzzy black holes). One feature of this explanation is that it might explain the braided rings. If a PBH is releasing massive quantities of energy into the rings, it must be boosting a large number of particles into a higher orbit, or even past Saturn escape velocity. If this is so, then there is a "wind" blowing away from Saturn in the ring plane, making the braids form for purely aerodynamic reasons. Another interesting feature is this: if we have found a PBH in our own back yard, chances are, they are fairly common. This would explain the missing mass in the universe necessary to account for the Big Bang. Other explanations (he spent much less time on these, so I don't have as much info) might be a metal moonlet that occasionally short circuits the two big semi-solid rings, which would act like a giant capacitor. A magnetic monopole. Or...... an artifact. If you wanted to attract somebodies attention, one way to do it might be to make a ring around a big planet. And put a noisy radio source in the ring. One thing that Voyager observed was that the signals were broadbanded and randomly polarized as it approached, but narrow banded and circularly polarized as it left. If you wanted to make a space beacon that would attract attention even if you didn't know that you should be listening for it, alternating between those two modes would be a pretty good design. Another point that Hoagland mentions is that some of the Voyager evidence (I don't remember which as I don't have the article handy) points to the fact that the rings are relatively new, on the order of only 100 million years. And that they are being dissipated, and have only some millions of years left. They are not stable, as we once thought they were. One final thought: (mine, not his) UC Berkeley prof Luis Alvarez claims that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a giant meteor impact about 63 million years ago. In geologic terms this is just about the same time that Saturns rings were formed. And it was the death of the dinosaurs and the change in climate that allowed the mammals of that time to evolve into us. Think about it. --Tom ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 82 12:02:53-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hp-pcd!everett (Everett Kaser) at Ucb-C70 Subject: Skylab book, space sickness - (nf) Article-I.D.: hp-pcd.544 Via: Usenet; 16 Dec 82 17:29-PST #N:hp-pcd:8400006:000:1832 hp-pcd!everett Dec 16 08:29:00 1982 From: Everett Kaser hplabs!hp-pcd Re: space sickness There is a very interesting book about the old Skylab missions called, I think, 'A House In Space'. I don't remember the authors name. It's a paperback that I found in a used book store and it was probably published about 1974 or 1975 or maybe 1976. Any....way, it covers all three missions, and talks quite a bit about the space sickness encountered (experienced ?) by the various members of the crews (not all experienced it). It also discusses how the astronauts, upon entering a 'room' of the skylab, would experience a few moments of disorient- ation, then their minds would 'lock-onto' the room and establish an 'up' and a 'down' and then everything would be fine (until another of the astronauts would enter the room 'upside-down', and then things would get interesting again). However, the space-sickness was usually, if at all, experienced only for the first few hours they were in space, and then they'd be all right for the rest of the mission. The second crew got into some trouble with mission control when they concealed the fact that one of their members had gotten sick (blew his cookies) because mission control had a policy of keeping the crew in the command capsule for a day if any of the crew got sick, to give them a chance to recover before entering the larger skylab area. (This was because the larger area made it easier for the astronauts to become disoriented and thus get sick. However, once their systems had gotten used to the weightlessness (undirectedness ?) of space, then the larger volume was no problem.) Anyway, it's a worthwhile book. I'll try to find it at home tonight, and I'll post a response to this note giving the authors name. Not afraid to get spacesick, if they'll just give me the chance, Everett Kaser. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Dec 82 11:02:28-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: npois!cbosgd!djb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: A question concerning Sirius Article-I.D.: cbosgd.2892 In-Reply-To: Article watmath.4019 Via: Usenet; 16 Dec 82 18:35-PST Question: How much mass does Jupiter have to gain in order to be stellar in mass? Quick trip to the bookshelf. Let's see. The smallest known true stars are the two components of the binary system L 726-8 in Cetus. They are red dwarfs of about 0.04 solar mass. Jupiter is about 0.001 solar mass, so it needs to multiply its mass by a factor of 40. It's possible that some other objects are stars, but they haven't been identified or photographed yet: Object Mass (Sun = 1.0) Comment ******** ************* **************************** L 726-8A 0.04 Proven star - photographed L 726-8B 0.04 Proven star - photographed Companion to WZ Sagitta 0.03 star - Uncertain mass figure Lalande 21185 0.03 star - Uncertain mass figure Companion to Lalande 21185 0.01 unseen, possible star (?) 61 Cygni C 0.008 unseen, possible star (?) Companion to Barnard's Star 0.0015 unseen - assumed planet (?) Jupiter 0.001 known planet If 61 Cygni C turns out to be a star, then Jupiter is only a factor of 8 away from stellar mass. David Bryant cbosg!djb I suppose there must be some hard and fast value of critical mass for starhood. Anybody out there know what the minimum recipe is for making a star? ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 82 7:28:59-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Viking I Contact Lost Article-I.D.: alice.1307 Via: Usenet; 16 Dec 82 21:28-PST Scientists at JPL have lost contact with the Viking I lander, the last surviving component of the Viking program. They think that the problem is merely an out of line antenna that should be able to be fixed and feel certain that the ship itself it alright. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 82 13:20:01-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Dr. Forward in the News Article-I.D.: eagle.693 In-Reply-To: Article sri-unix.4844 Via: Usenet; 16 Dec 82 22:37-PST There's one additional factor that disturbs the low gravity environment, at least aboard the shuttle: thruster firing. When the orbiter is commanded to hold a particular attitude, thruster firing can be quite frequent in order to counteract the orbiter's tendency to orient itself along the local gravity-gradient. Free-flying payloads, such as the Long Term Exposure facility, will probably be much better for experiments requiring minimal accelerations. Phil Karn ------------------------------ Date: 16 Dec 82 18:56:07-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Color of the moon? Article-I.D.: eagle.695 Via: Usenet; 16 Dec 82 23:16-PST The color of the moon's surface seems to vary quite a bit among the various photographs taken on the surface by the Apollo crews. In some, it appears dark grey, with no color, while in others it is a golden brown. Is this a true variation, or is it attributable to film, printing, sun angles, etc? Phil ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 18-Dec-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #77 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 77 Today's Topics: OTRAG fate and Cannonfire. Curious Anomaly. Multiple-telescope telescopes, and blurring of starlight Re: Newsweek Flaming ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Dec 1982 1821-EST From: BIESEL at RUTGERS Subject: OTRAG fate and Cannonfire. To: space at MIT-MC cc: biesel at RUTGERS Does anyone know what happened to OTRAG, the german firm that was going to build cheap launch vehicles, using windshield wiper motors for pumps, and other cost-saving features? Last I heard, they had to move from Central Africa, for mysterious reasons. While I'm asking for obscure info: I recall a scheme some years ago for using a cannon to fire an object into orbit (or at least supplying a major part of the kinetic and potential energy for orbital insertion of a small rocket). Does anyone know the fate of this project, or any reasons (other than the obvious technical problems of acceleration, and pressure) why this cannot work? Pete. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 1982 1843-EST From: BIESEL at RUTGERS Subject: Curious Anomaly. To: space at MIT-MC cc: biesel at RUTGERS I've recently read a book on the US astronaut program which listed the names, and dates of appointment, for all astronauts, up through the first shuttle personnell. Among the Mercury 7, four were either Jr.'s or Joe Blow II or III. This preponderance of male children named after their father continued throughout the Gemini and Apollo programs, albeit with reduced incidence. A random, and very unscientific sample of names from the phonebook showed that the incidence of Jr.'s among the astronaut corps up until the the Shuttle crews was many times the incidence among the average population. I can imagine several psychological theories, based upon achievement orientation, desire to outdo the old man/make a name for oneself, but none would seem to account for the really striking incidence of Jr.'s. Any guesses? Pete. ------------------------------ Date: 17-Dec-82 18:11:46 PST (Friday) From: Wedekind.es at PARC-MAXC Subject: Multiple-telescope telescopes, and blurring of starlight To: SPACE@MIT-MC two questions- 1) Something tells me this was covered at one point but I can't remember details: Are there practical ways to combine CCD-gathered data from synchronized observations at multiple unrelated existing optical telescopes and come away with increased image resolution or other good things? 2) How much does the atmosphere blur a star's light? Hmm, better be more precise: Let's say we're at an observatory site and the seeing is good. There is only one star in the sky, at zenith. How much light/square radian do we see, as a function of angle from zenith? If the value at 0 radians is 1, any idea what the value is at 15 radians? Integrate the light over a minute or two of time so twinkling doesn't figure in. Ignore interstellar dust, and no, the star isn't Betelguese! Jerry [P.S. My earlier msg (blurring of starlight) refers to an angle of 15 radians from zenith. I meant degrees. -Jerry] ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 1982 2038-PST From: Den Lenahan Subject: Re: Newsweek Flaming To: taw at S1-A cc: space at MIT-MC Postal-Address: SMC 2811, NPS, Monterey, Ca 93940. Phone: (Home) 408-633-5161 Perhaps it's fortunate that Newsweek puts the biography at the end of the article. Maybe a lot of people did as I did -- started reading the piece, decided it was a bunch of _____, and flipped over to other articles without discovering that the writer had a "measure of credibility". Let's hope so. Dennis ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 19-Dec-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #78 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 78 Today's Topics: The Blivit in the B-Ring The Thing in the Rings & the Cretaceous Extinction Re: A question concerning Sirius Viking I Contact Lost ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 December 1982 21:59-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: The Blivit in the B-Ring To: hplabs!hao!csu-cs!silver at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC What exactly does the spectrum look like, blackbody at thermal temperatures, or low-energy synchotron, or what? It may just be a hot spot where two intersecting rings bump into each other creating thermal energy. Not enough bumping to destroy the rings quickly, but enough for the energy of gradual destruction to be detectable. Anyway, that's my first guess. I'll be pleased if I turn out to be correct! FROM:37'28N122'08W415-323-0720, about 3 miles from Stanford ------------------------------ Date: 18 December 1982 22:28-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: The Thing in the Rings & the Cretaceous Extinction To: TAW at S1-A cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Aha, the regularily-periodic bursting of the radio source is explained nicely by my idea of an out-of-plane ringlet or moonlet colliding with the rest of the material in adjoining rings, or two non-circular ringlets or moonlets or one of each, with a burst at each orbit. It's analagous to comets producing meteor showers that we have each year but which produe really big showers every 33 years or whatever the orbital period of the comet was. The ring object would wipe itself out in 200 million years but with the rings only 65 million years old it hasn't wiped itself out yet. -- But I really like the black-hole theory too. I guess we have to send a Galileo-class ship there to orbit long enough to find the truth. Now let's see, when does budget scrooge Stockman leave office? By the way, although there's no religious significance if the comet that wiped out the dinosaurs and thus allowed mammals to take over and evolve humans also made a pretty ring for us to watch and do movies about (2001, silent running), but it does explain why such a rare event happens to have happend at the same time the rare event of the dinosaur extinction and our development occurred. In fact I might go so far as to speculate that whenever in the future we discover that our solar system is the only system in the whole galaxy with some property, that there's a direct casual link between that property and our evolution were, either one caused the other (like if there's a candy wrapper on the Moon but nowhere else, some astronaut probably put it there) or some common cause was involved (one comet did both rings of Saturn and our dinosaur extinction). Maybe the rings of Jupiter and Uranus were also caused by that comet, just Saturn was on the right side of the Sun. (Gee, maybe by tracing back tree rings in fossels we can date the Cretaceous Extinction to within a few years, then by tracing back the orbits of the planets to find when Saturn and Earth were on one side of the Sun with Jupiter and Uranus far away, we can get the exact month of the CE, and by checking geologic evidence such as meteor craters and biological evidence such as where the CE hit most strongly we can even find out what time of day it hit!! -- Yes, I'm out on a limb, but something truth is stranger than fiction! Black holes (probably truth) are stranger than ray guns (fantasy science fiction) for example.) ------------------------------ Date: 18 December 1982 22:53-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: A question concerning Sirius To: npois!cbosgd!djb at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC If you define a "star" to be something that glows in the night, then Jupiter and Earth are "stars". We're microwave stars, something hotter is an infrared star, and something yet hotter is a red star, etc. I think we have to define a star as something that is undergoing nuclear fusion rather than merely using gravitational collapse to convert potential energy into knetic energy. A star big enough to undergo nuclear fusion but which hasn't yet collapsed enough to start burning, is a pre-star. Also a smaller object that is getting more massive due to matter flowing from a companion, such that eventually there'll be enough mass to start nuclear fusion, should perhaps be called a pre-star also. Anything too small and not getting new mass to eventually be big enough, is a non-star, i.e. a simple planet or gas cloud. So, the question is, how much mass is needed to sustain Hydrogen-->Helium fusion, the only kind of nuclear fusion possible initially when a star is mostly Hydrogen? I think this has already been figured out and published somewhere but I don't know for sure where. Anything that we detect as an infrared source, that we measure and find too small to be burning hydrogen, we just have to call a non-star. If we call it a star just because it's hot enough to glow, our definition becomes too weak, as I explained above. -- What we call it? "Non-star" is so general, as is "compact infrared source". How about a "dar" (contraction of "Dark stAR")? We could use that term also for former-stars that have burned their hydrogen and helium and are now black dwarfs. ------------------------------ Date: 18 December 1982 22:55-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Viking I Contact Lost To: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC Aha, now we simply HAVE to send a rescue craft for the poor Viking! ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 21-Dec-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #79 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 79 Today's Topics: Color of the moon Jupiter almost became a star cannons a first stages Space sickness Re: Multiple-telescope telescopes & blurring of starlight ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 December 1982 1035-EST (Monday) From: David.Smith at CMU-CS-A (C410DS30) To: space at MIT-MC Subject: Color of the moon Color film from the moon walks often (usually?) had its colors warped because it was processed to enhance "other information." I don't know what that other information might be, aside from better contrast or finer grain. I saw this explanation on a photo (in National Geographic, I think) which made the moon look green. The Apollo 8 astronauts said the moon was gray. The Apollo 10 astronauts said the moon was chocolate-brown. Neither group would budge for the other. The Apollo 11 astronauts said OK, you're both right -- it's brown when the sun is high overhead, and gray when the sun is lower. (All of this came from observations from lunar orbit.) David Smith ------------------------------ Date: 20-Dec-82 11:10AM-EST (Mon) From: David Miller Subject: Jupiter almost became a star To: Space at MIT-MC "We all Know that Ju[iter almost became a star" Yes this is true, but there is a big difference between almost became, and is now. Jupiter had at the time of the creation of the solar system, almost sufficient mass to ATTRACT sufficient mass from the condensing cloud of the protostar to become a small, probably K or M type. It missed its chance and has only about 2% percent of that needed to start Hydrogen burning, (most people's definition of a real start). --Dave ------------------------------ From: DP@MIT-ML Date: 12/20/82 12:24:15 Subject: cannons a first stages Sometime in the 50's the army got a small sounding rocket up to a fairly high altitude by firing it from a 16" cannon on a battleship. This was used as a prop device in a SF story called "The Sword Sleeps" published in analog 2 or 3 years ago... enjoy, Jeff ------------------------------ Date: 20 December 1982 1406-EST (Monday) From: David.Smith at CMU-CS-A (C410DS30) To: DMRussell.PA at parc-maxc Subject: Space sickness Or was it just that the early flights weren't long enough for the adrenalin "high" to have worn off? - D M Russell Gordon Cooper was in space for 34 hours in a Mercury capsule in 1963. Did his adrenalin "high" wear off? Well, he took a catnap on the launch pad, and slept during the flight. I believe that the 14-day Gemini 7 flight (December 1965) lasted longer than any Apollo until Skylab. It certainly lasted longer than any Shuttle flight to date. Here's an excerpt from an article in Aviation Week, 6 Dec. 82, p.28: The Mission 5 crew last week [in a press conference] did not comment on controversial issues surrounding the way their medical status was handled by managers. They did say, however, that their condition in space was better than they heard it was when they returned to Earth. Both astronauts William B. Lenoir and Marine Col. Robert F. Overmyer experienced some vomiting in their adapting to zero-g [Apologies to Robert Forward]. Neither said they [sic] felt ill as a person does on Earth when motion sick, and the earliest symptoms did not occur until 11 hours into the flight. Lenoir described the symptoms as coming on quickly and being more like "a wet belch." "I have a tendency to think it was overrated and overreacted to down here," Lenoir said. "In fact we weren't feeling all that bad. We never missed a beat, we got all of our work done." David Smith ------------------------------ Date: 20-Dec-82 12:29:00 PST (Monday) From: Lynn.es at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Multiple-telescope telescopes & blurring of starlight 1) When they combine radio telescope observations interferometrically, they use recordings of the radio waves themselves (not just their amplitude), and must have a time base accurate to a fraction of a wave. I don't think we have the capability to do that with such high frequencies as light. Optical fiber transmission of the light for optically combining the signals as received (rather than later from a recording) might work. 2) I have never seen figures for blurring as a function of zenith angle, but I would assume it would be roughly proportional to the amount of air through which the light traveled. In that case, it is the same formula as for dimming of light through the atmosphere, which is closely approximated by the secant of the zenith angle, at least down to a few degrees from the horizon. Thus at 60 degree zenith angle, we would get twice the blurring as directly overhead (probably twice in terms of area, though you could build a case for twice the linear dimensions). Blurring at 15 degrees would be 1.035, or pretty negligible. I know of two phenomena that would tend to indicate that the blurring would be a bit unpredictable. One is that observatories have found that often the majority of blurring occurs within tens of feet of the ground. That is why some telescopes are mounted considerably above ground (for instance the 4 meter Mayall telescope's housing is about the height of a 20 story building). The second is that blurring varies vastly from night to night, or even hour to hour. A theoretical point of light (ignoring the diffraction pattern, which you can for a large telescope) that actually occupies one second of arc due to atmospheric blurring is good, 1/4 second is phenomenally good, and 4 or 5 seconds is poor, but alas, not too unusual. /Don Lynn ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 23-Dec-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #80 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 80 Today's Topics: Blurring of Starlight, Interferometry ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Dec 1982 10:31-PST From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL Subject: Blurring of Starlight, Interferometry To: space@mit-mc Origin: usc-cse Reply-To: dietz@USC-ECL Via: Usc-Cse; 22 Dec 82 11:36:20 An interesting fact about atmospheric blurring of starlight is that, over short periods of time (fractions of seconds to seconds) and small angular separations (fractions of degrees) it is highly correlated. A new technique is to take snapshots of the object you're viewing every, say, 1/50 of a second. The results can be adjusted and stacked by computer. I'm not sure of the details (where does phase information go?). This technique is called "speckle interferometry" because of the appearance of the resulting image. The've used this technique to separate Pluto and Charon, and to image Betelgeuse's (sp?) stellar disk. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 28-Dec-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #81 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 81 Today's Topics: Eclipse Re: Color of the moon? - (nf) Proposed mission to L5 car passes for Shuttle launches L5 Sailing Re: OTRAG fate We lose another Otrag Re: Skylab book, space sickness - (nf) The 3clipse is comming, The 3clipse is coming!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Dec 82 8:37:55-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70 Subject: Eclipse Article-I.D.: inuxc.559 Via: Usenet; 18 Dec 82 6:02-PST Just a reminder of the Lunar Eclipse on December 30, 1982. Next years Lunar eclipses will not be total so this is your last chance to see a total lunar eclipse for quite awhile. EVENT TIME (UT) TIME(EST) TOTALITY BEGINS 10:58 5:58 AM MID-ECLIPSE 11:29 6:29 AM TOTALITY ENDS 11:59 6:59 AM THIS IS THE MORNING OF DEC 30. I'll be leaving this scene to visit relatives in THE LAND OF ICE AND SNOW (Minn.) SO I'd like to wish a warm and happy holiday season and a joyful new year. Frederick T. Mendenhall jr. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 82 15:34:23-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!coletti at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Color of the moon? - (nf) Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.1254 Via: Usenet; 18 Dec 82 6:43-PST #R:eagle:-69500:uiucdcs:12700025:000:788 uiucdcs!coletti Dec 17 14:51:00 1982 As far as the shots from orbit are concerned, I'm afraid the problem was that the astronauts did not always use the correct filters on their cameras. Presumably various scientists (geologists (selenologists?)) wanted to measure the reflectivity of the various lunar minerals at different points in the spectrum. This would help determine what minerals they were looking at. The filters would take have taken care of that. (Reference: Brian O'Leary, "Making of an Ex-Astronaut". He attributes the problem to using super test pilots to do a scientist's job.) Neil Coletti ..!decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!coletti P.S.: The real color is pretty much like what the returned lunar rocks look like; dark-gray beach sand. Reflectivity under 10% (about 4% ?). ------------------------------ Date: 23 Dec 82 13:31:40-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: hplabs!intelqa!omsvax!bc at Ucb-C70 Subject: Proposed mission to L5 Article-I.D.: omsvax.271 Via: Usenet; 25 Dec 82 9:12-PST Disclaimer The following is strictly tablecloth engineering, and may be the fevered product of too much Sczechuan Beef. I request your best attempts to shoot it down. It sounds as if it should work, but I just don't know enough about celestial mechanics, etc, to say. Proposal That some space society or consortium of societies send up in the shuttle a getaway special package which contains a probe to be sent to one of the Lagrange points L4 or L5. The probe would be motivated by a light sail, and powered either by solar cells or by a SNAP battery. It would contain an instrument package which would study the environment at the Lagrange points: dust and charged particle density, magnetic fields and solar wind, presence of large rocks, etc. Before I get involved in the technical discussion, I want to discuss the motives for such a probe. It seems to me that NASA is not willing to work seriously towards large scale space colonization or industrialization, for fear of adverse publicity. They are trying to stick closely to what they view as the "mainstream" of space development which they view as development of Earth-directed services such as weather observation and communications in LEO. They are hoping that the private sector will vindicate their choice of projects by slowly taking over the investment. The space colony and industrialism proponents on the other hand, are building fairly involved scenarios for the development of space, but lack hard information on the environment in which development will take place, because they lack the means to explore that environment. Conditions at the Lagrange points including relative abundance of materials such as hydrogen and carbon, dust density, numbers of large rocks, and precise placement relative to the Earth's magnetopause would affect construction there. We (I'm a proponent of space colonization too) keep hoping that NASA will develop projects to explore these conditions, but it seems unlikely that they will do so in the next decade, given their current emphasis. The idea for this probe developed from a conversation about the optimum payload for a non-NASA, non-aerospace-corporation developed experiment to be carried by the shuttle. Such an experiment must be small in order to fit into the space allotted to a getaway special, self-contained, relatively inexpensive (assuming volunteer labor for design and construction), and be intended to study an area which is not likely to be studied by anyone else for awhile. An example of such a payload is the series of OSCAR sattellites developed by the American Radio Relay League for relaying amateur radio signals. NASA is concentrating on LEO, with a few excursions to the planets, for the next five years, and the corporations are concentrating on materials research in LEO. Until someone finds a need to exploit cis-lunar space beyond geosynchronous orbit, or decides to go into space construction beyond LEO there won't be any call for NASA or the corporations to explore out there. For that matter, there is not yet a reasonable way to get large payloads beyond LEO, since the orbital tug does not yet exist. Rightly or wrongly, the space colonization movement has become identified with the Lagrange points. It's not clear that L5 is the best place for a colony, but that's the place that people think about when space colonies are discussed. A probe to L5 (or L4, whichever makes more sense from an astronautical point of view) would be an excellent symbol of determination on the part of space colony proponents, a proof that private exploration of space is possible, and a means of investigating the Lagrange points to gather hard evidence on their utility for construction sites. On to the technical details. The space and cost constraints seem to rule out the use of chemical rockets to give the probe the impulse needed to get to L5. In addition, the engine needs to be restartable, since the probe needs to match velocities when it reaches L5 (considerably more useful information can be gathered with a given mass of instruments if the probe stays at its target rather than flies by). These considerations favor a constant thrust engine: either an ion-engine or a sail. An ion-engine requires a good deal of electrical power to operate, increasing the cost, and probably decreasing the useful payload mass. A sail requires mechanical parts to steer, and involves a technology which has never really been tried in space before (which in itself may be a reason to use it). The factor which determines a sail's feasibility for this mission is the effective acceleration per unit area which can be obtained, given the solar radiation pressure (and the solar wind?) and the density of the best available sail material. I don't know enough to evaluate this factor, but it sounds reasonable that a solar constant of more than a kilojoule/sq. meter would provide enough thrust to move a total instrument/navigation package of a few tens of kilograms at a few thousandths of a g with a rasonable size sail. Comments, anyone? I envision the sail control as a set of piezoceramic benders which are small, light, and use little power, with rachet and pawl mechanisms to bend, move, and hold the sail in a given position relative to a framework of plastic tubes. The tubes could be carried in the shuttle coiled up flat, then deployed by inflation and stiffening with an ultraviolet-cured epoxy coating. The curing would allow the tubes to hold shape even if the gas used for inflation leaks away. The keel and navigation reference could be a weight on a wire boom, tidal-locked to the Earth. This would work at least out to GEO, but I don't know how well it would work near L5. My guess is that it would work, because at L5 the lunar and solar tides are approximately the same as on Earth, but the Earth's tidal effect would be greater because L5 is fewer Earth radii from Earth than lunar radii from the moon. A very long boom, and possibly some sort of variable damping device, to compensate for the change in resonant frequency with changing tidal force, might be necessary. The payload would consist of an three parts: an astrogation package, an instrumentation package, and a communication package. The astrogation package would contain some sort of sensors, a microcomputer, and the drivers for the mechanism which controls the sail. The instrumentation package would contain the instrumentation for the experiments, a clock, some sort of recorder (magnetic bubbles perhaps), and a controller for the experiments. The communication package would consist of a transmitter to send recorded experimental data to Earth (this could be very small if the NASA deep space net were used for reception on Earth), and (optionally) a receiver for commands from Earth. If the transmitter and receiver were configured to operate as a transponder, they could be used to track distance from Earth to the probe, and power consumption on the probe could be reduced, since the transmitter would only be operating when the receiver on Earth was ready for it. Alternately, tracking could be done by mounting a corner reflector on the probe, and bouncing radar or laser beams from Earth off of it. I can think of a few experiments off the top of my head. Charged particle density could be measured with a Faraday cup (or use the sail as a collector?) and charge detector. Dust density could be measured with a micrometor detector, or by detecting changes in amplitude and polarization of the radio signal returned to Earth from the probe (I don't know what lower limit of density is detectable by this method). The stability of the Lagrange point could be determined by measurements of perturbations in the probe's orbit (the sail may have to be dumped when the probe reaches L5). The local magnetic field could be measured with any standard magnetometer design. Large rocks in the neighborhood could be detected by an on-board radar, or by visual observation through a TV camera. If a large rock is detected, it might be possible to maneuver alongside it for a close look. Conclusion: The mission looks feasible to me, and the probe may or may not be technically possible. In my own area of expertise (the instrumentation electronics and the computers) I know that what I've described can be done simply and (relatively) cheaply, but I am not sure about things like the sail deployment and control, power source, etc. These things need to be investigated by experts in the respective fields, many of whom, I hope, are reading this article. I welcome net mail or articles to net.space or the ARPA space digest either attacking or defending the feasibility of this proposal. I think the primary benefits of this mission would not be from the information it returned, but from the fact of its completion. It would prove that the technological base established by NASA in the last 20 years is now usable by groups other than governments and large corporations, and it would prove that the space exploitation movement has the determination and expertise to carry out the first steps in implementing its own proposals. Bruce Cohen Intel USENET: ...{pur-ee,hplabs}!intelqa!omsvax!bc ARPA: ... hplabs!intelqa!omsvax!bc@UCB-C70 ------------------------------ Date: 21 Dec 82 15:03:49-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hao!csu-cs!silver at Ucb-C70 Subject: car passes for Shuttle launches Article-I.D.: csu-cs.1937 Via: Usenet; 25 Dec 82 9:15-PST After watching STS-3 from 12 miles away on the Merritt Island Causeway (along with 500000 other bozos), I wondered if there was a BETTER WAY. Sure enough, there is. Write to the Public Affairs Office at Kennedy Space Center, Florida (zip = ??) and request a CAR PASS for the shot of your choice. They respond in a few weeks with a postcard telling you if you'll get one, are on the waiting list, or what. The pass is spozed to get you 7 miles away, on the KSC Causeway. Haven't tried it out yet; I'm hoping for a good spot for STS-6. Also, if you are or know a VIP, you can apparently get limited invites to the viewing site on the Cape. Anybody out there a VIP? Alan Silverstein HP ESD, Fort Collins, Col. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Dec 82 15:39:41-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: hplabs!intelqa!omsvax!dps at Ucb-C70 Subject: L5 Sailing Article-I.D.: omsvax.275 Via: Usenet; 25 Dec 82 10:05-PST Question about sailing to L5 and then matching speed with L5 and family: Can this be done so that probe is always sailing "downwind"? I would imagine that a solar sail would work mainly on "push" instead of "lift", so that the probe would be unable to "point" above a beam reach, if that far. (Lift on earth sails comes from a surface effect deflection, and then apply newton: dp/dt = -ma. If the equivalent effect exists with the solar sail, I would expect the mass deflected to be too small to be of practical use, and likely cancelled out by something else (gravititional irregularities?)) It may be possible, by choosing point of launch (from LEO) appropriately. The point I'm thinking will be trickiest is transition from travel to station keeping. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Dec 1982 21:26 PST From: Gloger.es at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: OTRAG fate In-reply-to: Your message of 17 Dec 1982 1821-EST To: BIESEL at RUTGERS cc: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, Gloger.es at Parc-maxc I haven't seen any other response to your question on the fate of OTRAG, so I'll pass along what I know. OTRAG definitely was chased out of Central Africa - Zaire, I'm pretty sure it was - about 3 years ago. They moved to Libya. (Libya, remember, is our planet's foremost nation-state exponent+supporter of terrorism [as distinguished, say, from the Soviet Union, which is the foremost supporter of terrorism while espousing "peace."]) OTRAG said at the time that their's was strictly a business deal with Libya, whereby they leased land for an assembly, test, and launch facility. They further said explicitly that the deal did not include the supplying of rockets to Libya. They did not, however, say why oil-cash-rich Libya would want their money, nor did they in fact disclose anything about what Libya was to receive in exchange for tolerating the presence of Western imperialists. I have heard nothing more about OTRAG directly. Two years ago, however, I heard a rumor which is so good I pass it along: It is an open secret (at least according to this rumor) that the Soviets were behind the rebellion in Zaire which resulted in OTRAG's forced rapid departure from that country. Further, during the rebellion, Soviet-trained and -equipped Zairian rebels were caught while apparently making their way toward the OTRAG facility, with maps, weapons, etc., to destroy and/or capture the facility. Manwhile, OTRAG's arrangement with Libya does call for Libya to get working rockets (still all according to the rumor). And, oil-rich Libya is financing the Pakastani nuclear bomb effort (which effort dirt-poor Pakistan is definitely making, with some help from the U.S., in return for which help the Pakastani's occasionally lie and claim to be making only peaceful use of nuclear energy), this financing by Libya in return for some bombs from Pakistan to Libya. The combination, of course, results in Libya's possessing nuclear-tipped missiles. End of rumor. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Dec 1982 2356-PST From: Hans Moravec Subject: We lose another To: space at MIT-MC a018 2337 27 Dec 82 BC-Swigert,170 Former Astronaut Dead of Cancer at 51 DENVER (AP) - Rep.-elect Jack Swigert died Monday night of cancer at the Lombardi Cancer Institute of Washington's Georgetown University, a spokeswoman for his Washington office announced. He was 51. Swigert, a former Apollo 13 astronaut, was a Republican elected to represent Colorado's new 6th Congressional District Nov. 2. He was to have been sworn in Jan. 3. Before the November election, Swigert announced that his doctors had diagnosed his condition as bone marrow cancer. The cancer later spread to Swigert's lungs, his doctors said. June Weiss, his press secretary, said the immediate cause of Swigert's death was respiratory failure. Swigert had been hospitalized in Washington since Dec. 19, when he was airlifted to the Georgetown University hospital from his home in Littleton. He was under treatment for bone marrow cancer and complications from chemotherapy treatments. Ms. Weiss said Sen. William Armstrong, R-Colo., was with Swigert when he died at 10:10 p.m. ap-ny-12-28 0231EST *************** ------------------------------ Date: 28 Dec 1982 0313-EST From: HPM at CMU-CS-C Subject: Otrag To: space at MIT-MC I've lost the reference, but there was further news of Otrag in AWST about four months ago. Otrag is out of Libya and making arrangements with a South American country (Brazil?). Under pressure from the German investors the politically controversial head of the company, Lutz Kayser, has been ousted, and the operations have been opened to greater outside scrutiny. The financial position could be better. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 82 18:02:35-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hp-pcd!everett (Everett Kaser) at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Skylab book, space sickness - (nf) Article-I.D.: hp-pcd.547 Via: Usenet; 17 Dec 82 20:04-PST #R:hp-pcd:8400006:hp-pcd:8400007:000:609 hp-pcd!everett Dec 17 16:06:00 1982 From: Everett Kaser hplabs!hp-pcd Due to my forgetfullness, I forgot to look up the authors name last night, but I received the name in the mail from Paul, so I'll post his note: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >From ogcvax!allegra!phr Fri Dec 17 13:47:27 1982 To: hp-pcd!everett Subject: skylab book A House in Space is by Henry S. F. Cooper, who was (maybe still is) a science writer for the N. Y. Times. I can dig up more data from my copy at home if you can't find yours. paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 82 4:08:01-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: npois!houxm!5941ux!kek at Ucb-C70 Subject: The 3clipse is comming, The 3clipse is coming!! Article-I.D.: 5941ux.172 Via: Usenet; 18 Dec 82 1:26-PST * * * Don't forget there is a total lunar eclipse on the morning of December 30th. This will be the last total eclipse visible to North Americans for many years. It is also the third total eclipse this year, although one was not observable in North America. It will be over 500 years before this particular feat is repeated. This upcoming eclipse will not be as spectacular as the one of last July since the moon will pass well to the north of the center of the Earth's umbra. This will shorten totality to 66 minutes (compared with 106 minutes for the July event - the longest since 1736 in the western hemisphere). Observers on the East Coast will be at a disadvantage since the moon will be setting and the sun will be rising. However, West Coasters should find the moon high in the sky and the eclipse will be over well before sun-up. Approximate event times are as follows: moon enters penumbra 8:52 (UT) moon enters umbra 9:50 beginning of totality 10:58 mid-point of totality 11:29 end of totality 11:59 moon leaves umbra 13:07 moon leaves penumbra 14:06 HAPPY VIEWING !! Ken Kepple BTL Holmdel 5941ux!kek ------------------------------ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 29-Dec-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #82 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 82 Today's Topics: Watching a shuttle launch Re: The 3clipse is comming, The 3clipse is coming!! Seeing STS launches A question conerning Sirius Re: L5 Sailing Possible Main Engine Problem Halley's comet "captured" by astronomers Proposed mission to L5 solar sail tacking Probing the Lagrangian points shuttle status ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Dec 82 12:54:43-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: menlo70!sytek!zehntel!tektronix!tekcad!keithl at Ucb-C70 Subject: Watching a shuttle launch Article-I.D.: tekcad.309 Via: Usenet; 25 Dec 82 12:00-PST A space shuttle launch is one of the most exciting things you can see. The anticipation, followed by the incredible noise and heat of liftoff are a heady experience. Then comes thousands of people making whoopie after it goes, with the smell of the solid boosters in the air. Having watched the launch of STS-1 from the press site, here are some good ways to get within 3 miles of the pad: 1) Get a press pass. This isn't tough; I sent a letter to the head of Public Affairs at NASA on the letterhead for a small space activist group I was running. You can also work out a deal with a local college paper, newspaper, radio station, museum, or your company paper. Send in letterhead request perhaps two months in advance. If you get to the Space Center a few days early, you can sign up for press tours, sign up to photograph the astronauts as they leave for the pad, etc. I came back with a shopping bag full of press releases, books, samples, and lots of film. Be sure to write something when you get back... 2) Get together a group of people, and get a BUS pass to the VIP site. Charter a bus out of Orlando or Daytona Beach. I set this up for some friends; the bus cost $300 for 40 people. Leave at 8PM the night before; allow about 6 hours for a 30 mile trip (CROWDS!). NASA would rather have people come in the chartered buses; the drivers know what they are doing, and a parked bus takes up a lot less room than a dozen parked cars. GET A BUS PASS BEFORE CHARTERING THE BUS, of course. 3) Join the National Space Institute, and go on one of their tours. If you get into the press site, bring plenty of film, spare batteries if your camera needs them, a hat, sun screen, mosquito repellent, a folding chair, a change of clothes and some munchies. Plan on spending a night without sleep. The roads will be jammed; you will be at the press site from noon the day before to about 6 hours after the launch. There are vending machines and chemical toilets. You will swat your weight in mosquitos. Remember the inverse square law. The closer you get, the better the show! Keith Lofstrom uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!keithl CSnet: keithl@tek ARPAnet:keithl.tek@rand-relay ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 82 19:26:28-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ihldt!ll1!otuxa!we13!rjk at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: The 3clipse is comming, The 3clipse is coming!! Article-I.D.: we13.316 In-Reply-To: Article 5941ux.172 Via: Usenet; 25 Dec 82 12:02-PST A lot of netters should remember that last eclipse... I remember laying on the grass near that big church next to the hotel in Boston at Usenix... It was *hot* there! Brrrrrrrrrr......... Randy King ------------------------------ Date: 23 Dec 82 14:08:14-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: Seeing STS launches Article-I.D.: eagle.699 Via: Usenet; 25 Dec 82 12:05-PST I just spoke with a woman working in the Public Affairs office at KSC about seeing launches. She gives the address to write for car passes as John F. Kennedy Space Center PA-VIC Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899 The public viewing areas at KSC for which a car pass is required are about 6-6.5 miles away from the pad. 2,000 car passes are issued, and they are already booked up for STS-6. Since that was my reason for calling, I'd like to know if anyone else who has already arranged to be there has space in a car. I was told that unless you are a VIP, you must ride in a car with a vehicle pass to get on NASA grounds. The closest one can get to the pad from surrounding areas is about 10-12 miles. I did learn that passes are still available for STS-7, which will be launched in April, although I had my heart set on seeing the next one. Thanks, Phil Karn ------------------------------ Date: 21 Dec 82 16:20:15-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer at Ucb-C70 Subject: A question conerning Sirius Article-I.D.: watmath.4125 Via: Usenet; 25 Dec 82 12:25-PST Good point. And I did mean that Jupiter's internal heat is greater than that it receives from the Sun: I recall reading this in a semi-technical article after the Voyager I flyby. I'm still curious: is it possible that Jupiter could pick up enough mass from the Sun in its red giant stage to become a G, K, or M star? If it is, then the effective lifetime of the Solar System would be doubled. Rick. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Dec 82 11:11:45-PST (Sat) To: space at Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hao!csu-cs!silver at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: L5 Sailing Article-I.D.: csu-cs.1943 In-Reply-To: Article omsvax.275 Via: Usenet; 25 Dec 82 15:02-PST Not sure if you realized this, but you can sail "upwind" in space. The "wind" normally comes from a gravity source; if you turn the sail right, you can LOSE orbital energy with respect to the source and fall toward it. This is overly simplified, but... (Anyone disagree?) ------------------------------ Date: 24 Dec 82 7:18:50-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: npois!npoiv!alice!sjb at Ucb-C70 Subject: Possible Main Engine Problem Article-I.D.: alice.1338 Via: Usenet; 25 Dec 82 23:16-PST Officials have delayed announcing a firm launch date for STS-6 until the first week in January in order to more carefully examine a possible fault detected by the test firing of the Challenger's three main engines last Saturday. Preliminary data indicates a higher than expected concentration of hydrogen in the rear compartment of the shuttle following the test. Officials, who had planned to announce a date yesterday, will wait until the cause is found and a remedy determined to announce the date. 27 January had been the target date since the test firing. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Dec 82 9:00:56-PST (Mon) To: space at Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hao!csu-cs!silver at Ucb-C70 Subject: Halley's comet "captured" by astronomers Article-I.D.: csu-cs.1946 Via: Usenet; 27 Dec 82 17:26-PST They've picked up Halley's comet on it's way in! CSU professor Roger Culver writes in the local paper (the Coloradoan, 821226): "About eight degrees to the north and west of the bright star Procyon in this month's crisp Colorado sky, an object glows with the brightness of a birthday candle as seen from 60,000 miles away... at the very limits of modern astronomical instrumentation. ... At the last appearance of Halley's comet in 1910, astronomers "recovered" this object only a few months before... perihelion." He does not say who found it or where he got his information. Pretty neat, huh? ------------------------------ Date: 28 December 1982 08:58-EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Proposed mission to L5 To: hplabs!intelqa!omsvax!bc @ UCB-C70 cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC I like your idea but may I suggest that we first test the solar-sail system by itself and get it really working before we use it for the fully-instrumented L-4 or L-5 mission? This is analagous to testing a rocket engine on Earth in a test rig, then perhaps in test flights, before applying it to a really serious use where lots of other equipment is at stake. I propose we design a solar-sail-test experiment. We'd have just the solar-sail equipment and the communications system using an omni-directional antenna. We'd have it let loose from the shuttle, it'd sail around the shuttle without really getting far from it, then perhaps we'd have it fly back to the shuttle for return to Earth (perhaps we'd want to check wear&tear on the sail, or we might actually want to re-use it rather than build a new one next time). If it was very successful and by the end of the shuttle mission we had enough confidence to put it into a longer test flight, we'd have it move far away from the shuttle to avoid damage from de-orbit burns of the shuttle. If after much testing we found it to be capable of going to L-4 or L-5, we might send it there, with no special instruments, just see if it can get there at all, and if so use radio attenuation as it flies behind L-4 and/or L-5 to get a crude first approximation to the amount of material there. As its final act, it could crash thru L-4 or L-5 to get another estimate of material there (if it hits something and gets destroyed, that's useful info), or go into orbit of the Moon to provide occultation timing information, or return to LEO for recovery by a later shuttle flight. More likely it won't be totally successful and we'll just keep it in LEO the whole time and build the next one better. When we get one that works, we'll send it on the above-described very-preliminary L-4&5 mission. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Dec 1982 0956-PST From: Richard M. King Subject: solar sail tacking To: space at KESTREL cc: king at KESTREL It's pretty clear that you can't reach L5 from LEO without traveling sunward (unless you launch in a polar orbit, but this is silly because in that case you won't travel AWAY from the sun, either). Solar sails will tack. If they reflect (almost) all of the light that strikes them, the thrust will be (almost) perpendicular to the surface. (however the thrust is proportional to the sine of the angle the sail makes with the illumination. This quantity can go negative - if the sun strikes what you consider to be the back of the sail, you get negative thrust.) You'll have to spiral outwards. So what? the mechanical parts have to be able to move the sail at will, but that will be necessary anyway. I would suggest a small but robust sail for two reasons: 1) don't push technology - it would be awfully embarassing to have your large, extremely thin sail evaporate or something equally greusome. 2) we're going into stormy seas. The L5 "point" is very large and contains a lot of guck (probably). 3) what's the hurry? If we can get even .0001G it should only take nine months to get a delta-V of 20 KM/sec, which should be adequate. My last comment is that the tidal force of Earth is by no means constant. It declines with the CUBE root of the distance. I don't know whether we can get to L5 without getting close enough to the moon to have it exert significant tidal influence. I would recommend using the leading trojan point for this reason. Maybe mini-sails would be better stabilizers than a tidal pendulum, at least after reaching a certain distance from Earth. Dick ------- ------------------------------ Date: 28 December 1982 1738-EST (Tuesday) From: David.Smith at CMU-CS-A (C410DS30) To: space at MIT-MC Subject: Probing the Lagrangian points Message-Id: <28Dec82 173801 DS30@CMU-CS-A> Before rushing off to build an L4 probe, could someone tell us what was learned by ISEE-3 (I think that's the name. It's the probe that is being diverted to intercept comet Giacobini-Zinner), which was in orbit around L1 for three or four years? David Smith ------------------------------ Date: 28 Dec 1982 2007-PST From: Ron Goldman Subject: shuttle status To: space at MIT-MC AM-Space Shuttle, Bjt,420 Largest Communications Satellite Being Readied For Launch CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - The world's largest communications satellite, weighing 5,000 pounds, was being readied Tuesday for the first flight of the space shuttle Challenger, although the date of the launch remained uncertain because of a leak in the ship's hydrogen system. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration says only that the launch will be no earlier than Jan. 27. Even that depends on whether engineers find the leak that flooded Challenger's engine compartment with hydrogen during its first test-firing Dec. 18. Only 50 cargo specialists were at work this week; efforts to find the leak are not to resume until Jan. 3. NASA spokesman Mark Hess said the engine test was normal but ''until we determine the source of the leak we will hold off picking the launch date.'' At launch the shuttle has 383,000 gallons of hydrogen in its fuel tank. The hydrogen combines with 143,000 gallons of oxygen to help power the ship into orbit, assisted by the two solid rockets that flank the craft. The satellite the shuttle and its four-man crew are to carry into orbit is one of three NASA will use for all its spacecraft communications. When the three are in place, NASA will be able to close many of its ground stations and still maintain contact with orbiting shuttles more than 85 percent of the time. The current system of ground stations allows contact, both voice and data, only about 20 percent of the time. As part of the program to get the shuttle ready for flight, NASA had scheduled two weeks of further engine tests beginning Jan. 3 and it is during that time that the leak tests will be made. Hess said there are dozens of valves in the complex engine compartment and any one could be leaking. ''The engines themselves look terrific,'' Hess said. During the 22nd firing in December, the engines put out 90 percent of their power for 20 seconds. The crew of the sixth space shuttle flight is commander Paul Weitz, pilot Karol Bobko and mission specialists Dr. Story Musgrave and Donald Peterson. The flight has been extended from two to five days to get in a space walk by Musgrave and Peterson. The walk was to have been taken by two mission specialists in November but was scrubbed because of trouble with their space suits. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 30-Dec-82 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #83 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 83 Today's Topics: OSCAR, AMSAT and ARRL tidal forces L5 probe Heat pipes on the shuttle (reentry tech) Private spacecraft car passes Otrag Solar sailing from LEO Swigert Dies please remove me from this mailing list. thank you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Dec 82 20:21:50-PST (Tue) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-C70 Subject: OSCAR, AMSAT and ARRL Article-I.D.: eagle.700 Via: Usenet; 29 Dec 82 1:56-PST To correct a slight error in an earlier article: The ARRL (American Radio Relay League) does NOT build amateur radio satellites (the "Oscars"); in the Western world, this is done by the Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation (AMSAT). AMSAT-USA cooperates closely with several other national AMSAT organizations in countries such West Germany, South Africa, the UK, etc. The ARRL is the "mainstream" amateur radio organization with which AMSAT is affiliated, but AMSAT is an independent international organization with separate membership. Part of the confusion may stem from the fact that AMSAT turned over operational control of Amsat-Oscar-8 to the ARRL after launch, in order to free resources for further spacecraft construction. Phil Karn, Asst. VP Engineering, AMSAT ------------------------------ Date: 29 Dec 1982 11:25:11-EST From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: space at mit-mc Subject: tidal forces Would somebody care to actually look this up? The last time I investigated I was told that tidal influence varied as the \4th/ power of the distance. ------------------------------ From: DP@MIT-ML Date: 12/29/82 13:05:39 Subject: L5 probe DP@MIT-ML 12/29/82 13:05:39 Re: L5 probe To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC there is this one problem with launching from a getaway... NASA does not allow the release of anything from a special. (you are allowed to have the top open itself, so you can look out, and radiate heat. no other emmissions (radio, com laser, etc) allowed. Also these things are the size of a 30gal trash can, it would be awfuly hard to fit it in. no reason not to do it, it just will have to go up as a regular load. that is a lot more expensive... (it is claimed that the cost of a getaway is less than the cost of the extra fuel required....) Jeff ------------------------------ Date: 29 Dec 1982 1404-EST From: Ron Subject: Heat pipes on the shuttle (reentry tech) To: SPACE at MIT-MC Anyone up on the newer technology going into keeping the space shuttle a solid on reentry? I had read something in a NASA publication about plans for double layer surface with minimal attachment areas on the inner surface, various insulating blankets, and heat pipes to even out temperatures. This to replace the not-too-sturdy tiles. (ron) ------- ------------------------------ Date: 29 Dec 1982 1413-EST From: Ron Subject: Private spacecraft To: space at MIT-MC Can anyone guess at the level of technology that we might have to reach before it becomes practical for the average person to purchase a private vehicle that could climb from surface to LEO? This would assume conditions would be right: a need existed (everyone's relatives lived in LEO or something... hmm, scratch that one...). The question then is how might it be done? How might the average "Family spacecar" be constructed? (ron) PS- I would consider answers like "Build a skyhook, put a road on it, viola, drive your car (with appropriate oxygen injection) to LEO" reasonable but of limited imagination. Such a skyhook would have to have a very sturdy guard-rail before most people would be allowed to drive on it... I certainly wouldn't want to live nearby... BAMM! "There goes another one Martha..." ------- ------------------------------ Date: 29 Dec 1982 15:42 EST From: wegeng.wbst at PARC-MAXC Subject: car passes To: Space at MIT-MC For one of the later Apollo launches I managed to get a last minute car pass by contacting a Senator from my home state. He (or more likely a staff member) arranged for the pass to be waiting in Florida when I arrived. You might try this approach if all else fails. Don Wegeng Xerox Corp Rochester, NY Wegeng.WBST@Parc-Maxc (arpa) seismo!rochester!rocksvax!rocks34!dw (uucp) intelqa!rocks34!dw (uucp) ------------------------------ Date: 29 Dec 1982 2118-EST From: HPM at CMU-CS-C Subject: Otrag To: space at MIT-MC What luck. Aviation Week just published (Dec 27, 1982) an "executive index", and I was able to find the last Otrag article. In the October 4, 1982 issue, p 21, we have: "Otrag to Market Sounding Rockets" ... liquid propulsion sounding rockets as an interim step toward development of a satellite orbital launch vehicle. The new sendenhall jr. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 82 15:34:23-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!coletti at Ucb-C70 Subject: Re: Color of the moon? - (nf) Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.1254 Via: Usenet; 18 Dec 82 6:43-PST #R:eagle:-69500:uiucdcs:12700025:000:788 uiucdcs!coletti Dec 17 14:51:00 1982 As far as the shots from orbit are concerned, I'm afraid the problem was that the astronauts did not always use the correct filters on their cameras. Presumably various scientists (geologists (selenologists?)) wanted to measure the reflectivity of the various lunar minerals at different points in the spectrum. This would help determine what minerals they were looking at. The filters would take have taken care of that. (Reference: Brian O'Leary, "Making of an Ex-Astronaut". He attributes the problem to using super test pilots to do a scientist's job.) Neil Coletti ..!decvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!coletti P.S.: The real color is pretty much like what the returned lunar rocks look like; dark-gray beach sand. Reflectivity under 10% (about 4% ?). ------------------------------ Date: 23 Dec 82 13:31:40-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: hplabs!intelqa!omsvax!bc at Ucb-C70 Subject: Proposed mission to L5 Article-I.D.: omsvax.271 Via: Usenet; 25 Dec 82 9:12-PST Disclaimer The following is strictly tablecloth engineering, and may be the fevered product of too much Sczechuan Beef. I request your best attempts to shoot it down. It sounds as if it should work, but I just don't know enough about celestial mechanics, etc, to say. Proposal That some space society or consortium of societies send up in the shuttle a getaway special package which contains a probe to be sent to one of the Lagrange points L4 or L5. The probe would be motivated by a light sf Cancer at 51 (AP) Rep.-elect Jack Swigert (R-Colo.) died Monday night of cancer at the Lombardi Cancer Institute of Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., his office announced. He was 51. Swigert, a former Apollo 13 astronaut, was elected Nov. 2 to represent Colorado's new 6th District. He was to have been sworn in Jan. 3. Before the election, Swigert said his doctors had diagnosed his condition as bone marrow cancer, which later spread to his lungs. June Weiss, his press secretary, said the immediate cause of Swigert's death was respiratory failure. Swigert had been hospitalized in Washington since Dec. 19, when he was flown to the Georgetown University hospital from his home in Littleton, Colo. He was being treated for the cancer and complications from its chemotherapy. ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 29 December 1982 16:50-PST From: PRESSBURGER at KESTREL To: space at mit-mc Subject: please remove me from this mailing list. thank you. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 31-Dec-82 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #84 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 84 Today's Topics: L5 Solar Sailing Re: tidal forces tidal force inverse cube law amateur space telescope Amateur Space Telescope Address ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Dec 82 11:11:33-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: npois!houxm!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!fred at Ucb-C70 Subject: L5 Solar Sailing Article-I.D.: inuxc.569 Via: Usenet; 30 Dec 82 2:56-PST The idea of building a solar sail and sending out instruments packages into space is very appealing. If it could be done cheaply enough so that 100,000 or so space enthusiast in this country could fund this sorta of project, it would really open up space exploration. As others have pointed out the first logical step would be building and testing out a Solar Sail. To that end I remember reading that one of the many pro space groups, I believe the World Space Foundation or maybe it is the World Space Federation???, has been working for the last few years on designing a Solar Sail to be launched from the shuttle. I've seen photographs of their proto- types so they are quite a bit further along than just dreaming. Does anyone else have better information about the correct organization and what progress they have made? It would help the current discussion on the net a great deal. Fred ABI/INDY ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 1982 06:18 PST From: Gloger.es at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: tidal forces In-reply-to: Your message of 29 Dec 1982 11:25:11-EST To: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX cc: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, Gloger.es at Parc-Maxc Did I miss something? Actually look what up? If you just want to know how to compute gravitational tidal gradients, you start with the unit standard astrophysics equation, gravitational field strength = G*M/(d**2), and you take the first derivative with respect to distance to get the tidal effect, tidal gradient = 2*G*M/(d**3). And a quick check: The mass of the sun is 27 million times that of the moon, while its distance from earth is 390 times that of the moon. The above equation suggests that the sun's tidal effect at the earth compared to that of the moon will be 27,000,000 / (390**3) = 0.45, which is correct. It's because that specific result happens to come out within a small factor of one that earth has its strange dual solar/lunar tides. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 1982 0934-PST From: Richard M. King Subject: tidal force inverse cube law To: space at KESTREL cc: king at KESTREL Come on! We don't have to "look up" the dependency of tidal forces on distance! The tidal force is the first derivitive of gravity with distance. Since gravity is D^-2, the tidal force is D^-3. Dick ------- ------------------------------ Date: 29 Dec 82 18:40:41-PST (Wed) To: space at Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Ucb-C70 Subject: amateur space telescope Article-I.D.: utzoo.2721 Via: Usenet; 30 Dec 82 17:17-PST Can somebody post the ma!iling address for the organization that is building the Amateur Space Telescope? I'm interested in joining. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 82 6:55:25-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!evans at Ucb-C70 Subject: Amateur Space Telescope Address Article-I.D.: mhuxt.1194 Via: Usenet; 31 Dec 82 1:06-PST The Independent Space Research Group asks $15 for a supporting membership, $25 for a patron, and $50 for a sponsoring member. They are at: P.O. Box 1246 Troy, N.Y. 12180 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 01-Jan-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #85 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 85 Today's Topics: Shuttle Launch Tickets no sail from the shuttle ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Dec 82 11:03:25-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: npois!houxm!houxa!houxt!houxn!houxh!tdl at Ucb-C70 Subject: Shuttle Launch Tickets Article-I.D.: houxh.127 Via: Usenet; 31 Dec 82 4:08-PST My father recently (a couple of days ago) got tickets for the next shuttle launch by calling his friendly neighborhood senator. Of course he happens to know the guy, so I'm not sure how much difference that makes. He's also from Delaware so there is less competition for the senator's time; but it couldn't hurt to call your senator's office and see what he can do for you. Tom Lovett BTL Holmdel x0056 houxh!tdl ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 82 13:54:42-PST (Thu) To: space at Mit-Mc From: CAD.tektronix.tekcad!keithl at Ucb-C70 Subject: no sail from the shuttle Article-I.D.: tekcad.311 Via: Usenet; 31 Dec 82 17:31-PST Solar sails are romantic, but they aren't too compatable with a trip from the shuttle to L5. The problem is air friction; at 300 Km altitude, for example, the "wind" resistance is around 200 micro-newtons per meter squared (at orbital velocity), while the peak sail force is around 8 uN/m2. To get to sufficient altitude that the sail will work, an IUS is needed; why not just use the IUS to get there, and avoid the weight of the sail? Other problems include radiation damage to instrumentation from the long exposure to the Van Allen belt, collisions between the sail and orbital debris, and large gravitational gradients. Sails are more suited to long haul interplanetary missions, where more velocity change is needed and the vacuum is better. Keith Lofstrom uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!keithl CSnet: keithl@tek ARPAnet:keithl.tek@rand-relay ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 07-Jan-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #86 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 86 Today's Topics: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Jan 1983 1400-PST From: Ron Goldman To: space at MIT-MC Maiden Launch Of Challenger Delayed Until At Least Feb. 1 CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - Launch of the shuttle Challenger has been delayed until at least Feb. 1 and possibly ''much later in the month,'' because of an unexplained hydrogen leak, space agency officials say. A two-week search for the source of the leak into Challenger's main engine compartment has now interrupted the regular schedule of tests and preparations for the new shuttle's maiden flight, Hugh Harris, public information chief at Kennedy Space Center, said Thursday. ''The launch could slip well into February,'' said Harris, if another test firing of the shuttle's three main engines becomes necessary. The leak - described as minuscule but about twice the acceptable rate - was discovered after the initial test firing of the engines on Dec. 18. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration pushed back its most recent tentative liftoff date of Jan. 28 after a telephone conference between officials at KSC, Johnson Space Center in Houston and NASA headquarters in Washington late Wednesday. Another meeting of the NASA management team is scheduled for Friday, at which time a decision may be made on whether another ''flight readiness firing'' of the engines should be carried out, said KSC spokesman Mark Hess. Leading the trouble-shooting discussions is NASA's shuttle program director, Gen. James Abrahamson. ''Feb. 1 is basically just a new 'no-earlier-than date' because there has been no resolution of the problem and we will have to push the prep schedule back on a few things,'' said Hess. Technicians were continuing their painstaking search of the main propulsion system in efforts to determine how the slight seepage into the engine compartment is taking place. The shuttle's ascent into orbit is powered in part by more than a half-million gallons of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, stored in the 18-story external tank and feeding into the spacecraft's powerful engines. Officials fear oxygen could seep into the area of a hydrogen accumulation, creating the possibility of a flash fire in the engine compartment. NASA could decide at Friday's meeting to have technicians carry out a series of tests to determine if components outside the engine compartment are responsible for the leak, Hess said. A small leak was discovered in the nozzle of the No. 3 engine, but Hess said it was not unusual to find a small crack in the many small tubes that make up those nozzles. Because of the problem, the shuttle's cargo - a 5,000-pound communications satellite - will not be loaded this weekend, Hess said. Its loading date will depend on whether another engine test firing is necessary. But the leak will not delay a launch countdown dress rehearsal scheduled for Monday. Challenger's four-man crew will go through its launch day routine, including climbing into the orbiter and communicating with launch control. ap-ny-01-06 1413EST *************** ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 08-Jan-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #87 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 87 Today's Topics: South Atlantic Anomaly Re: Hail Columbia - film review ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Jan 83 20:35:50-PST (Tue) To: space@mit-mc From: decvax!utzoo!henry@UCB-C70 Subject: South Atlantic Anomaly To refresh the memory of MAB (and anyone else who doesn't remember the earlier discussion), the South Atlantic Anomaly is an area where the Van Allen belts are unusually close to Earth's surface. This is of concern to spaceflight planners because an orbit which passes through the S.A.A. will result in higher radiation doses than one which does not. For long missions, this influences considerations like the need for shielded storage for photographic film. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 83 14:25:42-PST (Tue) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!sdcsvax!greg@UCB-C70 Subject: Re: Hail Columbia - film review San Diego also has shown "Hail, Columbia" in the Reuben Fleet Space Center, which has an IMAX screen. I have debated whether it would be reasonable to arrange a special showing during Unicom. Since the show is not the current one, it would require a special rental of the Center. What about it? Are there enough space junkies out there to fill the theater? It would take about 150 to 200 people to keep the cost reasonable. If anything, Phil Karn's review understates how good it is -- that test firing alone is worth the admission price.... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 09-Jan-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #88 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 88 Today's Topics: Re: SAA Re: NY Daily News & Cosmos 1402 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Jan 83 2:57:19-PST (Wed) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!eagle!karn@UCB-C70 Subject: Re: SAA Article-I.D.: eagle.706 In-Reply-To: Article watcgl.90 Via: Usenet; 6 Jan 83 21:28-PST I also purchased a copy of "The Space Shuttle Operator's Manual". If you can tolerate the space cadet writing style, it actually does contain a remarkable amount of detail, for a readily available publication. The foldouts of control panels, orbital maps, etc, are particularly useful. There is another (better) publication that describes the shuttle in even more detail for the outsider: the Rockwell press kit, a thick (1.5") loose-leaf notebook. I do not know if further copies are available. I borrowed a copy dated February 1981, and was amazed at its depth, especially when you consider its intended audience... However, even it contains some flubs. They slavishly give virtually all measurements in as many systems of standards as there are, e.g, distances in statute miles, nautical miles and kilometers. In the section on thermal tiles, densities are in both kilograms per cubic meter and in pounds per cubic foot. However, a conversion factor of 2.2 was used for all the numbers! Gee, now I don't know whether the tiles just float on water, or if they're also supposed to float on air as well.... Phil Karn ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 83 8:57:16-PST (Fri) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxv!mhuxm!pyuxjj!rlr@UCB-C70 Subject: Re: NY Daily News & Cosmos 1402 Article-I.D.: pyuxjj.383 In-Reply-To: Article eagle.709 Via: Usenet; 8 Jan 83 4:33-PST Please give credit where credit is due. The headline "NUKE SATELLITE RUNS WILD" (which was shown on ABC-TV's Nightline program) came from the infamous New York Post, the home of class journalism!!! ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 10-Jan-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #89 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 89 Today's Topics: Re: NY Daily News & Cosmos 1402 - (nf) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Jan 83 0:05:36-PST (Sun) To: space@mit-mc From: hplabs!hp-pcd!courtney (Courtney Loomis)@UCB-C70 Subject: Re: NY Daily News & Cosmos 1402 - (nf) Speaking of irresponsible acts... To suggest that "we've come to expect" irresponsible acts from the USSR is to imply the crass generalization that "we" (in the USA?) are somehow free from engaging in such acts. In terms of toxic wastes, I would have to agree that we have evidence (objective?) that the Soviet Union has been careless in its attitude towards such environmental hazzards. However, when one considers the quantity of toxic (such as radioactive) wastes produced by the US and when one considers the time frame over which our disposal techniques are designed to be effective, I think that the difference in the integrity of responsibility between the US and the USSR toward our common Earth Home begins to shink to insignificant levels (ie., we are both guilty of choking ourselves to death). ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 13-Jan-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #90 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 90 Today's Topics: Re: Proposed mission to L5 Hail Columbia - film review NY Daily News & Cosmos 1402 Cosmos 1402 Re: Curious Anomaly (Jr. astros) Shuttle Schedule Info? Re: Shuttle Schedule Info? Re: South Atlantic Anomaly - (nf) L-5 Phone Tree ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 31 Dec 82 22:19:50-PST (Fri) To: space@mit-mc From: decvax!utzoo!henry@UCB-C70 Subject: Re: Proposed mission to L5 Article-I.D.: utzoo.2724 Via: Usenet; 1 Jan 83 12:08-PST Don't forget that you cannot use a Getaway Special to launch something like this: one of the restrictions on Getaway Specials is that they are forbidden to vent, expel, or eject *anything*. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 83 22:38:31-PST (Mon) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!eagle!karn@UCB-C70 Subject: Hail Columbia - film review Article-I.D.: eagle.703 Via: Usenet; 7 Jan 83 6:50-PST Last week while on vacation, I saw the film "Hail Columbia" in the IMAX theater at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington. IMAX is that novelty large-screen format which takes standard 70mm film and turns it sideways, allowing each frame to be much larger than a conventional 70mm movie frame. (Most regular movie theaters use 35 mm film.) IMAX films are projected on a screen roughly 5 stories tall; from just about any seat in the audience, the screen fills your entire field of vision, with some head motion necessary to see the corners clearly. The oldest and best known IMAX flick is "To Fly", which came out in 1976. There is also an 8-channel surround sound system using a separate synchronized tape deck which doesn't waste any valuable film area on sound stripes. "Hail Columbia" is a Canadian-made documentary about 45 minutes long with covers the first launch of Columbia, starting with the rollout at Rockwell and the ferry flight to KSC. More time than I liked was spent splicing in film clips, e.g, "Young and Crippen's thoughts on the mission". However, the part you were waiting for was well worth the price of admission. From a remotely controlled IMAX camera 1000 feet from pad 39A, the pre-launch static firing test and actual launch was filmed. During the static firing test, the "twang" in which the whole stack bends under the thrust of the main engines is very visible. After shutdown, the combined stack slowly swayed back and forth, settling in its original position, while a blizzard of snow fell off the external tank. Very impressive! The launch sequence is re-shown several times from several different angles simultaneously, in a split-screen fashion obviously intended to overwhelm the viewer (and save time). I would much rather have seen each sequence individually on the whole screen. The landing is also covered, although the IMAX camera couldn't get any closer to the strip than the rest of the public. You get to hear the double sonic booms (why are there two, anyway?) that the TV commentators usually talk over "Well, we should have the booms. Yup, I just heard 'em..." Despite its flaws, this movie is a must-see for any space junkie (such as myself). One begins to get a feeling of the size and power of the shuttle which doesn't even begin to come out through a TV screen. I believe it has also been shown in a museum in New York City, although I don't know if it is still there. Phil Karn ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 83 21:55:01-PST (Thu) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!eagle!karn@UCB-C70 Subject: NY Daily News & Cosmos 1402 Article-I.D.: eagle.709 Via: Usenet; 7 Jan 83 7:05-PST Did anybody see the headline in this evening's NY Daily News? "NUKE SATELLITE RUNS WILD" (in three-inch type) Putting nuclear reactors in low earth orbit is an irresponsible act we've come to expect from the USSR; unfortunately, this kind of headline is an irresponsible act I've come to expect from the NY Daily News. (I don't subscribe to that rag; I noticed it at the supermarket.) Phil Karn ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 83 2:20:34-PST (Thu) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!eagle!karn@UCB-C70 Subject: Cosmos 1402 Article-I.D.: eagle.707 Via: Usenet; 7 Jan 83 7:31-PST As most of you have probably already heard, a Soviet spy satellite, Cosmos 1402, is uncontrollable and likely to re-enter within the month. Unfortunately, this spacecraft contains a nuclear power source with about 100 pounds of enriched uranium. An earlier satellite of similiar design, Cosmos 954, re-entered accidentally several years ago in northern Canada. By interesting coincidence, Cosmos 1402 is the last object listed in my Situation Report. It was only launched on 30 August 1982. It carries catalog number 13441, in case anybody wants to order orbit bulletins from NASA (this bulletin service was mentioned in the AP article, in case you've seen it). The Soviets aren't the only ones to fly spacecraft with nuclear materials: the Apollo ALSEPs (lunar surface science experiments), Voyager, and Viking were a few US examples. But those generators were designed to withstand launch disasters and accidental re-entry. For example, there is a plutonium generator, probably still intact, sitting on the floor of the Pacific from the Apollo 13 lunar module. Just in case somebody wants to go and get it! Phil Karn ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 83 10:18:59-PST (Mon) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!orion!lime!eds@UCB-C70 Subject: Re: Curious Anomaly (Jr. astros) Article-I.D.: lime.312 Via: Usenet; 4 Jan 83 22:37-PST About the preponerance of "Jr.'s" in the astronaut ranks... My high school chemistry teacher was a personal friend of one of the leading candidates for the first group of astronauts. This guy's qualifications were super, but he was rejected. NASA told him that the only reason was that he was the middle child in his family. It seems that at first, NASA only accepted first-born sons as astronauts! Ed Schulz, American Bell, Holmdel, NJ. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 83 14:29:31-PST (Mon) To: space@mit-mc From: decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!utcsstat!reed@UCB-C70 Subject: Shuttle Schedule Info? Article-I.D.: utcsstat.495 Via: Usenet; 12 Jan 83 3:25-PST I may have the opportunity to visit the Cape in the next three months....can anyone tell me (via mail) when numbers 6 and 7 are scheduled to go up? Thanks, Dave Reed, UTCS ...decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!utcsstat!reed ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 83 7:47:44-PST (Tue) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb@UCB-C70 Subject: Re: Shuttle Schedule Info? Article-I.D.: alice.1393 In-Reply-To: Article utcsstat.495 Via: Usenet; 12 Jan 83 3:34-PST STS-6 is now scheduled for the end of February. STS-7, originally scheduled for 20 April, will no doubt be delayed past that date. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 83 13:26:09-PST (Sun) To: space@mit-mc From: CAD.tektronix!zehntel!zinfandel!steve@UCB-C70 Subject: Re: South Atlantic Anomaly - (nf) Article-I.D.: zehntel.679 Via: Usenet; 12 Jan 83 3:35-PST #R:utzoo:-273200:zinfandel:11100003:000:173 zinfandel!steve Jan 7 11:18:00 1983 For long missions, this [MAB] influences considerations like the need for shielded storage for photographic film. Not to mention shielded storage for astronauts. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 83 13:06:50-PST (Tue) To: space@mit-mc From: npois!houxm!houxa!houxi!houxz!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!fred@UCB-C70 Subject: L-5 Phone Tree Article-I.D.: inuxc.582 Via: Usenet; 12 Jan 83 3:43-PST I have had the same problem as Neil Katin with reguards to the L-5 phone tree. I even agreeded to accept collect calls and make local calls but I have never ever heard from them. I can only assume that there are so few people interested in space exploration in central Indiana that L-5 doesn't have the resources to support us. Fred ABI/INDY ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 14-Jan-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #91 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 91 Today's Topics: Re: Cosmos 1402 - (nf) Re: NY Daily News & Cosmos 1402 - (nf) Re: South Atlantic Anomaly Decompression Case Report Simulated Liftoff Successful Gray Tape Re: Gray Tape STS-6 Delayed Again NUKE SATELLITE RUNS WILD Shuttle's Roll Re: Shuttle"s Roll Re: SPACE Digest V3 #90 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Jan 83 12:46:55-PST (Mon) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsovax!hamilton@UCB-C70 Subject: Re: Cosmos 1402 - (nf) Don't give the russians all the credit. an item from the 7 Jan 83 Science: "The Defense Dept's plan to build a new generation of compact nuclear reactors to power laser battle stations and other military satellites [Science, 17 Dec 81, p1199] has an ominous history. In 1964, a US nuclear- powered satellite burned on reentry and contaminated the atmosphere with plutonium. Unlike the breakup of a Soviet nuclear satellite over Canada in 1978, the US accident received almost no publicity at the time.... The incident began on 21 Apr 64 when a Transit navigational satellite was launched from Vandenburg AFB in California. On board was a power supply known as SNAP-9A, a radioisotope thermoelectric generator that was fueled with about 1 kilogram of Pu-238. The rocket's engines failed in mid-flight, and the satellite and its lethal payload came crashing back into the atmosphere over the Indian Ocean. ... In 1964, search teams using sophisticated air sampling techniques combed the crash site and subsequently decided the satellite had completely burned up during reentry and that the plutonium had dispersed as a fine dust in the atmosphere [Science, 10 Nov 67, p769]. Over the years, the plutonium slowly worked its way down to the surface of the earth, mostly in the Southern Hemisphere. By 1970 about 95% of the SNAP plutonium had settled out of the atmosphere. The contamination was not unprecedented but it was quite large. During the days of atmospheric nuclear testing, some plutonium had spread throughout the atmosphere. In contrast, the US satellite fiasco was estimated to have resulted in a three-fold increase of Pu-238 contamination [Nature, 16 Feb 73]. ... After the SNAP-9A accident, two other misfortunes befell the US space nuclear power program. In neither case was plutonium released into the atmosphere. The first occurred in May 1968 when a Nimbus weather satellite failed to achieve orbit and plunged into the Santa Barbara Channel off California. Its plutonium power pack, known as SNAP-19, was recovered intact. The final accident occurred in Apr 1970 when the Apollo 13 moon-landing mission was aborted because of an onboard fire. The command module and the three astronauts were successfully picked up. The lunar lander, however, plunged to the floor of the Pacific Ocean and could not be found. It is estimated that its plutonium fuel pack, known as SNAP-27, will remain intact for about 860 years. -- William J. Broad" (parenthetically, wjb is not my favorite science writer; fortunately, the new york times is taking him...) wayne ({decvax,ucbvax,harpo}!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsovax!)hamilton ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 83 12:33:35-PST (Wed) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!arlan@UCB-C70 Subject: Re: NY Daily News & Cosmos 1402 - (nf) Although the referenced article compares the US to the USSR in wanton planet pollution, I would like to point out a few differences: ONLY the Soviet clique deliberately drops "yellow rain" [euphemism for chemical/germ warfare agents, coined by its victims] onto adversaries defending their lands against the Soviets; ONLY the aging, stagnant Soviet nation has ever had a nuclear accident [carlessness? stupidity? standard Soviet excellence?] that wiped out thousands of square miles of its own land and people. May I live to see the day when, at least one time, the socialist sympathizers fail to bring up something that statist Americans have done, in excusing the putrid Soviet system. Russians gas/germ tens of thousands and the liberals perform contortions to exucse it; Soviet complicity in assassination attempts against the Pope is well known--the leftish types are merely embarassed. Let's hear now how the Moon is polluted by the ALSEP and how that justifies the Soviets dropping radioactive containers at random around the earth. Jump in any time, apologists! Da Svedahnyah --arlan--abi/indy ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 83 10:02:25-PST (Mon) To: space@mit-mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!watcgl!mabgarstin@UCB-C70 Subject: Re: South Atlantic Anomaly I am asking this on behalf of my wife who is into Edgar Casey and all that stuff so don't bombard me with "Oh garbage.." or "..trash..". This question should probably be submitted to net.psychic but I don't think that such a beast exists. If anyone out there is familiar with the theory about the great crystal of Atlantis would this and the S.A.A. be related in any way? Please reply by mail because I don't think too many netters out there would want to hear any more than this on psychic stuff. MAB at Uni. of Waterloo ....!decvax!utzoo!watmath!watcgl!mabgarstin ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 1983 14:58-PST From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL Subject: Decompression Case Report To: space@mit-mc The December 1982 issue of "Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine" has an article describing an industrial decompression accident. A worker was accidently locked in a vacuum chamber and decompressed to an altitude of 74,000 ft for 3-5 minutes. He was above 63,000 ft for 1-3 minutes. The worker suffered massive decompression sickness, followed by burst lungs, cerebral air embolism, and ebulism (vaporized blood). His life was saved by recompression in a hyperbaric chamber 5.5 hours after the accident. After showing some signs of neurological damage the patient recovered, and, ten months later, surpassed scores on psychological tests he had taken before the accident. The article states that this is the most severe case of survived unprotected human decompression on record, and demonstrates the possibility of survival of whole body ebulism of longer than 1 minute. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 83 15:20:57-PST (Tue) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb@UCB-C70 Subject: Simulated Liftoff Successful The Challenger underwent a successful simulated lift off this morning at 1104 EST. The mock launch came after a half-day test countdown in which the computers on board and those in the control room simulated launch conditions. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 83 14:16:11-PST (Tue) To: space@mit-mc From: CAD.tektronix!tekmdp!bronze!alanj@UCB-C70 Subject: Gray Tape It seems not all of the equipment that has gone into the US space effort has been of "super high technology". According to a short piece in the January *Space World*, we've been taking aong good old fashioned duct tape for some time now. The Appolo 13 crew "used it to tape maps together to make a box to hold a carbon monoxide absorber designed for the command module but used in the lunar module". Another crew used maps and duct tape to improvise a fender for the lunar rover. On the last STS mission duct tape was used to tape Bill Lenoir to the floor during a space sickness study (not related to the publicized problems). The crew also took to improvising foot restraints --- just decide where you want to stand (floor, wall, ceiling, etc), make a loop of tape and you're stuck. The article relates that, by the end of the mission they were running out of tape and it had to be rationed! Alan Jeddeloh (tektronix!tekmdp!alanj ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 83 16:40:56-PST (Tue) To: space@mit-mc From: CAD.tektronix!tekmdp!mikem@UCB-C70 Subject: Re: Gray Tape MAPS!!!! In case they get lost, or lose radio contact, they can find there way back? Or were maps provided so the duct tape could be used? Mike Mihalik ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 83 19:55:44-PST (Fri) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb@UCB-C70 Subject: STS-6 Delayed Again NASA has decided to conduct another test firing of the Challenger's main engines to see whether or not fixes to several minor leaks has solved the hydrogen leak problem, first discovered after the 18 December test. The new test firing will be held in late January, and STS-6 will lift off ''around the end of February.'' The loading of her cargo, a 5000 pound communications satellite, originally scheduled for this weekend, was also delayed until after the new test. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 83 15:20:19-PST (Fri) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!eagle!karn@UCB-C70 Subject: NUKE SATELLITE RUNS WILD Oops. You're right, the New York Post, not the New York Daily News ran that headline. Its easy to confuse two similar tabloids on the supermarket stands. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 83 9:23:45-PST (Wed) To: space@mit-mc From: npois!houxm!houxa!houxb!houxq!kenchan@UCB-C70 Subject: Shuttle's Roll Does anyone know why the shuttle rolls (about 90 degrees) just after it takes off? Ken Chan (houxq!kenchan) ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 83 14:46:14-PST (Wed) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!eagle!karn@UCB-C70 Subject: Re: Shuttle"s Roll That is to put the shuttle on the correct launch azimuth, depending on the desired orbital inclination. Since the stack must fly with the orbiter down, in order to facilitate SRB and ET separation, this involves rolling the shuttle from the position on the pad shortly after liftoff. This is easier than rotating the entire pad! Phil ------------------------------ Mail-from: Ethernet host GSB-HOW rcvd at 13-Jan-83 17:19:04-PST Date: Thu 13 Jan 83 17:18:30-PST From: Edjik Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #90 We in the Bay area can see the IMAX "Hail Columbia" show at the Great America Amusement Park in Sunnyvale. Its been running there for about 1/2 year now. I dont know how long it will be at GA. Probably another 6 months or so. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 15-Jan-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #92 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 92 Today's Topics: complaints about ussr, yellow rain, polluted moon, snappy answers Shuttle roll Wanted: address for L5 society Shuttle GAS policy change Re: Shuttle Launch Tickets ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 January 1983 12:32-EST From: Oded Anoaf Feingold Subject: complaints about ussr, yellow rain, polluted moon, snappy answers To: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!arlan @ UCB-C70 cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC Foo, I thought this mailing list was space, not space-cadet. Please let's keep strictly political articles elsewhere. Color war: Yellow Rain - Agent Orange. (And you know me, man, I never apologize for nothin'.) Oded PS: What's the half-life of Pu238? Is its danger primarily chemical or radiological? What WAS the resultant level of plutonium contamination (like in additional rem/person-year) over the southern hemisphere as a result of the SNAP-9A accident? Or does one measure health effects of plutonium differently than other materials? (People who point at a document containing the answers will have less-tired fingers than those who type in all the replies.) ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 1983 1022-PST From: Tom Wadlow To: space at MIT-MC Let me just say that after the many times that duct tape (or gaffers tape, as it is called in the theatre, in a slightly different flavor) has saved whatever project or device I was working on, I would never think of going on a spaceflight without a few rolls along. Don't leave home without it. --Tom ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 83 17:18:09-PST (Wed) To: space@mit-mc From: CAD.tektronix!iddic!evp@UCB-C70 Subject: Shuttle roll The pad the shuttle takes off from is oriented such that the tail of the shuttle is pointing almost South at liftoff. The trajectory taken after liftoff is somewhere near East. Aerodynamic considerations dictate that the shuttle tail be pointed in the plane of the orbit (upside down) as the shuttle accelerates. This is what the roll maneuver does. The pad is oriented the wrong direction because it was actually designed to launch the Saturn V, which didn't much care which direction it pointed. Both the pad and the crawler that moves the shuttle have been re-cycled from the Apollo program. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jan 83 11:35:04-PST (Wed) To: space@mit-mc From: CAD.tektronix!zehntel!varian!vaxwalle!bob@UCB-C70 Subject: Wanted: address for L5 society Where can one get hold of the L5 society ? Would you please put their address into net.space or mail it to me . Bob Palin ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 83 18:35:40-PST (Thu) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!eagle!karn@UCB-C70 Subject: Shuttle GAS policy change I've heard from several sources that NASA may have changed its policy on getaway-specials (GAS) to allow deployment of free-flying payloads, perhaps even with kick motors. Anybody know anything about this? I'm told that there was a UPI story on Jan 2 describing one university user who planned on making use of a free-flying GAS. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 83 12:02:31-PST (Thu) To: space@mit-mc From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rocheste!gary@UCB-C70 Subject: Re: Shuttle Launch Tickets Article-I.D.: rocheste.408 In-Reply-To: Article houxh.127 Via: Usenet; 15 Jan 83 1:18-PST A few weeks ago, someone posted the address to write for launch tickets (for generic viewers, not press people). Could that person please re-post (riposte??) or mail me the address? Thanks, gary cottrell (...!seismo!rochester!gary) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 16-Jan-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #93 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 93 Today's Topics: rocket launch date request Re: Shuttle's Roll - (nf) Why does the shuttle roll at liftoff Second FRF Scheduled Soviet Nuclear Stupidity ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Jan 83 8:12:40-PST (Fri) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxv!burl!sb1!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!ihuxv!lord82@UCB-C70 Subject: rocket launch date request Article-I.D.: ihuxv.431 Via: Usenet; 15 Jan 83 2:39-PST This doesn't directly concern the shuttles. Could someone post or mail info regarding dates of rocket launches in the US involving lots of flame and sound? I, and some friends, would like to find something more spectacular than rocket dragsters. Dan Lord ihuxv!lord82 ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 83 2:25:34-PST (Fri) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxv!burl!sb1!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!emrath@UCB-C70 Subject: Re: Shuttle's Roll - (nf) Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.1333 Via: Usenet; 15 Jan 83 2:46-PST #R:houxq:-25000:uiucdcs:8500005:000:263 uiucdcs!emrath Jan 14 01:54:00 1983 I believe it is in order to point it in the right direction. Without the roll it would head NE along the coast, right over heavily populated regions. Why it is oriented on the pad this way I don't know. If I'm way off base on this one, sorry - please correct me. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 83 14:06:02-PST (Fri) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!duke!mcnc!cjp@UCB-C70 Subject: Why does the shuttle roll at liftoff Article-I.D.: mcnc.1467 Via: Usenet; 15 Jan 83 2:52-PST Re: houxq.250 Because they built the launch pad pointing the wrong way? ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 83 20:22:32-PST (Fri) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb@UCB-C70 Subject: Second FRF Scheduled Article-I.D.: alice.1399 Via: Usenet; 15 Jan 83 3:41-PST NASA has scheduled Challenger's second FRF (engine test firing) for 26 January, ''give or take a day or two.'' If the source of the hydrogen leak first detected last month is found to be external to the engine compartment, NASA says that STS-6 should launch sometime before the end of February. However, if the problem lies within the engine compartment itself, the launch will probably slip into March, as one or more engines may have to pulled or replaced. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 83 12:30:22-PST (Fri) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxv!burl!sb1!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxd!arlan@UCB-C70 Subject: Soviet Nuclear Stupidity Article-I.D.: inuxd.228 Via: Usenet; 15 Jan 83 3:46-PST Although this is not directly related to Space, I must reply in the same net.group where the discussion began--originally commentary on the Soviet nuclear-powered satellite's imminent fall. Some mail has asked me about the Soviet incident that contaminated thousands of square miles with nuclear materials. The incident occurred in the 1950s, and has been written about by an exiled scientist, one of the Mevedyev (sp?) brothers. It was also the subject of a PBS (NOVA?) telecast a few years ago. Seems as if our socialist friends just piled the stuff up in a hole or three somewhere behind a factory in the Urals and eventually it got close enough to critical to spew crap out explosively, killing many and contaminating thousands or more. Crops and animals died and those lucky enough to have survived were permanently moved out. Compare the media reaction to this minor incident, with the quiet, reserved discussions about the incredibly horrible, disastrous, and thoroughly unforgiveable capitalistic conspiracy at infamous Three Mile Island. Doubt- less those who accuse me of living in a cave will take issue and say that the Soviets might conceivably be guilty of a misdemeanor, but the United States should forever be ashamed for the TMI incident. (As an aside: a Middle East-type engineer who once worked with the Soviets building an N-plant, told me that their safety precautions, as well as their manners, were non-existent.) Flame if you wish, but don't flame RED. =arlan=abi/indy ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 17-Jan-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #94 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 94 Today's Topics: Spectroscopy Re: Shuttle's Roll Halleys comet Re: Hail Columbia - film review address for L5 Society, as requested Re: Gray Tape Re: Hail Columbia - film review Goodbye Re: L5 Society National Phone Tree activ - (nf) L5 Society National Phone Tree activated Cosmos 1402 info clamp? Re: Hail Columbia - film review - (nf) Failed Inverted Delays Simulated Launch Re: NY Daily News & Cosmos 1402 - (nf) parse date string L5 Society National Phone Tree activations to be posted ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Jan 83 10:46:57-PST (Thu) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm@UCB-C70 Subject: Spectroscopy As a hardcore amateur astronomer, I have been considering building a spectrograph for an amateur observatory. I gotten several ideas for building such a device but my knowledge of this subject is very limited. Is there anyone out there that can help???? Ron Meyer inuxa!rrm American Bell - Indy ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 83 9:56:57-PST (Thu) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!iwsl2!jgpo@UCB-C70 Subject: Re: Shuttle's Roll About eight seconds after liftoff, the Shuttle rolls 120 degrees to the right, thus placing the STS (Space Transport System)/Orbiter combination in a "heads-down" relationship with the Earth. This places the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB) and External Tank (ET) at the *outside* of the arc described by the Shuttle's path around the Earth. At SRB separation, the Shuttle is still following its curved path, but the SRBs continue in a parabolic path which, due to their slightly higher angular velocity, is, for the moment, *OUTSIDE* the path of the Shuttle (i.e. away from the Earth). After SRB separation, the Shuttle enters a shallow dive and actually loses about eight miles of altitude before main engine cut-off (MECO). After MECO, ET jettison occurs and the Orbiter maneuvers downward and to the left. This maneuver, plus the slightly higher angular velocity of the ET (being on the outside of the Shuttle's path) ensures maximum separation of the Orbiter and the ET. "Right-side-up" attitude is not attained until after orbital insertion. Not afraid to be dating someone whose brother is an engineer on the Shuttle project, John Opalko iwsl2!jgpo ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 83 10:37:05-PST (Thu) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm@UCB-C70 Subject: Halleys comet Does anyone have astrometric data taken during the recovery of Halley's comet last year. I would like to collect this data for my personal use, however, all of the news articles I've seen have only stated Halleys approximate position and not the precise coordinates. Ron Meyer inuxa!rrm American Bell-Indy ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 83 13:40:25-PST (Tue) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxa!mhb5c!smb@UCB-C70 Subject: Re: Hail Columbia - film review "Hail Columbia" was being shown at the Museum of Natural History in New York; unfortunately, the run ended about 6-8 weeks ago. I managed to see it just before it closed; I highly recommend it to all shuttle buffs. --Steve Bellovin ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 83 14:19:28-PST (Thu) To: space@mit-mc From: hplabs!hao!csu-cs!silver@UCB-C70 Subject: address for L5 Society, as requested 1060 East Elm, Tucson, Arizona, 85719 -- 602-622-6351 ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 83 14:31:22-PST (Thu) To: space@mit-mc From: CAD.tektronix!tekid!davido@UCB-C70 Subject: Re: Gray Tape January 83 issue of IEEE Spectrum has a picture of Lenoir being taped to the floor of the shuttle. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 83 14:18:51-PST (Tue) To: space@mit-mc From: decvax!decwrl!sun!megatest!fortune!kiessig@UCB-C70 Subject: Re: Hail Columbia - film review "Hail Columbia" is also showing at the Great America Theme Park, right nearby in Sunny Santa Clara, California. Rick Kiessig ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 83 22:35:46-PST (Thu) To: space@mit-mc From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!pcmcgeer@UCB-C70 Subject: Goodbye I am off. Friday my wife and I leave Waterloo for two months to Look For America. We are also looking at grad schools and places to work in the United States. Therefore, I'll be off the net for at least three months, and possibly for a longer time. When I come back, I may be at any one of a number of places in Canada or the United States. To all of you out there, thanks for some of the most interesting reading I've had in a long time. Space has always been my favorite subject: I couldn't *talk* to anyone about it before - at least not constantly, and daily. And I've learned an awful lot. And I am going to miss the net a lot. Take care, keep thinking, and you will hear from me sometime. (Now, is that a promise or a threat?) Cheers, Rick McGeer. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 83 14:26:47-PST (Mon) To: space@mit-mc From: hplabs!neil (Neil Katin)@UCB-C70 Subject: Re: L5 Society National Phone Tree activ - (nf) I tried to join the phone tree for about a year after joining L5. Unfortunately, L5 never got back to me when I checked the "join phone tree" box. I even went as far as writting a separate letter, but that was never answered either. They seem to have severe office support problems. Neil Katin hplabs!neil ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 83 10:06:20-PST (Mon) To: space@mit-mc From: hplabs!hao!csu-cs!silver@UCB-C70 Subject: L5 Society National Phone Tree activated This time the request is general and openended, not specific. Please send a letter, mailgram, and/or phone call to the senator(s) and congresspeople of your choice, preferably those of your home state, expressing general support for NASA funding. This request is timed to coincide with the start of the new Congress, so please act within a week. Thanks! ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 83 13:06:16-PST (Mon) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!eagle!karn@UCB-C70 Subject: Cosmos 1402 info clamp? Rumor has it that the DOD has clamped down on further information regarding Cosmos 1402. Anybody know about this? Phil ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jan 83 12:29:10-PST (Wed) To: space@mit-mc From: npois!houxm!houxa!houxi!houxz!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!coletti@UCB-C70 Subject: Re: Hail Columbia - film review - (nf) The double sonic boom occures because of the shuttle's tail. It's so tall that it extends beyound the shock-wave (sonic boom) that was generated by the nose, creating its own shock-wave. - Neil Coletti ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 83 15:37:49-PST (Mon) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!sjb@UCB-C70 Subject: Failed Inverted Delays Simulated Launch A failed electrical inverted delayed today's planned simulated liftoff of the space shuttle Challenger. The incident, at about 2300 EST yesterday, occurred 3 hours into the simulated 14 hour countdown, and engineers quickly replaced the component. The delay, which will not affect the already set back liftoff of the shuttle, postponed the simulated launch up to 24 hours. Had it happened during the real countdown, there would have been enough hold time to replace the old inverter and test the new one. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 83 20:49:58-PST (Mon) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!eagle!karn@UCB-C70 Subject: Re: NY Daily News & Cosmos 1402 - (nf) parse date string I've done a little research on the timely topic of nuclear generators in space. According to Jerry Grey's book "Enterprise", the US launched only one nuclear reactor into space, in 1964. The reactor was a SNAP-10A, although he didn't give the satellite name so I couldn't look it up to find out its orbit. The reactor was launched with only the fuel inside (I believe uranium, not plutonium, but I'm not clear on this) and was started up only when it was in a safe orbit. Since the health hazard is from the fission products, not the uranium, this made for a minimal hazard in a worst-case launch failure. A number of American probes and scientific experiments have been powered with plutonium RTGs (radio-isotope thermal generators). These differ from reactors in that the heat from fuel's natural radioactive decay is used, instead of employing controlled fission. Examples include Voyager, Viking, Pioneer, and ALSEP (Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package). Nuclear fuels were used here simply because there is no alternative. At great distances from the sun, or during the 2-week lunar night, solar power is useless, and the waste heat from the generators is needed to keep the electronics warm. For example, the first ALSEP, deployed on Apollo 11, used solar panels. It lasted several weeks. The later ALSEPs used RTGs, and they were still operating 8-9 years later when they were finally shut off. A considerable amount of safety is designed into these generators. For ALSEP, the plutonium was kept in a special cask until unloaded on the moon. These casks were designed to withstand launch failures and other accidents; this planning paid off with Apollo 13, as I mentioned in an earlier article. (This info came from "History of Manned Space Flight", by David Baker.) Remember also that all US launches take place over water for range safety considerations, so that any abort would result in the generator landing in the ocean. By contrast, the Soviets are incredibly careless with their reactors. Grey implies, but does not state outright, that their reactors are started ON THE GROUND and launched operating! (If anyone has further info on this, I'd like to know.) Furthermore, they are launched into orbits so low that they will by default decay in several months unless the kick rocket (which failed on Cosmos 1402) succeeds in boosting its orbit. There is simply no comparison with the American operating methods; unfortunately the Soviets will probably succeed in getting the "ban" Carter proposed on the use of nuclear sources in space. All that would do is hurt American science projects, and the Soviets would just ignore it anyway. I don't want to get into a discussion of the whole nuclear waste issue, but I do regard this Cosmos 1402 "catastrophe" with not much more than mild amusement. There are far more dangerous things in the world for me to worry about. Phil Karn ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jan 83 10:02:13-PST (Mon) To: space@mit-mc From: hplabs!hao!csu-cs!silver@UCB-C70 Subject: L5 Society National Phone Tree activations to be posted To my surprise, I've not yet seen much mention of the L5 Society nor their very effective national phone tree. Therefore, I will (unless I receive feedback to the contrary) start to post notices of the (infrequent) activations of the tree to net.space. What is the phone tree? So far as I know, of all the myriad local and national pro-space organizations, the L5 Society is the only which supports a nationwide, quick-activation political lobbying effort. The tree consists of a hierarchy of people who call other people, fanning out about five levels deep, to cause phone calls, mailgrams, and letters to innundate key national decision makers. The tree is only activated rarely, about four times a year (or less). Information passed down is sometimes sketchy (you have to act on faith), including who, what, why, a phone number, etc. In the past, the tree has saved millions of dollars in funding for NASA, though you don't hear about it much except through the L5 Journal and the Congressional Record. If you are a supporter of the space program as a means to the future success and security of the human rac: (1) Read the activation notices (they'll be short); (2) Take action (it's easy); (3) Have faith that you are acting in concert with thousands of true believers around the country; (4) Join the L5 society! Alan Silverstein Fort Collins, Col. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 18-Jan-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #95 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 95 Today's Topics: re: solar sails Tethers and Planetary Magnetic Fields Double sonic booms L5 address Re: Soviet Nuclear Stupidity ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Jan 1983 1401-EST From: VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO To: space at MIT-AI cc: redford at WAFER Subject: re: solar sails Bruce Cohen's idea of a small, privately launched solar sail is very appealing, but I think that atmospheric drag will prevent it from being launched from low earth orbit. Here's the argument: The light pressure on the sail is caused by the change in momentum of the photons striking it. The momentum of a photon is E/c where E is the photon's energy. The total pressure (force per sq meter) will then be I/c, where I is the intensity of sunlight ( energy per sq meter per second). The solar constant is about 1400 W/m^2. Not all the photons will be reflected, and some won't even be absorbed, but let's keep the above for order of magnitude calculations. So, Pr = 2 * 1400 W/m^2 / 3e8 m/s = 9e -6 N/m^2 which isn't much. Nine millionths of a newton is the weight of 1 milligram of stuff on earth. The factor of 2 is because the photon is reflected instead of absorbed. Naturally, the force varies as the sine of the angle between the sheet and the sunlight, although the direction of the force will always be normal to the sheet (assuming all reflection and no absorption). Now, to find the atmospheric drag, I assumed that the sheet would simply sweep up all the atoms in its path. That is, all the atoms collide inelastically with the sheet, and they don't interact with one another (so we won't get any aerodynamic effects). Then the flow of mass past the sheet is rho * v, where rho is the density and v is the velocity. The momentum change is the mass flow times its change in velocity, so Pa = rho * (v^2) The velocity of an orbiting sheet is something like 8 km/s, so here is the atmospheric drag as a function of altitude. alt. (km) | density (kg/m^3) | drag (N/m^2) ---------------------------------------------- 200 | 3.07e-10 | 2e-2 300 | 3.53e-11 | 2e-3 500 | 2.04e-12 | 1.3e-4 800 | 8.06e-14 | 5e-6 I got the numbers for atmospheric density from the Encyclopedia Brittannica. Unfortunately, they only went up to 800 km. The shuttle flies at 300 km. At that height, the atmospheric drag is 220 times the radiation pressure. Only above 800 km will the two forces become comparable. This means that the sail will have to have a booster on it. The sail's unfurling and control mechanisms could still be tested in low orbit, but to go anywhere it's got to get further out of the atmosphere. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 1983 8:35-PST From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL Subject: Tethers and Planetary Magnetic Fields To: space@mit-mc Reply-to: dietz@USC-ECL Jerry Pournelle has an editorial in the latest Analog about tethering together shuttle external tanks to prevent wuick orbital decay. This idea came from work NASA is doing on a tethered sattelite that will hang below the shuttle in the upper atmosphere, a region normally inaccessible to aircraft (too high) and sattelites (too low). Tidal forces keep the tether oriented vertically. An interesting thing not touched upon in Dr. Pournelle's article is a proposal to make the tether conductive, with, say, copper. The tether is then a wire tens of kilometers long, moving at about 7 km/sec through the earth's magnetic field. The earth's field is about .3 gauss at the equator. This field will generate an electric field in the wire on the order of a tenth of a volt per meter. A twenty km wire will have a potential difference of 2000 volts. To exploit this you'll have to have some way of closing the circuit. The lower end of the tether is in the upper atmosphere, which is highly conductive. The upper end, which I believe is negatively charged, can have a large, hot electron emitting surface. We might run into problems if these electrons get trapped in the earth's magnetic field, but in LEO they'll probably run into gas atoms soon. The electricity doesn't come for free; it comes from the kinetic energy of the sattelite, shuttle and tether. If we want to build a generating station using this principle we'll have to find some way of pumping lots of kinetic energy into it. A large asteroid in orbit aound the earth would have tremendous kinetic energy, and could serve as one end for such a device. You'd want the heavy part of the system to be in as low an orbit as possible to get maximum orbital velocity. Another source of energy would be matter from the moon dropping into earth's gravity well. A high enough tether could discard charge into the solar wind; return current would come from the wind onto the earth's poles. Thus we can exploit the true energy resources of the solar system: kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy. None of these inefficient solar power sattelites! Unfortunately, earth's magnetic field is pretty weak, and by the time you get to geosynchronous orbit it is nearly gone. Solar wind doesn't help. The best place to do all this is around Jupiter. Jupiter's "surface" magnetic field is around 4 gauss, and low-jovian-orbit speed is 42 km/sec, so we should be able to get electric fields of on the order of ten volts/meter. But we can play another game: Jupiter rotates very fast (9h 55m), and synchronous altitude is about 1.2 planetary radii above the surface. The magnetic field is huge, extending out for many tens of radii. The field moves with the planet, so if a tether is beyond the synchronous altitude the effect is to *accelerate* it, pumping energy into the satellite. The current can be used to accelerate ions, giving additional thrust. We are, in effect, extracting energy from Jupiter's rotation. Another energy source! Watch out for belt radiation, though. This effect should also work on Jupiter's moons. This effect may cause small conductive bodies to be thrown out of the jovian system. Is this why Jupiter doesn't have big rings? Is Jupiter's ring at synchronous altitude? ------------------------------ Date: 17 January 1983 1120-EST (Monday) From: David.Smith at CMU-CS-A (C410DS30) To: space at MIT-MC Subject: Double sonic booms Message-Id: <17Jan83 112048 DS30@CMU-CS-A> All supersonic planes generate double booms. If you look at wind-tunnel photos of bullet-shaped objects, you will see shock waves coming from the nose and the boat-tail, and from other points, such as the widest diameter. An article I read many years ago showed diagrams of the many shock waves (nose, cockpit, leading edges, trailing edges, boat-tail, you name it) merging as distance from the aircraft increases, until there are two main waves, associated with the nose and tail. The two waves form an N-shaped pressure pattern. With the nose wave, pressure rises sharply above ambient atmospheric pressure. From there, the pressure falls to below ambient, until the tail wave brings the pressure sharply back to ambient. The two sharp pressure changes are heard as a double boom. I have been annoyed to hear the TV announcers say that the booms are generated (only) at the moment the aircraft slows to below the speed of sound. ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 17 January 1983, 23:26-EST From: Richard M. Stallman Subject: L5 address To: space at MIT-MC The national headquarters is at L5 Society 1060 E Elm Tucson, AZ 85719 ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 83 1:11:07-PST (Sun) To: space@mit-mc From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rocheste!sher@UCB-C70 Subject: Re: Soviet Nuclear Stupidity Article-I.D.: rocheste.417 In-Reply-To: Article inuxd.228 Received: by SRI-UNIX.uucp from Usenet.uucp using phone; 17 Jan 83 22:16-PST To continue a discussion that probably should be in net.politics but what the hell, the main reason that US newsmen cover American nuclear mishaps is that if the reactor several miles north of New York City blows up, endangering the entire 2*10**7+ people in the metropolitan area, my mother father sister brother and various other relatives and friends will be endangered. If all the reactors in Russia blow up simultaneously many million Russians will be endangered. Now which possibility is more important to me? =David Sher (oftimes ai project) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 19-Jan-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #96 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 96 Today's Topics: More on tethers... good publications - (nf) SPACE/SCIENCE fallacies ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Jan 1983 7:36-PST From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL Subject: More on tethers... To: space@mit-mc Origin: usc-cse Via: Usc-Cse; 18 Jan 83 08:31:55 A piece on the planned tethered sattelite is in a recent Aviation Leak. The tether will be 100 km (!) long, made of either kevlar, braided kevlar/copper or copper/steel. With conductive tethers current will be controlled by an electron gun in the shuttle. Both upwards and downwards tethered sattelites will be used. An upwards tether would be an easy way to get something out of LEO, without rockets or putting the shuttle up there. I should point out Larry Niven's recent novel (The Descent of Anansi) has a tether. The problem of electrons building up in the magnetosphere can be solved by shooting them off the negative end of the tether along the magnetic field lines, in the 'loss cone'. They should then penetrate to the atmosphere, completing the circuit. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 83 20:27:10-PST (Fri) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!whaley@UCB-C70 Subject: good publications - (nf) Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.1337 Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-UNIX.uucp with rs232; 18 Jan 83 5:23-PST #N:uiucdcs:12700031:000:211 uiucdcs!whaley Jan 14 19:29:00 1983 What are the best publications to read to find out about the space program? I see a note about space world, but don't know how good it is or what else is out there. Al Whaley Univ of Ill pur-ee!uiucdcs!whaley ------------------------------ Date: 18 January 1983 14:51 EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: SPACE/SCIENCE fallacies To: SPACE @ MIT-MC Re crash of Cosmos 954 in Canada in 1978: "Concern was not related to the potential damage the two-ton piece of machinery could have caused when it hit, but tht fact that it carried 110 pounds of enriched U-235 isotopes ... Fortunately, the nuclear material and some of the reactor burned up on re-entry." The misconception is that when radioactive material burns (vaporizes and subsequently mostly oxidizes, leaving a fine dust of oxide in the atmosphere) that somehow the radioactivity is gone. How can the media be so gullible?? Actually the total radioactivity is the same, but with the stuff in a fine dust it's more likely to be inhaled than when it's in one clump on the ground. This is especially true of Plutonium. Anybody else want to comment on this, giving more info about danger as a function of particle size and oxidization state? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 20-Jan-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #97 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 97 Today's Topics: Re: Soviet Nuclear Stupidity Amsat/Vita agreement Re: Gray Tape - (nf) First Chimp into Space Dies "The sky is falling" L5 address ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Jan 83 19:09:06-PST (Mon) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!duke!bcw@UCB-C70 Subject: Re: Soviet Nuclear Stupidity Re: Soviet nuclear waste disaster There is copious documentation for this disaster; there have been articles in New Scientist especially about it, though I have seen articles in other publications (Science? Don't remember offhand). The only nit is that it really didn't get close to critical (or at least is not widely believed to have gotten close to critical), it's just that the heat of decomposition got so high that it disintegrated its dump site ... Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jan 83 21:11:48-PST (Mon) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!eagle!karn@UCB-C70 Subject: Amsat/Vita agreement Jan 14,1983 -- The Radio Amateur Satellite Corp. (AMSAT) and the Volunteers In Technical Assistance (VITA) {note -- pronounce as VI-TAH as in the word vital} have today announced their intent to pursue a joint effort to develop a low-cost packet radio satellite system called PACSAT. VITA, headquartered in Rosslyn, VA, is a private, nonprofit organization that supports people working on technical problems in developing countries with technical information provided by thousands of volunteer scientists, engineers and technologists. The information and assistance VITA provides is aimed at helping local people in developing countries to select and implement technologies appropriate to their local situations. VITA Director Henry Norman and VITA Project Coordinator Dr. Gary Garriott (WA9FMQ) today announced that VITA has just awarded AMSAT a $15,000 Design Definition Grant to support development of PACSAT as a reliable low-cost digital satellite system to meet requirements for communications of technical information on renewable energy resources to and from their many field locations. AMSAT's role in this joint activity will be to provide hardware suitable for demonstration programs and to provide technical assistance in developing a low-cost system. Part of this effort will involve adapting solar power, amateur radio and personal computer technology for use in the field, far removed from any technical support. AMSAT's PACSAT project manager Den Connors (KD2S) indicated that this grant will support initial PACSAT design definition activities which are being coordinated by AMSAT with work being done in some 15 locations around the world. It is also of interest to note that WA9FMQ is a cousin of NASA astronaut Dr. Owen Garriott, W5LFL who may be amateur radio's first "space mobile" by operating from the Space Shuttle if a proposal submitted by AMSAT and ARRL is approved by NASA. AMSAT 850 Sligo Ave. Silver Spring, MD 20910 VITA 1815 North Lynn St. Rosslyn VA 22209 ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 83 22:27:33-PST (Fri) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcewan@UCB-C70 Subject: Re: Gray Tape - (nf) "Duct tape is like The Force - it has a light side and a dark side, and it holds the universe together." Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'm not afraid to sign someone else's name Neil Coletti ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 83 20:00:32-PST (Tue) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb@UCB-C70 Subject: First Chimp into Space Dies Ham, the chimp that went into space before Alan Shepard, died yesterday at the North Carolina Zoological Park, where he had lived for the last 2.5 years. An autopsy on the chimp, who made a sub orbital flight aboard a Redstone rocket on 31 January, 1961, will be performed at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, DC. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 1983 0409-PST From: Henry W. Miller Subject: "The sky is falling" Russkie Satellite: The amount of radiation per capita depends on whether the satellite burns up on re-entry, or actually impacts somewhere on Earth. Should it vaporize in the upper atmosphere, the gulf stream winds (or equavalent) would tend to carry the particles a great distance. Many might never reach ground. (Water, maybe) If it hits real ground, and the reactor cracks, well, that's a different story... Another thing that gripes me: they say they don't know where it will come down. Get Serious! We have orbital mechanics down to a fine art, and have mega machines doing the calculations. We also have long-range weather forcasting, and can determine atmospheric patterns long enough in advance for the critical "fall" period. Anyone care to debate this? -HWM ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 83 16:34:34-PST (Thu) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!ihnp4!houxz!hocsb!hocsf!hocse!dls@UCB-C70 Subject: L5 address Article-I.D.: hocse.105 Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-UNIX.uucp with rs232; 19 Jan 83 5:13-PST The L5 address(International Headquarters) is L5 Society 1060 Elm St. Tucson, Arizona 85719 It is actually East Elm St. I urge all persons interested in seeing mankind move into space to join the L5 society, along with people like Freeman Dyson, Jerry Pournelle, Dr. Thomas Paine, Robert Heinlein, Barry Goldwater, Charles Sheffield, etc. etc. The L5 society is the major grass roots space activist organization in the USA. A New Jersey chapter is currently forming which meets at the Henry Street Library in Linden NJ(exit 136) on the parkway on the second Wednesday of each month. We will be manning(personing?) an L5 booth at "Super Science Sunday" January 29-30 from 9 to 5(Sat) and 12 to 5(Sun) at the New Jersey State Mueseum. Hope to see you there. Dale L. Skran Jr. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 21-Jan-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #98 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 98 Today's Topics: Hail Columbia revisited pinheaded criticism of the USSR Re: publications about space program SPACE Digest V3 #95 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Jan 83 0:04:54-PST (Wed) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!eagle!karn@UCB-C70 Subject: Hail Columbia revisited Article-I.D.: eagle.734 Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-UNIX.uucp with rs232; 19 Jan 83 7:26-PST Last weekend, while on a trip to the DC area, I saw Hail Columbia for a second time. As I was leaving, I thought that I might have been too hard on it in my review last month; I guess film reviewers always have to say at least one negative thing about a film in order to be credible. All I can say is this: If you see Hail Columbia once, you'll be ready to see it again very soon. It is simply FANTASTIC!! I went with two male friends, both older than I am (26), one of which had the guts to admit being moved to tears by the liftoff scenes. So was I, but then again I always go a little crazy watching launches, even on TV. (My other friend used to work on the Delta launch team, so it was old hat" to him.) I remembered a number of minor highlights this time. My favorite was John Young's reply to a press conference question something like "I understand you'd have trouble ejecting during the burn of the solids", which consisted of a shrug and "You just pull the little handle." I could go for another five showings of this movie myself. Phil Karn ------------------------------ Received: from M.PCO.LISD.HIS by MIT-MULTICS.ARPA dial; 20-Jan-1983 18:27:50-est Date: 20 January 1983 18:26 est From: Margulies.Multics at M.PCO.LISD.HIS Subject: pinheaded criticism of the USSR To: space at MIT-MC There is something frightening about the ability of some folks (arlen --/indy) to make up stories as they go along in their efforts to create distinctions between the East and the West in terms of public policy. There is indeed a difference. The solviets oppress nearly everyone, and we only oppress minorities, poor people, and folks who live in countries run by our friends. We've never decimated ourselves with a nuclear accident? Only by luck. Look at windscale and the incident outside of chicago. There is no evidence that our luck is the product of more concern for the people involved. Hell, look at TMI? They dump yellow rain? Well, we pay the indonesians to slaughter hundreds of thousands in east timor. Not to mention less clear cases like el salvador. Both east and west are run by oligarchies that are primarily concerned with fattening their bank accounts and those of their friends. The difference is one of degree. The vestiges of democracy in the west restrain our "leadership" from some of the excesses of their Eastern counterparts, but ask the chicago 7 (or the kent state 4) about the extent to which it works. Anti-USSR rhetoric serves only to distract us from the real problems, which know nothing of nation-state boundaries. Ask any anarchist. --benson i margulies ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jan 83 13:54:02-PST (Tue) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!ihnp4!ihlpb!cdc@Berkeley.arpa Subject: Re: publications about space program Article-I.D.: ihlpb.249 Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-UNIX.uucp with rs232; 20 Jan 83 18:28-PST I heard "Avionics Week" was a good source of info about the space program. ------------------------------ Date: 21 January 1983 02:23 EST From: "James Lewis Bean, Jr." Subject: SPACE Digest V3 #95 To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC In-reply-to: The message of 18 Jan 1983 0303-PST from Ted Anderson Q ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 22-Jan-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #99 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 99 Today's Topics: orbital mechanics ScramJets ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Jan 1983 1012-PST From: WILKINS at SRI-AI (Wilkins ) Subject: orbital mechanics To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: miller at SRI-NIC In-Reply-To: Your message of 20-Jan-83 0302-PST With regard to predicted where the satellite falls: there is just no way to predict how an odd shaped object that is tumbling to boot will bounce off the atmosphere when it hits it. Fractions of an inch difference in its orientation might make a large change in what happens when it hits the atmosphere or turbulence. It would be similar to (though not equivalent to) the problem of throwing an odd shaped rock across the surface of a lake and predicted exactly which way it will bounce when it hits the lake (so that you can predict exactly which way it will bounce the second time and third time . . .). We can't do either. David ------- ------------------------------ Return-Path: Date: 18 Jan 83 14:46-EST (Tue) From: Steven Gutfreund Subject: ScramJets To: space@mit-mc Via: UMASS-COINS; 22 Jan 83 0:53-EST Is anyone familiar with the operational and design difficulties in SCRAMJETS? I saw an article in the Jan OMNI mention this as a possible means of accelerating a plane up to MACH 20 where spaceflight becomes realistic. OMNI, though, does a rather shoddy and populist job of explaning technology, can anyone give me a better and more technical explanation? Steven Gutfreund ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 23-Jan-83 2319 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #100 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 100 Today's Topics: Engine Test Tuesday MAILING LIST ADDITION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Jan 83 15:38:48-PST (Fri) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!npoiv!alice!sjb@Berkeley.arpa Subject: Engine Test Tuesday Article-I.D.: alice.1414 Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-UNIX.uucp with rs232; 22 Jan 83 11:21-PST A 56 hour countdown scheduled to start at 0900 EST tomorrow will culminate Tuesday morning at 1100 EST in the second test firing of Challenger's main engines (or so NASA hopes) ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jan 1983 1651-PST From: JTSCHUDY at USC-ISIE Subject: MAILING LIST ADDITION To: space at MIT-MC Hi! My name is Jim. I am presently attending the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey California. I am in the Air Force enrolled in a DOD sponsored graduate degree in Command Control and Communications Systems Technology. i would like to be added to your mailing list. My net address is JTSCHUDY at ISIE. Thanks - Jim. ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 26-Jan-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #101 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 101 Today's Topics: more on solar sails Challenger further delayed by hydrogen leak ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Jan 1983 1006-EST From: John Redford To: space at MIT-AI cc: redford at SHORTY Subject: more on solar sails Message-ID: <"MS10(2055)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11890492494.17.583.3688 at DEC-MARLBORO> Here are some more thoughts on solar sails: If a charge is put on a conducting film, does it tend to flatten out? I would expect that the repulsion between all the charged particles would straighten out any kinks or folds in the film, since the configuration that lets the charges get the maximum distance away from one another would be a flat sheet. This seems to happen in Leyden jars. When a charge is put on the post, the two gold leaves fly apart. They don't completely flatten out because their weight counteracts the electrical repulsion. In space, though, the only counteracting forces would be the film's mechanical resistance and any stray magnetic fields. This might be a good way to keep a solar sail flat. A charge could be put on the sail with an electron gun. This could stiffen the sail without having to have a complex tension structure. Suppose that the sail's shape can be controlled even more closely. Suppose it can be formed into a parabolic dish. I can think of two useful things that could be done with this. One is to focus sunlight on solar cells on the instrument pod. Every now and then the sail would take a break from its main propulsion duties by forming into a dish and charging up batteries in the pod. By concentrating the sunlight a much smaller and lighter solar cell array could be used. There would also be more power available in the outer solar system. Dissipating the extra heat would be a problem, though. Another good use of a dish would be as a radio telescope. The sail could station itself at L5 and then be used as part of a radio interferometer. The other half of the interferometer would be on earth. The resolution of an interferometer depends on the distance between the elements. The maximum distance we can get at present is by putting telescopes on opposite sides of the earth, some 8000 miles apart. With a telescope at L5, the baseline would be 240,000 miles. However, phase shifts might be a problem. Interferometers work by taking two signals and coherently combining them. That is, they take the phase as well as the amplitude into account. Since the sail would have to send its signal back to earth through all kinds of media that might shift the phase of the signal, this scheme might not work. Even so, it might be worth it to have a radio telescope that far from the earth's chatter. John Redford DEC - Hudson -------- ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jan 83 0017 PST From: Ron Goldman Subject: Challenger further delayed by hydrogen leak To: space@MIT-MC Hydrogen Leak Again Found In Test-Firing Of Engines By IKE FLORES Associated Press Writer CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - A tiny hydrogen leak which reappeared during a test firing of the space shuttle Challenger's main engines may set back the entire shuttle program, including the U.S.-European Skylab mission, officials say. The gas leak was found in Challenger's main engine compartment after a test firing Tuesday, and the director of the shuttle program said the start of the craft's five-day maiden mission will be delayed at least until mid-March. Lt. Gen. James A. Abrahamson, associate administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, said the delay could be much longer if one or more engines must be replaced. Officials said any replacement might come from the the shuttle Columbia, a veteran of five space missions which is undergoing extensive overhaul at the Kennedy Space Center. Abrahamson said the entire shuttle program could be set back if Challenger's problem is serious. But he emphasized that it would be some time before all test data is analyzed and the full extent of the problem is known. The hydrogen leak detected in Tuesday's test firing was ''of the same order of magnitude as it was the first time,'' Abrahamson said. The problem first cropped up after the first engine test on Dec. 18. ''We've concluded, in our own mind, that it is a high-pressure leak in the high-pressure portions of the engines,'' said Horace Lamberth, fluid systems chief at the space center. He said it would take up to four weeks to replace one of the three main engines. Finding the problem is going to be a ''real detective job, and one that will be difficult,'' Abrahamson said. He said a third engine test, called a flight-readiness firing, may be made, causing even more delay. Challenger was originally supposed to replace its sister ship Columbia sometime in late January. Besides the flight which had been tentatively set for March, Challenger is to fly the seventh and eighth missions in the shuttle program, set for April and July. Columbia is due to return to service for the ninth mission in September, when it will carry an international crew of six and the European-built Spacelab, a scientific laboratory. ''It is important to maintain the Spacelab timing,'' Abrahamson said. ''I'm not prepared to say that we have to give that up'' because of the possibility of long postponements caused by the problem with Challenger's engines. ''We are not prepared (now) to go ahead and load the payload nor set a date'' for Challenger's first mission, Abrahamson said. Lamberth said data from hydrogen sensors installed in the engine compartment for the test would be analyzed for several days to determine the specific source of the leak. Although the leak is small, technicians say a spark or short circuit could start a fire or an explosion in the engine compartment, and Abrahamson added, ''We are being very conservative.'' ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 27-Jan-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #102 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 102 Today's Topics: Re: Scramjets more on solar sails ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Jan 1983 13:55-PST From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL Subject: Re: Scramjets Scramjets are hard to design because they can't be tested in wind tunnels. Ordinary wind tunnels use scale models and reduced air velocity to maintain the same Reynolds number. In the hypersonic realm, though, the Mach number is also important, and you can't scale it at the same time. See the Feynman lectures on physics, volume 2, page 41-6. ------------------------------ Date: 27 January 1983 05:44 EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: more on solar sails To: VLSI @ DEC-MARLBORO cc: "REDFORD@SHORTY" @ MIT-MC, space @ MIT-AI If the purpose of the solar sail is to avoid needing to develop an ion rocket (i.e. a particle accellerator that works in deep space), then adding a particle accellerator to a solar sail just to charge it up would seem to defeat the purpose. But perhaps a cheap one would do for the sail, which wouldn't do for direct thrust. I don't know. With the sail being so hard to develop, maybe the ion rocket is the way to go in the first place? (For trips beyond Saturn, you need the ion rocket anyway. It's dark out there.) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 29-Jan-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #103 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 103 Today's Topics: BC-TELESCOPE-2takes-01-2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 28 Jan 83 12:43:37 PST Date: 28 Jan 83 0045 PST From: Hans Moravec Subject: BC-TELESCOPE-2takes-01-2 To: space@MIT-MC n502 2206 27 Jan 83 By Albert Sehlstedt, Jr. (c) 1983 The Baltimore Sun (Field News Service) BALTIMORE - Scientists at the Johns Hopkins University are working seven days a week on one of the most important astronomical projects in history, but they have yet to look through a telescope. ''So what in the hell are you doing?'' asked Dr.Riccardo Giacconi, beating a visitor to the same question by half a breath. The scientist's question was directed at himself and a staff of energetic astronomers. ''This is a great human adventure,'' said Dr. Barry Lasker. ''This is the astronomical adventure for the rest of this century.'' ''It's very exciting to be a part of it,'' commented Roger E. Doxsey. ''This is the time to push hard,'' Lasker declared with emphasis. Giacconi, director of the Space Telescope Science Institute, and his associates are preparing for the 1985 launching of an orbiting telescope that will look farther into the universe than earthlings have ever looked before, possibly finding new planets circling distant suns that shine on other kinds of intelligent life. The pace of the work at Hopkins - 12 and 14 hours a day - would suggest that the launching was set for next Thursday rather than two years hence. The months of unrelenting preparation demanded of the institute's staff for the ''great human adventure'' is perhaps best understood by asking yourself how you might operate a 10-ton telescope orbiting the Earth every 90 minutes at an altitude of 350 miles while dozens of the world's most prominent astronomers stand in line for a peek. One embarrassment to be avoided at all costs is pointing the telescope in the wrong direction. If the moon got in the way while Dr. X from Prague or Dr. Y from Peking was attempting to get a glimpse of a distant galaxy . . . well, it would be awkward. The solution? Computers, of course. Giacconi held an imaginary space telescope in his hand and simulated its motions around the Earth, twisting it to look always away from the home planet; to avoid being blocked by the moon, 240,000 miles distant; never to look into the sun, 93 million miles away, and always to keep locked onto the object or objects light years away that visiting astronomers will want to see. The institute is now engaged in extensive work with computer companies, computer programming specialists and other experts to make sure that the 43-foot-long telescope performs its acrobatic dance in orbit so precisely that it will always hold in its field of view that distant dot in the vastness of space that some astronomer, who may have traveled halfway around the world, demands to see. This requirement raises another vexing question. How do you know where to point a telescope that, Giacconi pointed out, is looking into a sky 400,000 times larger than the telescope's field of view at any one instant in time? The pointing choices are endless - but that is part of the problem, not the solution. The answer: ''Guide stars,'' Giacconi said. ''Three stars for everywhere you look in the sky.'' Though poets and song writers can be eloquent about the vast numbers of stars in the heavens, there are not nearly enough of them, with their positions well known, to keep the space telescope always on target. So, with the help of other astronomical observatories, the Space Telescope Science Institute is now compiling a catalogue of millions of stars - reference points in the sky that the telescope's navigation devices can select instantly to point its lens in precisely the right direction. ''It's quite a challenge,'' said Lasker, who is the institute's project scientist for the guide star selection system. He noted that the largest star catalogue previously compiled (by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory at Harvard University) consists of about 258,000 stars. The astronomer said the institute plans to have a catalogue of 20 million stars by March, 1984, a year almost to the day before the space telescope is to be carried into orbit by one of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's space shuttles. It is hard work. MORE nyt-01-28-83 0103est *************** !n504 2223 27 Jan 83 BC-TELESCOPE-1stadd-01-2 x x x HARD WORK. ''It is not only tedious, but it is very demanding,'' Giacconi said. ''Everything we do is off the edge of the map,'' Lasker said. ''We are charting new territory.'' Aside from these operational problems, Giacconi and his staff (gradually growing to 200) are dealing regularly with 52 prime contractors, each of which has an important role to play in the $750 million project that will culminate in the orbital flight of the telescope. ''The space telescope is perhaps the most complicated space experiment ever done,'' said Giacconi, referring to all the contractors and government support groups assisting in the project. The 51-year-old director of the institute, who was born in Genoa, Italy, and had been professor of astronomy at Harvard before coming here, seemed immensely enthused about the space telescope project, but not awed. He was chosen for the post from about 60 candidates by a search committee of the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA), a consortium of universities that won a NASA competition to operate the space telescope. As part of its proposal to the space agency, AURA selected Johns Hopkins's Homewood campus for the Space Telescope Science Institute. Thus, the institute is not a part of Hopkins, only located there. Giacconi is now a professor of physics at Hopkins. He noted that astronomers selected to use the telescope will not be chosen arbitrarily by him. ''I would last only as long as the legal procedures to throw me out if I did that,'' he said. Instead, the people invited to the institute for observations will be chosen for the most part on the basis of peer review of their work - an analysis of the significance of their proposals as judged by their colleagues in the various fields of astronomy. ''We'll seek proposals from everywhere,'' the director said. ''Also, unorthodox but interesting ideas will be considered.'' The space telescope, with the inestimable advantage of viewing the heavens above the distorting veil of the Earth's atmosphere, will be able to observe 350 times the volume of space that can now be seen with the largest ground-based optical instruments. Put another way, if the telescope were erected in Baltimore it would be able to read the license plate of an automobile in Boston. And what might the telescope see from orbit? ''We hope we will be pleasantly surprised by unexpected discoveries,'' Giacconi said. His comment was similar to the responses of other astronomers who, unlike laymen, seem not to be thinking so much of finding other kinds of beings or the weird worlds of science fiction, but something else. What else? That which the human mind has not imagined; that which will help everyone on this planet, as Lasker pointed out, to acquire a fuller understanding of his place in, and relevance to, that incomprehensibly vast state of existence we call the universe. END nyt-01-28-83 0120est *************** ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 30-Jan-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #104 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 104 Today's Topics: STS-ET into orbit for free? Halleys comet ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 29 Jan 83 14:49:19 PST Date: 29 January 1983 17:32 EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: STS-ET into orbit for free? To: SPACE @ MIT-MC The Jan 28 (Friday) issue of Science has a letter claiming that it actually takes more energy to toss the external tank (ET) into a particular spot in the Indian Ocean than it would take to just carry it along into space. The reason it is dumped in the ocean is because if just lifted to orbit and not used for anything it'd re-enter at some random place in a few months just like Skylab and two Russian satellites did, causing a big PR (public relations) problem. Thus it seems that if somebody actually had plans for an ET, they could not only get the ET for free but maybe even get paid to take it (if NASA were to be fair about it). Does anybody have more info (confirmation or rebuttal) on this? ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 29 Jan 83 14:49:10 PST Date: 29 January 1983 17:15 EST From: Robert Elton Maas To: SPACE @ MIT-MC This private reply failed, but it may be of some general interest so ... COMSAT@MIT-MC 01/29/83 16:08:55 Re: Msg of Wednesday, 19 January 1983 04:56 EST To: REM at MIT-MC FAILED: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm at UCB-C70; Host appears to be permanently down or not accepting mail. Failed message follows: ------- Date: 19 January 1983 04:56 EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Halleys comet To: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!lime!we13!otuxa!ll1!ihldt!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm @ UCB-C70 According to the article in Sky&Telescope, looking at the picture and the legend below it, on Oct 16 it was within the telescope-diffraction spike range of SAO115101. That star is 8th magnitude, while Halley's comet was 24th-magnitude at that time. Perhaps by studying the image in Sky&Telescope and comparing it with star catalogs for that part of the sky (about 8 degrees NW from Procyon), you can find it. The other stars in the field, much brighter than the comet, look about a hundred to a thousand times brighter than the comet, thus about 5 to 9 magnitudes brighter, thus about magnitude 15 thru 19. If you can find a star catalog with 19th-magnitude limit, you should be able to compare the image with the catalog and get the "exact" coordinates of the comet. Or contact the famous Halley-finders, staff astronomer G. Edward Danielson and graduate student David C. Jewitt, of Cal Tech. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 31-Jan-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #105 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 105 Today's Topics: resolution claimed in Space Telescope article ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 31 Jan 83 00:46:54 PST Date: 30 Jan 1983 2202-EST From: John Redford To: space at MIT-AI cc: redford at SHORTY Subject: resolution claimed in Space Telescope article Message-ID: <"MS10(2055)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11892195730.28.583.2604 at DEC-MARLBORO> The article on the Space Telescope claimed that if it were set up in Baltimore it could read a license plate in Boston. Doesn't sound right to me. The resolution of a telescope is limited by diffraction to angle on the order of the wavelength divided by the diameter (angular res. (in radians) ~= lambda /diameter). For the ST that comes to about 2 micro-radians. Say that you needed to separate 1 cm objects at a distance of 500 km in order to read this license plate. Then you'll need 20 nano-radian resolution, a hundred times greater than that of the ST. Is there some means for vastly increasing resolution, or is this just wild-eyed journalism? John Redford DEC-Hudson -------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 01-Feb-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #106 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 106 Today's Topics: resolution claimed in Space Telescope article ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 31 Jan 83 19:48:20 PST Date: 31 January 1983 22:45 EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: resolution claimed in Space Telescope article To: VLSI @ DEC-MARLBORO cc: space @ MIT-AI, "redford@SHORTY" @ UDEL-RELAY It's impossible to increase resolution beyond the diffraction-limited resolution except by increasing the diameter of the photon-receiver (the primary lense or reflector) so the diffraction-limit is better. You can do this by using two telescopes and merging their light beams, or by using a pair of mirrors to effectively split one lens or primary mirror, although this gives you high resolution only along the axis between the two photon-receiver parts, giving what's called an inferometer. I doubt they're planning to do that with the space telescope, although that would maybe be a good idea after they have tested it in its simple configuration and gotten enough good data that way. Note that it's hard to form full images in an inferometer configuration, like for reading license plates, but it's great for splitting double points of light such as double stars. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 23-Feb-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #107 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 107 Today's Topics: The non-existance of the Space Digest Mass Driver III project ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ted Anderson Date: 22 Feb 1983 21:06-PST Subject: The non-existance of the Space Digest Since the TCP change over by MIT-MC, which was the relay machine for submissions to the Space Digest, on Feb 1, there have been no Digests. I have modified the list on MIT-MC so that it tries to send submissions to me via a relay. This may work for a while, but will doubtless be quite unreliable. The outgoing trip made by the Digests will also be fairly treacherous. Still a limited amount of mail may still make it through. Until the host machine I'm using gets switched over to TCP things will be quite intermitent. Also, at least for a while, we won't be getting submissions from Usenet. Please bear with me. The Moderator Ted Anderson ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 1983 12:13-PST From: dietz%usc-cse at Usc-Ecl Return-Path: Subject: Mass Driver III project To: space at Mit-Mc As you may know, Dr. O'Neill's Space Studies Institute has been working on prototype mass drivers. They have designed two before (MD I and II). Recently, O'Neill came up with some exciting new ideas for the driver that should reduce the complexity and boost the efficiency of the system. The new system is called a "pull-only" mass driver. Before, the drive coils accelerated the bucket by pulling, then pushing. Complex electronics were needed for stabilization and coil triggering. Changes in the new system involve: making the coils self-centering by only pulling the buckets, eliminating the now unnecessary magnetic guide strips; increasing the drive coil diameter, allowing much a higher drive coil/bucket coil diameter ratio, increasing the coupling efficiency of the coils; making the drive coils independent, eliminating the need for complex electronic triggering systems. Projected accelerations are in the range of 1800 to 2000 g's, at least an order of magnitude better than previous efforts. Length of the mass driver scales inversely with the acceleration, reducing the length of the driver to around 150 meters for lunar escape velocity. SSI is currently building a prototype 20-coil system 50 cm in length. It will accelerate a 40 gram bucket (1/10 of a lunar system's bucket-payload mass; SSI doesn't have a big enough capacitor bank for the larger payload) to 250 mph. The first single-coil test was scheduled for January; I haven't heard if it worked. The 20 coil system is scheduled to be completed by March or April, with May as a deadline. If you want to contribute to this project, send donations (US dollars only) to: SSI 195 Nassau Street Princeton, NJ 08540 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 28-Feb-83 1149 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #108 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 108 Today's Topics: Mass drivers? Modroc Beta Testers Wanted Michener's SPACE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from RANDOM-PLACE by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 23 Feb 83 20:51:30 PST Date: 23 Feb 1983 2226-EST From: Hobbit Return-Path: Subject: Mass drivers? Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by udel-relay.ARPA ; 23-Feb-83 22:41:56-EST (Wed) To: space.mit-mc at UDel-TCP This sounds like a fascinating topic, but as I see it there has not been a whole lot of detail set forth on the Space digest. Could someone go into a little more detail about what a mass driver is and what's going on about its development? I'd love to see discussion about *real* ongoing space-related research. After all, this *is* a research network, yes? _H* ------------------------------ Received: from USC-ECLC by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 24 Feb 83 07:07:58 PST Received: from MIT-MULTICS by USC-ECLC; Thu 24 Feb 83 07:08:21-PST Date: 24 February 1983 10:00 est From: Boebert.SCOMP at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Modroc Beta Testers Wanted To: OTA%S1-A at USC-ECLC I have just completed a package called "Modroc," which is a design automation system for model rockets. It will be given out free to interested parties, especially Jr. High and High School science teachers, who currently need all the help they can get. The system is intended to exploit a common shared enthusiasm for model rockets and computers by the 10-whatever year old crowd, and help science teachers demonstrate the close relationship between the computer and space ages. The system runs on a 48K Apple with one disk. It consists of two subsystems. One is a classic CAD program which draws your design as you go, knows about Estes parts, and does a whole bunch of consistency checks to make sure the parts will fit together. The second subsystem maintains a design file and does static stability calculations. It will either take a fixed design and compute the CP or take a given CG/Static Static Stability Factor combination and adjust the fin sizes to match. The system has an open (disk file) interface to make it easy to add programs of your own. Before I release the thing for real I would like some experienced model rocketeers to beta test it for me. I am particularly interested in people who have a file of designs for which Barrowman CP calculations have been done. If you send me your USMail address (the thing won't go over the net because of machine language routines) I will send you a copy. At worst you will get a free Verbatim disk for your trouble, and at best you will have the satisfaction of helping produce a few more engineers and a few less lawyers in the next generation. ------------------------------ Received: from RANDOM-PLACE by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 28 Feb 83 03:49:58 PST Date: 27 Feb 83 23:15-EDT (Sun) From: the Golux Return-Path: Subject: Michener's SPACE Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by udel-relay.ARPA ; 28-Feb-83 00:52:30-EST (Mon) To: space.umass-ece at UDel-TCP Cc: coar.umass-ece at UDel-TCP, sf-lovers.umass-ece at UDel-TCP Via: UMASS-ECE; 28 Feb 83 0:11-EST I have just finished reading Michener's 'Space,' and found it better than I expected. It seems to slow down a bit toward the end, but that may just be because I'm tired.. It starts off well, and is fairly captivating for most of the book. He gives what appears to be a pretty good picture of the history of space exploration (I'm not really up on this, sorry!), from several different, evolving, viewpoints. I enjoyed it, and do not regret the money spent. It strikes me as a darned good contemporary historical novel. ken coar.umass-ece@udel-relay P.S.: It is not really 'science fiction,' nor even 'speculative fiction' - but I think SF people might enjoy it if they aren't too critical.. k ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 05-Apr-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #109 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 109 Today's Topics: anniversary Reagan's Defense Message Solar Electric Propulsion JAS-1 announced Watching Shuttle Launches Time machine nearly discovered ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from RANDOM-PLACE by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 3 Mar 83 15:21:23 PST Date: 03 Mar 83 1017 PST From: Ross Finlayson Return-Path: Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by udel-relay.ARPA ; 3-Mar-83 14:46:43-EST (Thu) Mail-From: ARPANET site SU-AI rcvd at 3-Mar-83 1019-PST To: space.mit-mc at UDel-TCP(ADDRESS PROBLEM at host UDel-Relay) , USC-ECL at UDel-TCP n102 1857 01 Mar 83 BC-SHUTTLE New Orbiter Challenger Crippled by Design Defect By WAYNE BIDDLE c. 1983 N.Y. Times News Service NEW YORK - Nearly 11 years after development of the space shuttle's powerful main engines began, the new orbiter Challenger sits crippled on its pad at Cape Canaveral because of what officials describe as a design defect in its engines. A 1978 report warned about one of the flawed components that was recently discovered, but the component slipped through standard inspection procedures until it arrived at the Kennedy Space Center on Feb. 4. The delay is also attributable to welding problems and a shortage of spare parts, Congress was told this week by Lt. Gen. James A. Abrahamson, who is in charge of the shuttle program. Abrahamson, the space agency's associate administrator, told a House Science and Technology subcommittee that the fact various flaws were discovered while they were still on the ground showed the program's conservative approach to safety. He blamed tight budgets in the past for a lack of spare parts, which he said would pose a problem throughout this year. Because all three of Challenger's engines are under repair, no launching date has been set for the sixth shuttle mission. A spokesman for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration said technicians were hoping to remount the engines by March 10. A launching might occur two to three weeks after that, he said. The delay from its original Jan. 20 launching date has already cost NASA at least $1.5 million, with greater cost increases expected later this year when space center crews will have to work overtime if shuttle-program commitments are to be met. With tight scheduling between missions, all shuttle flights this year had already been under considerable time pressure. After the sixth shuttle flight, Challenger's first, has been completed, two more have been planned before Sept. 30, when the ninth mission is scheduled to carry the first Spacelab into orbit. Challenger's No. 1 engine was removed Feb. 4 because a three-quarter inch long crack in a hydrogen coolant line allowed potentially inflammable amounts of gas to leak into the vehicle's aft end. The engine moved in to replace it was then found to have an oxygen leak in its heat exchanger, a complex system of coils that helps pressurize the shuttle's external fuel tank. Last Friday a hydrogen leak was discovered on Engine No. 2, in the same general area of the engine as the leak that occurred on No. 1. Then, over the weekend, an inspection of Engine No. 3 revealed the same flaw. Although the problem on the No. 1 engine was traced to a tooling mishap at Rocketdyne, the engine manufacturer in Canoga Park, Calif., last weekend's discoveries point to a generic design flaw in new shuttle engines that will require a thorough technical review, according to space agency officials. Spokesmen at Rocketdyne said the company's program engineers were not available for comment, because they were preoccupied by the Challenger's difficulties. ''In a broad sense, we are going to revisit all the design changes that went into the Challenger engines,'' said Walter F. Dankhoff, director of NASA's propulsion program. To handle heavier payloads in the future, Challenger's engines were designed to operate with more thrust, or lifting power, than those certified for Columbia, the first operational shuttle. Because of larger vibrations that would result on the new engines in flight, the hydrogen tubes in question were modified to provide more protection from chafing, Mr. Dankhoff said. According to Eugene E. Covert, professor of aeronautics and astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who headed a government committee to review the engine program in the late 1970s, a sleeve was brazed, or soldered, onto the lines as a strengthening element. There is now reason to believe that the temperature of the braze cannot be controlled well enough to prevent local overheating and embrittlement of the metal tube underneath. Technicians at Cape Canaveral must now remove the reinforced sections and weld in new tubing. The configuration will then be the same as on the old Columbia engines, but this means that Challenger's engines will not be able to run at full thrust. ''I assume that by the time higher power is needed on Challenger flights, they will understand the problem better,'' he said. The extra power will not be needed until the Defense Department begins its scheduled flights from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California in 1985. Full-power thrust was previously scheduled for use on Mission 8, whose payload is about 10,000 pounds heavier than that of Mission 6. Although some weight adjustments will be necessary as a result of smaller performance margins, NASA officials do not foresee major alterations in the shuttle program, at least in the near term. nyt-03-01-83 2154est ********** ------------------------------ Received: from RANDOM-PLACE by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 4 Mar 83 13:44:20 PST Date: 3 Mar 83 10:30:22-PST (Thu) From: (ADDRESS PROBLEM at host UDel-Relay) npois!houxm!5941ux!kek.berkeley at UDel-TCP, ( K. E. Kepple) Return-Path: Subject: anniversary Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 4 Mar 83 1:33-PST Received: from sri-unix by udel-relay.ARPA ; 4-Mar-83 05:02:24-EST (Fri) To: physics.sri-unix at UDel-TCP Article-I.D.: 5941ux.214 A belated anniversary notice found in the March issue of the McDonald Observatory News: (March 1) "Today is the 17th anniversary of the first landing of a man-made object on another planet - the hard landing of the Soviet spacecraft Venus III on Venus. Of course, hard landings are not as informative as gentle ones since the spacecraft is immediately destroyed on impact. But the Soviets followed this stunt in the '70s with a series of soft-landing craft (the Venera series) which gave us our first glimpse of the sizzling cauldron that i the surface of Venus." Ken Kepple BTL - Holmdel 5941ux!kek ------------------------------ Received: from RANDOM-PLACE by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 25 Mar 83 09:52:32 PST Date: Wed 23 Mar 83 23:44:43-PST From: (ADDRESS PROBLEM at host UDel-Relay) Jim McGrath Subject: Reagan's Defense Message Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by udel-relay.ARPA ; 24-Mar-83 04:13:28-EST (Thu) To: (ADDRESS PROBLEM at host UDel-Relay) space.mit-mc at UDel-TCP Cc: (ADDRESS PROBLEM at host UDel-Relay) arms-d.mit-mc at UDel-TCP(ADDRESS PROBLEM at host UDel-Relay) , poli-sci.rutgers at UDel-TCP Is this REALLY a commitment to high technology in defense? That is, is Reagan really going to put his political muscle and government funds behind the effort? Anyone read his defense budget for clues? Jim ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 83 23:36:11-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-Vax Subject: Solar Electric Propulsion Article-I.D.: eagle.850 Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 26 Mar 83 6:33-PST Recently, the idea of a solar-powered rocket engine for orbital maneuvering was proposed within AMSAT (the amateur radio satellite group) as a way of making an inherently safe engine for a payload (the PACSAT amateur packet radio satellite) deployed from the space shuttle. The idea is really quite simple: you carry tanks of water, preheat them with the proper solar coatings on the (external) tanks, and vaporize the water into steam with electrical power from the solar cells. Specific impulse is quite low, 125-150 sec, but the big advantage here is that it is MUCH easier to sell to a jittery NASA concerned about "amateurs" flying hazardous fuels on an expensive manned vehicle. It turns out that the major limitation for our purpose of a standard GAS (getaway special) can is volume, not weight, so we can afford to use a lot of water. About 40-50kg would be needed to maneuver from the polar orbit provided by the Landsat Recovery Mission (STS-V2) up to a reasonably stable one, approximately 800-900 km. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 25 Mar 83 16:24:07-PST (Fri) To: space at Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn at Ucb-Vax Subject: JAS-1 announced Article-I.D.: eagle.848 Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 26 Mar 83 5:01-PST Last weekend, JAMSAT and JARL (the Japanese branch of AMSAT and the Japanese Amateur Radio League) formally announced a project to build an amateur radio satellite for launch in 1986 aboard a new Japanese launch vehicle, the H-1 (similar to the American Delta). The satellite will physically resemble Oscar-8, and carry two communications payloads. One will be a Mode J 2m-to-70cm linear transponder like that on Oscar-8, and the other will be a digital store-and-forward "mailbox". The digital half of JAS-1 will be in addition to the similar PACSAT project being planned in the US for one of three launch possibilities: aboard a Space Services launcher, a Delta with Landsat D', or aboard the Landsat 4 Recovery shuttle mission from Vandenburg. Discussions have been underway between AMSAT and JAMSAT for some time to establish common modulation, protocols and user interfaces wherever possible for PACSAT and the digital portion of JAS-1 in order to minimize user inconvenience. Launch of JAS-1 is planned for early 1986 into a 1500 km altitude, 50 degree inclination orbit. Note that this orbit will NOT be sun-synchronous, unlike that planned for PACSAT. Phil Karn, KA9Q Asst. VP Engineering, AMSAT ------------------------------ Date: 12 Mar 83 15:44:23-PST (Sat) To: space@mit-mc From: harpo!eagle!karn@Berkeley.arpa Subject: Watching Shuttle Launches Article-I.D.: eagle.828 Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 14 Mar 83 19:16-PST Back around the beginning of the year, I wrote a letter to the Kennedy Space Center public affairs office requesting a car pass to see STS-7 (STS-6 had already been booked up). Today I finally got a postcard back with the following items checked: "NASA has announced that the 7th Space Shuttle launch will occur no earlier than late May. A pass (for a vehicle no larger than a van) will be mailed to you about three weeks before launch. The pass will enable vehicle occupants to view the launch from a site on the Kennedy Space Center. Please keep informed of launch status through your local news media." Just thought people would be interested in what to expect if they applied for a pass. Phil Karn ------------------------------ Received: from RANDOM-PLACE by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 4 Apr 83 14:39:33 PST Date: 4 Apr 1983 9:19-PST From: dietz%usc-cse.usc-ecl at UDel-TCP Return-Path: Subject: Time machine nearly discovered Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by udel-relay.ARPA ; 4-Apr-83 14:21:38-EST (Mon) To: space.mit-mc at UDel-TCP Via: Usc-Cse; 04 Apr 83 09:30:07 A very fast pulsar (rotation time about 1.5 msec) was recently discovered. Its surface is moving at about .13c, assuming it is of the usual size. If it rotated just 3 times faster it would be a Tipler time machine (except that Tipler's machine is a cylinder, but this may not be important). Tipler's machine, as you may know, is a long, very dense cylinder about 10 km in diameter, with a circumferential velocity of about half the speed of light. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 15-Apr-83 0313 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #110 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 110 Today's Topics: Shuttle watching STS-6 How's Cosmo Carl? Pioneer 10 set to make history Talk on U.S. Space Policy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from RANDOM-PLACE by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 6 Apr 83 20:32:03 PST Date: 4 Apr 83 9:30:35-PST (Mon) From: Mike Iglesias Return-Path: Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by udel-relay.ARPA ; 5 Apr 83 23:34:58 EST (Tue) Subject: Shuttle To: space.mit-mc at UDel-TCP Via: UCI; 5 Apr 83 20:24-PDT Anybody know if the space shuttle transmissions are being rebroadcast on amateur radio? If so, what frequencies? ------------------------------ Received: from RANDOM-PLACE by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 6 Apr 83 21:03:50 PST Date: 6 April 1983 14:08 est From: York.mit-multics at UDel-TCP (William M. York) Return-Path: Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by udel-relay.ARPA ; 6 Apr 83 16:50:54 EST (Wed) Subject: watching STS-6 To: Space-Enthusiasts.mit-mc at UDel-TCP In-Reply-To: Message of 5 April 1983 06:02 est from Ted Anderson Three friends and I drove down to Cape Canaveral from Boston this weekend to watch the shuttle launch. This was my second launch (the first was STS-2), but this time we had a vehicle pass for the viewing area inside KSC. We were still about 5 miles away (next time I'm aiming for the VIP/press area), but the view was great. My 410mm camera lens provided a detailed enough view to see the NASA logo on Challenger's wing, and many of the people there had telescopes which they were usually willing to share. The weather was perfect (I have a bit of a sunburn) and the launch was spectacular. This was a sort of last-minute trip, so when I called KSC they told me that they were all out of vehicle passes for the public. After a bit of brainstorming, I thought of calling my governmental representatives. Tip O'Neil's office didn't know what a space shuttle was, let alone how to get a pass to see one, but Senator Kennedy's staff came through in amazingly short order (he's got my vote). All in all a very worthwhile experience. Does anyone know when the first night launch (originally scheduled for STS 6 last January, I think) will be? ------------------------------ Received: from RANDOM-PLACE by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 8 Apr 83 18:48:23 PST Date: 8 Apr 83 13:51-EST (Fri) From: Charles Weems Return-Path: Subject: How's Cosmo Carl? Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by udel-relay.ARPA ; 8-Apr-83 20:29:14-EST (Fri) To: space.mit-mc at UDel-TCP Via: UMASS-CS; 8 Apr 83 20:18-EST Some time back, I heard a news report that Carl Sagan was in serious condition, suffering complications after having his appendix removed. In their usual "fire and forget" approach to journalism the networks failed to follow up on the story. Has anybody heard how he's doing? chip weems ------------------------------ Received: from RANDOM-PLACE by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 12 Apr 83 18:39:46 PST Date: Tuesday, 12 April 1983 20:49:59 EST From: David.Smith.cmu-cs-ius at UDel-TCP Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by udel-relay.ARPA ; 12 Apr 83 20:51:42 EST (Tue) Subject: Pioneer 10 set to make history To: space.mc at UDel-TCP, hpm at UDel-TCP Message-Id: <1983.4.13.1.45.10.David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS> >From Flight International, 9 April 1983: Pioneer 10 is due to cross Neptune's orbit on June 13, after which it effectively will have left the solar system--the first man-made object to do so. It was launched in 1972 and was the first spacecraft to fly past Jupiter. Pioneer 10 will be roughly 4,500 million kilometers from Earth when it crosses Neptune's orbit. Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory continues to receive some useful data from the probe. ------------------------------ Received: from RANDOM-PLACE by S1-A with NCP/FTP; 14 Apr 83 16:35:24 PST Date: 14 Apr 1983 1104-PST From: Alan R Katz Received: from MIT-MC.ARPA by udel-relay.ARPA ; 14 Apr 83 14:08:28 EST (Thu) Subject: Talk on U.S. Space Policy To: bboard.usc-isib at UDel-TCP, bboard.usc-ecl at UDel-TCP Cc: katz.usc-isif at UDel-TCP, space.mit-mc at UDel-TCP OASIS presents: UNITED STATES SPACE POLICY Rep. George Brown (D-CA) Rep. Brown will speak on his National Space Policy Act of 1983, and the importance of a strong civilian space program. The bill advocates that the US should maintain leadership in space science and technolgy and develop and demonstrate advanced technology capabilities. Saturday, April 30, 1983 7:00 PM Kinsey Auditorium California Museum of Science and Industry Exposition Park, Los Angeles Admission is Free (ISI'ers, there is a flyer with a map on my office window) (OASIS phone machine: (213)374-1381) Alan ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 21-May-83 0304 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #111 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 111 Today's Topics: Dr. Sagan Space station funds O'Neill's talk Firing bullets out of the solar system Comet 1983d STS-9 and Amateur Radio COMET IRAS NO TAIL Re: Another onepage comet2! - (nf) Another onepage comet2! Ariane L-6 postponed Escaping the solar system Re: Pioneer 10 leaves solar system - (nf) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Apr 1983 0601-PST From: Henry W Miller Subject: Dr. Sagan Last I heard, Dr. Sagan was due to be released, and was in good spirits. This is amazing, since he must have lost HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of blood cells. On this subject (I am sure this crosses over to INFO-MUSIC and SF-LOVERS), on the final (I think) episode of COSMOS, while riding in the spaceship, he did a full power retreat from an impending Super-Nova. The background music was "Run Like Hell" from Pink Floyd's "The Wall". Cheers, -HWM ------------------------------ Date: 17 April 1983 13:57 EST From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Space station funds To: RMS.mit-mc at UDel-TCP Cc: SPACE.mit-mc at UDel-TCP Well, I'm in favor of development of space, the more the better, but can you cite specific info about why $16E6 is enough to do something specific that $12E6 isn't? What critical task would be cut out if we had only the latter amount instead of the former? I hate to send random "more money" messages to congress without good solid reasoning. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Apr 1983 10:25-PDT From: dietz%usc-cse.usc-ecl at UDel-TCP Subject: O'Neill's talk To: space.mit-mc at UDel-TCP I've already mentioned this talk elsewhere (the Geostar message), so I'll omit that part. Dr. O'Neill gave a talk at Caltech on April 21. He presented some material from his book "2081". Some highlights and predictions: (1) He thinks that private aircraft may become as common as private automobiles are today. What will make this possible is increasing automation, both in the manufacture of light planes (which are essentially handmade today) and in their control. (2) SSI has built and installed 5 coils (totaling about 12.5 cm in length) of Mass Driver III. You will be able to see it at the Princeton/SSI conference on Space Manufacturing May 9-12 at Princeton University. (3) Rockwell is winding down its study of the reaction rates in the chemical processes for extracting materials from lunar soil. The results are positive. Dr. O'Neill relates that NASA has done paper studies of the reactions for 10 years (!) but never got around to laboratory experiments. (4) O'Neill gave a similar talk at IBM (I believe at San Jose). He stated that he thought that there would be 200 million people traveling between earth and space colonies in the year 2081 (1/2 of the current yearly number of airline passengers) and was chided for being too conservative. The IBM'ers thought 2050 was a better estimate! O'Neill has stated elsewhere that within 200 years more people will be living in space than on earth. (5) O'Neill pointed out something that I hadn't realized: lunar soil is, on the average, 40% oxygen (I didn't realize it was so high). Oxygen will be very cheap in space (a good thing for those who worry about paying their air bills). This also means that water will not be too expensive to put in earth orbit: simply ship up liquid hydrogen and burn it (you'd want to use the energy, of course). About 8/9 of the mass of water is in the oxygen. The rest of the soil is silicon, aluminum, titanium, iron and less common elements. Rare are hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and halogens; these will have to be shipped up from earth (and recycled). ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 18 May 1983 13:40:08 EDT From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS To: Robert Elton Maas cc: space@mc, hpm Subject: Firing bullets out of the solar system Re the story of a rocket 20 years ago which shot bullets out of the solar system. >From "An alternative launching medium," an article about railguns in the April, 1982 IEEE Spectrum: Chemical guns are limited by the speed of the expanding gas to practical velocities of about 2 km/s, although 8 km/s has been attained in multistage laboratory guns using hydrogen as the final propellant. Suppose we take that 8 km/s figure and add it to low earth orbit velocity. The total comes to about 35,400 mph. It sticks in my mind that the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft were launched away from the Earth at about 37,000 mph. Didn't they also use the Jovian gravity assist to get them out of the solar system? If we take the 2 km/s figure and add it to low earth orbital velocity, we get 22000 mph, which won't get you to the moon. ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 83 13:25:47-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Comet 1983d Observation report of Comet IRAS-Araki-Alcock May 11 9:00 pm EST. Location: Indianapolis, Ind. (north side of town) Comet 1983d was observed last night by four individuals from the Indy area. The skies were very hazy and it was difficult to see many stars with the naked eye, but the comet was spotted approx. 4 degrees SW of the beehive cluster (M-44) in cancer. I bet someone will get a sweet picture containing the comet and M-44 published in S&T or Astronomy. To reply to the net discussions on observations, I did observe the comet on the night of the 10th with a 12.5 inch newtonian. There was no detectable trace of a tail, but the nucleas was very bright and I did notice that the center of the coma was offset from the nucleus away from the sun. This is something which I would expect to occur. Does anyone out there in net.land have any more orbit data on the comet??? Will it be visible when it heads away from the sun and will it be a short or long period comet?? Perhaps there is not enough accurate data yet to answer these questions. Ron Meyer American Bell - Indy inuxa!rrm ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 83 15:27:06-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!cca!linus!allegra!eagle!mhtsa!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: STS-9 and Amateur Radio For an hour each day of STS-9, Owen Garriet will operate a small amateur radio station out of the Columbia. He will transmit between 145.510 and 145.770 MHz and receive between 144.910 and 145.470 MHz. Output power will be 5 watts. ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 83 13:30:38-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!fred @ Ucb-Vax Subject: COMET IRAS NO TAIL Looking at the photo's I just got back from Kodak, comet IRAS- et. al has no tail. As previously observered by Ron Meyer the comet's coma is not symmetric but no tail was recorded. It has a sweet stellar like center.( I like stellar nucleus they make dim comet easier to find). Fred ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 83 1:21:55-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hp-pcd!charlie @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Another onepage comet2! - (nf) Organization:Hewlett-Packard, Corvallis OR Would it be possible to post the expected magnitudes for 1983e? Will this be visible to the naked eye? ...hplabs!hp-pcd!charlie ------------------------------ Date: 13 May 83 19:54:04-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!seismo!hao!kpno!stoner @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Another onepage comet2! Organization:Kitt Peak Natl. Obs. Tucson, Az. Just when you thought it was safe to go outside again...we have not one, but TWO MORE COMETS in the sky! One is Comet P/Kopff, which has been discussed by others on the net. (For those of you who missed the articles, check the May issue of SKY & TELESCOPE for more info). But the other is a new one: Comet Sugano-Saigusa-Fujikawa (1983e) Latest ephemeris is: DATE R. Ascen. Declination May 11.0 (UT) 1h 27.6m +39 deg. 59' May 16.0 1h 14.1m +40 deg. 47' May 21.0 1h 01.5m +41 deg. 07' May 26.0 0h 48.3m +41 deg. 06' (From latest IAU telegram) BUT>>>> the best is yet to come! On the 21st of May, Comet 1983e is expected to be 7th magnitude, and by the 12th of June, it'll 4th or 5th magnitude AS IT PASSES 0.06 AU. FROM EARTH!!! (Shades of IRAS-Araki-Alcock, eh?). And...rumor/gossip has it that this comet will occult the Andromeda galaxy (M31) on the night of 05 June or 06 June...don't mark your calendars yet, though--I'll post the date when its confirmed. More later.... Jeff S. Kitt Peak Public Information kpno!stoner ------------------------------ Date: 16 May 83 17:35:08-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Ariane L-6 postponed In an announcement that was no big surprise to veteran AMSATers, the European Space Agency today announced that the launch of Ariane L-6 (the one to carry ECS-1 and Amsat Phase 3-B) has been postponed until at least mid June "for additional tests." The time is needed for "continued endurance tests of the turbopump on the rocket's third stage." Inside info from AMSAT is that there have also been delays in qualifying the guidance systems for flight. Either of these problems could result in further slips past June. Phil Karn, KA9Q/2 ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 19 May 1983 13:18:50 EDT From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS To: rem@mc, space@mc cc: hpm Subject: Escaping the solar system If we plug the Newtonian equation of gravitation into the formula for work (integral of force times distance), we find that Ve = sqrt( 2GM / r ) where Ve is escape velocity, G the gravitational constant, M the mass of the primary (considering the satellite mass to be insignificant next to it), and r the distance from the center of the primary. By a little more diddling around, we find that V0 = sqrt( Ve^2 + Vf^2 ) where v0=initial velocity, Ve=escape velocity, and Vf=final velocity (or velocity at infinity). Furthermore, by plugging the gravitational equation into the equation for circular motion, we get Vc = sqrt( GM / r) which shows that escape velocity is sqrt(2) times the circular velocity at that altitude. Now consider the problem of firing a spacecraft out of the solar system. The earth's heliocentric velocity is 66700 mph, so solar escape velocity from here is 94300 mph. The difference is 27600 mph, which is the velocity the spacecraft must have after escaping earth. Earth-escape velocity from low altitude is 24700 mph. This makes the velocity required to escape the sun from low earth orbit sqrt(24700^2 + 27600^2), or 37000 mph. Since this is the velocity at which the Pioneers and Voyagers were launched, it follows that they would just escape the sun without gravitational assist from Jupiter or Saturn. The news releases about Pioneer 10 stated that it is traveling at 30000 mph. I think it is about 2 billion miles from the sun, which is 21.5 astronomical units. So the escape velocity from where it is now is sqrt(1/21.5) * 94300 mph, or 20300 mph. Hence, the gravitational assist it got from Jupiter is worth 10000 mph right now. (This figure climbs as the spacecraft gets farther out.) David Smith David.Smith@cmu-cs-ius ------------------------------ Date: 16 May 83 11:38:52-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!allegra!linus!genrad!wjh12!foxvax1!brunix!rayssd!sdl @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Pioneer 10 leaves solar system - (nf) I certainly would consider the Apollo missions interplanetary IF they had exceeded the earth's escape velocity, but they didn't quite. (That was why they slowed down considerably until reaching the vicinity of the moon; if the moon had not been there, they would probably have continued orbiting the earth.) Steve Litvintchouk Raytheon ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 25-May-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #112 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 112 Today's Topics: TDRS-1 Comet 1983e Meeting announcement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 May 83 15:03:16-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!cca!linus!allegra!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: TDRS-1 Organization:Bell Labs, Murray Hill NASA today reached the midpoint of the TDRS-1 salvage effort, raising the satellite's orbit to 17,324 by 22,105 miles. They say there are still 8 or 9 burns left to go. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 21 May 83 13:27:48 PDT Date: 21 May 83 1327 PDT From: Ron Goldman To: space@MIT-MC a016 2251 18 May 83 PM-Space-Citizens,550 Report Recommends Free Space Shuttle Seats for Some Civilians By HOWARD BENEDICT AP Aerospace Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Want to fly in space as a private citizen? Your chances of reaching this dream are better if you are a writer, broadcaster or educator. There will be seats for non-astronauts on the space shuttle in three or four years, and a special task force recommended on Wednesday that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration make them available to civilians at no charge. Those selected for early flights, it said, should be professional observers able to provide the public with insights into space flight and the role of humans in space. The first, the task force said, should be communicators, such as reporters and authors, who ''could provide a comprehensive visual mission history as well as real-time reports.'' This group also could include poets, artists or photographers. Technical writers should be among the early travelers, to ''provide a written and interpretive history that also covers the science, technical and institutional achievements that make the space program feasible,'' the group's report said. High priority, it said, also should be given to educators who could later instruct students ''on the science, engineering and biological principles integral to manned space flight.'' Other professions would follow, but none of the citizen passengers should be permitted to profit from the experience and there should be a provision that any money earned be donated to charity, it said. Whether foreigners should be included would be a NASA decision. The report was presented to the NASA Advisory Council by Dr. John E. Naugle, a scientist who heads the Task Force for the Study of Private Citizens on the Shuttle. Naugle, a former NASA official, is an executive of the Fairchild Space and Electronic Corp. ''We sought the views of a wide cross section of people,'' Naugle said. ''We concluded that we are ready to take another step to open up space travel. ...'' ''I feel humans eventually will work and live in space and this program would help NASA build toward that goal,'' he said. Naugle said Congress would have to pass legislation allowing citizens to fly because NASA's charter does not permit it to carry passengers. The report concluded that shuttle flight is not particularly stressful, that medical requirements would not be stringent and that outsiders would not pose an undue safety or mission risk as long as they were carefully selected and trained. Citizen candidates would train for five or six months and during that time would be carefully evaluated for compatibility with the astronauts who would fly with them. ''By and large, most astronauts are in favor of this and feel it is the next logical step,'' Naugle stated. Naugle said the candidate selection process should focus on the probable productivity of the observer and the widest dissemination of the resulting information. He said candidates would have to submit proposals on why he or she wanted to fly. Some council members suggested provision should be made to fly NASA managers and those who helped design the shuttle so they could provide technical expertise that might improve the spaceship. Naugle said he assumed the agency would make such a provision. NASA will be operating four shuttles in 1985 and expects to launch 24 flights a year by 1987. Each ship can carry seven people, but many missions will require only four working astronauts. ap-ny-05-19 0151EDT *************** ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 83 8:22:50-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxa!rrm @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Comet 1983e Well gang, what's the current status of comet Sugano-Salgusa-Fujikawa ? Will it occult M-31 or won't it?? Also, it appears to me that it may be difficult to observe because Andromeda is rising in the morning (I'm not exactly sure what time) and the view may be washed out by early morning twilight. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Ron Meyer American Bell inuxa!rrm ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 83 9:59:38-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Meeting announcement The following is courtesy of Tom Clark, W3IWI, Amsat president: Meeting Announcement: For those of you interested in Weather Satellites, Direct Broad- cast TV, APT, etc., the following meeting might be of interest: International Direct Broadcast Services Users' Conference June 7-10,1983 Sheraton Inn New Carrolton, MD June 7: 0900-1000: Introduction John McElroy (NOAA) & Shelby Tilford (NASA) 1000-1020: Overview of Direct Broadcast User Community Rob't Popham (NOAA) 1040-1200: Polar Satellites -- HRPT, APT, Sounder broadcasts, etc Panel 1400-1600: Continuation of Morning Panel 1600-1700: Vendor Presentations June 8: 0900-1200: Geostationary Satellites -- VISSR, VAS, WEFAX etc. Panel 1400-1600: Continuation of Morning Panel 1600-1700: Vendor Presentations 1830-2030: Special Social Event at GSFC Rec Center June 9: USER APPLICATIONS SESSIONS 0900-1200: Government Applications 1400-1500: Academic Applications 1500-1600: Amateur Applications June 10: 0900-1200: Open Forum For more details contact John Kamowski, NASA/GSFC Code 974, Greenbelt MD 20771 or phone John at (301)344-5083. Mention my name for special treatment! Reservations at Sheraton Inn : (800)638-8586 Some of the interesting topics will include the role of the user if/when the weather satellites are "sold" to industry, etc. Might be very interesting. 73, Tom ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 26-May-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #113 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 113 Today's Topics: Ariane L-6 Launch Date Set Amsat Phase 3-B info Visit of the Enterprise ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 May 83 16:25:43-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!cca!linus!allegra!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Ariane L-6 Launch Date Set ESA has announced that it has set a launch date of 16 June for Ariane L-6 which will carry ECS-1 and AMSAT Phase 3-B. This date is subject to a flight readiness review on 31 May. The AMSAT crew will be returning to French Guiana for final flight preparations tomorrow (25 May) starting with the loading of the hypergolic kick motor fuels. This could be it, gentlemen! Naturally, I won't really believe it until I'm listening to the countdown... Phil Karn, KA9Q Asst. VP Eng, AMSAT ------------------------------ Date: 25 May 83 1:23:22-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!cca!linus!allegra!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Amsat Phase 3-B info With the launch date of AMSAT Phase 3-B rapidly approaching, I will be posting a flurry of information to the net. Rather than double-post this to both net.space and net.ham-radio, I will post it only on the latter. Anyone interested should subscribe to net.ham-radio. Phil ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 26 May 83 01:31:36 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 26 May 83 1:18-PDT Date: 24 May 83 11:22:34-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!utzoo!miles @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Visit of the Enterprise Article-I.D.: utzoo.2982 Does anyone that subscribes to net.columbia know any details of the visit of the shuttle Enterprise, to Ottawa,Canada from June 7-10? I sent a similar posting out to net.general about two weeks ago,and,so far, I have received no positive responses.If you know any further details of the visit of the Enterprise,please make a posting to net.columbia. I received several inquiries from my recent posting, and many eastern Canadians would like to know the details,so that they know whether to go to Ottawa,or not. Thanks in advance, Miles Leech utzoo!miles ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 27-May-83 0304 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #114 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 114 Today's Topics: 8086 Processor for Spacelab? Re: 8086 Processor for Spacelab? Re: Comet 1983e ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 May 83 22:11:57-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!amd70!tc @ Ucb-Vax Subject: 8086 Processor for Spacelab? There is an article in the May issue of Computer Design which describes an 8086 based flight computer designed for Spacelab. The author is William Connell Gibson and the title is "Zero-G Processing - Computing Aboard Spacelab". Here is a condensation of Table 3 "General Specifications for..." 8086/8087/8089 "tri-processor" 64K or 128K EPROM (the photo appears to show eight sockets) 128K Dynamic RAM (single error correcting with 8206) 2K Static RAM (funny size for a 16-bit processor, must be bipolar) 48 Bits Parallel I/O (2 X 8255A) Can look like IBM/360 I/O Interface Two DMA Ports (Using 8089) RS-232 Serial Port (8251A) Interrupts based on 2 X 8259A Six Counter Timers (2 x 8253) This is a pretty nice computer and the author points out that there is lots of software around. It shouldn't be too difficult to get something on the other end of an IBM/360 I/O Interface to pretend to be a disc... I couldn't find anything in the article about NASA qualification or blessing. Can anyone shed any light? Tom Crawford ...decwrl!amd70!tc ------------------------------ Date: 25 May 83 19:15:04-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!cca!linus!allegra!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: 8086 Processor for Spacelab? Such a processor for Spacelab is probably quite appropriate. Many of the usual problems facing spacecraft computers go away when used on the Shuttle: Radiation hardening - the low orbit, short mission and thick shuttle walls minimize radiation damage. Power consumption - the multi-kilowatt fuel cells and the short mission duration allow you to use technologies other than CMOS. Reliability - the short mission duration and the availability of human repairmen and possibly spare parts make this less critical. Also, since the safety of the shuttle and its crew isn't at stake, you can afford to be less conservative. What we're beginning to see is the Shuttle's "indirect" payoff - the ability to cost reduce payloads and save on overall mission costs. There has been very little opportunity as yet for this to happen. Phil Karn ------------------------------ Date: 25 May 83 11:11:42 PDT (Wednesday) From: Lynn.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: Comet 1983e Two ephemerides I have seen show the comet going in front of Andromeda galaxy (M-31) on May 28 (not the following week, as one message I saw stated). Because the comet is still moving slowly, it will take many hours to cross. This is fortunate, since the time of the comet being centered on M-31 will probably occur during US daylight hours on the 28th. The ephemerides are expected to have some error in them because the comet has not been tracked long enough, so it wouldn't hurt to look a day early. Andromeda was up reasonably high long before dawn a week ago when I spotted the comet, and it's getting slightly further before dawn every day. Nearly full moon will shed some unwanted light on the scene, but it will be quite a distance away, so a small telescope or possibly binoculars should be adequate if your are away from city lights. /Don Lynn ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 28-May-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #115 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 115 Today's Topics: Map an Asteroid! (LONG message) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 27 May 83 18:08:21 PDT Date: 27 May 83 1807 PDT From: Ted Anderson Subject: Map an Asteroid! (LONG message) To: space@MIT-MC 26-May-83 1715 MSK@SU-SCORE.ARPA Map an Asteroid! (LONG message) Received: from SU-SCORE by SU-AI with TCP/SMTP; 26 May 83 17:14:18 PDT Date: Thu 26 May 83 17:01:53-PDT From: Michael S. Kenniston Subject: Map an Asteroid! (LONG message) To: su-bboards@SU-SCORE.ARPA Here's a chance to do some real astronomical research, right in your own backyard, without any specialized equipment. Help Examine A Mysterious Asteroid: The Planetary Society's Pallas Project by Clark Chapman As asteroids orbit the Sun, they occasionally pass directly in front of a distant star, as seen from the Earth. Very rarely, it is one of the few thousand stars visible to the unaided eye and the star blinks out. Just such an event will happen late in the evening of Saturday, May 28, 1983, when the second largest asteroid, Pallas, passes in front of one of the brightest stars in the small constellation called Vulpecula. The shadow of Pallas, as cast by the star 1 Vulpeculae, will cut a 350-mile-wide swath across the southern United States. If you are in its path, the star -- which is between 4th and 5th magnitude -- will blink out for up to 45 seconds. (Pallas itself is far away and dark in color, so it is much fainter than the star.) Planetary Society members can participate in a simple backyard project valuable to our understanding of asteroids. The goal is to watch the star at the appointed time (just before midnight, Central Daylight Time) and to time its disappearance and reappearance as accurately as possible. If enough people across the country make such timings, a map can be made of the outline of Pallas' shadow, which, after all, is the shape of Pallas itself. A number of asteroids and small moons are not spheres; Pallas might be among these. The project is ready-made for members of The Planetary Society. Normally, an asteroid like Pallas appears as a point of light in even the largest telescopes; the only way to resolve its shape is to study its fleeting shadows cast by starlight. Usually, occulted stars are so faint that complex telescopic instruments are required; with only a few astronomers observing, large gaps are left in our knowledge of the asteroid's shape. Just such an occultation in 1978 showed that Pallas is about 540 kilometers in diameter, but its true shape remains a mystery. A decade ago, the small asteroid Eros occulted a bright naked-eye star, but its shadow was so small that only a few people chanced to be in the right spots to see the event. The Path of Shadow In May, millions of people will be in the path of Pallas' shadow and YOU could be one of them. Perhaps even more exciting, this event may help show whether or not Pallas has a large satellite orbiting about it, as some astronomers believe. Several years ago, some Arizona astronomers developing a new technique (called speckle interferometry) for taking pictures of very tiny astronomical objects announced that Pallas may have a large moon. More recently, a group of planetary scientists from Harvard obtained similar data, but they doubt that a moon exists. Last year the Arecibo Radar Observatory in Puerto Rico bounced a radar echo off Pallas for the first time, but there was no echo from a satellite. However, radar echoes from distant Pallas are so exceedingly weak that even a sizable moon could have been missed. May 28 provides an ideal opportunity to discover whether or not Pallas has a moon. Planetary Society members throughout North America (and Central America, too) should look for the star 1 Vulpeculae to blink out for a few seconds anytime within 20 minutes on either side of the predicted time for Pallas itself. Such an observation, if confirmed by several independent observers, would provide the first real proof of an asteroidal satellite. The absence of any evidence for other objects near Pallas, on the other hand, would cast doubt on the earlier reports that Pallas has a moon. It is very simple to participate in this Planetary Society project. All you need is an accurate watch, good eyes, and a willingness to stay up late on a Saturday night. You should have a small pair of binoculars or opera glasses, too: The star 1 Vulpeculae is not very bright and the sky will be moonlit. Also useful would be a lawn chair so that you can gaze heavenwards in comfort. If you have a portable cassette tape recorder, you could make a permanent record of your observations. To Find the Star First, you need to find the star. Use the star-chart printed below. [If you have a real star-chart, it will obviously be more accurate.] Find the famous "summer triangle" high to the east: the three brilliant stars Vega (Alpha Lyrae), Altair (Alpha Aquilae), and Deneb (Alpha Cygni, which is at the "top" of the Northern Cross). Draw an imaginary line between Vega and Altair; just to the lower right of the point where that line intersects a line drawn down the extended length of the Northern Cross, you will see a faint star. That is it: 1 Vulpeculae! Find some of the other faint stars in the region, too, to be sure you are looking at the right star. 1 Vulpeculae may be found, alternatively, exactly half-way between Beta Cygni, the famous star at the bottom of the Northern Cross, and Zeta Aquilae. Next, you need an accurate timepiece. You can measure the DURATION of any blink-outs with a stopwatch. But it would also be helpful to know the EXACT times of disappearance and reappearance to the nearest second, or half-second if possible. You can set your digital watch using time signals from the National Bureau of Standards radio station, WWV. It broadcasts continuously at 2.5, 5, 10, 15 and 20 megahertz on shortwave. Inexpensive WWV receivers can be purchased at electronic supply stores. Or you can hear WWV receivers just by dialing 303-499-7111 an hour or two before the event, provided your watch will keep good time until the event. If you record your observations on tape, you or a friend should put some timechecks on the tape within a few minutes of the event: for example, "The time is 11:52 ... now!" To be useful, your report must include one more critical piece of information: where you are located. Try to find the latitude and longitude of your observation post to the nearest 10 seconds of arc, if possible, from a good local map (such as the U. S. Geological survey topographic quadrangles, available at your local library or at a county government office). If you cannot find a map, report the street address or other description of your observing location accurate to at least a quarter of a mile. Mail a report of your observations, WHETHER YOU SEE THE STAR BLINK OUT OR NOT, to Pallas Project, P.O.Box 91687, Pasadena, CA 91109. We will report the results in "The Planetary Report" later this year. Be sure to include the following information: 1) Your name and address. 2) Your observing location (accurate to 10 seconds of arc or 1/4 mile). 3) Source of time and estimated accuracy (e.g. "WWV via telephone at 10 p.m., timed with quartz watch accurate to 5 seconds per week; time good to 1/2 second"). 4) Duration when you were attentively observing the star for possible blink-outs (e.g. "Observing from 11:41 p.m. to 12:15 a.m. CDT, except for 1 minute about 12:05"). 5) Comment on equipment used (e.g. stopwatch, binoculars, tape-recorder, USGS map), sky conditions (clouds, haze, etc.) and other factors that will help us evaluate your report. For EACH observed blink-out of the star, if any, provide the following information (or report that no blink- outs were observed): 6) Duration of disappearance, in seconds, and estimated accuracy (e.g. "34 1/2 seconds, accurate to 1/2 second"). 7) Disappearance time. 8) Reappearance time. Predictions It is not possible to predict accurately the path that Pallas' shadow will take. It is possible that the path will miss the United States entirely. Better predictions will be available in May. Call the Planetary Society Information Line (213-793-4328 from east of the Mississippi, 213-793-4294 from west of the Mississippi) during the week before the event for recent up-dates on the most probably path. [Updated probable path: Georgia, Northern Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Lousiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Northern Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California from L.A. south. Could possibly be as far north as St. Louis, or as far south as the southern part of Texas.] Remember that ANYONE may be in the path of a satellite of Pallas! The predicted times for the event are not likely to be in error by more than a minute or two. The shadow should hit the east coast about 12:56 a.m. EDT (0456 GMT) in the early morning of May 29; it will exit the west coast of California or Mexico about 3 minutes later, 9:59 PDT, May 28. Whether or not you choose to hunt for the satellite, you should be watching carefully for the Pallas event from about 12:50 to 1:05 a.m. EDT. I cannot guarantee that the project will be a success. We may be unlucky and the shadow may pass across the Gulf of Mexico, beyond even the Planetary Society members observing from Florida and southern Texas. Some members will certainly learn firsthand an observational astronomer's frustrations with clouds. But there is an equally good chance for success by hundreds or thousands of Planetary Society members who will be participating in an unprecedented exploratory project right in their own backyards. Approximate Star Map (for 10 char/in, 6 lines/in printers) @ * . are stars Constellation names in ALL CAPS Star names in Initial Caps Vega * * @ * @ Deneb . LYRA * * * CYGNUS (NORTHERN CROSS) * . . * * Beta Cygni 1 Vulpeculae . * * Zeta Aquilae * Altair @ . * * AQUILA . * * * --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eastern Horizon This finder chart shows where to find 1 Vulpeculae amid the stars in the eastern sky on May 28th. [Many faint stars are omitted due to the tedium and inaccuracy of drawing a map this way!] The stars will be much closer to the horizon in western North America. ----- This material is from "The Planetary Report," March/April 1983. You may redistribute it to your local bboard, so long as you include this notice: Reproduced by permission of The Planetary Society, P.O.Box 91687, Pasadena, CA 91109. ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 29-May-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #116 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 116 Today's Topics: Lunar Bases ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 29 May 83 00:23:46 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 29 May 83 0:18-PDT Date: 28 May 83 14:29:24-PDT (Sat) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!cca!linus!allegra!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxa!mhuxm!pyuxi!pyuxvv!brt @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Lunar Bases Article-I.D.: pyuxvv.143 Relay-Version:version B 2.10 5/3/83; site mhuxt.UUCP Message-ID:<143@pyuxvv.UUCP> Date:Sat, 28-May-83 14:29:24 EDT Earlier this year , I received a letter from Dr. Wendell Mendell , Geology Branch , Planetary and Earth Sciences Division , JSC. It is reproduced here with the permission of the author . Ben Reytblat (...!pyuxvv!brt) ___________________________________________________________________________ WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A MANNED LUNAR BASE NOW WHEN THE SHUTTLE FLEET NEEDS A FIFTH ORBITER , WHEN THE SPACE STATION PROJECT IS SPUTTERING , WHEN PLANETARY EXPLORATION HAS HAD NO NEW START SINCE 1978 , WHEN THE NATIONAL ECONOMY IS IN THE WORST SHAPE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION , WHEN THE JAPANESE ARE PUSHING FOR WORLD LEADERSHIP IN TECHNOLOGY , WHEN THE SOVIETS AND THE EUROPEANS ARE CHALLENGING AMERICAN PREEMINENCE IN SPACE , AND WHEN VIDEO GAMES ARE CORRUPTING YOUTH? W.W. Mendell and M.B.Duke, L.B. Johnson Space Center, Houston , TX , 77058 For the past 15 months we have been speaking in various forums within NASA and in the space science research community concerning the need to begin preparation now for a decision to establish a manned research laboratory on the surface of the Moon . Before the end of the next decade , the Space Transportation System (STS) will include a space station and a reusable Orbital Transfer Vehicle (OTV) , the latter for the transfer of payloads between low Earth orbit and geosynchronous orbit . The energy requirements for a transfer to lunar orbit are very similar to those required for transfer to to geosynchronous orbit . The existence of that capability will force the question whether a permanent manned presence on the Moon's surface falls within the national interest . In fact , this minimal scenario is almost certainly too conservative. As space activity becomes more commonplace in world affairs , awareness of the lunar option will emerge well before the turn of the Century . We have no difficulty imagining motivations for a significant American enterprise in space stemming from international economic competition , cold war geopolitics , or national security considerations. Consider the economy of the United States , now in the throes of transition . In the important area of international trade , the country must depend on the export of technology , a word once automatically associated with the adjective "American" . Today the Japanese are making inroads on American leadership using long range planning and efficient management of goal-oriented technology development . The relationship between business and government is so different here that it is difficult to respond to the Japanese thrust in kind . The traditional American method for priming the technological pump has been government financed projects in science or engineering , designed to demonstrate the American forte - organization and management of high technology . A manned research laboratory on the Moon is a world-class project which would serve nicely to stimulate innovation in the private sector . The political impact of this project would be significant , both nationally and internationally . An analogy to 1961 could be drawn when the declaration of project Apollo a political reaction to the national preoccupation with Sputnik and the demoralizing effects of the Bay of Pigs. Today the American public largely discounts the methodical Soviet space program , which is not the unknown quantity it was 25 years ago . Nevertheless the imminent development of a very large Soviet booster probably will lead to a highly visible manned mission . A re-enactment of the fable of the Tortoise and the Hare , coupled with some domestic or international difficulty , could make a lunar initiative politically attractive . It is important to remember that today the lunar option is much more an evolutionary development of the American Space program than it was in 1961 . Ironically , we are much further away from going to the Moon today than we were in 1961 . The current space budget of the Department of Defense exceeds that of NASA , testimony to the importance of national security considerations in space policy . A major project would be reviewed for its implications in that area , and the Moon base has some positive attributes as a secure observation and communication post . Activities on Earth can be seen , and it is not generally realized that more than 95% of geosynchronous orbit can be viewed from the near side of the Moon at all times. Communication time to the Earth is seconds while travel time is days Finally , we point out that eyewitness to hostile activity adds enormous credibility to sensor measurements , however sophisticated they may be . We have discussed factors in the politico-economic equations , and have neglected the exiting and important science to be done , because we want to emphasize the probability of a decision point in the bearly 90's . NASA must prepare for the decision through maintenance of a healthy Lunar research and analysis program over the next ten years . The programmatic objectives must include preparation of a fiscally viable and technologically challenging strategy for establishment of an international research laboratory on the Moon . We believe this can be done within a modest but stable budget , designed to support a healthy continuity in research without creating a population explosion . Project Apollo returned a wealth of scientific information , and it commonly is assumed that exploration of the Moon is complete . The lunar samples are rich sources of information for the Apollo landing sites but represent the rest of the Moon only in an average sense . Orbital remote sensing data from the "J" missions allow geochemical inferences for much of the low latitudes , but mapping is nowhere near complete . Photographic coverage of the Moon lags behind that of Mars . For example , The lunar polar regions are popular candidates for lunar base but very little is actually known about them . Thus the critical element and the pacing item for the first phase of the lunar initiative is an unmanned scientific satellite collecting data in lunar polar orbit for at least six months . At JSC we have formulated two related mission concepts for Advanced Lunar Mapping Satellite , based on the well analyzed Lunar Polar Orbiter mission proposal . One mission profile is a simple Shuttle launch to lunar orbit ; the second profile adds demonstrations of certain capabilities of the STS and features a return of the entire spacecraft to Earth orbit upon completion of the lunar mission . Cost estimates for either scenario fall well below typical Mariner class planetary missions. A new start for a lunar mission can be put in the NASA budget no earlier than FY85 . The launch would occur by the end of this decade , and the first analyzed data would be available in the early 90's , when our predicted decision point occurs . If we act now , we can be ready. As our preaching has spread beyond the choir to the congregation , and even outside the church , we become ever more exposed to critical cross- examination by nonbelievers . The hardest , often raised question concerns economic return - not the long term benefits touted by advocates of space colonization but rather the near term payback for this next step in space. Unfortunately , the Moon could not be more desolate , more devoid of riches. On the other hand , we have two real advantages over our predecessors who have wrested with this problem. as a scientific and engineering community , we know more about the Moon and also we can deal more realistically with the options in the lunar transportation system . Our guesses are more educated, and our confidence level can be higher . From the economic point of view , the Moon's most significant attribute is it's "proximity" , in terms of gravitational potential to Earth orbit . Any lunar product can make an immediate impact on the economic equation if it is needed in quantity by the STS and if it requires minimal processing . So far we identify two candidates . Simple dirt can be used as radiation shielding in polar orbit space station or for any manned mission beyond low Earth orbit . Hundreds of tons of mass are required for such an application . The second , and more valuable , potential resource is lunar oxygen for fuel . Production of oxygen from rocks could double or triple payload capacity of the Shuttle fleet and make profit from the lunar operation . Other , more subtle , options surely will appear as we have the opportunity to learn more about the Moon and as we actually can pay people to think about the problem ! Why are we talking about a lunar base now ? NASA , as part of its responsibility for input to space policy must determine the scope , the advantages , and the difficulties of the lunar option in anticipation of important decision process in the early 90's . NASA can utilize a modest , long term program of lunar research and analysis to provide disparate activities in science and in enginnering and in technology development with a common vision and a new excitement . The vision is important to us all; the time for it is now. _________________________________________________________________________ P.S.There are further articles on the subject written by W.Mendell and M.Duke. If there is enough interest in this one , I will post the other ones later . ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 30-May-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #117 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 117 Today's Topics: Lunar orbit vs. landings (reply to letter) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 29 May 83 06:44:49 PDT Date: 29 May 1983 09:49 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Lunar orbit vs. landings (reply to letter) To: SPACE @ MIT-MC Note that the ease in getting to lunar orbit (about same as geosynch) doesn't imply that landings on the Moon are feasible. Landing on and taking off from a large object like a planet or large satellite (moon) is much more difficult (takes much more energy) than merely orbiting it. Perhaps this author's conclusions are correct, that lunar landings are feasible, but the argument given is invalid. The case AGAINST landings is even stronger if a low-thrust high-efficiency engine such as an ion rocket or solar sail is used. With such a device (of forseeable design) it will be impossible to soft-land on or take off from any large object such as the Moon. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 31-May-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #118 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 118 Today's Topics: SPACE Digest V3 #117 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 30 May 83 13:40:32 PDT Date: 30 May 83 1339 PDT From: Tom Wadlow To: space@MIT-MC Obviously, you are not going to use solar sails or ion drive to land or take off from any large body. But I will point out that a Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) was not a very big spacecraft. And yet it was quite capable of moving a fairly significant payload from lunar orbit and then returning from the surface into orbit. As for "large objects", this is exactly Werner von Braun's argument against the methods used by Apollo to get to the moon. Von Braun wanted to build a platform in Earth orbit, and then a pair of re-usable vehicles, a Earth-orbit to Luna-orbit ferry, and a Luna-orbit to surface lander. Because the problems of designing a vehicle that went directly from Earth-surface to Moon-surface and back were really hard ones. But political considerations forced us to do it the hard way. Consequently, we lost what Moon capabilites we had when we launched the last Saturn. --Tom ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 31 May 83 00:24:10 PDT Date: Tue, 31 May 1983 03:24 EDT From: MINSKY@MIT-OZ To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC Subject: SPACE Digest V3 #117 In-reply-to: Msg of 30 May 83 0303 PDT from Ted Anderson About lunar landing: David Criswell suggested that an object in high lunar orbit could be lowered by throwing dust in its path; this would decelerate it at very moderate ground-based energy cost. REM is right that it is hard to land, without landing hard. However, it seems to me that Criswell's idea could be extened nicely by building on the moon a powerful programmed dust projector system as follows. The incoming ship is directed to approach the moon, not in low orbit, but in a hyperbolic grazing incidence trajectory. A "road" has been prepared on the moon's surface, beginning at that orbit's perigee - which I imagine to be a mere 50 meters or so above the surface. Along this road a long series of simple programmed catapults each toss some ton or so of dust into the spaceship's path. A deflector/reaction shield uses this to slow (and steer) the lander down to the road, and it lands when its velocity is small enough. An even simpler arrangement would have the masses just supported on thin rods above the surface, requiring no machinery at all. Of course, such schemes require good guidance, but nothing beyond what's practical today. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 01-Jun-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #119 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 119 Today's Topics: SPACE Digest V3 #117 [actually lunar soft landing] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 31 May 83 05:28:44 PDT Date: 31 May 1983 08:33 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: SPACE Digest V3 #117 [actually lunar soft landing] To: MINSKY @ MIT-OZ cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC Gee, that's a fantastic idea (in both connotations of the word, both strange/weird and wonderful/brilliant). You'll need a shield against the ablative effect of the dust. Perhaps you first toss enough dust up to orbit to construct a shield, and you do so. Then your soft-lander "burrows" through additional tossed-up dust on its way down. While on Luna, it is equipped with a brand new shield for the up trip. On the way up yet more tossed-up dust gives it orbital velocity. Once in orbit it sheds the up-shield, dons its ion rocket (or gets docked with an ion-rocket tug) for non-landing maneuvering, then sheds the ion rocket or tug and dons a down-shield for the next trip to Luna. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 02-Jun-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #120 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 120 Today's Topics: Re: Dusty Decceleration Re: SPACE Digest V3 #119 IUS Problem Reported Dietz's host seems to be down, so query to you-all instead ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Jun 83 08:48 PDT From: DMRussell.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: Dusty Decceleration To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: Minsky@MIT-OZ.ARPA, DMRussell.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Tossing dust up into the vaccum sounds awfully difficult. How do you make sure that it has a nice even distribution throughout the volume of space that your spacecraft will sweep out. You don't want any areas of uneven density ("lumps") since that will make the guidance problems incredibly tough. (Not to mention hard on the equipment.) Here's an easier approach: Instead of tossing the dust up, how about letting it fall? Build yourself a tunnel -- not a highway -- and have a dust reservoir above the tunnel. Install dust nozzles throughout the ceiling of the tunnel, and you should have very fine control over the density of dust in space. In fact, you can increase the density to any degree you'd like by adjusting the flow rates of the nozzles along the length of the tunnel-- maybe a log density plot as the ship buries itself in the dust tunnel. Three problems: (1) How will we get rid of all that dust? Sounds like it will make a hell of a mess -- clinging all over everything, jamming up attitude jets, windows, sensors, etc... (Maybe have the ship exude a plastic covering (UV hardened?) just before entering the tunnel that is peeled off after the ship is picked out of the dust bin.) (2) This dust tunnel better be foolproof. One ship that enters without proper decceleration will make a big boom and trash everything. (3) How does the tunnel get rid of the dust after a ship has arrived? Just flush it out the bottom? Is lunar dust that fluid? -- jus' thinking -- -- DMR -- ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jun 1983 0627-PDT From: Richard M. King Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #119 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC I'd hate to have too much dust in low lunar orbit. That would be a serious pollution problem. It's okay to use dust to catch a ship, but not to throw one. Dick ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 2 Jun 83 01:01:33 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 2 Jun 83 0:50-PDT Date: 1 Jun 83 7:17:26-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!cca!linus!allegra!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: IUS Problem Reported Article-I.D.: alice.1896 The Houston Chronicle yesterday reported that an Air Force spokesman had said that the second stage of the IUS that was to deliver TDRS-1 to its orbit failed because of a faulty steering cone. The cone, which is packed up in separate, nested segments during the first stage burn, is supposed to unfold and deploy itself for the second stage burn. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 2 Jun 83 02:54:44 PDT Date: 2 June 1983 05:55 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Dietz's host seems to be down, so query to you-all instead To: SPACE @ MIT-MC COMSAT@MIT-MC 05/31/83 11:57:49 Re: Msg of Saturday, 28 May 1983 04:01 EDT To: REM at MIT-MC FAILED: dietz%usc-cse.usc-ecl at UDEL-TCP; Host appears to be permanently down or not accepting mail. Failed message follows: ------- Date: 28 May 1983 04:01 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: O'Neill's talk To: dietz%usc-cse.usc-ecl @ UDEL-TCP Why does O'Neill claim we'll have to ship Hydrogen from Earth, instead of claim we'll find Hydrogen in polar regions of moon or in comets? Does he know something the rest of us don't know? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 03-Jun-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #121 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 121 Today's Topics: Shuttle passenger: George Lucas? - (nf) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 3 Jun 83 03:01:41 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 3 Jun 83 2:37-PDT Date: 2 Jun 83 5:37:29-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Shuttle passenger: George Lucas? - (nf) Article-I.D.: inmet.85 #N:inmet:3400001:000:288 inmet!nrh Jun 2 00:46:00 1983 I just had an idea for a nomination for a shuttle passenger. Let's ask NASA to offer a trip to George Lucas. Who better? Even if it's argued that Lucas doesn't NEED a shuttle trip to excite him about space, all of us space enthusiasts owe him, and what a way to show our appreciation! ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 05-Jun-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #122 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 122 Today's Topics: Re: Dusty deceleration and other methods Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger Lunar Skyhook refs. Deceleration by dust vs. electromagnetic deceleration Re: George Lucas on the space shuttle Info on IUS failure... Re: Dusty Decceleration Mock Blast Off a Success ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 3 Jun 83 13:18:38 PDT Date: Thu, 2 Jun 83 09:37 PDT From: Ciccarelli.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: Dusty deceleration and other methods To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: Ciccarelli.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA The "dusty deceleration" suggestion brings up an old topic which may be relevant in a lunar context: the "Skyhook" idea. As I recall, the concept was to anchor one end of a strong cable (Kevlar?) to the planet surface, and extend the other end out into orbit, then use the thing as a support for an elevator-style operation between orbit and surface. I've heard of the constraints on skyhook design as applied to Earth (winds, air traffic, and required material strength), but wouldn't a lunar skyhook be much easier to construct? Can someone provide me with a pointer to design equations or articles on same? This doesn't achieve the same end as dust-deceleration, i.e. landing a ship at perigee (peri-luna??), however a "lander" in the conventional sense might not be needed at all. /John ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 3 Jun 83 15:05:59 PDT Date: Fri 3 Jun 83 15:03:12-PDT From: Robert Amsler Subject: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA I think the person selected should be someone who has a proven track record of producing scientific information for the masses. Asimov would be a second, maybe some of the press science reporters such as Walter Sullivan. Arthur C. Clarke? ------- ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 3 Jun 83 17:06:31 PDT Date: Friday, 3 June 1983 20:04:15 EDT From: Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ISL To: space@mit-mc Subject: Lunar Skyhook refs. Message-ID: <1983.6.3.23.56.59.Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ISL> @Inproceedings[Pearson77, Key="Pearson", Author="Pearson, J.",Title= "Anchored Lunar Satellites for Cis-Lunar Transportation and Communication", Organization="AAS", Booktitle="European Conference on Space Settlements and Space Industries, London, England", Month="September 20", Year=1977, Note="in Journal of the Astronautical Sciences"] @article[Moravec78, Key="Moravec", Author="Moravec, H. P.", Title="Skyhook!", Journal="L5 News", Month=August, Year=1978] @inbook[Moravec79, Key="Moravec", Author="Moravec, H. P.", Title="Cable Cars in the Sky", Series="The Endless Frontier", Volume=1, Note="Jerry Pournelle, ed.", Publisher="Grosset & Dunlap, Ace books", Month="November", Year=1979, Pages="301-322"] ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 4 Jun 83 17:32:02 PDT Date: 4 June 1983 20:34 EDT From: Robert E. Bruccoleri Subject: Deceleration by dust vs. electromagnetic deceleration To: space-enthusiasts @ MIT-MC What advantage would dusty deceleration have over using electromagnetic deceleration in bringing a ship in from orbit on the lunar surface? Both would require some long structure to provide for energy transfer over the time required for deceleration. The dusty deceleration would require a much simpler system on the moon, but the ship would have be a lot sturdier. On the other hand, using electromagnetic braking would be much cleaner, and very efficient as the energy of the ship could be converted into electricity. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 4 Jun 83 19:50:29 PDT Date: 4 Jun 83 22:53:23 EDT From: Ron Subject: Re: George Lucas on the space shuttle To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA Argh! Leave the poor man alone! A recent TIME interview had Lucas lamenting about how Star Wars has controlled his life completely for the last couple of years. I can see it now: Reporter: "Mr. Lucas, what are your feelings about Life, The Universe and Everything now that you have made a series of movies that has affected the lives of almost everyone on the planet, and then ridden the space shuttle into earth orbit?" Lucas: "I wish I could have stayed up there..." (ron) ------- ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 4 Jun 83 21:34:41 PDT Date: 01 Jun 83 1112 PDT From: Ross Finlayson Subject: Info on IUS failure... To: space@MIT-MC a073 0538 01 Jun 83 PM-Rocket Failure,350 Satellite in Wrong Orbit Because of Rocket Failure, Newspaper Says HOUSTON (AP) - Placement of a $100 million communications satellite into the wrong orbit during the flight of the space shuttle in April was caused by the failure of a cone that steers a two-stage booster rocket, the Houston Chronicle reported today. The Tracking and Data Relay satellite, designed to communicate with future shuttle flights and other satellites, experienced a failure in the cone, the Chronicle quoted an unidentified source at the U.S. Air Force Space Command in Colorado Springs, Colo., as saying. An improper orbit renders the satellite useless for communications with future shuttle flights and other satellites, officials have said. Space agency engineers hope to correct the orbit through a series of small rocket firings that will compensate for the failed booster. The official told the Chronicle that the booster rocket, called the Inertial Upper Stage, failed in other ways but those problems involved the rocket's guidance and communications equipment and did not affect its mission. Because of the limited space available, the second-stage motor of the rocket has a cone made in segments that nest like a collapsing traveler's cup. The nested segments extend after the first-stage motor finishes firing and separates. The cone directs gases from the rocket motor rearward and steers the booster. The IUS failed after the first stage of the rocket had raised the communication satellite's orbit and as the second stage was placing the device into its final position over the Atlantic Ocean. A second use of the IUS was been postponed until the failure was understood, officials said earlier. The Chronicle said that the shuttle missions already scheduled indicate that the next IUS launch would not come before next March. An investigation committee that has studied the IUS failure is expected to report next week on a recommendations for repair and modification of the booster system. The system was developed by Boeing Aerospace under an Air Force contract. Failure of the IUS is not related to the space shuttle Challenger, which delivered the satellite as planned. The failure occurred later. The satellite, manufacutured by TRW Inc., has functioned properly. The shuttle crew was not responsible for any of the failures, NASA officials say. ap-ny-06-01 0837EDT ********** ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 5 Jun 83 01:51:23 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 5 Jun 83 1:41-PDT Date: 3 Jun 83 17:08:49-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!ogcvax!metheus!cdi!caf @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Dusty Decceleration Article-I.D.: cdi.201 In-Reply-To: Article <1653@sri-arpa.UUCP> Wouldn't something as coarse as "dust" impact the ship as a storm of micro-meteoroids? Perhaps one really needs an atmosphere for braking. Alternate solution: electromagnetic braking? -- Chuck Forsberg, Chief Engr, Computer Development Inc. 6700 S. W. 105th, Beaverton OR 97005 (503) 646-1599 cdi!caf ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 5 Jun 83 02:14:22 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 5 Jun 83 2:05-PDT Date: 4 Jun 83 7:17:50-PDT (Sat) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Mock Blast Off a Success Article-I.D.: alice.1900 At 1100 EDT yesterday, NASA computers thought the Challenger was blasting off. Right on schedule, NASA held the normal pre-launch mock-launch, with all five STS-7 astronauts aboard. Later, NASA said the mock launch was a total success and that the preparations for an 18 June launch were right on schedule. Later this weekend or this coming week, workers will close the shuttle's cargo bay doors and installed explosive devices used to jettison the SRB's and external tank. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 06-Jun-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #123 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 123 Today's Topics: What's up with comet 1983e and the Pallas experiment? Suggestions for amateur astronomy computer tools wanted Things may be looking up for the space program... Deceleration by dust vs. electromagnetic deceleration mixture of oxygen and fine dust to decellerate lunar lander? Lunar Bases II ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 5 Jun 83 03:07:04 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 5 Jun 83 2:51-PDT Date: 3 Jun 83 19:11:19-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!seismo!hao!csu-cs!silver @ Ucb-Vax Subject: What's up with comet 1983e and the Pallas experiment? Article-I.D.: csu-cs.2240 How about some observation reports on comet 1983e -- anybody see it with naked eye yet? What's it look like? (It's been CLOUDY here every night for a week, dangit.) And, did anyone participate in the Pallas observation and actually see anything? Anyone have summary data yet? (With the clouds and moonlight I'm not sure I located 1 Vulpeculae, even...) Alan Silverstein, Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Systems Division, Colorado ucbvax!hplabs!hpfcld!ajs, 303-226-3800 x3053, N 40 31'31" W 105 00'43" ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 5 Jun 83 04:28:04 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 5 Jun 83 4:19-PDT Date: 2 Jun 83 14:35:34-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Suggestions for amateur astronomy computer tools wanted Article-I.D.: ihlts.143 I am considering authoring a set of tools (probably in C, to run on UNIX[tm]) to assist amateur astronomers. It all began with a program to generate accurate ephemerides for any time and place on Earth consisting of locations of the sun, moon and planets. This program is nearly complete but not yet ready for release. The next thing I thought of adding was a program to take this information as input and generate a graphic display (for ordinary terminals) of the positions of these objects and some important stars for, say, 90 degrees of azimuth above the horizon. I was wondering what other amateur astronomers think would be useful and desirable as computer tools. I would appreciate if you would mail to me any suggestions or comments you might have. Roger Noe ...ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe [UNIX is a trademark of Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc.] ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 5 Jun 83 18:26:04 PDT Date: 5 Jun 83 18:18:02 PDT (Sunday) From: Poskanzer.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Things may be looking up for the space program... To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA Unless I'm imagining things (a distinct possibility), Detroit is once again starting to borrow its automobile styling from the space program. For instance, look at the '83 Corvette or Trans Am. Squint a bit. What do you see? I know what I see: the space shuttle! If this is in fact a specific reference to the space program, and not just a general "futuristic" look, then we should see huge jumps in funding within the decade. --- Jef ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 5 Jun 83 20:55:19 PDT Date: 5 June 1983 23:59 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Deceleration by dust vs. electromagnetic deceleration To: BRUC @ MIT-ML cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC If you think EMP from thermonuclear detonations wreaks havok with sensitive electronic equipment (computers, servos, radio transceivers), I wonder what havok electromagnetic braking would have on the innards of the lunar-lander. Making a shield against abrasion (simple lunar dirt half-melted and refrozen into shape) would seem to be easier to fabricate on the first lunar mining colony than electro-magnetic shielding (purified metals such as iron or copper carefully formed to leave no flaws larger than half the wavelength of the highest frequency component of the servoing forcefield). Remember we're trying to bootstrap with very crude stuff on the Moon that just barely has the capability to throw dirt out into space, and not much better manufacturing facilities in space initially. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 5 Jun 83 21:13:05 PDT Date: 6 June 1983 00:15 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: mixture of oxygen and fine dust to decellerate lunar lander? To: SPACE @ MIT-MC The idea (from somebody with a screwed up UUCP header) of using atmosphere instead of dust is a good one. The lunar soil has a high percentage of oxygen. If we could separate it, we could vent up the oxygen. Unfortunately it takes a lot of energy to do the separation (de-oxidation = reduction). Maybe we could pulverize the dust and filter out all particles above a particular size, tossing just the small stuff up. We could do this pulverizing as well as subsequent storage in an oxygen atmosphere (only a little oxygen is needed) to prevent vacuum welding of the particles back into large clumps. We'd toss up the mixture of oxygen and fine dust. By the time the oxygen pressure has dropped to the level where vacuum welding can occur, the particles are far enough apart to not collide often anyway, thus only fine particles and some oxygen arrive at the landing craft's vicinity. If the ablative shield is made of lunar rock, which is already highly oxidized, we don't have to worry about highly reactive oxygen corroding the surface of the landing craft. This method would seem to require a minimum of precise equipment on the moon during bootstrapping, just primitive rock-crushing and tossing stuff, a kitchen flour-sifter, and a small oxygen-extracting device that can be running 24 hours a day (or should I rephrase that, 29 days a month?) to build up the necessary amount of compressed oxygen to use for each upcoming landing. Think-tank brainstorming over the Arpanet is fun! Is somebody from NASA on this list, and also somebody from SSI, to collect any new ideas they haven't yet thought of themselves? ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 6 Jun 83 02:08:15 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 6 Jun 83 1:52-PDT Date: 4 Jun 83 17:18:38-PDT (Sat) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxa!mhuxm!pyuxi!pyuxvv!brt @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Lunar Bases II Article-I.D.: pyuxvv.152 Since I posted the first of several articles on the manned Lunar base a week ago , I've received several letters asking me to post more . So here is the next one . Again , it is posted with the permission of the author. Ben Reytblat (...!pyuxvv!brt) ________________________________________________________________________ A MANNED LUNAR BASE AND THE NASA BUDGET : IS THERE ROOM FOR ANOTHER PIG IN THE PYTHON ? W.W.Mendell and M.B.Duke , NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston , TX 77058 . We have argued that a manned research laboratory on the surface of the Moon is part of NASA's future and , in particular , that NASA must begin very preliminary work now (1) . Any version of the Space Transportation System (STS) which can serve geosynchronous orbit also can service Lunar orbit because the energy requirements for the two type of mission are very similar. After maturation of the STS , Lunar exploration and exploitation is a certainty at some point because such projects will present only modest technical challenges . Within the next ten years elected officials will become aware that manned Lunar activity is very much an evolutionary extension of the STS. A declaration of national commitment to return to the Moon will become a viable political option . Needless to say , such a declaration would have tremendous significance for NASA . Unfortunately , the space agency has a recent history of being ill-prepared when possible opportunities for new initiatives arise unexpectedly (2) . We propose here a programmatic approach which will permit NASA to perform a thorough and realistic evaluation , in the early 90's of a possible manned Lunar laboratory . We require no new funding for what will turn out to be the first step in a three-part program to return to the Moon. We assume the NASA budget will be approximately constant in real terms over the next ten years . We also assume that the budget will continue to be programmed as it has been historically . The greatest part of the budget will go to a major project associated with manned spaceflight , e.g. Apollo , Shuttle , or Space Station . A minor but significant fraction will go toward spade science . In FY83 the space science programs ( physics and astronomy , planetary , life ) consume approximately 1/8 of the total research and development budget . Over the past 15 years planetary science and physic & astronomy have summed to more than 90% of the space science budget (3) . the proportion going to each of the two large programs varied , depending on mission costs . In FY74 77% went to planetary ( Viking ) ; in FY83 67% goes to physics and astronomy ( Space Telescope ) . We assume that 40% to 70% of the total space science budget could be allocated to planetary science over the next ten years if there were valid programmatic reasons for doing so . Under our stated assumptions we propose the following programmatic thrusts , requiring no additional funding over the next 7 or 8 years . First , prepare the necessary information base concerning the Moon in support of a detailed definition of the Lunar laboratory program . Data would be collected by a long-lived unmanned satellite in Lunar polar orbit. Second , a Lunar research and analysis program must be maintained , with special emphasis on Lunar resource utilization . Third , a coordinated point for Lunar requirements and studies must be established in NASA headquarters. A possible fourth element involves decisions regarding the design of the OTV/Lunar ferry . If the arguments presented by Davis (4) are valid , and oxygen produced from Lunar materials in situ could double or triple payload capacity of the shuttle fleet , then the development of an efficient hydrogen-oxygen vehicle becomes an important issue . The Earth and Planetary Exploration Division (EPED) in NASA Headquarters has been studying future planetary programs with the aid of a scientific group , The Solar System Exploration Committee . As a result of these deliberations , the current EPED strategy emphasizes small missions to the terrestrial planets . First priority goes to the Venus Radar Mapper (VRM). A Lunar geochemical orbiter is included in the proposed core program , but its priority seems linked to an assumed commonality with a Mars geochemical orbiter . We argue , of course , that the Lunar mission has a higher priority and that it should be given a new start as soon as possible , in FY85 . A launch could take place in the late 80's and the new data base would be available in the early 90's for planning a manned surface laboratory. The planetary programs budget could accommodate both VRM and the Lunar orbiter because both missions are much less costly than Mariner-class missions in the 70's . At the present time EPED is unable to consider such arguments because the organization is chartered to develop exploration strategies based only on scientific rationale . Thus the first element of our program , which can be accomplished by simple rearrangement of priorities , can be implemented only if decisions on the importance of Lunar studies are made at the Associate Administrator level or higher . The second element of our programmatic approach is the maintenance of a healthy Lunar research program with special emphasis on Lunar resource utilization . Studies associated with the Lunar orbiter mission would be sufficient to stimulate Lunar science . However , very little work is being done on the potential exploration of Lunar resources ; and an infusion of research funds on the order of a million dollars would have a dramatic effect on utilization studies . A funding enhancement of that order would be insignificant in the total NASA budget . The establishment of a manned Lunar laboratory is a complex enterprise whose requirements will impact every part of NASA research and development organization . As a space station is designed , as a Lunar orbiting spacecraft is developed , as advanced propulsion systems are considered , choices are being made which an affect a future Lunar base program . For example , good maps of the Moon might be important for siting a Lunar base; yet cartography ordinarily would not be part of the science package for a Lunar orbiter . The economic advantages of oxygen for fuel imported from the Moon would be lost if the OTV is not a H2-O2 vehicle . Some arbitrary payload limit on an OTV design could preclude its use as a Lunar ferry . Is there an orbital inclination for a space station which would optimize its performance as a node in the Lunar transportation system ? Storage of cryogenic fuels in space becomes a more pressing technological issue when the significance of the Lunar connection is understood . These considerations demonstrate the need for an active coordination function for Lunar base requirements within NASA Headquarters , the third element in the first phase of the Lunar initiative . Since no major funding can be made available for that function , it must reside in an advanced planning office and it must carry the Administrator's blessing . Once established , the coordination office should sponsor a blue ribbon workshop to establish the validity of a lunar presence as a national goal and to outline the tasks to be accomplished for an eventual return to the Moon . We already are aware of leaders in government , science and the technical community who would be interested in participating in such a workshop . After the initial requirements are identified , low level funding should be available for studies of specific issues as well as the important work of coordinating within NASA . We have discovered groups around the country who are interested in studying the specific issues without funding and who ask for relevant problems to work on ( e.g. 5 ) . At the end of the first phase of the Lunar initiative in the early 90's , the American space program should possess the scientific information and technological elements necessary for a realistic appraisal of the Lunar option . We believe that an increased understanding of the Moon's potential will make it economically and politically attractive national objective . Exploration of the Moon will yield rich scientific dividends and will contribute to a new optimism in America with regard to her technological capabilities . The second phase of the Lunar initiative will bring unmanned roving vehicles to the surface of the Moon for site evaluation , civil engineering measurements , and sophisticated scientific experiments . Development of the Lunar transportation system will take place , and automated factories will be placed on the Lunar surface to initiate economic utilization of Lunar materials prior to the establishment of a permanent manned presence. >From the second phase we will gain experience operating in the Lunar environment , learning the advantages and the difficulties . The third phase of the Lunar initiative will see establishment of a permanent manned base in time for the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Space Age . The first habitat module will be landed at a location where an automated factory is already producing oxygen from lunar soil . A remotely controlled earth mover , the last launch in the Phase Two robotic exploration , is also there . After the module is dragged to the specific site in a small depression , it is covered with soil for protection from solar flares . Over the succeeding months , other specialized modules are landed , and the initial crew of 12 gradually grows . As research facilities come on line, scientists are brought from all over the world , after survival training , to perform proposed experiments in astronomy , high energy physics , geology , and life sciences . Live television coverage will bring people of the world in contact with the activities on the Moon . As life becomes routine and the exotic flavor passes , school children will wonder why anyone ever doubted that the Moon would be an integral part of our destiny . REFERENCES: 1. Mendell,W.W. and M.B.Duke (1983) Lunar & Plan. Sci. XIV 2. Phone call from President to NASA Administrator following Viking lander touchdown . 3. Andelin,John et al . (1982) Space Science Research in the United States, Office of Tech. Assess. , U.S. Congress, Washington D.C. 20510 4. Davis,Hubert (1983) Lunar & Plan. Sci. XIV 5. Evans,David (1983) Lunar & Plan. Sci. XIV _______________________________________________________________________ P.S. I realize that posting the article in this newsgroup amounts to preaching to the converted ( or does it ? ) . Nevertheless , I'm sure there are as many opinions on the subject as there are readers . I would welcome any suggestions on how to make this dream ( shared by so many ) come through . All of the comments on the subject will be forwarded to Dr. Mendell . I will personally incinerate the authors of the comments not related to the subject :~} If the interest stays high , I will post more . Ben Reytblat (...!pyuxvv!brt) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 07-Jun-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #124 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 124 Today's Topics: Shuttle Enterprise at Dulles Not Ion Rockets! Re: Re: fuel tank color query - (nf) Re: fuel tank color query - (nf) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 6 Jun 83 09:08:39 PDT From: P. C. Clements Date: Mon, 6 Jun 83 11:51:05 EDT To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Subject: Shuttle Enterprise at Dulles The Enterprise, atop its 747, will stop at Dulles Airport near Washington on Sunday, June 12, on its way back home from the Paris Air Show. Presumably more details will appear in the local media before then. If not, NASA has a public information telephone number (listed in the DC directory) and can surely provide more info. -- ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 6 Jun 83 18:03:17 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 6 Jun 83 17:55-PDT Date: 5 Jun 83 11:18:01-PDT (Sun) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: sri-unix!linus!philabs!sdcsvax!sdcattb!wa146 @ Cca-Unix Subject: Not Ion Rockets! Article-I.D.: sdcattb.2626 Ion rockets are silly! Any halfway intelligent spacegoing gent would use fusion power. This would consist of a chamber with a thrust tube leading out the back. The hydrogen is squirted into the chamber, confined in magnetic fields as a plasma, heated up by a laser, and proceeds to do fusion. When fusion happens, the reaction is too much for the fields, which turn off, and the hydrogen blasts out the tube. Tadaa!! No weakling ion rockets. With fusion, a little rocket will really boogie. Brian Sutin sdcsvax!sdcattb!wa146 PS Don't say this is farfetched. Fusion will be here in 20 years. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 6 Jun 83 23:29:21 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 6 Jun 83 23:10-PDT Date: 5 Jun 83 20:47:15-PDT (Sun) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: sri-unix!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!hoyme @ Cca-Unix Subject: Re: Re: fuel tank color query - (nf) Article-I.D.: umn-cs.231 #R:eagle:-61400:umn-cs:3800001:000:152 umn-cs!hoyme Nov 16 18:30:00 1982 Actually, the insulation is present to prevent buildup of ice on the tank which could shake loose during take off and damage the heat resistant tiles. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 7 Jun 83 00:11:53 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 6 Jun 83 23:55-PDT Date: 5 Jun 83 20:47:53-PDT (Sun) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: sri-unix!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!hoyme @ Cca-Unix Subject: Re: fuel tank color query - (nf) Article-I.D.: umn-cs.232 #R:ecn-pa:-62900:umn-cs:3800002:000:194 umn-cs!hoyme Nov 23 13:53:00 1982 It is the natural color of the insulation used to prevent ice building up on the tank before launch. Ice could damage the tiles during launch. Ken Hoyme University of Minnesota ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 08-Jun-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #125 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 125 Today's Topics: Not Ion Rockets? - rebuttal! extraterrestrial unmanned vehicles Why not Ion Rockets?? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 7 Jun 83 03:22:52 PDT Date: 7 June 1983 06:14 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Not Ion Rockets? - rebuttal! To: sri-unix!linus!philabs!sdcsvax!sdcattb!wa146 @ CCA-UNIX cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC You may believe fusion will be invented in 20 years, but I'm not so confident that I want to risk the whole space program on that guess! Remember how STS was several years behind schedule, and it was established technology, nothing new except the engineering, and we staked everything on that and now Galileo is 3 years late as are all other probes except those very few which were able to use alternate launch facilities. I'm all for fusion power next century or whenever the confinement problem is solved, but for bootstrapping to the Moon in the next 20 years let's not rely on hopes for something that at best will be ready when we need it and at worst will be a century or more late. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 7 Jun 83 10:19:03 PDT Date: 7 Jun 1983 10:07:05-PDT From: Andy Cromarty To: space@mit-mc Subject: extraterrestrial unmanned vehicles In Volume 3, Issue 123 of SPACE Digest, Ben Reytblat (...!pyuxvv!brt) presented an article by W. W. Mendell and M. B. Duke discussing a proposed manned Lunar base. An excerpt: "The second phase of the Lunar initiative will bring unmanned roving vehicles to the surface of the Moon for site evaluation , civil engineering measurements , and sophisticated scientific experiments . Development of the Lunar transportation system will take place , and automated factories will be placed on the Lunar surface to initiate economic utilization of Lunar materials prior to the establishment of a permanent manned presence. >From the second phase we will gain experience operating in the Lunar environment , learning the advantages and the difficulties ." I would be especially interested in seeing a discussion of unmanned roving vehicles take place. This is a robotics and computer scientific task to which SPACE Digest participants should be especially capable of making a useful and important contribution, and in the short term. Also interesting would be references to or summaries of literature where these topics are addressed. A possible scenario: Suppose you have just been made an R&D director within NASA, tasked with the design and development of an unmanned roving vehicle for lunar or planetary applications, budgeted at (say) a half-million dollars for each of several years. (Keep in mind that this is NASA -- money is tight.) For what extraterrestrial environments could such a system be built using contemporary or easily developed technology? (Lunar isn't the only possibility -- planetary or deep-space exploration and asteroid mining also come to mind.) What are the problems in AI, robotics, computer science, and signal processing that would have to be solved in order for the device to function effectively in your environment(s) of choice? What would be the pitfalls in the design process? How much of the team's effort would go to mechanical or electrical/electronic engineering problems as opposed to AI issues of path planning, situation assessment, resource allocation, or control? What are those issues? How would YOU direct that research in order to produce a viable unmanned rover in the near term? cheers, asc ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 7 Jun 83 12:31:40 PDT Date: 07 Jun 83 1130 PDT From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Why not Ion Rockets?? To: space@MIT-MC Date: 5 Jun 83 11:18:01-PDT (Sun) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: sri-unix!linus!philabs!sdcsvax!sdcattb!wa146 @ Cca-Unix Ion rockets are silly! Any halfway intelligent spacegoing gent would use fusion power. This would consist of a chamber with a thrust tube leading out the back. The hydrogen is squirted into the chamber, confined in magnetic fields as a plasma, heated up by a laser, and proceeds to do fusion. When fusion happens, the reaction is too much for the fields, which turn off, and the hydrogen blasts out the tube. Tadaa!! No weakling ion rockets. With fusion, a little rocket will really boogie. Brian Sutin sdcsvax!sdcattb!wa146 Unfortunately, I suppose, we don't qualify as being even halfway intelligent. We understand ion propulsion. We have built and tested ion thrusters. They ain't great, but they work. Fusion, on the other hand, is just a little bit harder than you seem to believe. We are learning new things about plasmas every day, and we still have a way to go before we will understand fusion. PS Don't say this is farfetched. Fusion will be here in 20 years. With any luck, sooner. But I don't want to wait for it. Ion thrusters, light sails, and mass drivers, as well as good old chemical rockets will get us started. And we will learn a lot about the practical matters of spaceflight that will be invaluable when fusion drives become practical. --Tom ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 09-Jun-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #126 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 126 Today's Topics: Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger extraterrestrial unmanned vehicles Comet 1983e ephemeris update Pioneer call in Second hand report about Comet 1983e SPACE Digest V3 #125 Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 8 Jun 83 03:29:56 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 8 Jun 83 3:09-PDT Date: 6 Jun 83 14:37:33-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!seismo!presby!burdvax!cng @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger Article-I.D.: burdvax.792 In-Reply-To: Article sri-arpa.1738 ~r m02 ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 8 Jun 83 03:34:46 PDT Date: 8 June 1983 06:35 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: extraterrestrial unmanned vehicles To: andy @ AIDS-UNIX cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC Re unmanned rovers and other facilities on Moon: The argument that LLO (Low Lunar Orbit) isn't significantly more energy expensive than GEO (Geosynchronous Earth Orbit) means that sending crew into orbit around the Moon to establish close radio link with remote-control equipment on the Moon to avoid the long feedback/servo delay that Earth/Moon remote control suffers, is feasible. I suggest LLO/Moon telepresence for any task that requires very rapid feedback, and Earth/Moon telepresence for all the other tasks that can get by with 2.5 second speed-of-light-round-trip delays. That way we can have a small crew in LLO and a few thousand back on Earth, each doing something useful, and get better effectiveness than with the small LLO crew alone or the gigantic Earth crew alone. Establishing an orbiting Mars station, with unmanned equipent on the surface of Mars, would also be feasible. We could have a ring of communications relay satellites to allow one orbiting crew to be in constant contact with a given surface-site even when on the opposite side of the planetary body. Remember it takes only 1/7 second for light to circumnavigate the Earth, less around Mars, and about a quarter on the Moon, so servo delays will be almost unnoticable around the Moon and very tolerable around Mars (or the moons of Jupiter or Saturn for that matter). I suggest we concentrate on (1) scientific info such as lunar polar orbiter, (2) rocket technology such as ion rocket, (3) establishing orbiting manned space stations around Earth and other planetary bodies, (4) establishing unmanned landers/rovers for on-site chemical analysis of minerals and subsequent mining operations. Heavy-load landers for exchanging human crews on planetary surfaces can wait until we have a real need for that capability and the means and funds to do it. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 8 Jun 83 05:46:59 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 8 Jun 83 5:27-PDT Date: 6 Jun 83 15:49:52-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!fred @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Comet 1983e ephemeris update Article-I.D.: inuxc.688 Comet 1983e ephemeris update. Information supplied from the W.R. Brooks observatory. The comet's max magnitude is estimated to be 5.3 the morning of June 12th. This is about as bright as comet Austin was last summer and a lot dimmer than comet IRAS et. al. It should be possible to see this comet with field glasses if you are in a non light polluted area( a good test is if you can see all of the stars that make up the little dipper then you have execellent transparency). With the moon approaching new and the comet reaching max magnitude this weekend looks like the best chance to view this visitor to our skies. __________________________________________________________________ DATE TIME R.A. DEC. EST hour min. sec. deg. min. sec. 6 61983 1900 23. 35. 36. 37. 53. . 6 71983 1900 23. 7. 26. 35. 25. 33. 6 81983 1900 22. 42. 22. 33. . 53. 6 91983 1900 22. 20. 24. 30. 38. 59. 6101983 1900 21. 32. 59. 23. 50. . 6111983 1900 20. 28. 6. 11. 37. 59. 6121983 1900 19. 9. 29. -5. -41. . 6131983 1900 17. 52. 59. -21. -7. . 6141983 1900 16. 51. 47. -30. -21. . 6151983 1900 16. 23. 31. -33. -18. -59. 6161983 1900 15. 40. 53. -36. -57. . 6171983 1900 15. 15. 11. -39. -4. -59. 6181983 1900 14. 56. . -40. -26. -19. 6191983 1900 14. 47. 37. -40. -22. -6. 6201983 1900 14. 37. 5. -40. -48. -59. 6211983 1900 14. 28. 43. -41. -8. -6. 6221983 1900 14. 23. 47. -41. -14. . 6231983 1900 14. 18. 30. -41. -23. . 6241983 1900 14. 14. 7. -41. -29. -40. 6251983 1900 14. 11. 6. -41. -32. -13. 6261983 1900 14. 8. 6. -41. -35. -59. 6271983 1900 14. 5. 34. -41. -39. -13. 6281983 1900 14. 3. 30. -41. -41. -53. 6291983 1900 14. 1. 54. -41. -44. . ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fred (ABI for now) ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 8 Jun 83 09:56:33 PDT Received: ID ; 8 Jun 83 12:55:11 EDT Date: 8 Jun 83 12:55:11 EDT From: Mike Blackwell Subject: Pioneer call in To: space@MIT-MC LOS ANGELES (UPI) - If you think long-distance telephone calls cost too much, try this one - 3 billion miles for 50 cents. From 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. PDT next Monday, the public can call a special number - 1-900-410-4111 - and listen to a one minute tape recording of the radio signals beamed from Pioneer 10 when the spacecraft was nearly 3 billion miles from Earth. The telephone network was set up by TRW. ------- ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 8 Jun 83 19:44:37 PDT Date: 8 June 1983 22:43 EDT From: Robert E. Bruccoleri Subject: Second hand report about Comet 1983e To: space-enthusiasts @ MIT-MC, astronomy @ MIT-MC Today, I called the Smithsonian Oak Ridge Observatory in Harvard, MA. The fellow I spoke to (I don't know his name) told me that they haven't been able to see the comet either visually or photographically. The problem photographically is that the comet is moving fast so it's difficult to track, and that it's much more diffuse than predicted. The observatory has a 61 inch reflector, but he didn't say whether that scope was used for these attempts. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 8 Jun 83 22:18:14 PDT Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1983 01:15 EDT To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC From: Minsky@MIT-OZ Cc: SPACE@MIT-MC Subject: SPACE Digest V3 #125 In-reply-to: Msg of 8 Jun 1983 06:02-EDT from Ted Anderson On Lunar Rover. If I had 500K/year for research on a lunar rover, I wouldn't spend any of it on AI or automatic obstacle avoidance, etc. at all. I would spend all of it on developing a good remote, all-purpose Rover vehicle, to be controlled through a 2-1/2 second delay system. I would de-bug in in suitable local environments, e.g., staring in the Mohave or somewhere nice like that. We'd see how often the delay causes accidents; the top design speed would be perhaps 0.2 meters/second so that most contingencies couldb be handled in human reaction times. Once we know the accident rate we take two tacks. First, simple automatic probes that measure the terrain a meter ahead of the beast so that it won't fall into crevasses that the operator missed or was too careless to avoid. This simple "AI" work would then lead to increasing concervative reliability. The other tack would be mechanical escape devices. For example, the standard operation might be to use a retractable anchor that is hooked to the terrain before advancing each 100 meters. Then its prongs are retracted and it is pulled back to the Rover and reimplanted. This would permit using a winch to get out of troubles. It might not save the day if a landslide partly buries the Rover, though. A more advance system would have TWO Rovers roped together, like climbers, each with good manipulator capability. (Climbers prefer three.) That could be enough to get out of most problems. All this would lead to a Rover that can traverse about a kilometer/day. A few of them could explore a lot of moon in a few years. The project would stimulate some AI for use on Mars and other places. But I think that over the next 3-5 years, the fewer new AI projects the better, in some ways, and anyone with such budgets should aim them at AI education and research fellowships. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 9 Jun 83 00:56:01 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 9 Jun 83 0:40-PDT Date: 7 Jun 83 6:45:28-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hao!seismo!presby!burdvax!cng @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger Article-I.D.: burdvax.799 Are you kidding? Carl Sagan? He hasn't brought science to the masses. He's expounded his own form of 'science as religion'. Can you really compare the quality and accuracy of COSMOS with good science programs (i.e. NOVA)? COSMOS (like it's creator) is full of hype and speculation. One could learn more science from a few STAR WARS movies. tca ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 10-Jun-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #127 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 127 Today's Topics: rover Shuttle in Southern Ontario Pioneer 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 9 Jun 83 05:24:40 PDT Date: 9 June 1983 08:24 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: rover To: andy @ AIDS-UNIX cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC First year, build a bunch of servo units with built-in 2.5 second delay and attach them to a random survey of existing vehicles, both commercial (private automobiles, trucks, dune buggeys, etc.) and experimental (HPM's cart, SRI's shakey frame, Disney stuff, etc.). Audition the 10% unemployed as remote-controllers, keeping the best. Get as much info as possible the first year without having to actually build any new vehicles. Then from the general info about the 2.5 second delay and the human controllers, decide feasibility of lunar-rover project, and if feasible then use specific info about the various vehicles to decide what new vehicles to build in later years for further experiments. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 10 Jun 83 02:09:14 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 10 Jun 83 1:57-PDT Date: 8 Jun 83 11:19:06-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!wivax!linus!utzoo!kcarroll @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Shuttle in Southern Ontario Article-I.D.: utzoo.3010 For those of you who live in the Southern Ontario area, and don't read newspapers: Today is wednesday, meaning that tomorrow (and possibly friday) the Space Shuttle engineering test article (also known as the Enterprise) will be on display at one of the airports near Ottawa. For those who live in Toronto, the Enterprise is scheduled to overfly our fair city at 5:00 PM on Friday, on its way down south. Hopefully they'll do a few passes, at least. Check your newspapers for more detailed information. -Kieran A. Carroll .....decvax!utzoo!kcarroll ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 10 Jun 83 02:51:54 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 10 Jun 83 2:38-PDT Date: 9 Jun 83 11:32:05-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Pioneer 10 Article-I.D.: alice.1907 At 0800 EDT this coming Monday, Pioneer 10 will cross the orbit of Neptune, now the farthest known planet from the sun, and thus become the first man made spacecraft from Earth to exit the solar system. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 12-Jun-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #128 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 128 Today's Topics: Re: Carl Sagan call Pioneer 10 Carl Sagan and Science for the Masses Re: call Pioneer 10 Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger orbital calculations? Re: Shuttle passenger: George Lucas? - (nf) Lunar Rovers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Jun 83 15:48:46-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ihuxw!thor @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Carl Sagan I believe C. Sagans background is in physics-BS,MS and Ph.D all from the Universtiy of Chicago-I'm pretty sure about this but the field of study may have been astronomy. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jun 83 16:35:18-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!rabbit!osd @ Ucb-Vax Subject: call Pioneer 10 How about this one... AT&T announces a telephone number you can call this Monday that will allow you to hear a slowed down tape recording of the signal sent by Pioneer 10. You'll pay $0.50 for one minute of listening to wonderful beeps from near the edge of the Solar System. This is not a joke. Call this Monday June 13. The number is 900-410-4111. You'll never forget it!??! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jun 83 09:51 PDT From: GMEREDITH.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Carl Sagan and Science for the Masses To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA I cannot find fault with Carl Sagan's approach to getting Astronomy and the general history of science to the masses. The hype approach seems entirely appropriate for reaching people who see video games as the primary benefit of computer technology. Guy ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jun 83 16:32:30-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!cmcl2!lanl-a!jlg @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: call Pioneer 10 What a waste of $0.50 !!!!! If I want to hear unintelligible gibberish on the phone, I can pick up the reciever when my modem is connected. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jun 83 5:55:04-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!we13!otuxa!ll1!sb1!sb6!emory!gatech!spaf @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger .....maybe we could have Carl Sagan as shuttle cargo? I mean, a "getaway special" should be cheap enough if we all contribute. I just put my $.02 in. -- "The soapbox of Gene Spafford" Spaf @ GATech (CS Net) Spaf.GATech @ UDel-Relay (ARPA) School of ICS .....!{sb1, allegra}!gatech!spaf (uucp) Georgia Tech .....!duke!mcnc!msdc!gatech!spaf Atlanta, GA 30332 ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jun 83 16:42:14-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekid!waltie @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger No!! No!! I think they meant to have Carl Sagan as FUEL for the shuttle! yours truly, waltie uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekid!waltie ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jun 83 8:23:39-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!fred @ Ucb-Vax Subject: orbital calculations? I'm looking for some information about orbital computation methods. I'm writing a computer program for home computer systems that essentially solve the n body gravitational (n something around ten bodies) attractional problem. I would like the program to be able to plot out earth to moon orbits, show the stabilities of the L-5 points, and demonstrate the gravitational whip and braking effects of planetary fly-bys. I intend to solve the differential equations using either a Runge Kutta or predictor corrector formulation. Now to my question. How do the big boys (NASA - JPL etc) formulate this problem when they are running orbital calculations? Fred (ABI Indy) ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jun 83 13:28:30-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!cca!linus!utzoo!watmath!bstempleton @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Shuttle passenger: George Lucas? - (nf) If you're interested in sending Lucas up, why not follow the idea I posted to the net some months ago - namely devote one flight of the shuttle to filming the first movie in space. Even if not directed by Lucas it would be a true automatic classic for this reason. -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304 ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jun 83 1150 PDT From: Ross Finlayson Subject: Lunar Rovers To: space@MIT-MC CC: RSF@SU-AI Let's not forget that the Soviet Union actually put a rover vehicle on the moon several (~15?) years ago. If I recall correctly it was named Lunokhod. I believe it ran for several weeks. Can anyone remember anything else about it - eg. size, speed, method of control and propulsion ? Ross. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 13-Jun-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #129 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 129 Today's Topics: call Pioneer 10 STS-7 initial orbital elements ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 12 Jun 83 22:01:23 PDT Date: 13 June 1983 00:58 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: call Pioneer 10 To: harpo!eagle!alice!rabbit!osd @ UCB-VAX cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC You don't have the worst of it. KPIX Channel 5 in San Francisco advertised that 900 phone as toll-free. I wonder how many people will call it thinking it'f free (not to mention thining it would be interesting), get disgusted with the phone charge, complain to Ma Bell, get no satisfaction, and then blame it on NASA instead of stupid KPIX with their decrepit news reporting? ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 13 Jun 83 01:16:48 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 13 Jun 83 1:10-PDT Date: 13 Jun 83 1:28:50-EDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax Subject: STS-7 initial orbital elements Article-I.D.: eagle.996 Courtesy of Ralph Wallio, W0RPK, of AMSAT: Initial STS-7 Keplerian elements will be as follows: Epoch 18 Jun 83 (day 169) 12:46:03.6 UTC Semi Major Axis 6683.6198 km Eccentricity 0.001277 Inclination 28.4805 deg Argument of perigee 0.52313 deg RA of Ascending Node 173.54846 deg Mean anomaly at epoch 359.47822 deg First ascending node occurs at 0113:04 into the mission at 174 deg 56 min 26 sec EAST. Period will be 1:30:38. Nominal mission liftoff at 1133UTC on 18 Jun. TELSAT deploy at 09:43 into mission will alter Keplerian elements due to burns involved. My source will follow-up with new data. Phil, KA9Q ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 14-Jun-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #130 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 130 Today's Topics: STS-7 element correction Lunar roving vehicles Pioneer Leaves Planetary System ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Jun 83 7:01:58-EDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax Subject: STS-7 element correction The preliminary element set I posted earlier for STS-7 appears to have an inconsistency in it. It appears that the RAAN (Right ascension of ascending node) figure was really the terrestrial longitude of the ascending node, and it must be corrected for the sidereal time of the epoch. The RAAN figure should therefore be 272.65338 deg. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 13 June 1983 23:17 EDT From: Robert E. Bruccoleri Subject: Lunar roving vehicles To: space-enthusiasts @ MIT-MC (From Eben Haber) In Jane's Pocket Book Of Space Exploration on page 45 (a book no space enthusiast should be without), the following description of the Lunokhod is given (slightly edited): (USSR) Role: Lunar surface exploration Data [the picture of the device]: Lunakhod 2 Height: About 4ft 4in. Wheelbase: 7ft 3in. Diameter: 7ft. Track: 5ft 3 in. Weight: 1840lbs. Spacecraft: Remotely controlled lunar roving vehicle has circular tub-shaped pressurised instrument compartment as main body. Convex top has fitted thermal insulation cover which hinges open rearward up to 180 degrees during lunar day to expose solar array under surface. Vehicle rides on eight independently powered mesh each 20in in diameter and trails odometer wheel at rear... [goes on to talk about binocular camera for 5 man control crew, constant speed or previous commanded movements, and descent vehicle] Payload: Main experiment in "Rifma" spectrometer carried on...to make x-ray analysis of soil. Probe device tests physical-mechanical properties of soil. Also carried are proton, electron and alpha particle detectors, and x-ray telescope and a French built laser reflector. Mission: Launched on January 8, 1973, Luna 21 touched down in sea of Serinity on January 16 after four days in Lunar orbit. Lunokhod 2 survived four lunar "nights" and covered 23 miles before final shutdown at begining of July 1973. Programme: Second Lunokhod similat to Lunokhod 1/Luna 17 which operated in Mare Imbrium from November 1970 to October 1971 and covered 6 miles before expiry of isotope heater alled internal systems to freeze up. No reason anounced for shorter life of Lunokhod 2, but both exceeded planned operational life of three months. [goes on to tell differences between Lunokhod 1 & 2] Launch vehicle: D-1-e [see another part of the book] ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jun 83 8:48:22-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Pioneer Leaves Planetary System At 0800 EDT today, Pioneer 10 became the first Earth-made craft to pass out of the known planetary system, passing the orbit of Neptune, the farthest known planet for the next 16 years. Scientists, who plan to maintain contact with the spacecraft for at least the next ten years, say it will continue to look for the heliosphere, the boundary of the sun's atmosphere, and a possible tenth planet or brown dwarf star that some believe may be beyond the orbit of Pluto. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 15-Jun-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #131 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 131 Today's Topics: Re: many body calculations ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 15 Jun 83 00:29:24 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 15 Jun 83 0:26-PDT Date: 14 Jun 83 23:51:12-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: many body calculations Article-I.D.: eagle.998 In-Reply-To: Article ihuxr.468 This is a topic that has lately come near and dear to my heart (I'm doing the kick motor calculations for the amateur satellite Phase 3-B, due to be launched this Thursday morning). The method which Lew Mammel describes is known in the literature as the "Cowell Method", which is just the numerical integration of the second-order differential equations that describe an orbit. The beauty of this method is its simplicity and the ease with which it can include perturbing factors (other planets, air drag, earth oblateness, etc.) On the other hand, if the problem you're solving is a good approximation to two-body motion (i.e., one large body dominates the motion of your satellite) then you can integrate just the perturbing forces with respect to a reference two-body orbit, updating the reference orbit when you get too far away. This is Encke's method, and it allows larger step sizes (increasing program speed and reducing accumulated roundoff error) than Cowell's method. There are lots of methods for doing the numerical integration that these models require. Having no formal training in the subject, I'm only now becoming familiar with the Runge-Kutta method, which is apparently the simplest (but not the fastest or most accurate) algorithm available. It is, however, a refinement of the method which Lew describes, and is probably much more accurate. I'm learning to distrust anything a computer prints out with a decimal point wedged between digits... Phil Karn ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 18-Jun-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #132 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 132 Today's Topics: Query ??? Re: many body calculations milestone Deep Space Relay Dishes to keep track of Pioneer's signal STS-7 Preparations Proceeding -- STS-10 may be Scrubbed STS-7 on Schedule Visit of the Shuttle Enterprise Re: many body calculations Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger Space yachting 'Births of stars and their orbits' Countdown Begins Re: Thank-you NASA! AMSAT-OSCAR-10 IS BORN!! Problem Eliminated -- Countdown Continues Solar-Sail Race STS-10 Scrubbed - (nf) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Jun 83 16:02:59-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!mhuxt!mhuxh!mhuxr!mhuxv!mphw @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Query ??? A question for all you space junkies out there: At 23:10 EDT Sunday June 12 I saw what looked like a meteorite. I was in Glen Cove, Long Island, New York, looking approximately North-northwest at the time. I saw a bright, fast-moving light that lasted for about 5 seconds. It flared and burned out at the last second. There was no sound (I waited for about 1/2 min) made. Any comments? Was this a meteorite? Someone testing out his flare gun? Pat Wood mhuxv!mphw ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jun 83 16:39:03-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ihuxr!lew @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: many body calculations There have been several inquiries about calculating planetary movements and many-body behavior. I not sure if this fills the bill, but you can get excellent results with a straight-forward application of "F=ma", combined with "F=m1*m2/r^2" (vector versions, of course). One simple trick which increases the accuracy tremendously is the following. Calculate the positions of the bodies half a time unit from the current time (ignoring acceleration), and use these positions to calculate the gravitational forces during that time unit. This comes much nearer to providing the correct accelerations than using the positions at the beginning of the time interval. When I was a TA at Lehigh in the introductory physics course, the students were given this method to calculate one period of a planet, given an initial position and velocity. I computed the orbital elements and compared them with the simulation and found a really fine agreement with a few hundred time units per orbit. I later used this method to estimate the magnitude of Jupiter's perturbation of Mars's orbit. My preliminary conclusion was that it was great enough that it should have defeated Kepler in his "war on Mars". Maybe Kepler had data points near nodes of the cyclic variation of the perturbative effects. Anyway, I've never resolved this question to my own satisfaction. Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jun 83 20:39:31-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!allegra!phr @ Ucb-Vax Subject: milestone Pioneer 10 crossed the orbit of Neptune at 8 a.m. EDT today. It became the first man-made object to leave the Solar System. Hello, Universe! ------------------------------ Date: Wed 15 Jun 83 11:18:06-PDT From: Robert Amsler Subject: Deep Space Relay Dishes to keep track of Pioneer's signal To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA I have often wondered whether it would be possible to launch relay dishes to receive and amplify fading signals from a previously launched spacecraft such as Pioneer. Following in its trajectory and perhaps even homing on its faint signal, they would receive and re transmit the signal to Earth. Could a receiving dish adequate to serve as a useful relay be sent out. For that matter, could it be put into orbit around the sun along with others to form a virtual deep space receiver system? ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jun 83 6:03:14-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: STS-7 Preparations Proceeding -- STS-10 may be Scrubbed Preparations for STS-7 were proceeding smoothly today, as technicians began pressurizing Challenger's fuel tanks and inspecting her thermal tile protection system. Meanwhile, NASA announced that STS-10, currently scheduled to launch this November, may be scrubbed due to a lack of payload. The Air Force, which had booked the flight to carry a classified satellite asked NASA to delete their payload from the manifest and schedule it on a later flight because of the still unresolved problems with the IUS that malfunctioned during STS-6. NASA said if it cannot find a payload to be moved up to STS-10 launch time, it will most probably scrub the launch. Twelve missions are planned for next year. STS-8 and STS-9, now scheduled for August and September of this year, are still on schedule. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jun 83 20:52:17-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: STS-7 on Schedule Technicians today completed work on the Challenger's fuel tanks and filled her fuel cells with liquids hydrogen and oxygen. The countdown for the 0733 launch on Saturday will begin at 0300 EDT this Thursday. The count, cut in half from a little less than 5 days to a bit more than 2 days, was shortened due to experience gained from past flights. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jun 83 17:24:43-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!wivax!linus!utzoo!miles @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Visit of the Shuttle Enterprise The visit of the space shuttle Enterprise, to Ottawa Uplands Airforce base last week, was, in my opinion, a total success. I believe I speak for many, who either saw the shuttle "in the flesh" at Ottawa,or watched the shuttle fly over Toronto, when I say a very big "Thankyou" to the U.S. and NASA for the courtesy visit of the Enterprise. The event was so successful, that the Canadian government has finally confirmed that we will be training one, and possibly a second Canadian astronaut, to fly aboard the shuttle, on a future flight. This event shows the positive side, of what can be achieved through international cooperation in the quest for space. The shuutle was on view from June 8-10, near the National Aerospace Establishment wind tunnel, at Uplands air force base, Ottawa, Canada. Here's to a successful seventh launch of a space shuutle, on June eighteenth. Thankyou, Miles Leech utcsrgv!utzoo!miles ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jun 83 16:47:22-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ihldt!norton @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: many body calculations So sorry at my ignorance, but what was Kepler's war on Mars? Mike Norton ihldt!norton ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jun 83 23:31:15-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!ogcvax!metheus!cdi!caf @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger But only from a Star Wars movie do we learn about sound travel and fireballs in vacuum! The best aspect of COSMOS (to my way of thinking) IS the dramatization; I especially enjoyed the primordial organic molecule generation sequence done to the tune of a Mahler symphony. -- Chuck Forsberg, Chief Engr, Computer Development Inc. 6700 S. W. 105th, Beaverton OR 97005 (503) 646-1599 cdi!caf ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 1983 15:45:04-EDT From: Howard.Gayle at CMU-CS-G Subject: Space yachting Space sport proposed: solar-sail race to the moon Princeton, N. J.---Before manufacturing facilities and colonies can be developed in space, space must become a reality for the general public and politicians, as well as for scientists and engineers. What better way to get the public involved in space than a sporting event? asked Guy Pignolet of the French Space Agency in Toulouse. He is part of an amateur organization that plans to participate in a solar-sail race to the moon. Previous space events, as he pointed out at the Princeton Conference on Space Manufacturing held May 9--12, engaged the public through television viewing only, while a solar sail race could be directly observed and viewers could take pictures, cheer teams, and make bets. Such a public-relations stunt is necessary, he explained, because though people think that colonies and manufacturing will eventually be in space, they consider them a dream, and the development of such facilities needs the support of socioeconomic power groups who see it as an impending reality. A solar-sail race, he said, can act as a tangible intermediate step to demonstrate how close we really are to the development of space. It will also serve, he said, to educate ``people who are essential to the large-scale development of space---the politicians.'' They need to be better informed, Mr. Pignolet argued, citing the fact that earlier this year---after five launches of the European rocket Ariane---a member of the U. S. House subcommittee that handles NASA authorization thought Ariane was a manned shuttle. The sails, which use solar pressure to navigate, can work only at altitudes of over 1000 miles beacuse of atmospheric drag. Mr. Pignolet said the racing sails, probably three in number, would be sent to a low orbit with an Ariane launcher, then boosted high above the atmosphere, separated from the container, and allowed to drift a few miles apart. A start signal would be given, and teams would take radio control. The sails would make approximately 100 orbits of the earth and take one year to reach the moon, requiring much navigation to make the best use of solar pressure. So far, Mr. Pignolet said, three groups of amateur solar sailors have declared their intention to participate in the race and are seeking corporate sponsorship. The cost of building, launching, and operating the sails is expected to run into millions of dollars. However, Mr. Pignolet pointed out, its cost compared with the cost of major car and yacht-racing events indicates its feasibility. The race project, he said, is still in its initial development phase. ``All those interested in space colonization and space manufacturing can help toward its success in whatever way they can,'' Mr. Pignolet said, ``in order soon to have 4 billion pairs of eyes looking at the high frontier, and in order sooner to have 4 billion people pushing for the opening of the high frontier.'' ---Tekla Perry, The Institute, July 1983, volume 7, number 7, p. 2. (The Institute is IEEE's monthly newspaper.) Comments: didn't Arthur Clarke describe this years ago, but with manned racers? What does he mean by ``directly observed?'' How big will these things be? ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 16 Jun 83 20:20:21 PDT Date: 16 June 1983 23:21 EDT From: Keith F. Lynch Subject: 'Births of stars and their orbits' To: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!richk @ UCB-VAX cc: KFL @ MIT-MC, SPACE @ MIT-MC, Physics @ SRI-UNIX Date: 13 Jun 83 23:00:16-PDT (Mon) To: physics @ Sri-Unix From: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!richk @ Ucb-Vax Subject: 'Births of stars and their orbits' It was stated that stars are born in groups. Later they move off into seperate orbits. Thus, the suns siblings could well be on the other side of the galaxy from us. What is it that spreads these stars out? Close encounters with other stars? That doesn't seem too likely. There would have to a lot of encounters to spread them all out. Internal encounters seem to be too limited in nature to quickly disorganize the cluster. Maybe close encounters with demented astronmers? All stars hate each other? Anyone out there know the real reason? I believe it is because some of the stars are closer to the center of the galaxy and thus are in closer and faster orbits. Another way of saying this is to say that they are seperated by the tidal force of the center of the galaxy, i.e. we are within the galaxy's Roche limit. I think this is also why most (all?) nebulas are only a few thousand years old. They are pulled apart in not much more time than that. ...Keith ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 17 Jun 83 04:05:22 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 17 Jun 83 3:57-PDT Date: 16 Jun 83 4:07:40-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Countdown Begins Article-I.D.: alice.1934 On schedule, at 0300 EDT this morning, the countdown for the launch of STS-7 began with the call to stations. The 40 hour countdown will have 12 hours and 33 minutes of hold time. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 17 Jun 83 04:33:33 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 17 Jun 83 4:24-PDT Date: 15 Jun 83 19:48:09-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!wivax!linus!utzoo!utcsrgv!outer @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Thank-you NASA! Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.1538 In-Reply-To: Article <3019@utzoo.UUCP> Yes, it certainly was impressive! The most awesome sight in the Toronto sky since the CN Tower was topped off by skyhook several years back, in fact. But even as my breath was taken away the thought struck me "I wonder if this is the modern day equivalent of showing the flag with a battleship?". Is it purely co-incidental that the formal request to test the CRUISE in Canada came less than a week after the 'courtesy' visit of the Enterprise? Oh well, it will certainly be something to remember in my old age. Thank-you NASA! Depressingly cynical, Richard Outerbridge, utcsrgv!outer ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 17 Jun 83 04:46:19 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 17 Jun 83 4:41-PDT Date: 16 Jun 83 13:59:12-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax Subject: AMSAT-OSCAR-10 IS BORN!! Article-I.D.: eagle.1003 As reported earlier via a different system (the telco was having network problems) AMSAT-OSCAR-10 was successfully launched this morning from Kourou, French Guiana. Liftoff time, launcher trajectory and the resulting orbit were all very close to nominal. Follows is an initial element set: International designator: 1983 058B Satellite: oscar-10 Epoch time: 83167.50924769 Thu Jun 16 12:13:19 1983 UTC Inclination: 8.6010 deg RA of node: 249.3110 deg Eccentricity: 0.7308180 Arg of perigee: 177.8730 deg Mean anomaly: 0.1941 deg Mean motion: 2.27337623 rev/day Epoch rev: 0 Semi major axis: 24437.225 km Anom period: 633.419132 min Apogee: 35918.245 km Perigee: 199.917 km Beacon: 145.8100 mhz ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 17 Jun 83 06:31:10 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 17 Jun 83 6:14-PDT Date: 16 Jun 83 17:06:10-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Problem Eliminated -- Countdown Continues Article-I.D.: alice.1939 NASA said this afternoon that a potential problem with one of two master events controllers has gone away, and that the countdown was proceeding as planned. Weather looks ideal for Saturday's launch. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 17 Jun 83 23:00:51 PDT Date: Fri 17 Jun 83 22:59:04-PDT From: Ken Laws Subject: Solar-Sail Race To: Space@MIT-MC.ARPA [From The Institute (News Supplement to IEEE Spectrum), Vol. 7, No. 7, July 1983.] Space Sport Proposed: Solar-Sail Race to the Moon -- Tekla Perry Princeton, N.J. -- Before manufacturing facilities and colonies can be developed in space, space must become a reality for the general public and politicians, as well as for scientists and engineers. What better way to get the public involved in space than a sporting event? asked Guy Pignolet of the French Space Agency in Toulouse. He is part of an amateur organization that plans to participate in a solar-sail race to the moon. Previous space events, as he pointed out at the Princeton Conference on Space Manufacturing held May 9-12, engaged the public through television viewing only, while a solar-sail race could be directly observed and viewers could take pictures, cheer teams, and make bets. Such a public-relations stunt is necessary, he explained, because though people think that colonies and manufacturing will eventually be in space, they consider them a dream, and the development of such facilities needs the support of socioeconomic power groups who see it as an impending reality. A solar-sail race, he said, can act as a tangible intermediate step to demonstrate how close we really are to the development of space. It will also serve, he said, to educate "people who are essential to the large-scale development of space -- the politicians." They need to be better informed, Mr. Pignolet argued, citing the fact that earlier this year -- after five launches of the European rocket Ariane -- a member of the U.S. House subcommittee that handles NASA authorization thought Ariane was a manned shuttle. The sails, which use solar pressure to navigate, can work only at altitudes of over 1000 miles because of atmospheric drag. Mr. Pignolet said the racing sails, probably three in number, would be sent to a low orbit with an Ariane launcher, then boosted high above the atmosphere, separated from the container, and allowed to drift a few miles apart. A start signal would be given, and teams would take radio control. The sails would make approximately 100 orbits of the earth and take one year to reach the moon, requiring much navigation to make the best use of solar pressure. So far, Mr. Pignolet said, three groups of amateur solar sailors have declared their intention to participate in the race and are seeking corporate sponsorship. The cost of building, launching, and operating the sails is expected to run into millions of dollars. However, Mr. Pignolet pointed out, its costs compared with the cost of major car- and yacht-racing events indicates its feasibility. The race project, he said, is still in its initial development phase. "All those interested in space colonization and space manufacturing can help toward its success in whatever way they can," Mr. Pignolet said, "in order soon to have 4 billion pairs of eyes recognizing the high frontier, and in order sooner to have 4 billion people pushing for the opening of the high frontier." ------- ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 18 Jun 83 02:32:28 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 18 Jun 83 2:26-PDT Date: 17 Jun 83 0:22:14-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hp-pcd!jay @ Ucb-Vax Subject: STS-10 Scrubbed - (nf) Article-I.D.: hp-pcd.1170 #N:hp-pcd:3400003:000:530 hp-pcd!jay Jun 16 07:30:00 1983 I read recently that STS-10 may be scrubbed due to lack of cargo. It seems that the Air Force had STS-10 reserved for carrying a classified satellite into orbit. But since the IUS problem has not been solved yet, they are afraid to risk their satellite. It's a shame that the Air Force can yank NASA's strings like that. In any commercial operation, if you cancel a reservation, you still have to pay unless another taker can be found. The Air Force should pay. Opinions are my own, Jay Phillips ...hplabs!hp-pcd!jay ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 19-Jun-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #133 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 133 Today's Topics: Need Telephone Number Potential STS-7 Problem Let's make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle STS-7 info number ET Filling Begins SPACE Digest V3 #125 --> testing proposed rovers in desert Lunar roving vehicles STS-10 may be Scrubbed Space yachting STS-10 or NSA (take your pick) Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 18 Jun 83 04:39:27 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 18 Jun 83 4:28-PDT Date: 16 Jun 83 9:36:47-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ihuxo!sowajj @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Need Telephone Number Article-I.D.: ihuxo.238 Does anyone out in netnews land have the 900 telephone number needed to call for shuttle info? If so, please post or send mail to me. Thanks... Jim ...ihnp4!ihuxo!sowajj ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 18 Jun 83 05:16:38 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 18 Jun 83 5:10-PDT Date: 16 Jun 83 10:41:46-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Potential STS-7 Problem Article-I.D.: alice.1936 A potential problem with one of two master events controllers has been discovered by NASA crews preparing STS-7 for lift off this Saturday. The controllers, among other things, oversee the jettison of the SRB's from the orbitor 2 minutes and 17 seconds into the flight. If the problem turns out to exist, it will have to be either fixed or replaced before launch. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 18 Jun 83 06:33:15 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 18 Jun 83 6:17-PDT Date: 17 Jun 83 10:53:48-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: sun!gnu @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Let's make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle Article-I.D.: sun.280 If anyone should go up in the shuttle, it should be Heinlein. His works inspired many of the current engineers, technicians, and designers who have put us where we are on the edge of space. He's also quite old (over 80) and won't achieve his 70-year dream of making it into space, unless we send him there quickly. He wrote a story in 1939 about the aged "father of space travel", Delos D. Harriman, who isn't allowed into space because of government regulations and his deteriorating medical condition. Harriman secretly outfits a down-on-their-luck engineer and pilot and they smuggle him to the moon, where he dies, happily looking back at Earth, just after touchdown. The story is "Requiem", and it appears in _The Past Though Tomorrow_, among many other places. I think that the least we, as a society, can do for Mr. Robert Anton Heinlein is to make a place in the Space Shuttle for him -- and soon, before it's too late. John Gilmore ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 18 Jun 83 06:36:16 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 18 Jun 83 6:24-PDT Date: 16 Jun 83 14:49:42-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ihuxo!weiss @ Ucb-Vax Subject: STS-7 info number Article-I.D.: ihuxo.239 The number for STS-7 info is (900) 410-6272. It will start ~1.5 hours before launch and last until touchdown. Ed Weiss ihnp4!ihuxo!weiss -- Ed Weiss ihnp4!ihuxo!weiss ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 18 Jun 83 07:10:15 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 18 Jun 83 6:54-PDT Date: 18 Jun 83 2:56:36-PDT (Sat) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: ET Filling Begins Article-I.D.: alice.1945 At 0013 EDT this (ugh) morning, NASA crews began filling the Challenger's external tank in preparation for launch at 0733 EDT. Weather conditions at Dakar, Senegal, the primary abort site if an emergency arises during the crossing of the Atlantic Ocean, were cloudy this afternoon, but NASA said they expected them to be OK. A final decision could be made up to 9 minutes before the launch. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 18 Jun 83 09:52:03 PDT Date: 18 June 1983 12:52 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: SPACE Digest V3 #125 --> testing proposed rovers in desert To: MINSKY @ MIT-OZ cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC For practice at their main task, mining random moondirt, we could have the robot cars carry water in buckets from some canal to the tomato field. We could send them on a remote-controlled treasure hunt. The humans have the clues and do the brainwork, the robots go around turning their cameras on likely spots according to the human's interpretation of the clues, and actually lugging the treasures back. Going to various places, and lugging random things back, would really test the ability of the rover to perform on the Moon and the ability of the human/robot symbiosis to make field decisions and carry out useful actions based on them. The more I think about this idea the more I like it. The first remote-controlled treasure hunt in the world, making a place in Guinness book of world records. -- Go to the tall cactus, turn right, go 3 meters, turn right, find the next clue. -- Follow the dirt road North 0.4 Km, find abandoned service station, find vending machine, press specially-marked button, collect treasure that comes out, look at inscription on treasure for next clue. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 18 Jun 83 10:00:00 PDT Date: 18 June 1983 13:01 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Lunar roving vehicles To: BRUC @ MIT-ML cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC Gee, Lunoknod was sort of what we're talking about. Seems the USSR made the same mistake with Lunoknod that we made with Apollo, lost interest when the adventure was no longer politically exciting, didn't follow up with continued program in same area. -- 23 miles is a respectable distance for a remote-controlle vehicle on the Moon. How far did the Apollo astronauts cover on their longest trip in their lunar dune buggy? Too bad we weren't cooperative, or we might have a Martianod on board a Viking. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 18 Jun 83 10:31:11 PDT Date: 18 June 1983 13:32 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: STS-10 may be Scrubbed To: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ UCB-VAX cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC Gee, the proof of the pudding - all those companies complaining because STS is several years later than originally scheduled/promised, there ought to be a mad dash to move missions up to the STS-10 void, thus diminishing the long wait. I wonder if any company got their stuff ready early and can launch on demand, like in STS-10? Eagerly awaiting the result of this interesting development... ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 18 Jun 83 10:44:40 PDT Date: 18 June 1983 13:46 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Space yachting To: Howard.Gayle @ CMU-CS-G cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC Hmmm, I like the idea. I doubt anyone will actually succeed at getting to the moon the first time, probably each craft will break down before arriving there (I may be pleasantly surprized), so we can give prizes based on how far each craft gets before breaking down, or award prizes based on a partial ordering of how far and how fast. If sails unfurl to a mile across, and they reflect light in random directions (white sails, not silver-reflecting sails), I would think they'd be visible from Earth for a while after launch (let's see, 1 mile across at 1000 miles distance, that's about 3.5 minutes of arc, so it'd not be easily resolvable to the nakid eye but binoculers ought to suffice for seeing more than points of light. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 18 Jun 83 11:46:31 PDT Date: 18-Jun-83 11:46 PDT From: WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2 Subject: STS-10 or NSA (take your pick) To: space@mit-mc Message-ID: <[OFFICE-2]TYM-WBD-2M8DK> 1. Has anyone read THE PUZZLE PALACE? I figure SPACE interest group is appropriate for this question because the NSA usually funds most spy satellite (according to the book). Would anyone like to comment on the book's validity or any of the subject matter? 2. If the NSA is involved with most sigint launches, does anyone else get frustrated with never hearing them mentioned in media discussions? 3. Anyone like to discuss the NSA participation in the space program (if anyone knows)? 4. Think I will quit with just 3 queries. --Bill ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 19 Jun 83 01:35:29 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 18 Jun 83 23:41-PDT Date: 17 Jun 83 16:31:43-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!sdcsvax!sdcattb!wa146 @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger Article-I.D.: sdcattb.2630 In-Reply-To: Article sri-arpa.1738 That's a *great* idea!! The space shuttle could use Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clark as fuel also. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 20-Jun-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #134 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 134 Today's Topics: L5 Society phone tree activated 830617 STS-7 -- Day 1 Re: Let's make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle STS-8 Scheduled Re: STS-7 Preparations Proceeding -- STS-10 may be Scrubbed ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 19 Jun 83 06:17:54 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 19 Jun 83 6:15-PDT Date: 17 Jun 83 21:44:11-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hao!csu-cs!silver @ Ucb-Vax Subject: L5 Society phone tree activated 830617 Article-I.D.: csu-cs.2268 President Reagan will give a speech Saturday June 18 at noon (EDT?) on the topic of American education. He should make reference to a space- related research project being done by a student. The phone tree folks request that you (a) listen to the speech (probably too late when you get this but...) and (b) call the White House afterwards and say something encouraging about space research and his speech. White House switchboard: 1-202-456-1414 Presidential comment line: 1-202-456-7639 during business hours Sorry, but this time the activation was done with very short notice (less than one day). Frankly, it's a little silly compared to some, and of course I may have gotten some of the facts fuzzy over the phone. But, until someone higher up the tree starts to post fast, accurate data (hint, hint), I'll submit whatever I get. Ad astra (per aspera), Alan Silverstein, Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Systems Division, Colorado ucbvax!hplabs!hpfcld!ajs, 303-226-3800 x3053, N 40 31'31" W 105 00'43" ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 19 Jun 83 06:57:31 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 19 Jun 83 6:56-PDT Date: 18 Jun 83 23:29:29-PDT (Sat) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: STS-7 -- Day 1 Article-I.D.: alice.1950 After the shortest shuttle turnaround time on record, 64 days, the Challenger roared into orbit today. Damage to pad 39A was ''essentially nil,'' and NASA expects to have it repaired within one week. The SRB's splashed down just a few miles from one of two waiting recovery ships. The recovery teams report minor insulation damage to the tip of the right booster, but NASA says it is not serious; NASA expects the boosters back in port by tomorrow afternoon. Sally Ride ejected the Canadian Anik-C today, on schedule, and 45 minutes later, one of two burns from its own rocket was conducted; the second burn, which will put it into its proper orbit, will be held tomorrow. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 19 Jun 83 23:19:22 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 19 Jun 83 23:10-PDT Date: 18 Jun 83 22:24:07-PDT (Sat) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!seismo!uwvax!myers @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Let's make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle Article-I.D.: uwvax.934 In-Reply-To: Article <280@sun.UUCP> Arthur C. Clarke should get a spot on the shuttle before Heinlein. I'm basing my opinion solely on the basis of the quality of their respective recent writings... "Fountains of Paradise" is a damn sight better than Heinlein's recent trash. Of course, most of Clarke's old stuff is better than Heinlein, too. My apologies to devout Heinlein fans. Jeff Myers@uwvax ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 20 Jun 83 02:15:47 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 20 Jun 83 2:09-PDT Date: 17 Jun 83 7:18:52-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: STS-8 Scheduled Article-I.D.: alice.1941 With the launch of STS-7 scheduled for tomorrow, NASA has said that the launch of STS-8 will occur at 0230 EDT (ugh) on 14 August. It will be the first after-dark launch of the space shuttle. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 20 Jun 83 02:40:28 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 20 Jun 83 2:24-PDT Date: 18 Jun 83 11:20:34-PDT (Sat) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!wivax!linus!utzoo!watmath!watcgl!mabgarstin @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: STS-7 Preparations Proceeding -- STS-10 may be Scrubbed Article-I.D.: watcgl.496 In-Reply-To: Article <1920@alice.UUCP> A WHOLE payload empty on STS-10!!!! Quick G. Lucas, here's you're chance, grab the old 70mm, a couple of model and special effects guys and a couple of those real neat models and get your tail in gear and book that mission. Maybe we can get a REAL Death Star explosion ans destruction in space now. Does anyone out there think we need to pass the hat to help out with this? If George can't make it (stuck in court with some down to earth divorce stuff) maybe we can pass the hat and send someone else. Let's see hands of who would volunteer for such a perilous mission. Why do I only see my hand up? MAB ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 21-Jun-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #135 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 135 Today's Topics: Phase III AMSAT Retransmitting Shuttle Communications on HAM Bands Test pilot astronauts Re: SPACE Digest V3 #133 Re: Let"s make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle Let's make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger whom to send to space, SFiction and SFact Let's ban SF writers from the Space Shuttle! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 20 Jun 83 03:17:32 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 20 Jun 83 3:09-PDT Date: 17 Jun 83 9:54:27-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!microsof!fluke!vax2.limey @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Phase III AMSAT Article-I.D.: vax2.566 Does anybody know whether Phase III AMSAT (HAM Satelite) has gone up yet. If so, is it operational? ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 20 Jun 83 03:31:18 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 20 Jun 83 3:12-PDT Date: 17 Jun 83 11:15:47-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!microsof!fluke!vax2.limey @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Retransmitting Shuttle Communications on HAM Bands Article-I.D.: vax2.567 Does anybody know if tomorrows Shuttle communications will be retransmitted on the HAM Bands? If so, what's the frequencies? KW7Y and KI7H and N7AME ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 20 Jun 83 04:08:57 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 20 Jun 83 3:53-PDT Date: 19 Jun 83 14:30:07-PDT (Sun) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!gummo!wje @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Test pilot astronauts Article-I.D.: gummo.817 Does anyone know how many American astronauts that have been sent into space were test pilots? Bill Eagan groucho!wje gummo!wje ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 20 Jun 83 05:46:26 PDT Date: Mon, 20 Jun 83 08:46 EDT From: Kovnat.HENR@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #133 In-reply-to: "OTA@S1-A.ARPA's message of 19 Jun 83 03:03 PDT" To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: Kovnat.HENR@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Does anyone know what happened to the TDRS satellite launched by STS-6? Did NASA ever manage to get it to the proper orbit using the maneuvering thrusters? Larry Kovnat ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 20 Jun 83 06:03:03 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 20 Jun 83 5:55-PDT Date: 19 Jun 83 17:58:20-PDT (Sun) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!seismo!hao!csu-cs!silver @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Let"s make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle Article-I.D.: csu-cs.2271 In-Reply-To: Article sun.280 Sounds good. Now, how *exactly* do you propose we go about it? ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 20 Jun 83 06:27:54 PDT Date: 20 June 1983 09:11 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Let's make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle To: sun!gnu @ UCB-VAX cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC It would be a shame if Heinlein died on the shuttle, thus marring our perfect in-flight record (we lost some astronauts during training, and thre during a fire onboard Apollo on ground, but none yet in space or during actual launch or landing; Russians have been less fortunate). But on the other hand it might be fitting for Heinlein to die in space. I think we ought to check his health first, and then really think this out before we do it. But since he wrote the story about just this sort of hack, persumably he had plenty of time to think about it, and really does prefer dying in space to dying on Earth never having been to space. -- Has he been asked if he still wants to go to space even if it kills him? (However it would be a shame if he died during ascent, thus never being to space alive, only as dead cargo.) ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 20 Jun 83 06:30:34 PDT Date: 20 June 1983 09:21 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: Carl Sagan as a shuttle passenger To: harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!sdcsvax!sdcattb!wa146 @ UCB-VAX cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC Date: 17 Jun 83 16:31:43-PDT (Fri) From: harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!sdcsvax!sdcattb!wa146 @ Ucb-Vax That's a *great* idea!! The space shuttle could use Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clark as fuel also. I think this whole set of message from you and others suggesting presently-living human beings be used as fuel, is really sick. Please cease that. There are other more humane and intelligent ways to say you think sending a particular person to space will be counter-productive, and to explain why you think so. Please do that instead. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 20 Jun 83 06:49:56 PDT Date: 20 June 1983 09:32 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: whom to send to space, SFiction and SFact To: SPACE @ MIT-MC I propose we submit the question "what science-fiction writer most derserves to get a ride on the shuttle" to SF-Lovers and let them decide. Meanwhile we can concentrate on non-fiction science people like Sagan. That way the debate over which sf writers have produced the best work lately won't intrude on our non-fiction discussins of space. Ok with others? Then we'll have two candidates, one fiction and one non-fiction, and we can either pick between them or suggest both be sent (I prefer the latter, after all the STS has a lot of extra unused crew space, only 5 now, room for how many I don't remember, and the balance of viewpoint should be good, the charm and wild fantasies and ideas of a fiction author combined with the realism of a non-fiction person). ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 20 Jun 83 21:02:48 PDT Date: 21 June 1983 00:03 EDT From: Steven A. Swernofsky Subject: Let's ban SF writers from the Space Shuttle! To: SPACE @ MIT-MC cc: SASW @ MIT-MC In-reply-to: Msg of 18 Jun 83 22:24:07-PDT (Sat) from harpo!seismo!uwvax!myers at Ucb-Vax Let's also ban silly messages saying how the sender's favorite SF author should get a ride on the Shuttle! Putting an SF author on the Shuttle is like preaching to the converted. Let's put someone up there who has clout and who can be inspired. -- Steve ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 22-Jun-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #136 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 136 Today's Topics: Re: Space yachting Heinlein on the Shuttle. Belated voice notes (January, TCP not yet working then), IRAS Re: Let's make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle Re: Let"s make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle Runga-Kutta for orbits? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Jun 83 14:30:51-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!decwrl!qubix!msc @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Space yachting Yes, Arthur C. C.larke described a very similar idea, but with manned yachts, in "The Winds from the Sun" -- Mark ...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!qubix!msc ...{ittvax,amd70}!qubix!msc decwrl!qubix!msc@Berkeley.ARPA ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 83 11:01:20 PDT (Tuesday) From: Poskanzer.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Heinlein on the Shuttle. To: REM@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: SPACE@MIT-MC.ARPA, SF-LOVERS@MIT-MC.ARPA Actually, we don't have to worry about his health, at least to a first approximation. NASA did a bunch of centrifuge tests on ordinary people of various ages, and found that the older you are, the better you are able to withstand g's. The theory is that harder arteries and higher blood pressure keep the blood where it belongs. Does this mean that aspiring shuttle pilots should eat bacon and eggs three times a day to "build up" their circulatory system? Probably not, since withstanding g's (and only three of them at that) is a very small part of the mission. However, for aspiring shuttle passengers who don't expect to do anything except get shuttled, maybe so, maybe so... --- Jef ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 21 Jun 83 17:51:02 PDT Date: 21 June 1983 20:50 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Belated voice notes (January, TCP not yet working then), IRAS To: rem @ SU-AI cc: REM @ MIT-MC, SPACE @ MIT-MC Wed, Jan 26 According to KPIX channel 5 news, the new infrared satellite will send back to Earth just a few hundred bits of information a day. That sounds like an extremely low data rate. There must be some kind of stupid error in their reporting. -- I think they said 600 bits per day. That's ridiculous. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 83 10:28:14-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!genrad!linus!utzoo!watmath!watcgl!gcsherwood @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Let's make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle I frankly doubt the idea has much chance (a snowball's chance...) but what the hell. I do disagree with the Clarke vs Heinlein observation. Agreed, Fountains of Paradise is better than Heinlein's recent stuff. However, Heinlein at his best (such as Moon is a Harsh Mistress) is superior to anything penned (or typed, whatever) by Clarke. I like Clarke's stuff too, but Heinlein (at his best) is far better. - geoff sherwood - - U. of Waterloo - ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 22 Jun 83 01:13:17 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 22 Jun 83 1:09-PDT Date: 20 Jun 83 10:15:20-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!genrad!linus!utzoo!watmath!watarts!bernie @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Let"s make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle Article-I.D.: watarts.1883 In-Reply-To: Article uwvax.934 The current shuttle crew is five, but it can get by with as few as two; why not send *all three* people under consideration so far: Heinlein, Clarke *and* Lucas? It wouldn't be all that expensive; in fact, they could even be a part of an already-scheduled mission in which no payload specialists are required (surely they won't be needing payload specialists for all missions). ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 22 Jun 83 02:30:09 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 22 Jun 83 2:25-PDT Date: 17 Jun 83 17:29:23-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!fred @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Runga-Kutta for orbits? Article-I.D.: inuxc.699 Well after spending an afternoon working out the math it seems that a 4th order Runga Kutta numeric integration is exactly equivalent to.... x=xo+vo*t+.5*a*t**2 for n body problem, point gravity, no drag. That explains why Lew had reasonable results using it in college. The error using this form will be of the order of... fifth derivative of position*(time step)**5 a good approximation. It also means that this method should be good enough to start a predictor- corrector integration instead of having to go through the pain of starting it with R-K. I'm off fishing for a week. Fred (ABI till August) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 23-Jun-83 0304 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #137 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 137 Today's Topics: Re: Asimov as a shuttle passenger Palapa B Launched Shuttle Update Re: Let's make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle Book on military use of space SPAS Released ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 22 Jun 83 03:30:15 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 22 Jun 83 3:13-PDT Date: 21 Jun 83 14:03:26-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!seismo!rochester!FtG @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Asimov as a shuttle passenger Article-I.D.: rocheste.2022 In-Reply-To: Article <2335@sri-arpa.UUCP> Hey folks- Isaac Asimov is AFRAID OF FLYING. He mentions this quite frequently and also points out that he is perfectly content to just watch the other people go into space. Now maybe if Amtrak went to the Moon .... FtG ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 22 Jun 83 03:42:15 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 22 Jun 83 3:40-PDT Date: 19 Jun 83 18:17:45-PDT (Sun) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!rabbit!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Palapa B Launched Article-I.D.: rabbit.1611 The crew of STS-7 today completed their major mission goal in successfully deploying the Indonesian satellite Palapa B. Yesterday, Anik C of Canada was similarly ejected. Wednesday, the crew will let loose a West German satellite from the RMS and then, one orbit later, pick it back up and place it back in the cargo bay. It will be the first time such an operation has occurred. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 22 Jun 83 05:15:58 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 22 Jun 83 4:45-PDT Date: 21 Jun 83 22:23:33-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Shuttle Update Article-I.D.: alice.1955 Crippen turned the shuttle first towards the sun, then away from the sun, then towards the Earth today in an effort to control the temperature on SPAS-1, the West German satellite to be deployed and retrieved tomorrow. Meanwhile, Anik-C and Palapa-B, released over the weekend, reached thei intended orbits with no problems. NASA also announced that TDRS-1 should be in the proper orbit by Monday. Conditions at KSC were not favorable today for a landing, and NASA reports that the weather does not look good for either tomorrow or Thursday. Friday, the scheduled landing day, is still iffy. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 22 Jun 83 05:16:08 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 22 Jun 83 5:09-PDT Date: 21 Jun 83 16:33:19-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!seismo!rlgvax!tom @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Let's make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle Article-I.D.: rlgvax.684 References: uwvax.934 <1883@watarts.UUCP> WHAT! Put Lucas in the same category (much less the same shuttle) as Heinlein and Clarke! No way! The Star Wars saga may be entertaining, exciting, and cute, but they are no justification for honoring the man in such a way. I thought the original proposals for Heinlein and Clarke were based on their attempts at serious scientific fiction and their abilities to postulate reasonable scientific achievments of the future and their consequences. I thoroughly enjoyed Star Wars, but Ewoks, ineffective blasters (and armor), crash-happy vehicles, magical Forces, some nice asteroid shots, and good-guys versus bad-guys plots just don't make the grade. If we must round out a trilogy, I say we exhume the body of Jules Verne, and give him the ride. Perhaps a burial in space ... - Tom Beres {seismo, allegra, mcnc}!rlgvax!tom ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 22 Jun 83 06:47:46 PDT Date: 22 Jun 1983 0647-PDT Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3 Subject: Book on military use of space From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) To: Space at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]22-Jun-83 06:47:16.WMARTIN> SPACE readers may want to check their local libraries for a new book on space war and military space operations: Karas, Thomas THE NEW HIGH GROUND (Strategies and Weapons of Space-Age War), 1983, Simon and Schuster (Interesting note: the subtitle given above is the one on the dust jacket; the title page of the book has the subtitle "SYSTEMS and Weapons of Space Age War".) The book has sections describing the military and industrial space establishments, the various items of hardware, and the techniques of space-based military operations. There is an interesting bibliographic reference in the introduction. Many of the military Karas interviewed recommended he read a book by DeWitt S. Copp, A FEW GREAT CAPTAINS (Doubleday, 1980). This is a history of five pioneering officers who helped form the US Air Force by splitting it away from the Army. The "spacemen" in the Air Force are looking to it for inspiration for doing the same for a Space Force separate from the USAF. Regards, Will Martin ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 23 Jun 83 02:14:27 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 23 Jun 83 2:12-PDT Date: 22 Jun 83 4:28:31-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: SPAS Released Article-I.D.: alice.1956 SPAS was released by the RMS early this morning and is now floating free of the shuttle, as Crippen and Hauck maneuver about it. The satellite, in addition to taking measurements of the effects of such maneuvers on nearby satellites, is taking the first-ever from space, out-of-ship view of the shuttle against the Earth. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 24-Jun-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #138 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 138 Today's Topics: SPAS Recovered Re: Let's make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle Friday Landing at KSC in Doubt Asimov as a shuttle passenger First out-of-ship pictures of shuttle ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Jun 83 10:38:41-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: SPAS Recovered After releasing the West German SPAS satellite from the cargo bay by means of the RMS, Crippen and Hauck perfermed some out of plane maneuvers around the satellite, and then Sally Ride successfully regrappled the satellite, floating in space, with the arm. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 83 9:16:21-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ihldt!juracan @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Let's make a place for Robert Heinlein on the Space Shuttle How about Isaac Asimov for the trilogy, instead of Lucas? After all he won a Hugo for "putting the Science in Science Fiction". Teodoro Alonso ihnss!ihldt!juracan ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 83 15:20:31-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Friday Landing at KSC in Doubt Predictions of scattered clouds and rain over KSC for Friday have put Friday morning's landing in doubt. NASA will decide tomorrow whether to land Friday at EAFB or to wait until Saturday or Sunday and try to land at KSC. The shuttle has enough supplies to orbit until Sunday. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 1983 10:28:16-EDT From: csin!cjh@CCA-UNIX To: space@mit-mc Subject: Asimov as a shuttle passenger A's fear of flying is well known; however, he's going to be Guest of Honor at an upcoming English SF convention, and there's some doubt that he has the time for an ocean crossing. . . . ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 23 June 1983 12:44:58 EDT From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS To: space@mc cc: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!alice!alb@Ucb-Vax Subject: First out-of-ship pictures of shuttle ..!alice!alb @ ucb-Vax: [SPAS] is taking the first-ever from space, out-of-ship view of the shuttle against the Earth. Well, for public consumption, anyway. It's a good bet that Columbia was scrutinized by U.S. reconnaissance satellites on its first flight, reassuring NASA and the crew about the integrity of the tiles on the bottom and leading edges. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 25-Jun-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #139 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 139 Today's Topics: Shuttle Landing Report Shuttle to Land Tomorrow Shuttle History Wanted Re: Dial-a-Shuttle - (nf) Re: Shuttle passengers mission video tapes wanted ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 Jun 83 10:38:44-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Shuttle Landing Report As yet unconfirmed reports say that NASA has decided to postpone until Saturday morning the landing of the Challenger at KSC. If the weather there is still bad Saturday, the Challenger would land at EAFB. NASA should release an official statement later today. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 83 13:51:59-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Shuttle to Land Tomorrow Recent word from NASA is that the Challenger will attempt to land at KSC tomorrow, as weather outlooks for that region have brightened and are now within NASA's acceptance limits. If the shuttle cannot land at KSC tomorrow, it will most probably be redirected to EAFB. A potential fuel problem with one of three APU's has forced NASA to abandon plans to delay the landing until the weekend, even though the shuttle can land with only one of the three working. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 83 17:29:16-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: sun!altos86!eric @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Shuttle History Wanted Can someone mail to me, post to the net, or point me to the following information for each manned shuttle mission to date? - Full names of all crew members - Which shuttle was used - Launch date and time - Total elapsed time of the mission - Number of revolutions (orbits) - Landing site - A brief description of the main events of the mission Information would be greatly appreciated. Also, does anyone have any information on the National Space Institute, the organization that is sponsoring the Dial-a-Shuttle number? Is it an organization worth joining? Eric Smith ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 83 22:52:06-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!keller @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Dial-a-Shuttle - (nf) I called Dial-a-Shuttle yesterday (Tues 6-21-83) and got to hear the wake up music (Texas A&M and U. Wash. fight songs) and then a few minutes of ground crew - shuttle interaction. It was fun because they talked about the temperature of the German sats. computer. Don't expect to hear the astronauts on your first call. The shuttle is only in contact for about 20% of its orbit. Plus you have to catch them when they are awake! NSI runs the show like an all news station with plenty of promotion of NSI. You'll need to listen for a while to find out the next contact time, and then call back. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jun 83 12:54 CDT (Friday) From: HOWARD.DLOS@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: Shuttle passengers To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: HOWARD.DLOS@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Instead of all this talk of sending SF writers and producers on a shuttle mission why don't we just send mass murderers, dictators, and other people who try their best to make this a hell on earth. That way we could put them out in space the same way we did the SPAS satellite. However, we wouldn't have any intentions of retrieving them. Doug Howard ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 83 12:29:28-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!wivax!linus!philabs!micomvax!micomz!softech @ Ucb-Vax Subject: mission video tapes wanted I am looking for any kind of video tape of broadcasts from space mission astronauts made during the flight. If someone out there knows if NASA publishes such things, please send some pointers. I know that during a mission, NASA has a broadcast channel to TV networks, which pick it up, edit it, and make news out of it. I'm interested in the original stuff, ie the NASA channel output, with conversations between ground and craft unaltered by Cronkite's comments. I am interested in Appolo and Shuttle missions, but any manned mission is acceptable. Richard Blouin, !philabs!micomvax!micomz!softech ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 27-Jun-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #140 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 140 Today's Topics: Landing Delayed Again -- Shuttle to Land at EAFB postage stamp for shuttle Challenger QSO Schedules Proxmire, Stockman on the Shuttle - (nf) Re: Challenger QSO Schedules ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Jun 83 3:52:06-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Landing Delayed Again -- Shuttle to Land at EAFB NASA has just announced that, due to continuing fog and overcast conditions at KSC, the Challenger will land at EAFB at 0957 EDT. The landing at EAFB, which is still fully equipped, will add about 6 days onto the turnaround time for STS-8, putting a late August launch date in doubt. STS-8 is scheduled to launch at 0230 EDT and land also at EAFB in the first night landing for a shuttle. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jun 83 15:17:38-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!aluxz!mhuxj!presley @ Ucb-Vax Subject: postage stamp for shuttle >From the June 27 issue of the newspaper "Stamp Collector": The US Postal Service, which needs a $9.35 stamp for Express Mail, will inaugurate one on "space mail" covers, ... The rate is for next-day delivery of a package weighing up to two pounds. The special stamp will be issued Aug. 14 at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The space covers will be part of the payload for the Challenger, scheduled for liftoff at the Kennedy Space Center the same day. The exact number of envelopes bearing the stamps ... has not yet been determined ... The tentative price ... is $15 a cover. The Postal Service preference has been for 500,000 covers as adequate to meet estimated philatelic and public requirements. -- Joe Presley (...!mhuxj!presley, harpo!presley) ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 83 19:51:11-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekecs!philb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Challenger QSO Schedules I would be very interested in finding out the information necessary to make a contact with the astronaut/ham on the next orbiter flight. Would some one please post the times, areas covered, protocol, and callsigns necessary to do this??? I would very much like to make a contact with the orbiter during this flight. Maybe make a date with Ms. Ride...... How about shuttle audio rebroadcasts on hf or 2m. Any one know about that (2m in Portland area)? Congrats on the sucessful Phase 3B launch!!! 73`s and tnx Phil Biehl, KA6YEP tekecs!philb ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jun 83 5:43:28-PDT (Sat) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!cca!ima!inmet!tower @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Proxmire, Stockman on the Shuttle - (nf) Though I like the idea of honoring those who have inspired us into space (e.g. Clarke and Heinlein).... It makes a lot of sense to use spare Shuttle seats to send up anit-space people, "spend the money here" people, and influential politicians. David Stockman (OMB), Jesse Jackson, and Senator Proxmire, come to mind. If we can show these people some of the grandeur, perhaps we can get more $$ from them to help insure our future. [and if one congressman made the junket, more will, so they would increase shuttle funding .....] I'm sure the game could get very complex - hopefully, NASA has very good PR and budget people. -len tower harpo!inmet!tower ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jun 83 9:28:35-PDT (Sat) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Challenger QSO Schedules First of all, it won't be the next shuttle flight, it'll be STS-9. Owen Garriot, W5LFL, will be the operator as he is a mission specialist for that flight. The orbiter will be Columbia, not Challenger. This particular flight has another advantage in that the inclination will be 57 degrees instead of the usual 28.5 degrees. This will cover northern latitudes much better, but the passes will still be very brief. The operating protocol will most likely consist of alternate one minute transmit and receive periods. Owen will scan a range of uplinks on 2 meters (not including his own transmit frequency), record the calls he hears, and then read them off on his downlink frequency during the alternate minute. Read July QST for further details. ARRL & AMSAT will be working jointly on disseminating info on this project. Phil Karn, KA9Q PS. Sally Ride is married. Sorry. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 28-Jun-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #141 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 141 Today's Topics: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #140 Shuttle schedule Shuttle passengers - criminals one-way Re: SPACE Digest V3 #135 Proxmire, Stockman on the Shuttle - (nf) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 27 Jun 83 09:24:32 PDT Date: 27 Jun 83 9:36:58 PDT From: lamming.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #140 In-reply-to: "OTA@S1-A.ARPA's message of 27 Jun 83 03:02 PDT" To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: lamming.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Is what you hear on the shuttle 900 number rebroadcast on a Ham frequency. Who would know? Did I miss the answer? ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 27 Jun 83 15:36:55 PDT Date: 27 June 1983 18:34 edt From: Schauble.HIS_Guest at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Shuttle schedule To: space at MIT-MC Can anyone provide a list of planned launch dates for the rest of the year? I will be on the East Coast several times and would like to attend one. Paul ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 27 Jun 83 16:53:18 PDT Date: 27 June 1983 19:50 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Shuttle passengers - criminals one-way To: HOWARD.DLOS @ PARC-MAXC cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC Date: 27 Jun 83 08:54 CDT (Monday) From: HOWARD.DLOS@PARC-MAXC.ARPA OK. I agree that my idea might be a little bit exteme and wasteful, but consider this. It is much cheaper to send people one-way rather than round trip. I don't see this at all in the case of STS. Virtually all the fuel used by the shuttle is consumed during the launch phase, virtually none of it during orbit or descent. Witness two large solid-rocket boosters whose fuel fully is consumed only partway up, and the even-larger liquid fuel tank whose fuel is also fully consumed partway up. Only the little orbiter, with its miniscule fuel supply, is needed for actually reaching orbit (after almost reaching orbit) and for doing all the experiments and for the de-orbit burn. Carrying a person back to Earth, or leaving hir in space, doesn't make more than a tiny difference in fuel requirements, and of course makes zero difference in any other costs asociated with the flight. -- Furthermore, the return you get on the criminal's trip to space is infitesimal compared to the return you get on an intelligent scientist/writer. Unless you can show some return to the investors (presently the taxpayers) that is worth the cost, your idea is unworkable. As for your comments about my character, am I sick just because I would like to see a person who has killed dozens of people put to death, or am I an idiot because I expect to see them justly punished. No, neither. Because you propose wasting a very precious resource, fuel and passenger-space on STS, to do something (execute a criminal) in a way that is inferior to the usual ways (gas chamber, electric chair, hanging, firing squad). Important experiments and projects are backed up years, delayed because of not enough STS capability (the original delay is because the STS was several years behind schedule, but if STS had infinite capacity then we could instantly clear up that backlog and offer crew and payload space for new experiments). Other experiments and projects aren't being done at all even though they are urgent. Only a deranged mind, or a diobolical enemy of the space program, would seriously propose consuming valuable crew space in the way you proposed. -- As to why STS space-dumping is inferior to existing ways, let me cite several: (1) last-minute appeals such as a pardon or stay-of-execution by the governor are very hard to do when the STS is scheduled to go up on a certain day, or if it's already in orgit when the delay of execution occurs; (2) the executed criminal would beome famous, sort of a martyr, dying in space, not the sort of thing you want a mass-murderer to be glorified by; (3) there's an international legal problem and public-relations problem when he body starts to return to Earth, after all would you want the ashes of a mass-murderer raining down on your city, or even a few unvaporized pieces of skull or hip bone crashing through your roof, especially if you believed that the soul of the departed murderer would invite a curse on you? -- The whole proposal is absurd. How could you ever seriously propose it? (Please supply advantages to your proposal, as I have above supplied specific dis-advantages and excessive cost.) ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 27 Jun 83 20:13:54 PDT Date: Mon, 27 Jun 83 22:59:08 EDT From: J. C. Pistritto To: Space-Enthusiasts@mit-mc Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #135 TDRS-A's fate: Last I heard, (last weeks Aviation Week & Space Technology, a mag all SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS should read...), the TDRS-A was in an almost circular orbit at around 21400 miles. Final orbit will be 22300 miles, (geosynchronous). Movement of the satellite to final position was being accomplished with less fuel than anticipated, and about 400 lbs. of manuevering propellent will be left, (TDRS-A needs only ~250 lbs for its entire 10yr design life). The extra fuel was left on board after a C-band precision accuracy transponder requirement was deleted from the mission at the last minute. C-band operation was to be on a commercial basis, and approximately 1600lb of fuel was included in the satellite for that purpose. That fuel saved the day when the Boeing/NASA Inertial Upper Stage failed to make its second circularization burn after release from Challenger, (the first orbital transfer injection burn was nominal), and left the satellite in an orbit about 21700 X 12000 or so. (very messy). Several of the orbital positioning thrusters were damaged during seperation of the IUS as well, making the transfer process tricky. Since no communication tests have been conducted yet with the satellite in its Earth-stabilized mode, it is unknown if any communications equipment was damaged although it seems unlikely. -JCP- ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 27 Jun 83 23:40:08 PDT Date: 28 June 1983 02:38 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Proxmire, Stockman on the Shuttle - (nf) To: decvax!cca!ima!inmet!tower @ UCB-VAX cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC Hmmm, sending up money-tight people like Proxmire might be a good idea, providing it doesn't backfire. They might be so blind as to say "this is a joy ride, grandeur, why should taxpayers finance people on joy rides?" and totally miss the science that is going on at the same time. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 29-Jun-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #142 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 142 Today's Topics: Re: STS-10 may be Scrubbed ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 28 Jun 83 17:44:08 PDT Received: by UCBVAX.ARPA (3.346/3.33) id AA01741; 27 Jun 83 15:01:09 PDT (Mon) Date: 27 Jun 83 15:01:09 PDT (Mon) From: research!alb@Berkeley Message-Id: <8306272201.AA01741@UCBVAX.ARPA> To: rem@MIT-MC Subject: Re: STS-10 may be Scrubbed Cc: SPACE@MIT-MC The word from NASA was that no company who has payloads scheduled for 1984 was able to volunteer their cargo for STS-10. It does now look like the mission will in fact be scrubbed, but it's too early to tell for sure. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 30-Jun-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #143 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 143 Today's Topics: Re: Empty STS-10? Re: Test pilot astronauts - (nf) Damage Report Proposing writer for a shuttle trip. Re: SPACE Digest V3 #142 Re: SPACE Digest V3 #142 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 29 Jun 83 04:33:12 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 28 Jun 83 23:57-PDT Date: 20 Jun 83 10:31:31-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: bart @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Empty STS-10? Article-I.D.: ucbvax.342 In-Reply-To: Article <566@vax2.UUCP> I'm ready. If nobody else is willing to go, what the heck. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 29 Jun 83 04:50:31 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 29 Jun 83 4:39-PDT Date: 21 Jun 83 4:05:49-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!ucbcad!ucbesvax.turner @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Test pilot astronauts - (nf) Article-I.D.: ucbcad.118 #R:gummo:-81700:ucbesvax:8700002:000:1530 ucbesvax!turner Jun 21 01:56:00 1983 On the question of how many astronauts have been test-pilots, at on time or another, I can only say that it's probably a slimmer majority now than before the shuttle. I was surprised to see how many shuttlenauts are Navy officers. Or I *was* surprised, until I remembered that the early days of the space program were enlivened by a competition between the Air Force and the Navy. NASA was, I think, created to resolve this tension. When you think of how the Russians have been doing soft ground- landings almost from the start, and how "splash-down" was SOP for the U.S. until the shuttle, one wonders whether the Navy didn't have some- thing to do with the American Way of Re-entry. Pomp and Circumstance for an event of indefinite location is a little easier to arrange on a movable surface like an aircraft carrier. Those Siberian Plump-Downs must be rather dismal affairs by comparison. Another interesting thing (to me): as far as I know, there has not yet been a non-U.S. citizen put into orbit by NASA (though I've heard that a Puerto Rican is cheduled). By contrast, the USSR has launched astronauts from most Eastern Bloc countries, as well as one Mongolian and one Frenchman. (-: I can't wait for the first Palestinian. Maybe Arafat will start talking about a homeland in one of the Earth-Luna libration points, assuming Israel doesn't get there first. :-) Michael Turner ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner P.S. If a computer can make Time's "Man of the Year" cover, surely Dr. Ride will have no trouble. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 29 Jun 83 07:31:26 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 29 Jun 83 6:08-PDT Date: 25 Jun 83 22:05:43-PDT (Sat) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Damage Report Article-I.D.: alice.1986 Challenger suffered only minor damage during its second flight. On preliminary examination, workers at EAFB found 25 tiles severely damaged, probably during launch. Also, one of four brake assemblies broke apart during landing, though it posed no danger to the crew. The brakes are designed to survive five landings without repair. ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 29 Jun 83 07:32:06 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 29 Jun 83 6:40-PDT Date: 22 Jun 83 11:16:20-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekecs!ews @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Proposing writer for a shuttle trip. Article-I.D.: tekecs.1467 Let's send someone who's really influenced America's outlook on space travel - Jimmy Buffet (..somewhere over China...). ews ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 29 Jun 83 07:53:20 PDT Date: Wed, 29 Jun 83 07:59 EDT From: Kovnat.HENR@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #142 In-reply-to: "OTA@S1-A.ARPA's message of 29 Jun 83 03:02 PDT" To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: Kovnat.HENR@PARC-MAXC.ARPA I'm curious as to whether any of the "reusable" solid-rocket boosters from any of the space shuttle missions have in fact been reused? Does anyone know? ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 29 Jun 83 07:53:33 PDT Date: Wed, 29 Jun 83 09:53 CDT From: Howard.DLOS@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #142 In-reply-to: Shuttling criminals To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: Howard.DLOS@PARC-MAXC.ARPA, Robert Elton Maas First, a 200 lb. man is not going to require a whole lot of extra fuel, considering that he makes up less than .1% of the shuttle's weight (of course, that is including the cargo's weight but minus the enormous fuel tanks' weight). In fact, most of the cost involved in sending a person round trip is the enormous amount of training it takes to make sure that passenger will not endanger the mission or the other passengers. However, if you're going to send a person on a one-way trip who will not be gathering imformation, it would be easier to have him go unconscious. Therefore you save thousands of dollars by not having to train this person.( that is, if you don't dump the space suit with the convict) Second, by shuttling mass murderers you would be protecting the public from a mentally imbalanced person, but you would get no return one taking a sf writer ( scientists are a different matter, but I didn't complain about them going ) for the following reasons. Now that the shuttle has finally started shuttling, the program is in no immediate danger, so why do you need to convert the masses. Eventually when it starts making a profit and is turned over to the private sector of business, the only deciding factor for continuing is whether or not that business turns a profit. If the public doesn't like seeing the money spent for the shuttle, then that's their problem. Third, my proposal is not wasteful, in fact is efficient. Consider the fact that airlines lose money whenever considerably less than a full load because they use the approximately the same amount of fuel in flying 20 passengers as they do in flying 200. Therefore, why is taking an extra passenger or two wasteful, when the shuttle as always flown with less than 50% full capacity. Finally, STS dumping is not inferior to other means of execution. If a stay of execution is granted before the prisoner is dumped, then the astronauts can be notified( we do have two-way communication available with the shuttle). The first ones to be executed will not be glorified, rather they will become answers to trivia questions( we would not want to execute a person whose guilt is in doubt anyway ). Since, the executee will not be wearing a space suit upon release from the shuttle, the only way to know where he's at is to go up and look for him . And for you to suggest that there is any possibility of him not being totally vaporized is ridiculous and if any ashes did fall to earth they would be so widely scattered that you wouldn't know they were ashes(not to mention the fact that you couldn't even predict where they would fall.) Mr. Maas, as you can see, my proposal is not absurd, although if you still think so, then I suggest that you sit down and seriously think about my proposal before coming up with any objections( something that I don't believe you have done yet ). And after you have finished that, then I hope you can find the time to write me an apology for calling me a "sick idiot". Doug ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 01-Jul-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #144 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 144 Today's Topics: solar sailing Shuttle en Route to KSC TDRS-1 in Place Re: Proxmire, Stockman on the Shuttle - (nf) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Jun 1983 1249-EDT From: VLSI at DEC-MARLBORO To: space-enthusiasts at MIT-MC Subject: solar sailing Re: disposing of criminals by tossing them out of the shuttle: The way to execute someone is to put a gun to their temple and pull the trigger. Why is this being discussed on SPACE at all? Let's talk about more reasonable subjects. The idea of the solar sail race to the moon is intriguing. Bruce Cohen proposed a similar mission to L5 on this list six months ago. Do you think they read SPACE at the French space agency? The problem with their scheme is that putting something on top of Ariane seems too expensive to make such a race feasible. How can it be done with the shuttle? As the article about the race pointed out, a sail cannot be unfurled below an altitude of a thousand miles, and the shuttle only goes up to two hundred. How can we get the extra altitude? NASA does it with the Inertial Upper Stage, but that gets us back to multi-million dollar rockets. Plus, as the TDRSS folks discovered, they tend to explode. The race will take years, so we're in no great hurry to get up there. Why not use an ion rocket? They don't need much fuel and can be powered by solar cells. Because their thrust is so low, amateurs can build them in their basements. The builders wouldn't need huge test fixtures to keep their rockets from getting away, or concrete bunkers to observe their experiments from. The rocket would have to be pretty small, so one could experiment with a lot of different designs without having to invest too much in them. And, since such low-power stuff has little military application, the experimenters could trade info without worrying about it being classified. The scale I'm thinking of is that of the getaway specials, a couple of hundred pounds. NASA won't let the present getaway specials have their own motive power because of the chance that they'll bash into the shuttle itself. The acceleration of these guys would be so low, however, that the risk of damage would be slight. A greater danger would come from the ion exhaust. The stream of charged particles might damage radio equipment. At the very least, the plasma cloud could cut off radio contact with the ground. There might be some way to neutralize the exhaust before it leaves the rocket, perhaps by shooting out parallel streams of ions and electrons. Come to think of it, you would have to do something like this to prevent the rocket from becoming negatively charged. Does anyone out there know anything about ion rockets, about what research has already been done? Given a certain vehicle mass and a certain amount of power available, how much fuel would it take to get up to solar sail altitudes within, say, a year? John Redford DEC Hudson ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jun 83 1045 PDT From: Tom Wadlow To: space@MIT-MC Date: 21 Jun 83 4:05:49-PDT (Tue) From: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix !ucbcad!ucbesvax.turner @ Ucb-Vax When you think of how the Russians have been doing soft ground- landings almost from the start, and how "splash-down" was SOP for the U.S. until the shuttle, one wonders whether the Navy didn't have some- thing to do with the American Way of Re-entry. Pomp and Circumstance for an event of indefinite location is a little easier to arrange on a movable surface like an aircraft carrier. Those Siberian Plump-Downs must be rather dismal affairs by comparison. I believe that the ''official'' reason for wet landings is a matter of both weight and safety. Why carry lots of shock absorbers into space when you've got a couple of nice cushy oceans right nearby. And the sudden stop at the end of a ground landing (even if the chutes *don't* fail) is nobody's idea of fun. As for the Russian Plump-Downs, for quite some time the Russian cosmonauts ejected from their Vostoks and landed separately, for exactly the same reasons of safety. This practice ended shortly before the flight of Valentina Tereshkova, I believe. (Side-note: Tereshkova was selected mostly on the basis of her looks, since she was flown primarily for publicity value. Since nobody wanted to take chances she was kept heavily sedated for the duration of the flight. During the landing, the sedative wore off, and when the spacecraft was found by the locals, they found the Heroine of the State outside the Voshkod, puking her guts out in a reaction to the drugs. So despite what the popular press has been saying, the first *qualified* woman to go into space was Svetlana Savitskaya, last year.) --Tom ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 83 11:50:53-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Shuttle en Route to KSC The Challenger left Kelly AFB (not Sheppard AFB as had originally been planned) for KSC today at 0600 CDT. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 83 17:03:37-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: TDRS-1 in Place With a final 5 minutes, 48 second burn today, TDRS-1 was nudged into its intended circular orbit of 22,236 miles. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jun 83 15:37:00-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!sb1!sb6!emory!gatech!spaf @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Proxmire, Stockman on the Shuttle - (nf) Who says we have to let them come back to complain? -- "The soapbox of Gene Spafford" CSNet: Spaf @ GATech Internet: Spaf.GATech @ UDel-Relay uucp: ...!{sb1,allegra}!gatech!spaf ...!duke!mcnc!msdc!gatech!spaf ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 02-Jul-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #145 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 145 Today's Topics: A & A Re: Proxmire, Stockman on the Shuttle - (nf) Soviet Space Shuttle Shuttle Arrives at KSC ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 1 Jul 83 08:16:39 PDT Date: 1 Jul 1983 0914-MDT From: Pendleton@UTAH-20 (Bob Pendleton) Subject: A & A To: space@MIT-MC I would like to recomend Aeronautics & Astronautics the magazine of the AIAA as an excellent source of information on current and future air and space projects. Last months issue had a brief article on work being done in plasma jet rocket engines. It mentioned a 60% efficient 100kw engine that is under development. Also mentioned was the fact that the Air Force has let a contract to develop a 100kw space rated nuclear reactor. This months issue has a series of articles describing FSTS ( Future Space Transportation System ). A fully reusable two stage space shuttle. There are separate articles on power plants, structures, thermal protection system, and fleet operation. The same issue had a blurb about an agreement between NASA and a private corporation ( I can't remember the name ). The company has agreed to develop a high energy upper stage for the shuttle, using its own funds. In return NASA has agreed not to compete with the company in this market. I have heard rumors from people at Thiokol (sp?) that the upper stage will be a modified version of the MinuteMan 3rd stage. Bob Pendleton ------- ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 1 Jul 83 10:10:58 PDT Date: 1 July 1983 13:11 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: Proxmire, Stockman on the Shuttle - (nf) To: ihnp4!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!sb1!sb6!emory!gatech!spaf @ UCB-VAX cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC Date: 27 Jun 83 15:37:00-PDT (Mon) From: ihnp4!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!sb1!sb6!emory!gatech!spaf @ Ucb-Vax Who says we have to let them come back to complain? Come on now. Besides being inhumane, if Proxmire or Stockman or any other well-known government official were assassinated in space the whole space program would be cancelled immediately out of protest/disgust. That's the kind of negative PR we definitely **don't** need!! ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 1 Jul 83 23:54:06 PDT Date: 1 Jul 1983 23:41:53-PDT From: Andy Cromarty To: space@mit-mc Subject: Soviet Space Shuttle Cc: arms-d@mit-mc, poli-sci@rutgers The following long (1500-word) quotation is taken from "The Soviet Space Shuttle: the rumors solidify" by James E. Oberg and appeared in Vol. 1, No. 1 (June 83 issue) "Defense Systems Review", pp. 38-40, copyright (C) 1983 Cosgriff-Martin & Cutter Inc., publishers (as this was the first issue, it was being distributed free by the publisher for promotional purposes.) All emphasis appeared in the original. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two big recent splashes in the Indian Ocean have transformed the semi-mythical "Soviet Space Shuttle" from a creature of folklore and rumor into one of hardware and clear photographs. The splashes, in June 1982 and again last March, were made by the return to Earth from orbit of one-ton lifting body payloads with the letters "CCCP" on the side: "Made in the U.S.S.R." The general (but not unanimous) evaluation of these missions is that they involved a subscale model of a future Soviet manned "space plane". For the Soviets, however, they were merely "scientific satellites" in the Cosmos series, serial numbers 1374 and 1445. Analysis of orbital tracking data released by NORAD (via the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center) showed several puzzling features of these missions. First, the launch site was the small base at Kapustin Yar, on the lower Volga River (both launches occurred at night, with the splashdowns soon after dawn). Second, the vehicles flew southeast and made one orbit of Earth, firing retrorockets while passing across the Black Sea an hour and a half after liftoff. The reentry occurred over southern India and Sri Lanka, and the splashdown occurred near the Cocos Islands exactly as planned -- because a substantial recovery fleet was waiting in the target area (along with shadowing planes and ships from Australia). Other facts rapidly became known. The launch vehicle was a small IRBM-derived satellite launcher (Thor Delta in performance), so the payload was surprisingly small -- about one ton. The second flight in March coincided with the release of the Defense Department's latest edition of "The Soviet Military Threat", which included a special section on Soviet space activities. In it, the booklet disclosed that besides the small "space plane" the Soviets were also developing both a large Space Shuttle (fully equivalent to the American vehicle) and a new class of expendible launch vehicles similar to the Saturn series built by the U.S. in the 1960's. The two independent Soviet shuttle projects appear to have unique missions and to be substantially different in design philosophy than the \American Columbia Challenger/, and sister spaceships. The smaller Soviet vehicle (in many ways comparable to the USAF's X-20 "Dyna-Soar" project of the early 1960s) may in its full-size version weigh about fifteen tons and be launched by a new medium-size expendable booster now being developed. The spacecraft could carry a crew of four or five cosmonauts, including passengers, and may serve as a resupply vehicle for a large Soviet space station now being designed. Other missions, including military reconnaissance and space inspection/interdiction, are certainly feasible. On the other hand, the larger Soviet `shuttle' will probably be carried into space attached to an expendable first stage with several liquid-fuel strap-on units as well. Reportedly, it will not carry reusable cryogenic engines comparable to the Space Shuttle Main Engines, so several distinctive design features are possible. First, the spacecraft itself will be lighter in relation to its payload weight. Second, the aft end of the vehicle can be built with aerodynamic advantages in mind, providing a lift-to-drag ratio twice that of the \Columbia/ and very similar to that of the \Enterprise/ in the first drop tests in 1977 with the tail cone. Thirdly, without the need for engines at the aft end, the Soviet space engineers may have chosen to open the tail cone clamshell fashion to deploy the vehicle's payload, thus saving further on the structural complexity involved in "payload bay doors" on the top of the American space shuttle. This larger Soviet vehicle apparently already exists in at least mockup form. It has been photographed both in test stands and atop modified Bison bombers for point-to-point ferrying flights. At Ramenskoye Air Base southeast of Moscow (the Soviet version of Edwards AFB), the vehicle has been seen and assigned the designator "Ram-R". Reportedly, its dimensions are quite similar to those of America's shuttles: a length of 109 feet (compared to the US's 122 feet), a wingspan of 76 feet (nearly identical), and a fusilage diameter of 18 feet (slightly wider than the US design). Its delta wing design has a leading edge sweep of 46 degrees, again quite similar to the US vehicle. These estimates may have been refined further recently: late this March, sources claimed that a Bison with a Ram-R shuttle mounted atop it had run off the runway at Ramenskoye and been stuck in the mud for two days. This presumably gave US vehicles adequate time for high-quality photographic activity. Flight schedules remain obscure. Judging from past practice, it could take four or five years for the scaled up version of the smaller Soviet shuttle to make its appearance in orbit. The new booster which presumably will carry it will, according to the DODs [sic] report, not begin flight testing until "the 1984-87 time period", which would be consistent with the development of the manned vehicle itself. Manned drop tests could of course occur much sooner. The larger Soviet shuttle must depend on the development of the larger space booster systems, and might not be launched in this decade. These schedules are consistent with Soviet public statements about "space shuttles" in general -- in recent years they have been quite negative. The significant expenditures in developing the new "Soyuz-T" (a new manned spacecraft built in side [sic] an old Soyuz airframe, it is NOT merely a modified Soyuz) are consistent with getting five to ten years space service out of it. Cosmonauts have made exactly those kinds of statements. There are dissenters from this general analysis. One group of observers has come to believe that the Cosmos-1374 and Cosmos-1445 flights into the Indian Ocean have nothing to do with the Soviet manned space program at all, and that interpreting them as a part of the "Soviet space shuttle" may be a dangerously mistaken form of "mirror imaging". These analysts point out that Kapustin Yar has never been associated with testing of man-related hardware. They point out that a simple reentry test could more easliy have been accomplished on a suborbital lob downrange from Kapustin Yar to the standard Karaganda recovery zone or from Tyuratam downrange into the Sea of Okhotsk -- but the actual tests required the development of a unique orbital control and de-orbit propulsion system. The Soviets have only intentionally landed two earlier man-related vehicles at sea, and that was only because their lunar return trajectories made in-country landings dynamically impossible (that was not the case for 1374/1445). And the Soviets have never before bothered with "subscale models" -- they have always built full-scale mockups, flown them, and modified the next vehicles based on the results. The alternate explanation, which it is claimed accounts for these nagging enigmas, is that 1374/1445 represent a new generation of anti-fleet nuclear weapons delivery system. The module is not subscale, but is full size -- and large enough to carry a 100-kiloton thermonuclear weapon. It is designed to go into a standardized low parking orbit and then descend anywhere an American carrier task force has been targetted. The warhead must be a "maneuvering reentry vehicle" -- a MARV -- and hence needs substantial cross range to cover the whole surface of Earth between successive orbits. Therefore it would look very much like a `space shuttle' -- so much so that analysts already seeking hard evidence for the legendary Soviet shuttle would fasten onto this evidence and misinterpret it. This minority view, hopefully, is not accurate -- but disturbingly, it DOES account for more of the features of the 1374/1445 missions than does the `subscale model of a small Soviet shuttle' theory. Meanwhile, the Soviets have been diligently developing the destination for this presumed family of space shuttles: a permanent space station. The Soviets do not need such vehicles for mere economy of launch costs. Indeed, the `shuttles' will be launched on expendable boosters and even the vehicles themselves may not really be "reusable" (which eliminates the headaches of tiles, since time-tested ablative materials are entirely adequate). Their main purpose seems connected with more fully utilizing the USSR's large permanent space base now being designed. These different uses are certain to result in significantly different technological features from the familiar \Columbia/-class shuttles. Those features will appear ambiguous enough for lots of mysteries and misinterpretations in years to come as Soviet space engineers strive to bring their own shuttle vehicles on line. [end quotation] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 2 Jul 83 00:34:38 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 2 Jul 83 0:29-PDT Date: 29 Jun 83 15:42:02-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Shuttle Arrives at KSC Article-I.D.: alice.2004 The Challenger arrived at KSC today at 1027 EDT. The five day processing from landing at EAFB to arriving at KSC was the fastest ever during the STS program. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 05-Jul-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #146 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 146 Today's Topics: PM-Ham-Shuttle,300 Soviet Lifting Body Re: Re: Shuttle passengers - (nf) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 4 Jul 83 05:16:21 PDT Date: 04 Jul 83 0516 PDT From: Hans Moravec Subject: PM-Ham-Shuttle,300 To: space@MIT-MC a029 0030 04 Jul 83 Astronaut Garriott Gets Permission For Private Transmitter By NORMAN BLACK Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - ''This is Whiskey-Five-Lima-Foxtrot-Lima, from the Space Shuttle Columbia.'' With those words, expressing his assigned call sign, astronaut Owen Garriott is expected to become the first ''ham'' radio operator to operate from space next fall. Garriott, a mission specialist on September's scheduled ninth shuttle flight, received permission from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration last April to carry an amateur radio transmitter on board the Columbia. NASA said Garriott could use the gear during his off-duty hours whenever he wished. But as in all things bureaucratic, Garriott needed one more permission slip. Amateur radio operators, like any other user of the airwaves, must answer to the Federal Communications Commission and the agency's rules weren't exactly written with the idea of ''hams'' originating calls from space. Garriott applied for various waivers of the rules, and the FCC granted it last week. ''The pioneering nature of this venture warrants favorable action on Dr. Garriott's request,'' responded James C. McKinney, chief of the FCC's private radio bureau. Granting the waivers ''is in keeping with our statutory mandate to provide for experimental uses of radio frequencies.'' Garriott, a ham radio operator since his youth who now holds an Advanced Class license, will use a five-watt transmitter on board the Columbia that will be powerful enough to reach ham receivers on the ground within line-of-sight of the shuttle. Since the shuttle orbits the Earth in about 80 minutes, conversations will be brief because Garriott's radio will be in line-of-sight contact with a single point for only a few minutes at a time. He is expected to transmit in the range of 145.510 megahertz to 145.770 megahertz, and receive in the range of 144.910 megahertz to 145.470 megahertz. ap-ny-07-04 0330EDT *************** ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 4 Jul 83 05:53:19 PDT Date: Sun, 3 Jul 83 15:27:35 EDT From: J. C. Pistritto To: Space-Enthusiasts@mit-mc Subject: Soviet Lifting Body About the Soviet subscale space shuttle: A picture, (quite good actually), appears in an issue of Aviation Week about about a month ago of the subscale model being hoisted abort a Soviet ship in the Indian Ocean after the second mission. The vehicle quite clearly seems to have 'tiles' almost identical in size and shape to Columbia's. Considerable streaking is visible around the edges of the tiles, which would be 'gap filler' material ablating off during\ reentry (Columbia experienced this also on the first mission). Other than that, the vehicle appears much like an X-20 Dyna Soar lifting body. (The crash of which I believe is the intro film sequence to the 'Six Million Dollar Man TV series). -JCP- ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 5 Jul 83 02:19:06 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 5 Jul 83 2:09-PDT Date: 1 Jul 83 15:15:55-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!microsof!fluke!witters @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Re: Shuttle passengers - (nf) Article-I.D.: vax1.344 In-Reply-To: Article <2329@uiucdcs.UUCP> Let's dig up the remains of Cambell, Wells, and Verne and send them up. On second thought, what about Issac Newton? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 07-Jul-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #147 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 147 Today's Topics: Ham-Shuttle Rovers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 6 Jul 83 12:08:52 PDT Date: 6 Jul 83 12:07:06 PDT (Wednesday) From: Murray.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Ham-Shuttle To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: Murray.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Is the dopler shift significant? ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 6 Jul 83 22:44:31 PDT Date: 6 Jul 1983 21:26-PDT From: Andy Cromarty Subject: Rovers To: SPACE@MIT-MC Cc: AIlist@SRI-AI Message-Id: <83/07/06 2126.483@aids-unix> First: Thanks to all who have responded to my initial note about rovers. Most people seem to have taken what I would regard as the easy (and commensurately uninteresting) way out by choosing a lunar environment, precisely because teleoperation is feasible there, if a nuisance. But what about systems operating on more distant heavenly bodies or in deep space? Even robotic vehicles on Mars would suffer rather severe performance degradation if they had to rely upon an (approximately) earth-bound intelligence for control. (A friend provides the following simple gedankenexperiment: decide now to start scratching-your-leg-until- it-stops-itching twenty minutes from now; now wait twenty minutes before you can start; then, perhaps, wait at least twenty minutes before you can consider stopping....) Note that I'm not taking issue with the desirability of teleoperated lunar vehicles. (In fact, there's good reason to believe that a planetary or lunar rover is politically unrealistic if NASA has anything to say about it, given what I understand to be the prevailing NASA attitude towards *unmanned* space exploration, but that fact doesn't motivate my comments here.) Rather, I'm suggesting we tackle a problem domain sufficiently rich in AI problems to (a) keep things interesting and (b) allow us to explore what contribution, if any, we might be able to make as computer scientists, AI researchers, and engineers. Do we know enough to solve, or even identify, the difficult issues in situation assessment, planning, and resource allocation faced by such a system? For example, reinterpreting Professor Minsky's desire that "anyone with such budgets should aim them at AI education and research fellowships", let us then assume that these fellowships are provided by NASA and have a problem domain specified: perhaps, for example, we might choose a space station orbiting Mars as our testing grounds, with robot assembly prior to arrival of humans on-site as the problem. What problems can we already solve, and where is the research needed? asc ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 08-Jul-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #148 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 148 Today's Topics: Myths through history and space exploration Re: Need Telephone Number - (nf) Re: Phase III AMSAT - (nf) Re: Shuttle History Wanted more shuttle orbiters, cheap taking no chances ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 July 1983 19:10 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Myths through history and space exploration To: SPACE @ MIT-MC A few minutes ago I tuned in on the middle of a terrific program on channel 60 (KCSM, San Mateo;PBS/teleclasses) -- I was wondering if anybody else saw it or knew more about it. The credits at the end said it was produced by Miami-Dade Community College, copyright 1978. I didn't recognize any of the actors or other contributors. The program when I tuned in was about myths in history: including the New World myth that America was a re-enactment of the Garden of Eden except this time it'd come out with a happy ending. It mentionned the myth of Aryan supremecy and the myth of Communism. It then moved on to the myths of the space age: (1) Flying saucers are friendly people watching over us, ready to intervene to save us if we start to destroy ourselves; (2) Flying saucers are enemy people who will exterminate us and take over our planet; (3) There's no evidence for live elsewhere than on Earth, and in fact we may be the only intelligent life anywhere in the Milky Way galaxy, thus our expansion through this galaxy will be an important event in the history of the whole galaxy; (4) Biological organisms faced with extinction sometimes evolve to survive the crisis, and we now (faced with threats of nuclear war and other disasters) are starting to adapt to space and populate space to survive these threats. I thought it was highly fascinating. Anybody else remember seeing it? Anybody know when it'll be shown again? (I don't have a TV log.) ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jul 83 17:19:14-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!sjk @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Need Telephone Number - (nf) The best way to find the current 900 numbers is to dial 900 information: (900) 555-1212. scott kramer ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jul 83 17:19:41-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: menlo70!sri-unix!larson @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Phase III AMSAT - (nf) Yes, but there are some problems. Hopefully they will be resolved soon. See net.ham-radio for details. Alan ------------------------------ Date: 1 Jul 83 11:16:00-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Shuttle History Wanted Can someone fill in the details I am missing on the manned shuttle missions? Mail or posting here will be appreciated. Manned free flight (ALT) tests in OV-101 Enterprise: Time Separation Test Date m:ss Altitude Crew Objectives 08/12/77 5:21 24100 ft Haise, Fullerton separation test 09/13/77 5:28 26000 ft Engle, Truly flight control 09/23/77 5:34 24700 ft Haise, Fullerton test autoland 10/12/77 2:34 22400 ft Engle, Truly no tail fairing 10/26/77 2:02 19900 ft Haise, Fullerton 15000 ft. runway STS Launched Duration Rev. OV# Crew (CDR, PLT, MS, ...) 1 04/12/81 54:20:52 36 102 John W. Young, Robert L. Crippen 2 11/12/81 54:13:?? 36 102 Joe H. Engle, Richard H. Truly 3 03/22/82 193:??:?? 128? 102 Jack R. Lousma, Charles G. Fullerton 4 06/27/82 168:??:?? 112? 102 Thomas K. Mattingly, Henry W. Hartsfield 5 11/11/82 122:14:25 81 102 Vance D. Brand, Robert F. Overmyer, William B. Lenoir, Joseph P. Allen 6 04/04/83 120:24:32 80 099 Paul J. Weitz, Karol J. Bobko, @13:30 EST F. Story Musgrave, Donald H. Peterson 7 06/18/83 146:24:20 98 099 Robert L. Crippen, Frederick H. Hauck, @06:33 EST John M. Fabian, Sally K. Ride, Norman E. Thagard Notes: STS-1 Landed Rogers Lake bed at Edwards AFB (EAFB). STS-2 Successful RMS test. Shortened from 83 rev (124 hr) mission because of fuel cell failure. Landed EAFB again. STS-3 Landed Northrup strip at White Sands NM one day late due to high winds there; EAFB was too wet. STS-4 Final test flight. SRBs lost in Atlantic. First landing on concrete runway (#22 EAFB). STS-5 EVA scrubbed due to EMU failure. Launched SBS, Canada Telesat (Anik-C) satellites. STS-6 First flight of Challenger. TDRS-A deployed but IUS failed. First U.S. EVA in 9 years (Musgrave & Peterson, 04/07/83). STS-7 Launched Canada Telesat (Anik) and Indonesian (Palapa) satellites. Deployment, formation, and retrieval of SPAS-01. KSC landing cancelled because of fog; landed EAFB #22. If any of this is incorrect, PLEASE don't hesitate to correct me. Roger Noe ...ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 8 Jul 83 02:33:41 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 8 Jul 83 2:25-PDT Date: 2 Jul 83 23:18:15-PDT (Sat) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!genrad!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax Subject: more shuttle orbiters, cheap Article-I.D.: utzoo.3065 In the midst of an otherwise-irrelevant paper in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society I ran across something a bit startling. It was discussing the matter of an expanded Shuttle fleet. The current production price of an orbiter is about $1 billion, mostly because it is essentially a one-shot construction job. The price would drop quite dramatically, it seems, if a production line were set up. The paper gave the number of $200 million per orbiter. Now, here's the striking part: as few as half a dozen more orbiters could justify setting up the production line. In other words, $1 billion right now will buy you one more orbiter; $1.2 billion will buy SIX more orbiters! Now that is more like a reasonable fleet! The odds of NASA funding a fifth orbiter right now seem poor, and the time for a decision is fast approaching. Startup costs for further production will rise sharply in the near future as the construction facilities start to shut down. STC's bid to privately fund a fifth orbiter in exchange for orbiter marketing rights is still unresolved, last I heard. But if STC puts up $1 billion for one orbiter, maybe NASA could be convinced to spend $0.2 billion to change "one" to "six". Does anybody know if the figures are accurate? The author of the paper didn't give a reference for them. -- Henry Spencer U of Toronto {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Received: from MIT-MC by S1-A with TCP/SMTP; 8 Jul 83 02:34:09 PDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 8 Jul 83 2:24-PDT Date: 2 Jul 83 23:22:45-PDT (Sat) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!genrad!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax Subject: taking no chances Article-I.D.: utzoo.3066 A recent issue of Flight International had an interesting photograph. It was one engine pylon of the 747 Shuttle Carrier, as seen on the ground at the Paris Air Show. The interesting part was the two little cylinders fastened to the pylon, high up under the wing. These are not standard 747 equipment. According to the caption they are infrared jammers, for confusing heat-seeking missiles! Seems NASA and the USAF weren't taking any chances on somebody shooting at the Enterprise while it was out touring the world. -- Henry Spencer U of Toronto {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 09-Jul-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #151 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 151 Today's Topics: E.T. UFO's - (nf) re shuttling criminals Re: E.T. UFO"s - (nf) Galaxy Song in net.movies ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Jul 83 3:31:15-PDT (Sat) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hp-pcd!hp-dcd!jack @ Ucb-Vax Subject: E.T. UFO's - (nf) The phrase "extra-terrestrial UFO's" is a misnomer. If we know where they're from, they're not UFO's. Regarding the statistical sample: Our (listen to me, you'd think that I did it) guesses on how many worlds have life isn't based on statistical sample, it's based on information about the temperature of stars, etc. -Jack Applin IV (ucbvax!decvax!cca!sri-unix!hplabs!hp-dcd!jack) ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jul 1983 18:45:47-EDT From: csin!cjh@CCA-UNIX To: howard.dlos@parc-maxc, rem@mit-mc, space@mit-mc Subject: re shuttling criminals No, I don't think REM owes you an apology; "sick idiot" is one of the milder terms I would use, and "questionable literate" would be added in view of some of your self-justifications. Now that the shuttle has finally started shuttling, the program is in no immediate danger, so why do you need to convert the masses. The shuttle program has been in continual danger from, among others, the military, which is taking the lion's share of the flights, and assorted budget-cutters (remember when there was a fifth shuttle planned?) I should also point out that this would hardly help the image; try looking up the what happened to Edison (supporting DC) versus Westinghouse supporting AC) when AC was chosen as New York's method of execution. when the shuttle as always flown with less than 50% full capacity. The last time I looked, the shuttle was rated for seven people; the last mission had five on board, and several previous have had four. The first ones to be executed will not be glorified, rather they will become answers to trivia questions That depends on your point of view; I suppose you've forgotten the name of Crispus Attucks. (we would not want to execute a person whose guilt is in doubt anyway) Bull. (This is of course the first problem with capital punishment; there is no room for later thoughts.) I would particularly emphasize the "sick"; what sort of person would use one of man's greatest achievements (an achievement with a real future, unlike the closed-ended Apollo missions) as a tool of judicial murder. REM's arguments have some holes, but far fewer than your idea. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jul 83 23:45:04-PDT (Sun) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!wivax!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!csu-cs!bentson @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: E.T. UFO"s - (nf) In-Reply-To: Article hp-pcd.1262 It's true that a known flying object (not-UFO) isn't extraterrestrial. But a UFO is just that, UNKNOWN. It need not be from anywhere further away than Iowa. Randy Bentson csu-cs!bentson (Sorry Iowa.) ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jul 83 16:03:38-PDT (Sun) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!microsof!fluke!ssc-vax!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekcad!keithl @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Galaxy Song in net.movies In net.movies, I put a transcript of the Galaxy Song (as well as two sacrilegious ditties) from the Monty Python movie "The Meaning of Life". Suprisingly accurate, although none of the measurements in the song are metric (sigh). -- Keith Lofstrom uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!keithl CSnet: keithl@tek ARPAnet:keithl.tek@rand-relay ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 11-Jul-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #152 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 152 Today's Topics: STS-8 liftoff date? sattelites Dyna Soar & $6M man ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Jul 83 9:54:02-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ihuxw!rung @ Ucb-Vax Subject: STS-8 liftoff date? The original liftoff for STS-8 was to be sometime in mid-August before the brake problem occurred. does anyone know when the new date is? I"m going to be in Florida the last 2 weeks in August and am anxious to see if my vacation plans fall into the liftoff date. Thanx! Pete Rung BTL, Naperville, Ill. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 83 16:16:27-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!ronnie @ Ucb-Vax Subject: sattelites Does anyone know when the shuttles will start using the communications sattelites so that they can be in contact with mission control 100% of the time? -Ron (..decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!ronnie) ------------------------------ Date: 10 Jul 83 21:45-EST (Sun) From: Charles Weems Return-Path: Subject: Dyna Soar & $6M man To: space@mit-mc Via: UMASS-CS; 10 Jul 83 22:34-EDT It wasn't the Dyna Soar that was shown breaking up in the openning scene from the $6 million man -- According to the placard at the Smithsonian Air and Space museum it was the M2-F2 lifting body. The crash occurred on May 10, 1967 and was due to a control instability that was later cured by the addition of a center tailfin to the M2-F3. Unlike the bionic TV character, the test pilot actually suffered the loss of one eye. It goes on to tell how the M2 program proved that wingless craft could operate at subsonic, transonic and supersonic speeds, paving the way for the shuttle design. chip weems P.S. How about giving that test pilot a ride on the shuttle? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 12-Jul-83 0304 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #153 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 153 Today's Topics: Administrivia Space Burial - (nf) American Space Foundation - heard of it ? Shuttle's mild atmospheric entry ufos IRAS Re: sattelites Re: Soviet Space Shuttle ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 11 Jul 83 21:10:58-PDT (Mon) To: space @ MIT-MC From: The Moderator Subject: Administrivia I inadvertently confused the digesting software, so that it forgot to use version numbers 149 & 150. These digests never existed. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Jul 83 8:17:29-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!ucbesvax.turner @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Space Burial - (nf) I understand that NASA has decided that burial in space is one of the commercial applications that they prefer not to explore. I think this is terribly short-sighted. There are more than enough egotists out there would would gladly pay $5K a piece to have their ashes mixed in with a ceramic goo, to be dried in aerodynamic molds, carried aloft, and put in a rapidly decaying orbit which had been carefully computed to effect terminal entry (and a pretty flash in the night sky) for the benefit of the those attending outdoor evening memorial ceremonies. Possibly, these artificial meteors could be timed to within a fraction of minute, thus allowing for very high volume funeral services on a national scale, with very predictable satisfaction of customers. A Totally Sick, Pagan Degenerate, Michael Turner ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 83 6:44:49-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!zehntel!varian!bob @ Ucb-Vax Subject: American Space Foundation - heard of it ? I recently received a letter from The American Space Foundation imploring me to become a member and sign a petition to congress asking them to 'reaffirm America's serious commitment to space' etc. The letter was signed by Ed Gibson who was one of the Skylab III astronauts. Does anybody know anything about this organisation - what is their history and do they have any political ambitions ? I totally agree with their petition text but can a non-citizen petition Congress ? ( Obviously the chances are that Congress would never know, but what is the technical truth ? ) Bob Palin Varian Instruments 2700 Mitchell Dr. Walnut Creek, Ca. 94598 (415) 939-2400 x2560 ...!decvax!sytek!zehntel!varian!bob ...!ucbvax!menlo70!sytek!zehntel!varian!bob ...!tektronix!zehntel!varian!bob ...!fortune!varian!bob ...!amd70!varian!bob ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 11 July 1983 12:27:25 EDT From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS To: space@mc Subject: Shuttle's mild atmospheric entry Message-ID: <1983.7.11.16.22.32.David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS> Here's an interesting tidbit from "Peterson on spacewalks," an article about STS-6 in the June 25 Flight International. Entry is milder than that of the Apollo capsule, with a maximum of 1.6g "eyeballs down" being experienced. The tameness of entry is emphasized by Musgrave, who was walking about and taking photographs while it was happening. ------------------------------ Date: Mon 11 Jul 83 10:08:46-PDT From: Wilkins Subject: ufos To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA The phrase "extra-terrestrial UFO's" is a misnomer. If we know where they're from, they're not UFO's. -Jack Applin IV Knowing something does not come from the earth hardly qualifies as knowing where it's from. The galaxy minus earth is still quite a large set. David ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 1983 14:10-PDT From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL To: SPACE@MIT-MC Subject: IRAS IRAS is returning 700 million bits of data per day. So far, it has mapped 1/2 of the sky; after finishing the survey it will repeat to detect moving and variable sources, and to find spurious signals (debris, reflected moon light, cosmic ray impacts on the detector). The big bottleneck right now is the data reduction software, which is still being debugged. IRAS is expected to be a superb asteroid detector. It is expected to find some 15,000 to 20,000 new asteroids (3,000 are known from ground observation). I don't believe their orbits will be known, though. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 1983 2305-PDT From: Bradley S. Brahms Subject: Re: sattelites To: space@MIT-MC cc: decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!ronnie@UCB-VAX After much pain and anguish, NASA got the first satellite into its final orbit. I believe there are three planned with (i believe) a forth as a backup. Once the satellites are operation, the shuttles will be able to be in contact with earth about 85-90% of the time. Added Note: Because of the problem with the first satellite, I've heard that there is a possibility that the Space Lab inaugural flight may be delayed. Apparently they don't want the Space Lab out of contact for a long period of time. -- Brad Brahms (arpa: Brahms@USC-ECLC) P.S. Please correct me on any of the above if I'm wrong. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 83 13:30:04-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!linus!utzoo!watmath!watarts!bernie @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Soviet Space Shuttle In-Reply-To: Article sri-arpa.2751 I also dissent with the "minority opinion" mentioned in the article, if only because the Aviation Week and Space Technology photos of the sub-scale Soviet shuttle had windows in it (which suggests that it would be a manned vehicle in ful-scale form). ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 13-Jul-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #154 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 154 Today's Topics: Minority Opionion on Soviet Shuttle Re: re shuttling criminals Guess who's coming to dinner.... M2-F2 lifting body Re: satellites ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Jul 1983 0931-MDT From: Pendleton@UTAH-20 (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Minority Opionion on Soviet Shuttle To: space@MIT-MC If the Soviets have actually developed a system that can be launched from within the Soviet Union, go into orbit, deorbit on command, use aerodynamic maneuvering to impact anywhere in the world with pinpoint accuracy, and this system has enough payload to deliver a 100kt bomb, then they would be very tempted to develop it as a weapon system. Why? because the cost of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier task force is measured in multiples of billions of dollars. As a rough guess I'd say that it would cost less than $100 million each to deploy this new weapon. Its the castle versus cannon trade off. This would be a very clever use of space technology to provide an economical reply to our new large aircraft carriers. As to the test versions having windows; perhaps they want to photograph the leading edge during reentry or test a vision based terminal guidance system? Bob Pendleton ------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jul 83 10:35 CDT From: Howard.DLOS@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: re shuttling criminals In-reply-to: "csin!cjh@CCA-UNIX.ARPA's message of 7 Jul 83 18:45:36 EDT" To: csin!cjh@CCA-UNIX.ARPA cc: rem@mit-mc.ARPA, space@mit-mc.ARPA Reply-to: Howard.dlos@PARC-MAXC.ARPA First of all, I wasn't serious when I first proposed the idea, but apparently you and REM missed the sarcasm, and even so, I think I proved that my "idea" was practical, while you have proved yourself to be an extremely narrow minded individual who runs off at the mouth at anything that conflicts with your closed minded ideology without listening to what you are saying. Maybe the military is taking a huge chunk out of the program, but they deserve it since it is highly doubtful that there would be a space shuttle without their support in washington. If the shuttle had no possible military applications then it would still be just a brilliant idea. Somehow I got the impression that the shuttle could hold much more than 10 people, which would make 50% at least 5 people. The point is that there was room to spare. Crispus Attucks was not an executed criminal, ( if you think he was then you have a deeply twisted sense of logic ) he happened to be the first casulty in the Revolutionary War. By the way, off the top of your head, who was the first person to be executed by the electric chair? the gas chamber? lethal injection? You don't believe it's possible to execute anyone without thinking that you were wrong? I bet you still uncertain as to who shot Reagan and Lennon. And if you are sure, I bet you would let them go if they promised not to do it again. "sick"?, I remember when man's greatest achievement was the atomic bomb and it was used to kill thousands of innocent people as well as scar generations unborn. My argument might have some holes in it ( if it didn't there would be nothing to argue about ), but at least I thought before I typed, something you haven't seemed to learn yet. I apologize to any individuals who are upset over this comment being made public. However, I believe it is only fair I should respond publicly to any public critisisms. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 83 1054 PDT From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Guess who's coming to dinner.... To: space@MIT-MC Date: 5 Jul 83 8:17:29-PDT (Tue) From: decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!ucbesvax.turner @ Ucb-Vax There are more than enough egotists out there would would gladly pay $5K a piece to have their ashes mixed in with a ceramic goo, to be dried in aerodynamic molds, carried aloft, and put in a rapidly decaying orbit which had been carefully computed to effect terminal entry (and a pretty flash in the night sky) for the benefit of the those attending outdoor evening memorial ceremonies. Or for the $10K price, your aerodynamic urn gets covered with Shuttle tile material, such that you reenter in one piece. At the location of your choice. Perfect for the rich uncle that would like to drop in, unnannouced of course, to visit the relatives at the reading of his will. Be nice to Old Uncle Charlie, --Tom ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 1983 9:38-PDT From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL To: space@mit-mc Subject: M2-F2 lifting body Via: Usc-Cse; 12 Jul 83 11:30:10 I recall seeing that test pilot on an old TV show. I forget the title of the show, but it had four celebrities asking three people questions, trying to decide who were imposters. The test pilot said he was in the hospital for a year and a half after the crash. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jul 83 1:02:16-PDT (Sat) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: satellites In-Reply-To: Article <411@mit-eddie.UUCP> I assume ''the communications satellites'' to which you refer are the TDRS (tracking and data relay satellite) series. A network of three geosynchronous TDRS's is planned. One is now in its proper orbit and, after it has been tested, will be placed in the correct longitude, over Brazil, by STS-8 launch time. TDRS-2 was to have been launched on STS-8, but that plan was scrubbed due to the STS-6 IUS failure. No word has been given on when it will be launched. Due to the fact that only one TDRS will be operative by STS-9, the Spacelab flight, Spacelab will not be able to accomplish all of its goals. This is because the lab itself has little data storage capacity, and NASA had planned to have it in constant communication with the ground (two TDRS's would have sufficed) With only TDRS-1 in place, the shuttle will be in contact via satellite only 20% of the time. If TDRS-1 for some reason doesn't work, Spacelab on STS-9 will be scrubbed. Obviously, with all the doubt over IUS and the further doubt over when TDRS-2 will be launched, there is no indication whatsoever as to when TDRS-3 will go up. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 14-Jul-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #155 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 155 Today's Topics: Space burials M2-F2 lifting body criminals... OMNI get-away special Myths of the Space Age ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Jul 83 16:43:23-PDT (Sun) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!sb1!sb6!emory!gatech!hope @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Space burials I think it's a great idea, especially for those people (myself?) who would like to be cremated instead of buried. [Actually, it would *complement* cremation. Another sick, degenerate pagan, Theodore (Ted the Hopeless) Hope CSNet hope@gatech ARPA hope.gatech@UDEL-RELAY UUCP gatech!hope ...!allegra!gatech!hope ...!decvax!duke!mcnc!msdc!gatech!hope ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 13 July 1983 10:02:13 EDT From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS To: space@mc Subject: M2-F2 lifting body Message-ID: <1983.7.13.13.59.1.David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS> The prime pilot of the M2-F2 was Milton Thompson. He wrote an article in the popular press (Popular Science?) called "I Fly Without Wings." This may have been boiled down from a book he wrote. Is he the pilot who crashed? ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 1983 9:50-PDT From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL To: space@mit-mc Subject: criminals... Via: Usc-Cse; 13 Jul 83 10:31:53 Let's drop this inane discussion about executing criminals with the space shuttle before my bogometer explodes (even poli-sci never did that...). ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 1983 9:54-PDT From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL To: space@mit-mc Subject: OMNI get-away special Via: Usc-Cse; 13 Jul 83 10:32:20 OMNI magazine recently had a contest in which contestants were asked to submit plans for experiments to be orbited in a "get-away special", payed for by the magazine. The winner was an experiment to form foamed metal beams in zero-g. The experiment will involve heating metal hydrides to form a molten metal/hydrogen gas mizture. This mixture will then be extruded through an I shaped opening. The foamed metal should have a much higher strength-to-mass ratio than solid metal. Two hydrides will be used: titanium and calcium. Calcium is ubiquitous on Earth, but it (and all known alloys) quickly corrode in air. Calcium (and calcium alloys) may be very useful in the vacuum of space, though, because they are very light. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 1983 12:13-PDT From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL To: space@mit-mc Cc: rem@mit-mc Subject: Myths of the Space Age Via: Usc-Cse; 13 Jul 83 12:52:13 Myth (3), that mankind is the only intelligent race in the galaxy, could very well be true. We certainly have more evidence for it than for the orthodox theory (millions of ancient races). Anyone who wants to argue: please send messages to me, not to this list. The topic has been discussed here before. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 15-Jul-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #156 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 156 Today's Topics: Minority Opionion on Soviet Shuttle Space structures ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 July 1983 09:49 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Minority Opionion on Soviet Shuttle To: Pendleton @ UTAH-20 cc: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC, SPACE @ MIT-MC Date: 12 Jul 1983 0931-MDT From: Pendleton@UTAH-20 (Bob Pendleton) As to the test versions having windows; perhaps they want to photograph the leading edge during reentry or test a vision based terminal guidance system? Or perhaps they just want to fool us into thinking their new maneuverable weapon is just a small test-version of a manned shuttle. Any way we can find out for sure? ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 1983 10:25:51-PDT From: Andy Cromarty To: space@mit-mc Subject: Space structures In the 29.June.1983 issue of Commerce Business Daily (the periodical issued by the Department of Commerce which contains the Government's Requests for Proposal announcements, contract award announcements, and the like), there was an RFP announced by Wright-Pstterson AFB for a study entitled "Dynamics Instrumentation Requirements for Structures R&D". One specific requirement of the contract would be to "define structural dynamics instrumentation requirements for ground-based R&D testing, for flight testing on aerospace vehicles and for in-space testing of large space structures". By reading between the lines, one might infer that the Government is looking to fund research on the design of "large space structures", which, of course, could include manned space stations. Note that the phrasing specifically requires "in-space testing" of space structures. Interesting. asc ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 17-Jul-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #157 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 157 Today's Topics: STAR PARTy Re: sattelites ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Jul 83 15:45:57-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!mjs @ Ucb-Vax Subject: STAR PARTy **** STAR PARTY ***** DATE: Saturday JULY 16, 1983 Time: 1:00 till whenever Location: Voohrees State Park (North of High Bridge N.J.) Route 513 at the Paul Robinson Observatory During the day will be displays of astro type equipment. Also a tour of the facilities,films,slide program,Sunspot viewing, and after dark a "Star Party". Wow! Mark Schiff WH 2C-127 201-386-7184 BTL Whippany N.J. ...!harpo!floyd!mjs ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 83 14:35:10-PDT (Sat) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: sattelites In-Reply-To: Article <3015@sri-arpa.UUCP> Once all three TDRS satellites are up and working, the shuttle will be able to sustain ground-space communications 100% of the time, NOT 80-90%. As for Spacelab, as long as TDRS-1 is found to be functional, Spacelab will go up in September as planned, but it will only be in contact with the ground 20% of the time, so some data will be lost. At least, this is what NASA says now. If TDRS-1 does not work, STS-9 will not carry Spacelab. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 18-Jul-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #158 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 158 Today's Topics: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #154 Stuff Colonies in Space and NASA TDRS Shuttle Coverage ant farm ?? Shuttle's Night Landing Status (FYI) US space station? Re: sattelites ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 17 Jul 83 13:19:43 EDT From: J. C. Pistritto To: Space-Enthusiasts@mit-mc Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #154 Re TDRS satellites: On reading the most recent Aviation Week, my opinion was that NASA has already definitely scrubbed launch of the TDRS-2 on STS-8, (the payload flight test article has been substituted as a payload), and the the STS-11 launch, (March '84) of TDRS-3 is in doubt. All oth of this stems from a lack of certification of the Boeing-IUS booster that put TDRS-1 in the wrong orbit. A current line of investigation by NASA is the substitution of a McDonald Douglas Delta second stage with a PAM (Payload Assist Module, what lanched the two comsats on the last mission) as a terminal circularization booster. Since this would involve inserting a FUELED liquid fuel booster into the payload bay, (and keeping it their for mutiple days), there are significant flight safety considerations here. Douglas says that this configuration could possibly be ready in time for STS-11 or perhaps a slightly delayed launch. At this time there are no plans to delay the STS-9 Spacelab launch unless TDRS-1 fails in some way. -JCP- ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 83 18:18:21-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!ronnie @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Stuff I'm sorry that my other article got posted twice, I don't really know how that happened. Thank you to all of the people that replyed. Another question: Since the next launch will be a night launch, will the astronauts be eating a steak before liftoff as opposed to the traditional eggs and toast at 4 in the morning? I realize this is a semi-irrelivent question, but whenever there is a launch a group of friends and me wake up at four in the morning and eat the same stuff as the astronauts, just for fun. I know, I'm weird.. -Ronnie (...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!ronnie) or (...decvax!genrad!wjh12!a:schnell, until Aug 21) or RONNIE@mit-mc.arpa ------------------------------ Date: 17 July 1983 18:51 EDT From: Robert E. Bruccoleri Subject: Colonies in Space and NASA To: space-enthusiasts @ MIT-MC It's my impression that NASA has not funded or otherwise involved itself with pursuit the colonization of space since 1977, the date of the last space manufacturing and industrialization conference with G. K. O'Neill. Certainly, there hasn't been any mention of colonies from NASA in connection with the shuttle. Does anyone have any information counter to my impression? If not, why is NASA avoiding the topic? Granted that the colonization of space is a difficult topic for some to deal with, but wouldn't it make more sense for NASA to try educate people and politicians that this is a great idea? For that matter, why is NASA so timid in the political arena? ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 1983 1743-PDT From: Bradley S. Brahms Subject: TDRS Shuttle Coverage To: space@MIT-MC In a recent message it was stated that with three working TDRS satellites the shuttle would be in contact with earth 100% of the time. Yet with only TDRS-1 working the shuttle would be in contact only 20% of the time. Question: Why only 20% and not more? Something seems wrong with this statement. The only way the shuttle could be in contact with earth 100% of the time with only three satellites would be if each covered 33.33% of the orbital paths. If you include the current ground base tracking system, of course some of it would overlap TDRS-1, a number around 38% or so comes up. Would someone please explain to me this delima(sp?)? Thank You. -- Brad Brahms (Arpa: Brahms@Usc-Eclc) ------- ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 83 13:28:10-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!dsd!r2d2 @ Ucb-Vax Subject: ant farm ?? Greatings netlanders Does anyone know what ever happened to the space shuttle ant farm ??? Rumor has it that all of the ants died, but when & why ??? If anyone has any info ... please post same , or mail to me { r2d2 } TNX ... 73 BOB Runyon Ampex,DeadWood City,Ca U.S.A. planet Earth ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 83 1916 PDT From: Hans Moravec To: space@MIT-MC a220 1159 17 Jul 83 AM-Space Station, Bjt,750 Adviser Reverses Course on Manned Space Station By HOWARD BENEDICT AP Aerospace Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - President Reagan's science adviser has reversed course and asked the nation's space agency to prepare a ''grand vision'' for the future that might include not only a U.S. space station but eventually manned lunar bases and astronaut trips to Mars. The adviser, George Keyworth, had been using his considerable influence to oppose development of a space station. This week, a NASA task force is assembling several hundred industry, government, foreign and military planners to gather final ideas before NASA presents its case to the president in the fall. An indication of whether there really is a White House change of heart will come in September when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration submits its fiscal 1985 fiscal budget. It will contain the first major funding request for a station, an estimated $60 million to $120 million. Congressional support has been strong, with both houses forcing money on NASA, which has been restrained by the Office of Management and Budget. When the agency recently asked for $6 million more for station design studies, the House voted to add $10 million and the Senate $5 million. Rep. Don Fuqua, D-Fla., chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology, says, ''We need a firm presidential commitment to the space station goal,'' and the next step is Reagan's. Encouragement came in a little-publicized speech by Keyworth two weeks ago to a technical group in Seattle. After two years in which he strongly opposed a station as an ''unfortunate step backwards,'' Keyworth said: ''Some people have jumped to the conclusion that I have a bias against a space station because I insist on a valid mission before we make any commitment to it. That's not true. But I think it's time for us to take a broader look - with more vision, much more vision - at where we expect the American manned space program to go over the next quarter century.'' He said the American people should be informed of the ''grand vision'' - whether it is an orbital transfer vehicle to high geostationary orbits, a manned lunar station, or even manned exploration of Mars. In a follow-up interview with Science magazine, Keyworth said: ''I think the country should take a major thrust in space very seriously. We've shown that the space shuttle works and is reliable. We have the technology to build a space station. It is only an intermediate step in a more ambitious long-range goal of exploring the solar system.'' Keyworth termed President Kennedy's call for the Apollo man-on-the-moon program ''a brilliant stroke,'' at a time when U.S. technical superiority was being challenged by early Soviet space spectaculars. The Soviets have set a goal of 1985 for a permanent manned orbiting laboratory. Given a go-ahead in fiscal 1985, NASA estimates it can put up an initial space station by 1991 at a total cost of $6 billion to $8 billion. NASA officials were surprised at being asked to be more forthright about their visions. Budget austerity has scuttled many of their projects since the Apollo moon landings, and they have hardly been inclined to push for lunar bases and trips to Mars. Asked about the shift in Keyworth's thinking, Robert F. Freitag, deputy director of NASA's space station task force, said: ''Support for a station comes about with understanding - when we sit down with people, explain it to them and give them time to think about it. Dr. Keyworth is a good example of that ... He's beginning to see some virtue he didn't see a year ago.'' A consensus of the task force's 60 members favors a station that would begin as two small low-orbit platforms. One would be operated initially by four to six people and carry a variety of instruments and servicing capabilities. It would fly in formation with a platform carrying research and processing devices that need a human presence for support. The NASA task force has identified 48 space science and applications missions, 31 commercial missions and 30 technology developments that would be enabled or substantially enhanced by a U.S. station capability. Many potential users, U.S. and foreign, will be represented at the three-day Space Station Symposium which starts here Monday. ''The task force has been working its tail off for 14 months and we feel it is time to let people know where we stand,'' Freitag said. ''We will state our policy and seek their ideas.'' ap-ny-07-17 1502EDT *************** ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 83 1928 PDT From: Hans Moravec To: space@MIT-MC a789 2214 16 Jul 83 BC-APN--Extraterrestrial Life, Adv July 31-2 takes,500-980 $adv 31 AGENCIES AND RADIO OUT For release Sun., July 31 From AP Newsfeatures APN PRINT SUBSCRIBERS HAVE BEEN MAILED ONE ILLUSTRATION EDITOR'S NOTE - Is there a real E.T. out there? If there is, Frank Drake will find it. The Cornell astronomer is known as the father of SETI - the search for extraterrestrial life. By MEL REISNER Associated Press Writer ITHACA, N.Y. (AP) - After a multimillion-channel system of radio telescopes begins to monitor interstellar signals around the end of the decade, astronomer Frank Drake figures on another 10 years or so before ankind makes contact with life in space. That's not to say that he believes human life as we know it will be seen on other planets by 2001. ''It is unlikely that the end product of a long evolution would be a duplication of us,'' he says. ''We just know that it will be intelligent enough to communicate. You get the sense that there's a lot of life out there. It will be fascinating when we learn about it.'' Drake, 52, is known as the father of the search for extraterrestrial life (SETI) because of his interest and work on the subject for nearly three decades. He helped organize the first SETI conference in 1961. Twice, as a young researcher, Drake was disappointed when he found that what appeared to be signals emanating in space turned out to be sounds apparently from a passing airplane or truck. Undaunted, he developed an equation to calculate the number of possible communication-capable civilizations in space. The 22-year-old equation, which Drake wrote while preparing the agenda for the first SETI conference, is widely known, especially since its use in James Michener's novel ''Space.'' SETI is just one of the pursuits of Drake, who teams with Carl Sagan of television's ''Cosmos'' to give Cornell perhaps the best-known astronomy department in the nation. Drake is believed to be the first to send a coded radio message to the stars. He also discovered Jupiter's radiation belts, worked on the Mariner series of Mars explorations and has been studying the measured, steady emissions of energy - pulsars - from neutron stars. The radio telescope, first set up in the 1950s, is the instrument that gave scientists visions of getting in touch with extraterrestrials. Cornell was the right place at the right time for Drake after it completed the world's largest radio telescope at Arecibo, Puerto Rico, in 1963. Featuring the trademark aluminum dish mounted upside-down to intercept radio waves, the 1,000-foot-diameter Arecibo instrument is capable of picking up, filtering and delivering to a computer signals from incredible distances. Renovations will make it 2,000 times as sensitive as before. The development is what makes Drake confident of contacting life in space before the turn of the century. Three decades ago, he says, the first radio listened for waves on one channel; next year, the Planetary Society-Harvard project will begin receiving on 128,000 channels at once. MORE ap-ny-07-17 0116EDT *************** !a790 2224 16 Jul 83 BC-APN--Extraterrestrial Life, Adv 31-1st add,550 $adv 31 AGENCIES AND RADIO OUT For release Sun., July 31 ITHACA, N.Y.: at once. According to Drake, that should vastly increase the chances of contact, but the tool he thinks will make the breakthrough is a cluster of telescopes midway through a 10-year National Aeronautics and Space Administration program which will have eight million channels. ''It takes a system that powerful to give us a chance of succeeding by the end of the century,'' he says. ''We have to have a device that tests many, many possibilities at once. You're getting data from eight million channels a second. By the end of the next five years, we'll have the computer techniques to deal with the enormous data flow from a system of that size.'' In years to come, Drake would like to see the whole concept lifted from the earth to an orbiting radio telescope which would beam its information back to earth-based computers. The setup would narrow the possibility of false alarms like the kind he experienced in 1958 while a graduate student at Harvard. Drake recalls picking up ''a great big signal in a narrow frequency channel'' and believing that he was monitoring a message from space. However, the signal which appeared to be coming from the Pleiades star cluster persisted even when the telescope was moved - an indication that it came from an earthly source. Two years later, Drake had to rule out another potential contact because it, too, was multidirectional. ''No one has ever seen a signal which strong evidence showed was extraterrestrial. There are some in the files (on tape) which couldn't be tested,'' Drake acknowledges. No one ever will receive such a signal, says physicist Frank J. Tipler of Tulane University. Tipler, a leading critic of SETI, argues that radio telescopy is speculative and lacks the scientifically mandatory possibility that it could be proven false. Its proponents have never said what test results would satisfy them that other life does not exist, he says. Tipler wrote in Discover magazine, ''I contend that any discussion of extraterrestrial intelligence contains tacit speculations about civilizations that have possessed radio technology for thousands or millions of years. Radio searchers presume that civilizations have been deliberately beaming signals at us for this length of time.'' Drake says Tipler's arguments can be countered, but that such doubts in a field where major discoveries are still theoretical hurt SETI campaigners seeking funds to back their explorations. The orbiting radio telescope he envisions would cost $20 billion, putting it out of reach of private foundations without a massive infusion of government help. This year, the government dedicated $200 million of the NASA budget to SETI. Actual contact with extraterrestrials would multiply the amount of money for more research, Drake acknowledges. Drake is not put off by the fact that he would not be around to make friends with communicants from space. Radio waves travel at the speed of light - 186,000 miles per second - which means that a transmission from the nearest star would have to travel more than four years to reach earth. Pointing out that television waves travel at the same speed, he says, ''If you can intercept their TV, you can learn what you want to know without asking questions.'' END ADV ap-ny-07-17 0127EDT *************** ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 83 1928 PDT From: Hans Moravec To: space@MIT-MC a067 0608 12 Jul 83 PM-Space Ants,420 Student Says Ants Probably Survived Space Trip By ROBERT WADE Associated Press Writer CAMDEN, N.J. (AP) - Scientists and a group of enterprising students are still trying to find out what killed an ant colony that blasted into orbit aboard the space shuttle Challenger. But one student says he thinks he has the answer. Anthony Trusty, 19, who helped design the experiment while attending Camden High School, said Monday a preliminary look at the colony showed the ants probably died when their living quarters dehydrated in the California desert after landing. A post-landing inspection showed the moss and dirt inside the L-shaped habitat had dried out. But videotapes made just after Challenger rocketed into space June 18 showed conditions inside the colony were acceptable, said Trusty, now a computer science major at Rutgers University. Trusty was the first of the present and former students and teachers from Camden and Woodrow Wilson high schools to say publicly that the more than 100 carpenter ants and their queen, Nora, survived orbit. Others involved in the project said detailed findings on whether the insects died while awaiting takeoff, in space, during re-entry or after touchdown won't be available until at least mid-August. ''The two schools are doing their studies and any conjectures as to the results of the whys, wheres and how is premature until these studies are completed,'' said a spokesman for RCA Corp., which sponsored the project. Although the colony's death was a disappointment, teachers say the program accomplished its goal of getting students from the rival inner-city schools involved in sciences, mathematics, computer programming and engineering. The 5 1/2-year-old project has won wide praise and the notice of President Reagan. Dr. Thomas Chavis, an RCA scientist who became involved in the program in 1978 and continued to advise the students despite his retirement two years ago, said the data from the experiment would help researchers determine how weightlessness affects species in a community settings. ''Does it disintergrate their ability to get along? Do they continue to work as a group or split up as individuals over long periods of weightlessness?'' said Chavis. He said scientists would find the data useful in efforts to colonize space for humans. Autopsies, in which the students will analyze the ants' remains, are under way to determine how long the insects survived after being sealed into a 30-gallon container filled with monitoring equipment in Florida in late April and placed aboard Challenger. ap-ny-07-12 0907EDT *************** ------------------------------ Date: 17-Jul-83 20:34 PDT From: WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2 Subject: Shuttle's Night Landing Status (FYI) To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC Cc: SPACE@MIT-MC Message-ID: <[OFFICE-2]TYM-WBD-2T3NI> As of this moment Dryden is NOT allowing the public to view the landing. Yes, I know it is at night and "what can you see?" I have called my congressman and told him I wanted to go, he said he would get back to me. I even promised not to run on the runway. Dryden is concerned about security on the runway at night. You might also voice your opinion to you congressman/woman if you are interested. --William Daul TYMSHARE INC. Cupertino, CA. ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 83 2239 PDT From: Ron Goldman Subject: US space station? To: space@MIT-MC a220 1159 17 Jul 83 AM-Space Station, Bjt,750 Adviser Reverses Course on Manned Space Station By HOWARD BENEDICT AP Aerospace Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - President Reagan's science adviser has reversed course and asked the nation's space agency to prepare a ''grand vision'' for the future that might include not only a U.S. space station but eventually manned lunar bases and astronaut trips to Mars. The adviser, George Keyworth, had been using his considerable influence to oppose development of a space station. This week, a NASA task force is assembling several hundred industry, government, foreign and military planners to gather final ideas before NASA presents its case to the president in the fall. An indication of whether there really is a White House change of heart will come in September when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration submits its fiscal 1985 fiscal budget. It will contain the first major funding request for a station, an estimated $60 million to $120 million. Congressional support has been strong, with both houses forcing money on NASA, which has been restrained by the Office of Management and Budget. When the agency recently asked for $6 million more for station design studies, the House voted to add $10 million and the Senate $5 million. Rep. Don Fuqua, D-Fla., chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology, says, ''We need a firm presidential commitment to the space station goal,'' and the next step is Reagan's. Encouragement came in a little-publicized speech by Keyworth two weeks ago to a technical group in Seattle. After two years in which he strongly opposed a station as an ''unfortunate step backwards,'' Keyworth said: ''Some people have jumped to the conclusion that I have a bias against a space station because I insist on a valid mission before we make any commitment to it. That's not true. But I think it's time for us to take a broader look - with more vision, much more vision - at where we expect the American manned space program to go over the next quarter century.'' He said the American people should be informed of the ''grand vision'' - whether it is an orbital transfer vehicle to high geostationary orbits, a manned lunar station, or even manned exploration of Mars. In a follow-up interview with Science magazine, Keyworth said: ''I think the country should take a major thrust in space very seriously. We've shown that the space shuttle works and is reliable. We have the technology to build a space station. It is only an intermediate step in a more ambitious long-range goal of exploring the solar system.'' Keyworth termed President Kennedy's call for the Apollo man-on-the-moon program ''a brilliant stroke,'' at a time when U.S. technical superiority was being challenged by early Soviet space spectaculars. The Soviets have set a goal of 1985 for a permanent manned orbiting laboratory. Given a go-ahead in fiscal 1985, NASA estimates it can put up an initial space station by 1991 at a total cost of $6 billion to $8 billion. NASA officials were surprised at being asked to be more forthright about their visions. Budget austerity has scuttled many of their projects since the Apollo moon landings, and they have hardly been inclined to push for lunar bases and trips to Mars. Asked about the shift in Keyworth's thinking, Robert F. Freitag, deputy director of NASA's space station task force, said: ''Support for a station comes about with understanding - when we sit down with people, explain it to them and give them time to think about it. Dr. Keyworth is a good example of that ... He's beginning to see some virtue he didn't see a year ago.'' A consensus of the task force's 60 members favors a station that would begin as two small low-orbit platforms. One would be operated initially by four to six people and carry a variety of instruments and servicing capabilities. It would fly in formation with a platform carrying research and processing devices that need a human presence for support. The NASA task force has identified 48 space science and applications missions, 31 commercial missions and 30 technology developments that would be enabled or substantially enhanced by a U.S. station capability. Many potential users, U.S. and foreign, will be represented at the three-day Space Station Symposium which starts here Monday. ''The task force has been working its tail off for 14 months and we feel it is time to let people know where we stand,'' Freitag said. ''We will state our policy and seek their ideas.'' ap-ny-07-17 1502EDT *************** ------------------------------ Date: 18 July 1983 01:45 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: sattelites To: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ UCB-VAX cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC Since the link from TDRS-1 to the nearest ground station is line-of-sight 100% of the time (after all, TDRS-1 is supposed to be geoSTATIONARY), the link from the ground station to Houston is 100% of the time via various conventional means, and the link from the orbiter to TDRS-1 is line-of-sight 50% of the time, I don't see why the overall duty time is only 20% if TDRS-1 is working. Perhaps somebody else can explain the calculation for me? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 19-Jul-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #159 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 159 Today's Topics: Talk of a Space Sortie Vehicle Re: Space station? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Jul 1983 11:00-PDT From: taw at S1-C Subject: Talk of a Space Sortie Vehicle To: space@mc Message-Id: <83/07/18 1100.416@S1-C> A friend just sent me this excerpt from a McDonnell/Douglas internal newspaper for supervisors: USAF Exploring Transatmospheric Vehicle The USAF's Aeronautical Systems Division is hoping to have a transatmospheric vehicle (TAV) - capable of lifting off and maneuvering in space like a convential aircraft - operational by the late 1990's. Different missions are being considered for the TAV, which will not need rockets (like the Shuttle) to get into space. MCAIR ( McDonnell Aircraft Co. ) and MDAC ( McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co. ) are exploring the concept as a team. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jul 83 17:21:30-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!chris @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Space station? Hah! The *real* reason they've decided to push for space stations is because they're afraid the Soviets will beat us to it! However, it's not too bad of a means to a good end. - Chris -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 20-Jul-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #160 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 160 Today's Topics: Talk of a Space Sortie Vehicle - TransAtmospheric Vehicle Fender benders in space! shuttle/tdrs status Re: Space station? Re: Stuff ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 July 1983 07:41 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Talk of a Space Sortie Vehicle - TransAtmospheric Vehicle To: taw @ S1-C cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC If the TAV doesn't have any rockets or pressurized-gas jets, and just undives up into space and drifts back to atmosphere, it'll be rolling uncontrolably while in space, making it impossible to perform many useful tasks while in space. Also, when it returns it may burn up if it's spinning upon atmosphereic entry. Will it perhaps have some attitude-control rockets or jets to alleviate these problems? ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 83 09:48:39 PDT (Tuesday) From: Halbert.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Fender benders in space! To: space@mit-mc.ARPA From a message from Phil Karn sent to the Ham-Radio list, about the new amateur radio satellite, OSCAR-10 (it's doing OK now): ----- ... Telemetry from the launcher showed that all events up to and INCLUDING separation of OSCAR-10 from the third stage of the Ariane were perfectly nominal. This explains why the "event frame" stored away by the Oscar-10 computer 1 second after separation showed proper sun angles, etc. At separation time, two pyrotechnic bolt cutters fired to release our spacecraft, and three separation springs mounted on the attach fitting propelled us out from the lower SYLDA half-shell and away from the top of the Ariane at about .5 meter/second. At 53 seconds after separation and again about 1 second later, the accelerometers on the launcher registered "bumps". This was the third stage slamming back into our payload. It turns out that the onboard sequencer had been programmed to vent extra liquid oxygen, probably through the engine bell, and the resulting impulse slowly accelerated the stage to the point where it "caught up" with us. The impact velocity was estimated to be 1.5 meters/sec. If the stage had been reoriented to point in a different direction before venting, the collision would have been avoided. ... ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 83 0057 PDT From: Ron Goldman Subject: shuttle/tdrs status To: space@MIT-MC a019 2325 19 Jul 83 PM-Space Shuttle,480 Next Two Shuttle Flights Might Be Postponed By HOWARD BENEDICT AP Aerospace Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The next two space shuttle flights may have to be delayed because of new problems in checking out a trouble-plagued communications satellite, the head of the shuttle program says. ''We're looking carefully at the whole thing,'' Lt. Gen. James A. Abrahamson said Tuesday. ''We will not make a decision for a while. It may well be that we can turn this whole thing around and everything will be fine.'' The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has been working toward an Aug. 20 launch date for the eighth shuttle flight and Sept. 30 for No. 9, which will carry the European-built Spacelab, a $1 billion research facility. Abrahamson said the eighth mission, packing a communications satellite for India, might be put off a few days until the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite, called TDRS, is ready for communications tests by the astronauts on that flight. ''With the exception of TDRS, the Aug. 20 launch date is looking good,'' Abrahamson said. TDRS is essential for high-speed data transmission from Spacelab, and will require additional checkouts before it can support that mission. NASA has only a one-week period starting Sept. 30 to launch the lab for maximum effect. If the satellite is not ready in time, the flight would have to slip until the next available launch opportunity, which starts Oct. 26, Abrahamson said. The 10th flight, a secret Defense Department mission which also depends on TDRS, earlier was delayed indefinitely because of the satellite's troubles. The troubles started when TDRS was launched from the shuttle Challenger on April 4, and an attached rocket engine misfired, kicking it into a too-low orbit. Using the payload's small jets, engineers finally elevated it to a proper orbit 22,300 miles up on June 29 and began checkouts of the complicated system. The latest problems have not been in space, but at the TDRS ground station at White Sands, N.M., which is billed as one of the most sophisticated satellite tracking facilities in the world. Engineers recently found their computers were failing to command the huge satellite to lock its antennas onto White Sands. That problem, in computer programs, was corrected Friday. On Monday, there was an interruption in the electrical power to the White Sands station, followed by a failure in the backup generator system. White Sands has three 625 kilowatt backup generators and needs two to operate the facility when commercial power fails. When the outage occurred, one of the generators was down for servicing and a second failed. Later in the day there was a second interruption in commercial power and, with only one generator working, no work could be done with the satellite. That delayed the already tight checkout by a day and a half. ap-ny-07-20 0227EDT *************** ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 83 5:32:30-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplvax!eric @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Space station? In-Reply-To: Article umcp-cs.940 The real reason for the sudden administration interest is that Reagan is starting to think about how he wants his term in office remembered. What better way than an aggressive (hopefully non-militarily) space program? Eric Bergan ...!aplvax!eric ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jul 83 15:52:20-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!clyde!crc @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Stuff In-Reply-To: Article <448@mit-eddie.UUCP> The tradition IS steak! Quick! throw up all those old meals... ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 21-Jul-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #161 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 161 Today's Topics: SETI MAYBE WE NEED A NEW DIRECTION Re: Communications Sattelite ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Jul 1983 14:05:34-EDT From: csin!cjh@CCA-UNIX To: space@mit-mc Subject: SETI Does anyone know what Tipler's problem is? I read the series of articles (complete with his rebuttals) in a recent issue of DISCOVER and considered his arguments mostly ridiculous. The quote about SETI lacking "the scientifically mandatory possibility that it could be proven false" strikes me as a a notion that simply isn't applicable on this scale; he sounds like somebody who's already made up his mind that SETI won't work, where most of the proponents are at least willing to rigorously examine each possible signal. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 1983 1433-PDT Subject: MAYBE WE NEED A NEW DIRECTION From: TOM MCGUINNESS To: SPACE@MIT-MC POSTAL-ADDRESS: TOM MCGUINNESS,SMC 2147,, NPS, MONTEREY,CA 93940 Phone: (Home) 408-899-1312 (NPS office) 408-646-2174/5 AV 878-2174/5 Has anyone ever really considered just how expensive space exploration really is? I know that we could run three programs for the amount of money that we spend on cancer sticks,cosmetics or video games, but when you look at Government spending (non defense and non "human services",I mean the 11% that's left to run everything except DOD and HEW), NASA soaks up alot of that money. What have we got for that money? NASA says that it hopes that it will have a permanent 4-6 person space station in orbit by 1991, 30 years after Alan Shepard first took his sub-orbital flight. That time table hardly shows a committed interest in a human presence in the solar system. It seems to me that our space program has evolved into a program for developing big military or big science projects rather than viewing space as a "place" as most of us view it. I'm not against the expenditures of funds for military space programs, or for things like Space Telescope or IRAS but these projects all represent a sort of Big Think that will keep space as an area where you place sensors or weapons rather than an area for resource exploitation or human development. Perhaps we need a program, non governmental to see what the cheapest systems that could be developed; ie what is the cheapest man carrying vehicle that we could develop,or what is the least expensive space suit that can be developed. Of course the cost of this would be systems that may be considerably riskier to fly and use. Anybody know the probability of catastrophic failure that the Shuttle operates under when it flies? Try this thought experiment on yourself or someone who claims to be a "space-enthusiast", what is the maximum percentage probability of fatal accident that you would accept to live on an L-5 colony or participate in a manned lunar base? Maybe I'm missing the point but if the development of the New World in the 16th and 17th century went the way we are developing space, then I think we might still be waiting for the Jamestown colony to be founded. ============================================================================================================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 83 9:58:18-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!genrad!security!linus!utzoo!watmath!watarts!bernie @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Communications Sattelite In order for there to be continuous shuttle-ground communications, all three TDRS (Tracking and Data Relay Satellites) must be in place. The first has just recently arrived at its designated orbital location, having been the victim of a failure in the IUS (the stage that was supposed to deliver it). Until the IUS problem has been found and fixed, the other two TDRS's are on hold. Thus, it will be a while yet before the complete communications system is in place. --Bernie Roehl ...decvax!watmath!watarts!bernie ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 22-Jul-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #162 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 162 Today's Topics: Re: Shuttle's Night Landing Status (FYI) Re: Space station? Re: Shuttle"s Night Landing Status (FYI) Jamestown and Spacetown new directions and %age of risk Cost of a space program ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Jul 83 10:22:59-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!microsoft!fluke!ssc-vax!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5e!hou5d!kwmc @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Shuttle's Night Landing Status (FYI) In-Reply-To: Article <3177@sri-arpa.UUCP> I can see why they dont want thousands of people all taking flash photos of the orbiter coming down. Why is it that people take flash photos of objects that are far away anyway ? Ken Cochran hou5d!kwmc ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 83 12:39:54-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!watmath!bstempleton @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Space station? In-Reply-To: Article <940@umcp-cs.UUCP> We all recall how the Space Station in 2001 had both Russians and Americans on it. Why can't we be inspired by Clarke and do this now? Set up a purely scientific space station, and apportion sections to each spacefaring nation based on $ contributed. It is also possible, I would think, that the sections of the station could be secure so that people could do their secret research. Detente again, anyone? -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304 ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 83 15:12:09-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Shuttle"s Night Landing Status (FYI) In-Reply-To: Article <3177@sri-arpa.UUCP> hou5d.572 I think the real reason is that they don't want large numbers of people wandering around the desert in the dark. My favorite occasion in which a person tried to use a flash camera to take a picture of a faraway object was on Feb 26, 1979. A friend and I were setting up our telescopes in Oregon to watch the total solar eclipse that occurred that day, and some lady walked by with a flash camera. One of us asked her why she had a flash, and she said "It'll get dark, won't it?" Neither of us had the time to explain it to her. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1983 0933-MDT From: Pendleton@UTAH-20 (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Jamestown and Spacetown To: space@MIT-MC cc: pendleTON@UTAH-20 The real problem with comparing current developments in space travel with the history of the exploration and exploitation of the New World is lack of perspective. Remember that the ship construction and navigation technology needed to carry large payloads to the New World had existed for ( memory don't fail me now ) about 100 years before 1492. Yet I can remember the launching of Sputnik and I'm only thirty. Compared to the exploration of the New World space exploration is proceeding at an incredible pace. The people trying to find new trade routes to India were doing it for financial and political gain ( trade=money, money=power ). The spice route of space in the 1980s is the road to GEO. Communication satellites make money and businesses are willing to pay for transportation. This creates a market for transportation. A market large enough to justify the development of Ariane and in part the Shuttle. Even the Soviets are getting into the market offering their Proton booster. Pure scientific research is something that governments support because they have always made money off of it in the past and it often gives them a military edge. As markets and technology ( each driving the other ) develop I have confidence that cheap space craft, space suits, habitats... will be developed to meet the demand. The cynical ex history major Bob Pendleton P.S. If you can get it insured, I'll ride in it or live in it. P.P.S This is not intended as a flame. ------- ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1983 12:10:17-EDT From: csin!cjh@CCA-UNIX To: tmcguinness@usc-isie Subject: new directions and %age of risk Cc: space@mit-mc Your analogy to Jamestown leaves out (1) the participants' ignorance of the risk they were running, and (2) the risks entailed by living in the allegedly civilized world at the time (quite high). Certainly some people are willing to undergo radical changes for the sake of space colonization; Ben Bova (SF editor/writer who's been making lots of pro-space noises recently) spoke with shock of a proposed political structure for a space colony which abridged anything you'd care to think of as rights (and if colonies were closer to the margin of safety, it might be necessary to run them in the dictatorial fashion of old-fashioned ships). I'm not convinced that risk management can be blamed for more than 1-2 years' delay (caused by the Apollo fire); the dieback in the 70's was a matter of political considerations. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1983 11:55-PDT From: Andy Cromarty Subject: Cost of a space program To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Message-Id: <83/07/21 1155.183@aids-unix> Has anyone ever really considered just how expensive space exploration really is? [From ] There are a variety of reasons for pursuing space exploration. Notable among them: Many people believe that space may be the only hope for continuance of the species (assuming that's a desirable thing) because of the high risk to racial survival we impose upon ourselves through everything from population growth to the possibility of nuclear war. Perhaps a reasonable counter-question is, "Have you considered the cost of NOT exploring space?". I'm not against the expenditures of funds for military space programs, or for things like Space Telescope or IRAS but these projects all represent a sort of Big Think that will keep space as an area where you place sensors or weapons rather than an area for resource exploitation or human development. It's important to distinguish between what we want and how we can get it. Probably most space exploration advocates (and certainly all the non-military ones I personally know) are interested seeing peaceful exploration and, usually, colonization and "development" of space -- in other words, "resource exploitation or human development". The people with the money to fund these ventures, however, have a rather different list of priorities. Since (all our collective flaming notwithstanding) the viability of commercial uses of space is not as yet established, the fast path to space development would seem to be through governmental (including military) money. Whether or not one approves of such an approach to funding, it has historically been the case that government tends to absorb development costs for projects that seem worthwhile but are too large or high-risk to attract commercial capital. (Trivial example: I believe that the Wright brothers were partly funded by the U.S. Army.) ...what is the maximum percentage probability of fatal accident that you would accept to live on an L-5 colony or participate in a manned lunar base? This would seem to be a red herring. We needn't make the decision for anyone other than ourselves, and I would certainly go given the degree of risk I would expect to encounter in, say, a two-year-old lunar colony. The problem is not (and has never been) finding volunteers willing to accept the risk; it has been finding the funding for those willing to undertake the risk. trying to temper hope with pragmatism, asc ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 23-Jul-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #163 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 163 Today's Topics: Re: sattelites Apollo Day 14 Re: sattelites Re: Space station? Re: sattelites Fender benders in space! expansion into Universe SETI MAYBE WE NEED A NEW DIRECTION Re: SPACE Digest V3 #162 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Jul 83 11:11:05-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: pur-ee!CSvax.Pucc-H.Physics.els @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: sattelites In-Reply-To: Article sri-arpa.3180 I beg to differ, but the shuttle has a line of sight to TDRS-1 LESS than 50% of the time. I haven't worked it out yet(in the literature they call that 'exercise left for reader'), but geostationary orbit isn't very high compared to the diameter of the earth. Common sense tells you that to be visible 50% of the time, TDRS would have to be infinitely far away. When the TDRS system is operational, the three satellites (separated by 120 degrees) will each be visible from the ground to about 1/3 of the globe. From its slightly higher vantage, the shuttle ought to be able to see any given one more than 1/3 of the time, roughly 40% is my guess. els{Eric Strobel} pur-ee!pur-phy!els ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 83 22:55:10-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!allegra!phr @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Apollo Day 14 Another happy Apollo day to all of you. Once it was Mother, and God and the country, Once it was flags, and the Fourth of July, But Spirit, the Eagle is changing its course And I know that the horses of war... Finally die. -- from "Armstrong", a wonderful song (right up there with "Hope Eyrie") which appears on Spasm One, by Marty Burke. Anyone know who wrote the song? ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 83 6:09:42-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: sattelites In-Reply-To: Article sri-arpa.3180 pur-phy.835 In the interests of reducing netnews traffic in general and flame reduction in particular, I've worked out the percentage visibility between a shuttle orbiter and a geostationary satellite. Using my orbit program and a bit of geometry, I stepped through a one day period in 10 second steps, counting the number of steps in which the shuttle can see the geostationary satellite. The answer is 54.87%. Assumptions: 1. The shuttle is in a ~300 km, 28.46 deg inclination circular orbit. (Specifically I used STS-7.) 2. Not knowing the final location of TDRS-1, I used SBS-2 which is parked at 97 deg west. The actual position won't matter when averaged over a long interval, since the TDRS will rotate once per day around the shuttle's orbit plane. 3. The earth is perfectly spherical for purposes of visibility. 4. Communications aren't cut off until the earth itself actually blocks the direct line-of-sight path. (I.e., the atmosphere is ignored.) Phil ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 83 10:41:20-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!houxm!5941ux!rwhw @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Space station? In-Reply-To: Article <940@umcp-cs.UUCP> watmath.5545 I would assume that a space station would be the ideal place defense equipment that could easily destroy ICBMs. Therefore Reagan might not be so wrong in his thinking. Roy sorry. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 83 13:59:45-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!houxm!houxz!halle1 @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: sattelites In-Reply-To: Article sri-arpa.3180, <835@pur-phy.UUCP> Not true. Common sense, and a little pencil and paper sketch, says that the satellite must be infinitely high for 50% of the GROUND to see it, but for something else in orbit, it could be seen significantly more than 50% of the time without being so far away. The exact amount would depend on the altitudes of the two objects. I haven't worked out the situation for a geosynchronous orbit and the shuttle. I expect that 33% is about right. However, that does not alter the fact that one could easily set up a situation where two satellites would be sufficient for 100% contact. ------------------------------ Date: 22 July 1983 10:47 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Fender benders in space! To: Halbert.PA @ PARC-MAXC cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC How dumb can they be!!!! Didn't they simulate the whole launch and orbital sequence on a computer and notice that the booster was drifting uncomfortably close to the Oscar-10 satellite and decide to make sure they were far apart? Or didn't anyone on their staff randomly do an armchair calculation and notice the booster wasn't far away and wonder if it could possibly be within collision distance? (Gee, monday-morning quarterbacking is fun and accurate isn't it!) ------------------------------ Date: 22 July 1983 11:31 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: expansion into Universe To: KING @ KESTREL cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC, HPM @ MIT-MC Don't be so sure we can't expand exponentially. In fixed coordinates indeed we can expand at most cubically at speed of light, that is VOLUME = (TIME-Starttime)^3*Constant. But the apparent expansion in the local coordinate systems of the travelers could possibly make it seem like exponential expansion, that is there mmay be no limits to growth until the whole Universe is filled. Remember the calculation that at constant one-gee the whole Universe can be circumnaigated in a few hundred years ship-time (assuming 18-billion-light-year diameter; with factor of 10^80 thrown in due to inflationary Universe it may take a little longer, perhaps close to a thousand years). (Perhaps HPM can give us more accurate figures for normal and inflationary Universe?) ------------------------------ Date: 22 July 1983 11:43 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: SETI To: csin!cjh @ CCA-UNIX cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC Here's my view on this. We certainly can't prove life elsewhere impossible until we've examined every little nook and cranney in the Universe, which makes the question moot since at that point we've filled every nook and cranney with our own stuff and probably dumped contamination around which has evolved in strange ways. What we can do is set an upper bound on the extent of life elsewhere, the same way we set upper bounds on other quantities such as deviation from inverse-square law (last I heard F=m1*m2/r^k where k=2.0000000000000 plus or minus some small number in that last place, or somesuch). So far we have shown ETI hasn't conquered Earth in any gross way or jammed our communications. With our next series of experiments we hope to either **FIND** intelligent life elsewhere or set a new upper-bound that on hundreds of nearby stars no major broadcasting such as TV or radar is occurring presently. As years go by we will continue to crank down the limit on life elsewhere or actually discover some out there. It's literally we can't refute the hypothesis "there is life elsewhere", thus that literal hypothesis isn't scientific. But we can refute "The Galaxy is teeming with civilizations as advanced as hours" within the next 50 years, and "The Galaxy is teeming with microscopic life on every little planet that happens to be at the right temperature" within the next few hundred years, or sooner if we get those Alpha Centuri and Epsilon Eridani probes launched in time. Therefore statements about specific amounts of "teeming with life" are indeed scientifically valid. In particular, Sagan's major question, whether there are billions of advanced civilizations in this galaxy or just a handful, can be decided within the next 50 years. ------------------------------ Date: 22 July 1983 11:55 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: MAYBE WE NEED A NEW DIRECTION To: TMCGUINNESS @ USC-ISIE cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC Jamestown and Plymouth were founded by those persecuted who wanted to escape. Earlier, Columbus staffed his ships with prisoners who would get a pardon if they volunteered to sail off the edge of the Earth. Rotting in jail was more painful than instant edge-of-earth death, and there was always the possibility that the ship might get stranded on some island before reaching the edge, or they might escape somehow, so they chose the voyage. Do we want to do the same now, force death-row people to fly to space? Warning, in those days, you went to jail for life because you were bankrupt, your debts were greater than your assets, often because somebody cheated you and you couldn't prove it. Thus for the most part those crews were good people in desperate situations. Nowadays most death-row innamtes are multiple murderers who killed for money, not the best crew for space adventures. Or do we want to return to the days when bankrupt people went to jail and rotted there? I really don't think we can afford to send people up on risky flights. Normal people will refuse to go, and criminals will be criminals and sabotage the launch so they have a chance to escape or just be totally incompetant to get useful work done. Thus we have to go with moderately safe vehicles, although perhaps not as safe as NASA has traditionally enforced. /----------------/ Regarding the question of space development vs. sensors&weapons: I agree, although Einstein/Uhura and IRAS were/are wonderful, and space-based defense against ICBMs may be necessary for our survival, we really need to work on materials and habitat too! ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 1983 1247-PDT From: JTSCHUDY at USC-ISIE Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #162 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC cc: JTSCHUDY at USC-ISIE In response to your message sent 22 Jul 83 0303 PDT Please delete me from the mailing list. ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 24-Jul-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #164 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 164 Today's Topics: Re: Space station? Re: Re: sattelites - (nf) Re: Shuttle"s Night Landing Status (FYI) TDRS's -- Let's get them up there! Re: Myths of the Space Age - (nf) Re: Apollo Day 14 - (nf) Whale intelligence SETI ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Jul 83 2:15:39-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!linus!utzoo!watmath!watarts!geo @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Space station? In-Reply-To: Article <940@umcp-cs.UUCP> watmath.5545 I like the idea of a multinational space station too. One additional advantadge, besides saving money, would be that it would prevent paranoia over what those guys were doing up there if you shared the same station. Cordially, Geo Swan, Integrated Studies, University of Waterloo (allegra||ihnp4)!watmath!watarts!geo ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 83 7:28:49-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!moore @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Re: sattelites - (nf) #R:sri-arpa:-301500:ucbcad:9900001:000:851 ucbcad!moore Jul 21 14:19:00 1983 Just to put a silver spike through this topic: if you have two objects orbiting at radii of R1 and R2 over a planet of radius r, then the maximum angle the two objects can be separated and still see each other is given by Theta_Max = arccos(r/R1) + arccos(r/R2) For r = 4000 miles (Earth radius?), R1 = 26300 miles (geosynchronous radius), R2 = r + 100 miles (shuttle radius?), we get Theta_Max ~= 94 degrees, so the shuttle will be within line of sight of the communication satellite 2*94/360 or ~52% of the time. BTW, a geosynchronous satellite covers 45% of the equator and 42% of the earths surface. This is what COULD be covered, according to the geometry of the problem; I don't know if the reception is at all acceptable at the fringes of the covered region. Peter Moore ...!ucbvax!moore (USENET) moore@berkeley (ARPANET) ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 83 14:24:03-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!we13!otuxa!tty3b!tag @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Shuttle"s Night Landing Status (FYI) In-Reply-To: Article <3177@sri-arpa.UUCP> hou5d.572, <1046@eagle.UUCP> You mentioned taking flash pictures of eclipses, etc. The *REAL* reason this don't work is 'cause light takes 2 or 3 seconds to go to the moon and back! Don't you see? The camera shutter is already closed by the time the flash returns! - Tom Gloger :-) ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 83 10:39-EST (Sat) From: Alexander Wolf Return-Path: Subject: TDRS's -- Let's get them up there! To: space@mit-mc Via: UMASS-CS; 23 Jul 83 10:53-EDT [begin cynical comment] Why don't we hire Ariane to throw the damn TDRS's up there?! [end] ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 83 3:33:12-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hp-pcd!courtney @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Myths of the Space Age - (nf) #R:sri-arpa:-306000:hp-pcd:8400010:000:1097 hp-pcd!courtney Jul 21 14:03:00 1983 Of course there are other intelligent forms of life than Homo Sapien... ...right here on Earth!!! Have you ever considered Cetaceans or other Primates in your search for intelligent life? Just because dolphins and baboons don't build a bunch of STUFF to carry around with them so as to expand their ability to CHANGE their environment, does that mean that they aren't engaged in other forms of expression which might be as high or even higher than our own? Not only do dolphins spend only 3% of their time feeding (the rest PLAYING), there is strong evidence that they have complex social structures (they may know what LOVE is). They also communicate in a language that is theoretically capable of transfering information at a much greater rate than humans! Keep in mind that dolphins are on a different twig of the same evolutionary branch as humans... they "chose" to return to the sea to continue their development, which may be a profoundly good choice as it may be the only part of the Earth that continues to support life within the next couple of centuries (years?). ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jul 83 19:11:37-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!olson @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Apollo Day 14 - (nf) #R:allegra:-166300:fortune:10200006:000:176 fortune!olson Jul 22 12:20:00 1983 It was written by John Stewart, and is on at least one of his albums. (Not being at home, I can't tell you which one, off the top of my head.) Dave Olson hpda!fortune!olson ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 83 0926 PDT From: Hans Moravec Subject: Whale intelligence To: space@MIT-MC Dolphins have brains as big as ours, and have had them for 30 million years, while ours have been this big for only about three million. Sperm whales' brains, the biggest in the world, are between five and ten times as big as ours. Killer whales and elephants have larger brains than we. Nevertheless, I think humans have the upper hand intellectually. At least since the dawn of civilization (maybe a mere twenty thousand years ago) our intelligence has not been limited by our brains. Since the advent of record keeping, and its more elaborate offspring, writing, we could memorize and recall more things more accurately, and communicate them over longer distances and times, than with our unaided brains. We could also maipulate the symbols more precisely in written form than in our minds, and thus accomplish mental feats otherwise impossible. The ability to make permanent records which can be read later and by others was like adding a tape to a finite state machine, turning it into a universal Turing machine. The finite state mechanism of whales may be larger, but without a tape their accomplishments are probably strongly circumscribed. On the other hand, I see no reason why dolphins can't be given access to books and computers (as John Lilly's human-dolphin institute is attempting), and perhaps getting spectacular returns. A possible problem is that Dolphins have had their brains for so long and may thus be so well adjusted to them and their way of life that they no longer have the flexibility to enter into radically different ways of thought and action. Humans have been in an evolutionary and cultural turmoil for the last few million years, which is probably a major explanation for the oft bemoaned "human condition", but it has left us open to new possibilities and permitted our intellectual growth. It is also what is making possible our expansion into space, something which the whales have little chance of doing unless we give them a lift. Their existence may be idyllic, but it is limited. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Jul 1983 20:55-PDT From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL To: space@mit-mc Subject: SETI Via: Usc-Cse; 23 Jul 83 21:33:08 I seem to recall reading in SPACEFLIGHT (a British Interplanetary Society publication) that all-sky radio searches have already set an upper limit of about 20,000 on the number of very advanced civilizations in the galaxy (where very advanced means with beacons we could detect). A recent issue also pointed out that even with a manufacturing efficiency of .1% antimatter would make sense as a rocket fuel, and antimatter reaction engines would not be difficult to build (p + anti-p reaction produces mostly charged pions, which can be directed aft with strong magnetic fields). To get some idea of the energy involved, one gigawatt for one year is about 10 kg; at .1% efficiency 10 tons of antimatter would need about 10 million gigawatts for one year. This is the amount of sunlight passing through a square several thousand kilometers on a side in earth orbit, in one year. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 25-Jul-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #165 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 165 Today's Topics: High cost of space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Jul 83 1:17:06-EDT (Sat) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!bronze!philipl @ Ucb-Vax Subject: High cost of space I think TOM MCGUINNESS has a good point about how expensive the development of space is. Not that I begrudge the money NASA gets; I think that the more they get, the better (as I'm sure do most of the people who read this group). However, they could do a lot more with their money if they were willing to take higher risks. We haven't had a single American die in space, which is something to be proud of, but has it been worth the cost? In the early days of air flight, a lot of non-government development was done, and a lot of people lost their lives in the process. It should be possible for equally rapid (and profitable) development to happen with space flight, if people (both astronauts and investors) are willing to put up with the high risks. So far, no one has. Philip Lantz tekmdp!bronze!philipl ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 26-Jul-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #166 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 166 Today's Topics: Re: Dolphin + Whale Intelligence TDRS line-of-sight what portion of time? TDRS's -- Let's get them up there! Re: Myths of the Space Age - (nf) Life on Mars Re: Launching TDRSS with Ariane ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 July 1983 16:47 edt From: Jarrell.Advisor at SYSTEM-M.PHOENIX.HONEYWELL Subject: Re: Dolphin + Whale Intelligence Reply-To: Jarrell.Advisor%PCO-Multics at MIT-MULTICS To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC Who's to say that the whales and friends have a more limited existence because they can't build the things we do? Are they really worse off because they can't nuke each other out of existence? As for their lack of printed material and access to computers; Why do they need them? Even we humans with our puny brians have a rich history or oral tradition. Great things were accomplished by civilizations that did little or no writing. It is quite possible for the dolphins to have a much larger memory capacity than us, and to keep accurate mental records of their entire society. This would neccessarily be a mental society, which does not mean inferior. Who knows, they may spend most of their lives playing *because* they are more intelligent.. -Ron ------------------------------ Date: 25 July 1983 19:21 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: TDRS line-of-sight what portion of time? To: pur-ee!CSvax.Pucc-H.Physics.els @ UCB-VAX cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC Sigh, I was hoping somebody on this list had already computed it or had access to NASA info whereby somebody there had. But since everybody seems to be guessing, here's my try at actual calculation: I'm assuming Earth's radius is 3800 miles and Geosynch orbit is 22,300 miles from the surface, or 26,100 miles from the center. I'm assuming the Earth's equator is circular and STS orbits 100 miles up (50 miles is the official start of "outer space" and STS wants to be up a bit higher). If any of these figures are wrong please send me corrections or recompute it yourself and send the calculations. Draw tangent from TDRS in geosynch to Earth, and radius lines to both tangent pint and TDRS, yielding right triangle. THETA = angle of half-Earth as viewed from TDRS. sin(THETA) = 3800/26100 = 0.14559, THETA = 8 deg 22 in = 8.367 deg. PHI = angle between tangent point and TDRS as viewed from center of Earth = 90-8.367 deg = 81.633 deg. Thus that portion of surface that can see TDRS (assuming no atmosphere) is 81.633*2/360 = 0.4535, a little less than half as expected. Now extend the ray from TDRS to tangent point past the tangent point to intersect the orbit of STS, and draw radius line to this new point. The right triangle including tangent point, STS point, and center of Earth, has a center angle OMEGA with cos(OMEGA) = 3800/3900 = 0.97435, OMEGA=13 deg. Adding OMEGA and PHI we get 94.633 deg, so STS can see TDRS (assuming atmosphere transparent to microwave) 94.633*2/360 = 0.5257, i.e. more than half the time. Lowering STS to 50 miles, cos(OMEGA) = 3800/3850 = 0.98701, OMEGA = 9 deg 15 min = 9.25 deg, OMEGA+PHI = 90.883, so even in very low Earth orbit STS would just barely exceed 50% of the time seeing TDRS. I've assumed STS is in equatorial orbit. I don't think the inclination affects whether 50% is exceeded or not, just by how much it's exceeded or not-reached. (Argument, consider the point of STS orbit nearest TDRS, even though it isn't at the same longitude as TDRS is. Forget about latitude and longitude here. Now consider the points exactly one quarter of an STS orbit in each direction. These points are in identical places in space regardless of inclination of STS's orbit providing we change the inclination in only the direction that affects its visibility from TDRS. The above calculations show these two points are slightly above the Earth-horizon as viewed from TDRS.) ------------------------------ Date: 25 July 1983 19:49 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: TDRS's -- Let's get them up there! To: wolf.umass-cs @ UDEL-RELAY cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC Date: 23 Jul 83 10:39-EST (Sat) From: Alexander Wolf [begin cynical comment] Why don't we hire Ariane to throw the damn TDRS's up there?! [end] Because Ariane isn't reliable. They have lost several payloads due to booster malfunction, burning up in the atmosphere almost immediately. I don't think we have a bunch of TDRS's to spare, do we? Maybe in a year or so Ariane will have proved itself (it seems to be getting better, but let's wait before we do anything drastic). Here's an alternative idea: how about hiring some USSR rocket? They have been pretty reliable for a lot of years. A lot of human beings have ridden them, and except for one air leak and one other problem nobody has been killed recently. The rockets themselves seem very reliable. Maybe even send up on a manned mission? (Is there enough extra payload capacity??) ------------------------------ Date: 25 July 1983 19:52 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: Myths of the Space Age - (nf) To: hplabs!hp-pcd!courtney @ UCB-VAX cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC I think we've been through all this intelligent-life-in-Earth before, perhaps a year ago? In summary, yes there is intelligent life other than Humans on Earth, but only Humans have transmitted radio signals out where they could be heard by other creatures around other stars, and as far as we know only Humans have (built) receivers capable of searching for ETI out there. Thus only Humans are relevant (on Earth) in regard to SETI. ------------------------------ Date: 25 July 1983 21:19 EDT From: bruc@mit-ml Sender: BRUC @ MIT-MC Subject: Life on Mars To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC There was an interesting article in today's Boston Globe on the results of the Viking experiments and some new experiments done on earth. Specifically, there is sample of soil from a dry valley in Antarctica which duplicates the labeled release experiment and the gas chromatograph experiment. In the labeled release experiment, one soil sample was given some nutrient rich, labeled solution and labeled CO2 was measured over time. A second sample was heated first before being given the solution, presumably to kill the microbes. The first sample on Mars released a lot of CO2, the second very little. The gas chromatograph / mass spectrometer measured organic compounds. On Mars, no organics were found above the sensitivity of the detector. They key here is that the number of microbes in the Antarctic sample is very small so the GCMS doesn't see it. A second piece of evidence is rearrangement of green colored patches on a Martian roc over the course of a year. The rock must be fairly distant from the lander because its image is only about 10 by 20 pixels. They look like lichens. All very interesting. It's clear we should go back for another look. One interesting speculation that I had about this -- if there is life on Mars, it's quite possible it came from Earth. Since material from Mars is believed to have traveled to the earth and landed in Antarctica (by being blasted from Mars by a meteor impact and eventually intersecting the earth's orbit), the reverse is also possible. I wonder if the spores of ancient microorganisms would be capable of surviving the voyage (suitably encased or shielded by rock).. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jul 83 17:03:40-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Launching TDRSS with Ariane In-Reply-To: Article <1723@rabbit.UUCP> As Jan said, the problem is with the IUS. A report by an investigative committee set up by NASA after the IUS-TDRS-1 incident suggested that the problem was with a deflated ring that cushioned the nozzle of the IUS. NASA is currently investigating this and, if it turns out that this is indeed the problem, hopes to have it corrected AND TESTED by June of next year. Meanwhile, they are contemplating using the third stage of a Delta rocket in replacement of the IUS for upcoming missions. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 27-Jul-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #167 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 167 Today's Topics: needles in orbit dolphins Books ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Jul 83 8:09:45-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ukc!dgd @ Ucb-Vax Subject: needles in orbit can anyone out there provide me with some information about an experiment which was (perhaps) carried out some years ago? to the best of my knowledge it consisted of depositing a load of copper (?) needles in low-earth orbit, possibly to act as reflectors. david dixon, univ.of kent,uk ...!vax135!ukc!dgd w ------------------------------ Date: Tue 26 Jul 83 14:36:28-PDT From: Wilkins Subject: dolphins To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: wilkins@SRI-AI.ARPA While it is true that dolphins cannot propel themselves off planet or send out radio signals, let's not forgot that the unknown can hold myriad wonders. I'm sure we've all read way-out-there SF and sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. Perhaps the dolphins do not need radio for interstellar communication (they may have figured out telepathy or how to alter the spin on certain subatomic particles to transfer information to some distant point), perhaps they do not need computers or written records (they may use their larger brains much more efficiently), and perhaps they've already made a deal with some other intelligence to come get them when the sun burns out (or earlier if homo sapiens are dumb enough to ruin the oceans). This is all a long shot and the smart money is still on the humans, but let's not completely count them out yet. Have fun, David ------- ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jul 83 8:36:09 PDT From: lamming.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Books To: space@Mit-Mc.ARPA Reply-To: lamming.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Having just read "The Right Stuff" by Tom Wolfe (Bantam) I noticed in the author's notes a list of references. I went to my local library and discovered that most were out of print. Can anyone help me find the following (or save me the effort if they are crummy): This New Ocean: a History of Project Mercury by James M. Grimwood et al. Always Another Dawn by A. Scott Crossfield Starfall, by Betty Grissom and Henry Still Across the High Frontier by Charles Yeager and William Lundgren The Lonely Sky by Richard Bridgeman X-15 Diary by Richard Tregaskis We Seven by the seven Mercury Astronauts Thanks, Mik ------------------------------ Date: 26 July 1983 23:11 EDT From: Keith F. Lynch To: Bruc @ MIT-ML cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC, KFL @ MIT-MC Date: 25 July 1983 21:19 EDT From: bruc@mit-ml One interesting speculation that I had about this -- if there is life on Mars, it's quite possible it came from Earth. Since material from Mars is believed to have traveled to the earth and landed in Antarctica (by being blasted from Mars by a meteor impact and eventually intersecting the earth's orbit), the reverse is also possible. I wonder if the spores of ancient microorganisms would be capable of surviving the voyage (suitably encased or shielded by rock).. Or perhaps life on Earth got started from a meteor from Mars or elsewhere. Maybe life in the universe only started once and then drifted to Earth and other planets. ...Keith ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 28-Jul-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #168 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 168 Today's Topics: Galileo Test Successful Re: Launching TDRSS with Ariane Recommendations anyone?? Star Wars (continued) Problems Testing TDRS-1 needles in orbit We Seven Space seed history Galileo & Jupiter ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Jul 83 20:05:09-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Galileo Test Successful The Air Force today successfully drop tested a prototype of the Galileo spacecraft that will fly into Jupiter's atmosphere in the late 1980's. The probe was carried aloft to almost 100,000 feet by a hot air balloon and then dropped, hitting the ground 9 minutes later. Pictures taken of the craft and data gathered by it will be analyzed by NASA over the next few weeks. The probe will be unleashed from an orbiter section that will remain in orbit around Jupiter and relay information from it. The entire craft will be launched from the space shuttle. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jul 83 13:21:46-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!rabbit!wolit @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Launching TDRSS with Ariane Alexander Wolf suggested that "we hire Ariane to throw the damn TDRS's up there." Sorry, Alex, but the problem with TDRSS isn't in the STS (Shuttle) system, but in the Boeing Inertial Upper Stage (IUS) that's used to boost the satellite into geosynchronous orbit. It doesn't matter how you get into low earth orbit if you can't depend on the IUS to get you higher. Jan Wolitzky, BTL Murray Hill ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jul 83 9:33:21-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ihldt!bnp @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Recommendations anyone?? I've recently re-discovered an old interest in amateur astronomy. My background, however is "limited" at best. I was hoping that someone onthe net might be able to recommend good introductory materials on observational astronomy. I need background materials on the terminology, techniques and caculations involved in "star watching". Please respond by mail; if anyone else is interested and I'll forward a copy of my receipts. If enough interest is expressed, I'll post a summary. Thanks, Bruce Peters BTL - Naperville, Ill. ...!ihnp4!ihldt!bnp ------------------------------ Date: 25 Jul 83 13:06:20-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!rabbit!wolit @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Star Wars (continued) (This discussion probably more properly belongs in fa.arms-d, but we haven't seen much of that group lately -- maybe ARPA didn't like funding the opposition -- so I might as well continue it here.) I just read on the news wire that the Air Force's NKC-135 airborne laser weapons lab successfully "defeated" five AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles fired from an A-7 attack aircraft in a test over the Navy's China Lake test center. This is apparently the test that failed last year. The press, clearly with an eye toward Reagan's "Star Wars" speech, made several comparisons between the Sidewinder and ICBMs that will do much to confuse the subject in the minds of the general public. Does anyone know whether the test was actually supposed to destroy the missiles (which would require an impressively powerful laser) or simply to "blind" them (the AIM-9 is an infrared homer)? My guess is the latter, which is still a good trick, though other, less sophisticated measures, like dropping flares, can also perform a similar task. Jan Wolitzky, BTL Murray Hill (PS: Although the article didn't say so, I assume the Sidewinders were unarmed. Else this interservice rivalry is getting hotter than I thought!) ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 83 7:31:55-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Problems Testing TDRS-1 Problems in the testing phase of TDRS-1 may delay the next launch or two, unless NASA can check the satellite out in time. The trouble is not with the satellite itself but rather with ground equipment. Software errors (!) prevented technicians at the ground station at White Sands from locking onto the satellite. That was corrected last Friday, but subsequent power and backup generator failures have hampered the testing effort. NASA is currently hoping for a 20 August STS-8 launch and a 30 September STS-9 launch. ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 27 July 1983 10:36:40 EDT From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC cc: harpo!floyd!vax135!ukc!dgd@Ucb-Vax Subject: needles in orbit I remember reading about the orbiting needle experiment in the NASA booklet "Space - The New Frontier" in around 1962-3. I forget the name of the project. The idea was to girdle the Earth with a ring of copper needles cut to the right length, and use it for reflecting radio communications. I think it was a Navy project. A few years ago, I read (I don't remember where) that the experiment had been carried out over the loud protests of radio astronomers. It was a failure, but turned out not to interfere with radio telescopes, either. The needles all burned up in the atmosphere in a few years. A ring of needles is just what we need to compete for space with spacecraft and skyhooks. ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 27 July 1983 10:22:19 EDT From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC cc: lamming.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: We Seven I came across a copy of We Seven in the CMU Engineering and Science Library. It's pretty interesting. Tom Wolfe makes a big deal about the Original Seven not really being the best pilots around. Scott Carpenter seems to admit as much in his chapter of We Seven. He described a zero-gee flight in the back seat of an F-100. The pilot flew a series of parabolic arcs, then turned over the controls to Carpenter. Carpenter could not maintain the proper speed and trajectory. He felt very embarrassed. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 1983 0900-MDT From: Pendleton@UTAH-20 (Bob Pendleton) Subject: Space seed To: Space@MIT-MC cc: pendleTON@UTAH-20 The idea that life developed only once in the galaxy and then spread through space is quite old. In fact E. E. "Doc" Smith used it in the Lensman series to explain the rapid devlopment of almost identical species throughout the two galaxies. I believe this is referred to as the "Pansperamatic" theory of the development of life. Bob Pendleton ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 1983 17:36:02-EDT From: csin!cjh@CCA-UNIX To: space@mit-mc Subject: history (1) Jamestown was not founded by the persecuted; it was founded by the get-rich-quick types. (The mix of colonists in SF that discusses interstellar colonization frequently reflects the mix that colonized this country---fanatics, money-grubbers, freaks, "inspired pioneers" (damn few of those)---yes, those are uncomplimentary terms but that's the way the stay-at-homes thought of them. (2) The original Wright brothers flyer was not supported by the military; my recollection is that it was at least 1908 before the Wrights could get the military to pay attention to them. In an interesting parallel, the first branch they hit was the Signal Corps. . . . ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 83 14:02:25-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5g!hou5h!hou5a!hou5d!kwmc @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Galileo & Jupiter Could someone please enlighten me as to what Galileo is expected to measure as it plummets toward Jupiter? Also isn't the atmosphere of Jupiter disturbed by high winds and lightening? How will the craft maintain stability and radio communication with the orbiter ? Ken Cochran hou5d!kwmc ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 29-Jul-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #169 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 169 Today's Topics: Challenger Moved to VAB Panspermia Re: SPACE Digest V3 #168 Galileo & Jupiter Re: Star Wars (continued) Launching TDRS on Ariane ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Jul 83 21:36:43-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Challenger Moved to VAB The Challenger today was moved to the Vehicle Assembly Building after spending a record (for shortness!) 26 days in the Orbiter Processing Facility. Workers immediately began attaching the shuttle to its external tank and SRB's for the upcoming launch of STS-8 after the 15 minutes move. NASA is still hoping for a 20 August launch of STS-8, but problems with the testing of TDRS-1 may delay that; a firm date is expected to be announced within a week. The crew for STS-8 will be Dick Truly, Dan Brandenstein, Dale Gardner, Bill Thorton, and Guion S. Bluford, who will become the first black in space. John Young will command STS-9, making a world record sixth trip into space. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 1983 9:50-PDT From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL To: space@mit-mc Subject: Panspermia Via: Usc-Cse; 28 Jul 83 10:31:21 The theory that life originated once and then spread from planet to planet is called "panspermia". The original formulation was that bacterial spores are pushed around by light pressure. The fatal flaw: the spores would be quickly sterilized by UV and cosmic radiation, long before they could reach another star system. The same applies to spores in rocks going to/from Mars, unless you get incredibly lucky and the rocks land quickly. Crick (of DNA fame) has suggested directed panspermia, where alien civilizations seed new planets. The usual "where are they" argument applies here too. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Jul 83 14:29 CDT From: Sanchez.DLOS@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #168 In-reply-to: "OTA@S1-A.ARPA's message of 28 Jul 83 03:03 PDT" To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: ihnp4!hldt!bnp@Ucb-Vax.ARPA Bruce: I read your message and I too am interested in astronomy so if you get any information on the subject please drop me a message. I hope that you get a good response. Thanks, Miguel Sanchez Xerox Dallas, TX p.s. Do you know a guy named Mike Seitz from Naperville that goes to Southern Methodist University in Dallas? ------------------------------ Date: 27 Jul 83 14:27:06-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!bronze!patm @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Galileo & Jupiter Regarding Ken Cochran's request for info on the Galileo mission, the feature article in the August SKY & TELESCOPE covers the mission quite well. You'll find details of the orbiter and probe, the scientific instrumentation, mission objectives and time tables. Pat McNamara Tektronix, Inc. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 83 10:11:09-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!houxm!5941ux!rwhw @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Star Wars (continued) In-Reply-To: Article rabbit.1722 Is the comment made by Reagan still humorous? Remember R. Fulton was also laughed at. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 83 7:20:17-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Launching TDRS on Ariane I have been watching this discussion with a fair amount of amusement. A few observations are in order: 1. The reliability of Ariane in terms of delivering payloads to the nominal orbit, bad as it may be (4/6 success rate if you ignore the little problem with the Oscar-10 separation) is better than the Shuttle/IUS system (0/1 success rate so far.) Of course, this isn't really fair as both rates are bound to improve. I expect that the success rates for both future IUS and Ariane launches will be quite good. 2. The Ariane provides a geostationary transfer orbit, which is what the shuttle combined with the first stage of the IUS gives you. The shuttle and the IUS first stage worked just fine on TDRS-A; it was the apogee kick motor (which you would still need with either launch method) which failed. 3. Ariane-1 (the current configuration) has a payload capability of 1,500 kg into TRANSFER orbit, with a net capability of 750 kg into the final geostationary orbit. (This takes into account the smaller apogee kick motor required due to the lower transfer orbit inclination.) This is far less than the mass of TDRS, making the suggestion moot. A dedicated STS flight carrying the DOD/NASA two-stage IUS (mass 14,515 kg) has a capacity of 2,268 kg to geostationary orbit. Not until ESA flies the Ariane-5 model (probably in the 1990's) will its payload capability be comparable. 4. Whatever the political realities, ESA and NASA aren't as polarized toward each other as you might think. There is a considerable amount of cooperation on such projects as Spacelab (ESA payload on a NASA launch) and Ariane launch support (NASA facilities for ESA launches). When the Ariane launch schedule was slipped earlier this year because of the L-5 failure, the Exosat experiment was removed from an Ariane and launched on a Delta instead. 5. The only part I can't understand about the IUS is why the Air Force decided on a three-axis stabilized approach. This seems to be just unnecessary complexity to me as I can't see any advantages over the more common spin-stabilized method used by the PAM for commercial payloads. Three axis control just makes the system more complex and subject to failures (e.g., thrust vector control) and the payload thermal design more difficult. I suppose it's easier to turn the payload around for the second firing during the five hour coast to apogee if you're not spinning, but I can't see how it's worth all the hassle. References for payload capacities are the NASA Space Transportation System User Handbook and the paper Ariane Launch Vehicle: A European Program. Both are rather old, so the exact values may be different. Phil ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 30-Jul-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #170 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 170 Today's Topics: Re: dolphins - (nf) Re: High cost of space Re: SPACE Digest V3 #166 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Jul 83 3:34:39-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hp-pcd!john @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: dolphins - (nf) #R:sri-arpa:-347500:hp-pcd:8400011:000:35 hp-pcd!john Jul 27 18:01:00 1983 So long and thanks for the fish. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Jul 83 15:47:11-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!wivax!linus!utzoo!watmath!watarts!bernie @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: High cost of space In-Reply-To: Article bronze.664 I am basically in agreement with what's been said so far (i.e. reduce costs rather than spend *lots* of money), and feel that the sooner private individuals can become involved in the exploration and colonization of space, the better. The government (even efficient parts of it, like NASA) are not very good at doing anything important; ideally, a little healthy competition will bring down the cost of space travel the way it's brought down the cost of computers, video games and all the various "toys" that surround us. However, we are not yet at the point where small, private organizations can afford to build their own space colonies; for the time being, government support is an unfortunate necessity. --Bernie Roehl ...decvax!watmath!watarts!bernie ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 1983 1537-EDT From: Randy Haskins Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #166 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Your message of 26-Jul-83 0302-EDT Re: whales and dolphins Yes, we are (as far as we know) the only species on Earth to have sent signals into outer space. On the other hand, maybe the dolphins can send other signals that we can't detect? On the third hand, since they are intelligent, maybe they know better than to send signals into space? Or maybe they told some local aliens to come sterilize the land masses on their planet? As Doug Adams said, "Man thought he was the most intelligent being on Earth because he had invented the wheel, New York City, and war. It was precisely for these reasons that the dolphins thought THEY were the most intelligent beings on Earth." ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 31-Jul-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #171 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 171 Today's Topics: Re: Space station? Nitpicking intelligence ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Jul 83 10:51:57-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!houxm!hopd3!raf @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Space station? I saw a small paragraph hidden on a back page of our local paper the other day that sid the air force has succesfully used a laser to knock down a series of ten air to air missles travelling in the 2000 mph range. It went on to say that this system would not be effective against ICBMs because they go much faster - around 20,000 mph. Also range is a factor, so using a space station for the purpose of knocking down ICBMs is not feasable yet. It seems to me though that this is a giant step in a technology that may make nuclear weapons at long range obsolete. Let us hope, Ron Flannery ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jul 83 1310 PDT From: Ross Finlayson Subject: Nitpicking To: space@MIT-MC Actually, Bluford won't be the first black in space, although he will of course be the first AMERICAN black. A Cuban black was included in a Soviet mission a few years ago. Ross. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jul 83 11:52:18-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccieng5!morgoth @ Ucb-Vax Subject: intelligence This article (and others) probably really belong in net.philosopy rather than net.space, but at any rate: Everyone assumes SETI works because it will detect the radio emissions of other intelligent cultures on other planets. This has two flaws: [1] other cultures may be intelligent using other forms of communication (i.e. telepathy) or incapable of building transmitters (dolphins). [2] other cultures know better than we do and are paranoid enough not to transmit to the pirates of the universe where they are and use more energy efficient means of communications (masers, lasers, ???). Comments? Morgoth seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccieng5!ccieng2:bwm ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 01-Aug-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #172 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 172 Today's Topics: Next Two Shuttle Flights Delayed intelligence ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Jul 83 7:28:32-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Next Two Shuttle Flights Delayed Problems in checking out TDRS-1 have forced NASA to delay the launches of STS-8 and STS-9. STS-8, originally scheduled for 20 August, will now launch between 23 and 30 August. STS-9, originally scheduled to launch on 30 September, will probably slip into late October; in order to gain maximum scientific return from the flight, NASA has to launch it within a one week window of 30 September, which is becoming unlikely. If they miss that opportunity, the next starts around 26 October. ------------------------------ Date: 31 July 1983 14:10 EDT From: Gail Zacharias Subject: intelligence To: harpo!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccieng5!morgoth @ UCB-VAX cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC In-reply-to: Msg of 28 Jul 83 11:52:18-PDT (Thu) from harpo!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccieng5!morgoth at Ucb-Vax So we're not looking for all possible forms of ETI, just those that we can contact given our and their level and form of development. This is rather obvious if not outright tautological. What else could we POSSIBLY do? Try to communicate with life forms we can't contact? Investigation of globally invisible, planet-bound life forms will necessarily have to wait until we have the ability to visit. That's a long way off, and people interested in that sort of thing should get into dolphin research (which will probably come in handy once time comes). ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 02-Aug-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #173 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 173 Today's Topics: re: multinational orbiting platforms Rollout Delayed ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 31 Jul 83 18:13-EST (Sun) From: Steven Gutfreund Return-Path: Subject: re: multinational orbiting platforms To: space@mit-mc Cc: decvax!watmath!bstempleton@berkeley Via: UMASS-CS; 1 Aug 83 18:46-EDT I recently listened to the Shuttle Seven crew at the National Press Club luncheon. I was left with the impression that there is little chance for multinational ventures in space, let alone joint administration of platforms or stations. Basically, NASA felt it was such a tremendous hassle with Apollo-Soyuz for such little gain (compared to solo Apollo flights) that such efforts are futile for the moment. (Getting information about the techincal characteristics of the Soyuz was like pulling teeth from a bear.) Nevertheless, they said that as far as pure information transfer goes, things are going smoothly. They just got a big batch of info from the Soviets on the biological effects of extended missions. They felt it could save NASA a lot of work. If your real goal is to search for alternate funding for space exploration than depending solely on Uncle Sam, then I would not look to the Soviets anyway. Their GNP is a lot lower than many Western countries. I think a reasonable consortium of Western countries could fund a pretty respectable space effort, and the US would probably see its bill cut. - Steven Gutfreund Gutfreund.umass-cs@udel-relay ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 83 7:22:47-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Rollout Delayed Due to the threat of lightning and thunderstorms, NASA has delayed the scheduled rollout of the Challenger to pad 39A 24 hours, until 0001 EDT Tuesday. The say the delay should not affect the current STS-8 schedule. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 03-Aug-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #174 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 174 Today's Topics: Re: Space station? Re: "Ultraviolent" lasers Life on Mars? STS-8 on Pad s.e.t.i ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Aug 83 13:01:08-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!tektronix!tekecs!shark!philb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Space station? Able to knock down ICBMs screaming down at 20,000 mph, saving us from nuclear holocaust, eh?? Did you ever think what such space based lasers could do to ground targets such as cities? X-ray, ultrviolet (ultraviolent), and infrared lasers can do just as terrible, if not worse, things to the human body as nuclear weapons. Not to mention particle beams. I don't see that these kind of space based weapons are any better that anything we have come up with so far.......... Waiting, Phil Biehl ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 83 16:20:00-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!tektronix!tekecs!orca!brucec @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: "Ultraviolent" lasers In-Reply-To: Article shark.1402 Please remember that to do significant damage to an incoming ICBM, a short wavelength laser needs to be very tightly focused, and must be optimized for very short pulsewidths (long pulses will vaporize sufficient target material to form a shield against the laser radiation). The radiation damage of the laser is intended to 1) knock out the guidance electronics of the warhead, or 2) damage the airframe of the warhead sufficiently to cause it to tumble and burn on re-entry. If shooting at an ascending booster, the intent is to hole the fuel system or airframe, causing the booster to either explode or go off course. No laser system that I know of is envisioned as being capable of vaporizing a large fraction of the mass of a warhead. As far as particle beams go, I seriously doubt that they can do any real damage over distance in the atmosphere, because of absorption and defocusing (see the article by Kosta Tsipis on particle beam weapons in Scientific American in the lsat couple of years). Such weapons are highly ineffective against large targets like cities or ground vehicles. I doubt that they could even do significant damage to a concrete building. (Infrared lasers can cut through concrete right now, if used in continuous mode, but such lasers are not effective against reflective metal nosecones. A person standing out in the street would very likely be killed instantly by such a beam, but the person standing ten feet away might be unscathed. Moreover, ground targets can dodge mush faster than ICBM warheads, whose incoming speed makes changing aiming angle from an oncoming beam very slow. Bruce Cohen UUCP: ...!teklabs!tekecs!brucec CSNET: tekecs!brucec@tektronix ARPA: tekecs!brucec.tektronix@rand-relay ------------------------------ Date: 02 Aug 83 1324 PDT From: Ross Finlayson From: Hans Moravec Subject: Life on Mars? To: space@MIT-MC n533 0224 02 Aug 83 BC-MARS-3takes-08-02 By David L. Chandler (c) 1983 Boston Globe (Independent Press Service) Seven years ago in July, a remote-controlled machine about the size of a VW Rabbit separated itself from an orbiting spacecraft and descended to a red, rocky plain. It was the Viking 1 lander, first object from Earth ever to land on Mars. One of its primary goals was to search for signs of life, using a set of three biological experiments. Yet seven years after that first Viking landing, the debate rages on: Did the tests show signs of life, or just a puzzling set of chemical reactions? Some scientists say there's strong, convincing evidence for life, while others are positive that Mars is barren. The issue is not likely to be resolved until - and unless - there's another Mars mission. But those who think that life is likely got a significant boost recently when tests done on Antarctic soil were found to duplicate the most puzzling of the results from Mars. Both sets of tests showed evidence of microbial life, in the form of ''respiration'' of gases from the soil, and yet showed no sign of life's basic building blocks - organic compounds - within that soil. In short, there is now direct evidence that life forms can exist in soil without producing enough chemical debris - enough dead bodies - to be detected by the Viking equipment; that, as one scientist put it, there can be music even though there's no sign of any instruments. By resolving the biggest apparent conflict in the Mars data, this finding has moved some disbelievers into the ''maybe'' camp. But many still feel that life is unlikely on Mars. Klaus Biemann, the scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology who developed the Viking test for organic compounds in the soil, says ''the majority of scientists, both in and out of the Viking team, believe that the biology experiments were negative, and that they can all be explained by one non-biological chemical reaction or another.'' Norman Horowitz, a Cal-Tech biochemist who designed one of Viking's life-detection tests, has put it even more strongly. Writing about the results of the mission in Scientific American, he said: ''At least those areas on Mars examined by the two spacecraft are not habitats of life.'' On the other hand, biochemist Alexander Rich of MIT, who was also a member of the Viking biology team, said recently: ''It is not correct to say that Mars has been shown to be lifeless. We failed to demonstrate that life is there, but we didn't disprove it. It's a matter of judgment. It certainly warrants going back with a broader set of experiments to see what's there.'' Probably the strongest believer in the evidence for life on Mars is Gilbert Levin, president of Biospherics Inc. of Maryland. He was the chief scientist in charge of the Viking life-detection experiment that gave the clearest positive results, and he says that ''If you look objectively at the data, it's more likely than not that we discovered life. ''People think the Viking tests failed to return any evidence for life,'' says Levin. ''But in fact, there's a lot of evidence.'' Levin thinks that his experiment, the ''labeled release'' (LR) test, produced strong evidence for the existence of some kind of microbes - perhaps resembling Earth bacteria or algae - by measuring carbon-dioxide discharges from soil that had been moistened with a nutrient solution. Levin also has discovered that there are greenish patches visible on rock surfaces in the Viking photographs, which he thinks might turn out to be a form of life similar to lichens - one of the hardiest of living organisms. And other recent discoveries have also boosted the prospects for Martian life, prompting Rich, the MIT biochemist, to say, ''I think the conclusions are vastly different than they were before.'' The announcement this year of the discovery of microbes that survive at over 500 degrees F. near ocean-floor thermal vents shows that ''Life is really much more adaptive than we had anticipated,'' says Rich. ''That discovery showed that life can adapt to extremely high temperature and pressure, so we shouldn't write off Venus (as a possible habitat for life). I believe this shows that life can adapt to low temperature and pressure as well.'' On Mars, temperatures seldom rise above freezing, and the atmospheric pressure is less than one-hundredth of Earth's. As for interpreting the Viking results, Levin points out that despite intensive efforts over the last seven years, no one has yet come up with a specific set of chemical reactions that can explain the results of his LR experiment on Mars. If no chemical explanation can be found, scientists agree, a biological reaction - living microorganisms in the Martian soil - would be the only way to account for the data. The results of Levin's test did in fact meet all the criteria established before the mission to conclude that life had been discovered. First, a substantial positive response - consisting of a release of gas (probably carbon dioxide) from the soil, as would be expected from the metabolism of microorganisms such as bacteria or algae - was obtained from each ''active'' run of the experiment in two different regions of the Martian surface. And second, the biological nature of the response was apparently confirmed by the negative results - virtually no gases produced - from each ''control'' run, in which the soil was first sterilized by heat. The control runs were considered a crucial test for determining whether a response really came from living organisms, since microbes would be killed by the high temperature and so stop ''breathing,'' whereas most non-living chemical reactions would not be affected by the heat. As Viking chief biologist Harold Klein pointed out in his official summary of the biology test results, ''The LR .-.-. yielded data which met the criteria originally developed for a positive. On this basis alone, the conclusion would have to be drawn that metabolizing organisms were indeed present in all samples tested.'' Since the test met the requirements for a ''presumptive positive,'' why didn't the scientists announce that life had been discovered? And why do they still disagree on what the results mean? Levin claims with some annoyance that his fellow scientists ''changed the rules after the results were in. If we had followed the rules, we would have stood up and said: 'We discovered life.'-'' There were, however, three unexpected aspects of the data that caused most of the scientists to hold back from saying that the results indicated life in the Martian soil. One was the fact that the LR test result, although positive, was very different from the usual response seen in Earth soils: Instead of the rate of gas production increasing steadily because the microorganisms multiplied rapidly in the soil, as happens when Earth soil is tested, the Mars response gradually leveled off. Biochemist Cyril Ponnamperuma, editor of the respected scientific journal Origins of Life, says that because of this leveling off of the response, the positive result is ''not completely convincing, but it is tantalizing.'' Another problem was the strange response from another life-detection test, the Gas-Exchange experiment, which produced an intense, sudden burst of oxygen when the Martian soil was exposed to moisture. This result, which everyone agreed looked like a non-living chemical reaction rather than a lifelike response, suggested to most of the scientists that there was some kind of highly reactive chemical compound in the soil, and that perhaps the same compound was responsible for the LR response. But by far the greatest stumbling block for a biological interpretation of the Mars data was the resoundingly negative, and totally unexpected, result of a test called the GCMS (gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer). This experiment searched for the presence in Martian soil of organic (carbon-based) chemicals - the compounds from which life is made, though they also occur naturally even in the depths of space. Most people had expected the exact reverse of the results that were found: That there would be plenty of organics in the soil, but no reaction from the life tests. A positive life-test result with no organics seemed impossible, so there was considerable consternation when the data came in and showed just that. But this apparent conflict has now been resolved, claims Levin. Looking back through published reports on the development of the experiments used in the Viking mission, he found that a sample of soil preserved in NASA laboratories, which had been collected from a dry valley in Antarctica (the environment on Earth that comes closest to duplicating present Martian temperatures and lack of moisture), had been tested by both the GCMS and the much more sensitive LR test. The results of these two independent tests very closely duplicated the results from Mars. The tests showed that the soil, Antarctic soil number 726, which contained a small quantity of living cells, had no organic chemicals detectable by the GCMS, yet gave a clearly positive result on the LR test. The seeming discrepancy was apparently nothing more than a difference in the sensitivity levels of the two tests, says Levin. So the Martian results of those two experiments, which many biologists thought were seriously contradictory, have now been demonstrated to be perfectly compatible. Biochemist Ponnamperuma was one of those who thought the conflicting results of these two tests made it very unlikely that they indicated life on Mars. But when asked last week about Levin's report on the Antarctic soil, Ponnamperuma exclaimed, ''It's hard to fight that. To me, that says that it's an open question again.'' In addition to the positive LR test results, another bit of evidence for Martian life that Levin has discovered is that, contrary to the first reports from the Viking imaging team, the surface seen in the photographs of the Martian landscape is not uniformly red. In fact, there are small greenish patches on some of the rocks and on the soil. These patches have changed shape and position over the course of a Martian year (about two Earth years), and they appear to match quite closely the appearance, color, and thickness of terrestrial lichens, long thought to be the form of Earth life best adapted for survival in the cold, dry Martian climate. Levin points out that lichens are the pioneers of life on Earth, the first living things to appear on barren rocks. His analysis of the color and the changing shapes of the patches on Mars has since been confirmed by other NASA scientists. With so many signs pointing toward at least a possibility of current life on Mars, why do most scientists continue to speak so negatively about that possibility? Levin thinks his colleagues are afraid that ''If we're proven wrong by the next lander, we'll look foolish.'' But to Levin, the reverse seems at least as likely: ''It reminds me of the emperor's clothes. If it does turn out that there are organisms on Mars, people will say 'couldn't these people see?'-'' But there is at least one area of agreement among all those involved in the Viking mission. As Rich puts it, ''Scientists are not unanimous about the interpretation of the results - we disagree on details - but we are all in agreement that we have to go back and do a more comprehensive set of tests. ''If we proved that there was life there, it would be one of the great cultural events of this age. The scientific fallout, of course, would be considerable. If we found another biological system on another planetary body, my God, there are an infinite number of questions we could ask. But perhaps the most important thing is that whenever we address cosmic questions like this, all of a sudden we see much more clearly that we - Homo sapiens - really are all one.'' END nyt-08-02-83 0533edt ********** ------------------------------ Date: 2 Aug 83 9:32:30-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: STS-8 on Pad STS-8 was rolled to pad 39A today, leaving the VAB shortly after midnight, and arriving about seven hours later. Liftoff is scheduled for 30 August, between 0215 and 0249 EDT. The narrow launch window is due to the need for the ejection of an Indian communications satellite to be in a precise place over India at the right time. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 83 6:39:16-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!gummo!whuxlb!floyd!vax135!ukc!dgd @ Ucb-Vax Subject: s.e.t.i perhaps planetary civilisations only emit radio communications for a brief developing stage in their history. we seem to be moving more toward tight-beam communications, cables, optical fibres etc. even radar may be replaced by laser systems so in a few generations earth may become radio-quiet once again. douglas adams writes a good story but are dolphins really as intelligent as he/l.niven et.al. would like to think? dgd ...!vax135!ukc!dgd ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 04-Aug-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #175 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 175 Today's Topics: Re: Space station? Roll out Ion thrusters Life on Mars? Re: Roll out ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Aug 83 17:12:47-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!houxm!houxl!braddy @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Space station? In-Reply-To: Article <1402@shark.UUCP> Yeah! What *would* it take to direct (even some) of our energy and $ into space stations for constructive purposes instead of yet another weapons system? The nuclear arms mess has gotten so out of hand that solving the problem means disposing of huge quantities of existing bombs, etc. No small job! If we'd to do something decisive about the lazers-in-space issue *before* they get them up there, maybe it would be an easier problem to solve. Or have they already begun and the recent publicity is but a way to further their cause? David.. ...houxl!braddy ------------------------------ Date: 2 Aug 83 22:02:43-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!bronze!philipl @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Roll out In-Reply-To: Article alice.2090 Does anyone know why they rolled it out at night? (I mean, just because the launch is at night doesn't seem to be a good enough reason... They're not on countdown yet!) Philip Lantz tekmdp!bronze!philipl ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 1983 18:17:14-EDT From: york@scrc-vixen To: space@mc Subject: Ion thrusters >From a Hughes Aircraft ad in the July issue of Signal magazine: "The electronic rocket engine is ready to be tested aboard a satellite to see how well it functions in the company of other space hardware. Hughes has delivered two engines, called murcury ion thrusters, for installation on a U.S. Air Force research satellite. The goal of the flight test is to qualify the system in space for performing such auxiliary propulsion functions as stationkeeping, attitude control, and orbit maneuvering of spacecraft. The system is designed to replace traditional chemical and gas propulsion systems, saving hundreds of pounds of weight. In operation, the thrusters are powered by the satellite's solar cells, which convert sunlight into electricity." Does anyone have more information on the current state of ion propulsion technology? Is interplanetary maneuvering (for small payloads) feasable? ------------------------------ Date: 4 August 1983 03:45 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Life on Mars? To: RSF @ SU-AI, HPM @ SU-AI cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC With very small amounts of bacteria in a very hostile environment, a reasonable experiment would seem to be make a "petri dish" growth medium and put some Martian dirt in it and see if stuff grows exponentially in the medium; but make sure the medium is similar enough to Martian conditions not to overwealm and kill the lifeforms. I assume the experiments on Viking 1&2 were so Earthlike as to deluge the bacteria with water and food and perhaps break their cell walls or something like that; remember the original bacteria on Earth found free oxygen to be horribly toxic; only later was oxygen-resistance developed, and even now some bacteria are killed by Oxygen. Perhaps Martian bacteria are killed by free water or by just about any normal chemical at much higher than natural Martian vapor pressures? Perhaps Martian bacteria are optimized to admit chemicals directly from the thin atmosphere with virtually no resistance/protection, thus affording maximum efficiency of metabolism under low-vapor-pressure environments; any bacteria that resists penetration by water or gasses would have too low a resperation efficiency to survive? So let's send another Viking but (1) do a range of petri-dish experiments with varying amounts of water etc., (2) scrape off some of that green stuff to get a good start. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 83 7:54:43-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Roll out In-Reply-To: Article <677@bronze.UUCP> The main reason is that this is storm season in Flordia, and the afternoons are frequented by thunder and lightning storms. By rolling it out at night, technicians can have it bolted down and secured by the beginning of the afternoon. On that subject, NASA was asked what they would do if a hurricane hit the KSC area. The reply was that the storm would have to be ''imminently upon them ... with 70 mph winds'' before a decision to unbolt the orbiter assembly and move it back to the VAB would be made. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 05-Aug-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #176 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 176 Today's Topics: Ion thrusters -- Hughes STS-8 launch window SEM to Mars? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 August 1983 12:43 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Ion thrusters -- Hughes To: york @ SCRC-VIXEN cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC Hey, that's a good start, using an ion rocket for attitude control etc. After it's proven its abilities for that sort of near-Earth stuff it can be enlarged (more reaction mass, better guidance) for use as a main engine for long interplanetary trips. I'm glad to hear they've been working on it and are ready to give it a try. I wonder how soon it can be flown? If anybody gets more info on this, please pass it along. ------------------------------ Date: 04 Aug 83 1021 PDT From: Ross Finlayson Subject: STS-8 launch window To: space@MIT-MC I'm confused as to exactly why the shuttle needs to be launched within a precise launch window so that a communications satellite can be released over India "at the correct place and time". Since KSC is in a fixed position relative to the intended final position of the satellite (in geostationary orbit), it will also presumably be in a fixed position relative to the point of release (in LEO). So why then can STS-8 be launched only within a certain narrow window at night? Presumably there are other, time-dependent factors involved, but what would these be? Ross. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 83 19:26:13 PDT (Thursday) From: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: SEM to Mars? To: Space@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Does anybody know how compact we could make a Scanning Electron Microscope, and what its power requirements might be? Landing an SEM on Mars ought to answer the life question once and for all. --Bruce ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 06-Aug-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #177 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 177 Today's Topics: Electric rockets STS Launch windows Ion drive Launch Dress Rehearsal ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Friday, 5 August 1983 10:15:57 EDT From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS To: space@mc Subject: Electric rockets Message-ID: <1983.8.5.14.4.2.David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS> There is another type of electric rocket (besides ion) which has been used for attitude stabilization. It involves a block of teflon and an electrical spark. The spark vaporizes a bit of teflon, which then goes flying out the nozzle. AW&ST carried an article on it -- what, several moons ago? In actual use on a spacecraft, the things were fired several times a second over some years. Very low thrust, but not much is needed for this application. Incidentally, the latest AW&ST (that I have seen) has a picture of the meteroid hit on Challenger's windshield which forced the glass to be replaced. ------------------------------ Date: 05 Aug 83 1007 PDT From: Tom Wadlow Subject: STS Launch windows To: space@MIT-MC, rsf@SU-AI One major factor is that NASA always tries to deploy a satellite in full daylight. That, plus a minimum fuel boost to the right slot in geosynch and a (usually futile, I suspect) try at getting the deployment to happen when the shuttle can talk to the ground (not very often, just yet) add up to a fairly small set of launch windows. --Tom ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 83 12:15:59 PDT From: gomez.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Ion drive To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: Gomez.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA The Jet Propulsion Laboratory has been working on mercury drive systems for a long time. In fact, the (now defunct) Halley-Tempel 2 mission was going to use ion drive for the cruise portions. I suggest you contact the Public Education office at JPL for more info (213) 354-4321. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 83 7:26:02-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Launch Dress Rehearsal NASA yesterday carried out a dress rehearsal of the launch of STS-8, with all five astronauts participating. The simulated launch was cut short just 13 seconds before the mock engine ignition when warning indicators showed that explosive devices that would have cut the bolts holding the SRB's to the pad would have failed. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 07-Aug-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #178 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 178 Today's Topics: Re: Roll out Space weapons on people ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Aug 83 19:25:54-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ihuxx!rjnoe @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Roll out In-Reply-To: Article <677@bronze.UUCP>, <2092@alice.UUCP> If a hurricane was "imminently upon" KSC, the shuttle wouldn't have time to get back into the VAB before the 70-mph winds hit. I'm assuming that you would move STS back on the crawler transporter. You COULD ignite the engines and get it back to the VAB much faster :-) ! Roger Noe ...ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 83 1:25:28-EDT (Sun) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!watmath!bstempleton @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Space weapons on people In-Reply-To: Article <854@pur-phy.UUCP> Although it is obvious that any beam weapon could never be effective as a weapon of destruction against a city, there are other implications of high accuracy weapons from space. Perhaps someday we'll be able to aim a laser or some form of death ray at an individual on the ground. What an interesting deterrent this would become. Hey Mr. Terrorist or Mr. Enemey leader. Our weapon kills YOU. Not your cities. Not your soldiers. Not your people. You. Sure, you can stay underground all the time. Never see the light of day again. Be our prisoner in your own home. If this is what you want, then mess with us. You can hide, but you can't run! I prefer any idea in weapons that means precision. This means laser guided bombs and beam weapons. These are weapons that can't be used against people, only military targets and military leaders. Anything that makes war more personal for the Generals and Presidents involved is a step forward in weapons. Let all the Generals of the world kill themselves off. As Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven would say, "Think of it as Evolution In Action." -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 08-Aug-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #179 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 179 Today's Topics: Re: s.e.t.i - (nf) Space weapons on people Re: Electric rockets Re: Space station? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Aug 83 7:14:38-PDT (Sun) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!ucbesvax.turner @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: s.e.t.i - (nf) Re: Radio emissions as a decades-long blip in E.T. civilizations If we can assume that most technological civilizations go through the same phases in communications (radio to optics), then this might be a clue in itself. By watching the skies for radio activity that lasts only a few decades, we have a fair indication of a civilization that is moving toward the ability to receive and send transmissions. Some major objections to this argument: 1 Would it be detectable against the background radio noise present in the stellar locality? 2 Don't some (non-sentient) objects out these have periodic behavior of this sort (more noise, of a more deceptive kind)? The argument that radio will become passe has some weight, but only for those civilizations that have no interest in or little awareness of space. (Laser technology will have to improve fantastically in order to match radio achievements like the Deep Space Network.) That's not to rule it out. A very large cloud-covered planet with no moon might take a long time discovering that their planet went around the sun rather than vice versa. This might not be a real impediment to technological advancement--although I see strong arguments to the contrary, given the pivotal role of astronomy in the sciences of antiquity. We might be thinking about how important it is to have a moon; or a planet small enough that its size can be measured by the techniques of the early Greek geometers; or having a neighboring planet far enough away, and with moons far enough from *it* (i.e., a "jupiter"), that the finiteness of light-speed can be measured by Galilean (?) techniques; or an orbit large enough to make stellar parallax a reliable technique for determining at least the orders of magnitude involved in stellar distances. Astronomy provided alarming evidence that counter-intuitive perceptions of the universe, based on barely visible phenomena, might have some weight. The persistence and insight of a pitifully small number of people had a staggering impact on history. Astronomy was, perhaps, the first real science; and optics had to be at least empirically understood to get beyond a certain point. It would be a very lucky race to live in a planetary system where all these effects were visible with their native optical equipment (i.e., "eyes".) Good clocks were also important, but this is a little easier. Having materials for the fabrication of lenses seems to be the crucial thing. Without knowing much more than we do about the "average" planet out there, it's going to be hard to come to an assessment of current SETI strategies. The only major breakthrough I've seen is in paleobiology: some researchers have begun to think that spontaneous protein synthesis was a lot less chancy than they originally thought--it just seems to fall right out of the early chemistry of our planet. Perhaps this has bearing on the chances for life elsewhere, and hence, the chances for intelligent life. Another breakthrough is cryogenic circuits, which operate best at temperatures near the background temperature of the universe. Here at Berkeley, they are making Josephson junction receivers which are *very* sensitive. Perhaps good "ears" can be made from these. Michael Turner ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner ------------------------------ Date: 8 August 1983 01:41 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Space weapons on people Unfortunately a weapon that can kill a particular terrorist can also be used to kill a particular dissident. Let's be careful. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 83 16:53:05-PDT (Sun) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!karn @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Electric rockets Speaking of electric rockets, AMSAT has come up with a similar rocket that could be used on a future payload launched from a GAS can on the shuttle. The problem here is that you want an engine to boost the payload into a longer lived orbit than 300 km, but to prove to the NASA people at the same time that it is intrinsically safe to fly on a manned vehicle. The proposal is to fly a steam rocket. Liquid water is directly preheated with solar energy and fed to a thrust chamber where an electrically powered heater turns it to steam. Specific impulse is terrible (~140 sec) but mass isn't a limitation; only a couple tens of kilograms of water would be required for the job. Of course it would be much easier and quicker to just carry two solid rocket motors to perform a two-impulse Hohmann transfer to the higher circular orbit, but just getting permission from NASA to deploy something from the GAS can will be a major accomplishment. Phil ------------------------------ Date: 2 Aug 83 15:54:10-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!lanl-a!unm-ivax!nmtvax!student @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Space station? The main way of the space stations "killing" ICBM's is by frying the crap out of the electronic circuits disabling its ability to detonate. Very few cities are so dependent on IC chips. Sincerely; Greg Hennessy ..ucbvax!unmvax!nmtvax!student ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 09-Aug-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #180 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 180 Today's Topics: WORLD SPACCE FOUNDATION Re: Space weapons on people Cuban astronaut? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Aug 1983 1032-PDT Subject: WORLD SPACCE FOUNDATION From: TOM MCGUINNESS To: SPACE@MIT-MC POSTAL-ADDRESS: TOM MCGUINNESS,SMC 2147,, NPS, MONTEREY,CA 93940 Phone: (Home) 408-899-1312 (NPS office) 408-646-2174/5 AV 878-2174/5 Digging through some junk I found a flyer about two years old form the world space foundation. They talked about a solar sail project that they were working on in conjunction with University of Utah and JPL. A guy by the name of Stahle (sp?) is director. Anybody know anything about the project---or about the foundation? GRL ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 83 19:46:18 PDT (Monday) From: Poskanzer.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: Space weapons on people To: REM@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: SPACE@MIT-MC.ARPA From: Robert Elton Maas Unfortunately a weapon that can kill a particular terrorist can also be used to kill a particular dissident. Let's be careful. I don't think we have to worry about this. The only reason for using a space weapon to kill a particular person is that conventional assassination techniques wouldn't work. The CIA allegedly tried many times to kill Castro, and of course they never succeeded. A "finger-of-god" type weapon would do the trick. On the other hand, if the USSR wanted to assassinate say Scharansky or Solzenitzin (sorry, spelling is not hereditary), they would have to be extremely stupid to use a space weapon. Now, I'm not saying that it would be good to give the CIA the means to assassinate Castro - one man's terrorist is another man's Libertador - but we certainly do not have to worry about space weapons being used on the little guy. --- Jef ------------------------------ Date: 8 Aug 83 8:48:55-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: npois!hogpc!houti!chips1 @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Cuban astronaut? Someone submitted an article a couple days ago saying that a Cuban was the first black to venture into space. I would like some additional background information about the astronaut, such as: 1. When did he make the flight? 2. What was his name? 3. How old was he? etc. Harry Bims ATTIS - Holmdel, NJ houti!chips1 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 10-Aug-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #181 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 181 Today's Topics: Re: WORLD SPACCE FOUNDATION SPACE Digest V3 #180 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 9 Aug 83 10:02:57 PDT (Tuesday) From: Lynn.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: WORLD SPACCE FOUNDATION In-reply-to: TOM MCGUINNESS's message of 8 Aug 1983 1032-PDT To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: Lynn.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA I was impressed by the talks I have heard by the World Space Foundation president, and now they get my yearly dues. A small size sail was fabricated and deployed, a full size is being made. The second project the WSF is into is near-earth asteroid investigation. They are supplementing a project already started by astronomer Eleanor Helin in this area. Good candidate asteroids for spacecraft visits have been found. They will be glad to send you more information if you write them at PO Box Y, South Pasadena, CA 91030. /Don Lynn ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1983 17:54 EDT Message-ID: <[MIT-OZ].MINSKY. 9-Aug-83 17:54:29> From: MINSKY@MIT-OZ To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC Cc: SPACE@MIT-MC Subject: SPACE Digest V3 #180 In-reply-to: Msg of 9 Aug 1983 06:03-EDT from Ted Anderson As for lasering people from space, it is ny impression that the current vague proposals for missile destroying space-based beam weapons depend on exploding small nuclear devices to excite the lasers. Such weapons are expensive and non-reusable, and can't be used frivolously, since such uses would start wars. I suppose, though, that there are other proposals around by now. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 11-Aug-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #182 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 182 Today's Topics: micrometeoroid impact on shuttle Vegan Colonies ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Aug 83 6:36:27-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ukc!dgd @ Ucb-Vax Subject: micrometeoroid impact on shuttle regarding message from david smith about a meteoroid impact on a shuttle window: i have not yet seen av.week and sp. tech. (megadeath weekly!) article so i assume the impact was fairly large (1mm?). spacecraft windows such as those from skylab/apollo are very useful for recording micro- particle hypervelocity impacts and in some cases they retain material from the incident particles. does anybody know where the window has ended up? ...!vax135!ukc!dgd ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 83 18:56-EST (Wed) From: Steven Gutfreund Return-Path: Subject: Vegan Colonies To: space@mit-mc, sf-lovers@rutgers Via: UMASS-CS; 10 Aug 83 19:08-EDT VEGAN COLONIES DISCOVERED Well, not exactly. Nevertheless the front page of today's NYT was almost as surprizing. Especially for someone like me who has been openly sceptical of the numerology people have been using to come up with figures for the number of planets in the galaxy. Now there is something other than fluff to base such guesses. Today it was announced that the IRAS (Infrared Orbiting Telescope) has discoverd some sort of accretion sphere of cold matter circling VEGA. The cold matter is of undetermined size, but certainly larger than dust. (It could not have stayed in orbit) While it could have planet sized objects, most astronomers believe that at the least, they have discovered a proto solar system. Vega (Alpha/Lyra) is approximately 26 light years from where I currently sitting. It is estimated to be only 1 billion years old, and twice as bright as old SOL. The matter extends for at least 80 AU from Vega (Pluto is 40 AU from the Sun). - Steven Gutfreund Gutfreund.umass@udel-relay ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 12-Aug-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #183 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 183 Today's Topics: Solar system found around star Vega planets ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Aug 83 13:31:03-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!gsw @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Solar system found around star Seen on lunch-time television news today: a solar system has been found around Vega. I think they said the system is still being formed - Vega is a much younger star than ours. I therefor assume that no planets have been detected. Is this the first time dust has been found around a star, or what? Any more details anyone? Gordon Watson AT&T Information Systems, Holmdel, Room IJ314a ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 83 2217 PDT From: Hans Moravec Subject: Vega planets To: space@MIT-MC n085 1721 09 Aug 83 AM-PLANET Evidence of Infant Planetary System Circling Nearby Star By WALTER SULLIVAN c. 1983 N.Y. Times News Service NEW YORK - The possibility that an infant planetary system is circling a nearby star has been raised by new evidence from an orbiting observatory. The Infra Red Astronomy Satellite launched last January has discovered that the star Vega is surrounded by a giant disk or shell of material. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory of the California Institute of Technology described the discovery Tuesday as the first direct evidence of solid objects orbiting a star other than the sun. The sizes of objects within the cloud could be anywhere from those of buckshot to full-fledged planets. According to the jet propulsion laboratory the objects must be larger than dust grains, which long since would have been removed from orbit. The discovery provides, the laboratory said, ''the first scientific opportunity to study what may be an early solar system accreting from stellar debris'' in the same manner as the sun and planets of this system. Vega is relatively near and is the third brightest star in the sky. It is currently prominent in the ''summer triangle'' of Vega, Deneb and Altair and in the northeast can be seen almost directly overhead at this season. Vega is thought to be less than a billion years old - less than a quarter the age of the sun and its family of planets. It is believed that the solar system, in its infancy, was also a cloud of dust, gas and meteoritic fragments that formed into a disc and then into objects as large as moons and, finally, planets. Vega is twice the size of the sun and 60 times as luminous. It is 26 light years away - the distance traveled by light in that length of time. The nearest star is 4.3 light years distant. The cloud of matter around Vega extends 80 astronomical units from the star. One astronomical unit is the distance of the earth from the sun. Pluto, the outermost planet, is almost 40 astronomical units from the sun, so the cloud (or disk) is somewhat larger than the region inhabited by the planets of the solar system. The discovery was serendipitous. Operators of the satellite, which is controlled from the Appleton-Rutherford Laboratory in Chilton, England, aimed IRAS at Vega to test the sensitivity of its detectors, since that star is often used for such calibration. It was found that the star was enveloped in an enormous cloud, ring or shell of material. The discovery was made by Dr. H.H. Aumann of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Fred Gillett of the Kitt Peak National Observatory near Tucson, Arizona. The satellite, a joint venture of Britain, the Netherlands and the United States, has already discovered a number of comets and other phenomena most readily detected at the infrared wavelengths emitted by relatively cool objects. The cloud around Vega is estimated to be at about minus 300 degrees Fahrenheit, which is similar to the temperature of Saturn's rings. It is not possible to determine the composition of the material in the cloud nor how much of it there is, the statement added. While this is the first direct evidence suggesting another planetary system, there has been speculation in the past about the possibility that such systems exist. It has been hypothesized, for instance, that some stars appeared to fly a winding path through space because of the gravitational influence of unseen planets. Most often discussed among these stars is the small, faint red star discovered in 19l6 by Edward E. Barnard and known as Barnard's star. It is only six light years away. Evidence for such perturbations has never been strong enough to convince the astronomical community that planets were the cause. Clouds of dust and gas are also observed in various parts of the sky and are thought to mark where new stars and possibly planets are forming. But the evidence was indirect. Radio emissions from such clouds indicate they are rich in molecules that could provide starting materials for the evolution of living organisms. But this evidence suggests matter much less substantial than that reported Tuesday. nyt-08-09-83 2013edt *************** ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 13-Aug-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #184 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 184 Today's Topics: Space Station Re: Solar system found around star Intelligent life is not present on Earth 2nd Solar System Found???? Laser Weapons There is only one solar system Other Planetary Systems AM-Focus-Microwave Weapons, Bjt,780 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Aug 83 14:13:33-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!clyde!crc @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Space Station The ussr has a space station. At this moment it is in orbit and operation and there is a crew on it. They have had a series of these for several years. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 83 8:34:39-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Solar system found around star In-Reply-To: Article <353@hou5f.UUCP> It is *NOT* dust. Scientists were very deliberate to point out that they KNOW the particles are not dust. (1) Dust would have blown away when Vega ignited and (2) the infrared telescope wouldn't have seen the dust. Although they do not know howbig the particles are, they do know they are at least as big as ''buckshot.'' ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 83 12:34:06-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!tektronix!tekecs!orca!davidl @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Intelligent life is not present on Earth Heard last night on the TV (channel 12 in Portland, OR) in reference to the recent discovery by the IRAS satellite of what is very likely a solar system in the process of forming around Vega: "Astrologists (sic) have known about the star Veega (sic) for thousands of years... ... discovered by the satellite IRIS (sic) ... If this is true, astronomers will have to re-write their textbooks." The film reporter consistently pronounced the name of the star with a long E and referred to the discovering satellite as IRIS. Once the film piece was over, the local anchorpersons went on to say that what with Star Trek and all it was a wonder they hadn't discovered this before... If this is the sort of stuff we're broadcasting to the stars, no wonder they haven't replied! -- David D. Levine (...decvax!tektronix!tekecs!davidl) [UUCP] (...tekecs!davidl.tektronix@rand-relay) [ARPA] (We must drive ignorance about science from the four corners of the Earth!) ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 83 8:39:21-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ihuxb!alle @ Ucb-Vax Subject: 2nd Solar System Found???? This is reprinted from The Chicago Tribune of August 10, 1983 Earth finds a new neighbor Scientific snoops believe it's a 2d solar system >From Chicago Tribune Wires Pasadena, Calif. -- Astronomers using an infrared satellite telescope have found the first direct evidence that there may be another solar system in the Milky Way galaxy, scientists announced Tuesday. Don Bane of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory said the Infrared Astronomical Satellite, known as IRAS, found a shell or ring of large particles around Vega, the third brightest star in the sky. "The material could be a solar system at a different stage of development from our own," Bane said. "Because of Vega's relative youth [less than 1 billion years compared with the Sun's 4.6 bilion years], the material around it cannot have reached the same stage of evolution as our solar system." "The discovery, however, does provide the first direct evidence that solid objects of substantial size exist around a star other than the Sun." On a scale of 1 to 10, Bane added, the discovery is "an 8 or a 9." Vega is close to Earth in relation to other stars. It is twice the size of the Sun and 60 times as luminous. It is 26 light-years from Earth, the distance traveled by light in that length of time. The nearest star is 4.3 light-years away. IRAS, which measures the amount of infrared waves, or heat energy, of objects in space, was launched in January as an effort by the United States, Britain and the Netherlands. Its data is received by a tracking center at Rutherford Appleton Laboratories in Chilton, England. H. H. Aumann of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Fred Gillett of Kitt Peak National Observatory in Arizona were studying Vega as a source for calibrating the telescope on the satellite when they found that the star was much brighter and larger in infrared waves than expected from IRAS observations of similar stars. The scientists determined that the radiation was coming from an extended region around Vega stretching 7.4 billion miles out from the star. That would make its solar system twice the diameter of Earth's. The material is 300 degrees below zero, about the same temperature as particles in the innermost rings of Saturn. Because smaller material would have fallen back into the star, the scientists believe, the particles circling Vega could range from the size of buckshot to the size of a planet. The particles probably were left from Vega's formation and may resemble objects found in Earth's solar system such as asteroids, meteorites and other debris, the scientists said. "The discovery is the first opportunity to study what may be an early solar system [forming] from stellar debris, as our solar system is believed to have formed," Bane said. End of Story What an exciting development!!! Allen England at BTL Naperville, Illinois ihnp4!ihuxb!alle ------------------------------ Date: 11 Aug 83 19:55-EST (Thu) From: Charles Weems Return-Path: Subject: Laser Weapons To: space@mit-mc Via: UMASS-CS; 12 Aug 83 9:07-EDT From Science News, August 6, 1983: 'Major milestone' in lazer weapons tests ---------------------------------------- In the first successful tests of its kind, an airborne laser recently "defeated" missiles launched at it from another aircraft. The U.S. Air Force tests, announced July 25, marked completion of a series of experiments involving the Airborne Laser Laboratory. This flying test station, which the Air Force stresses is highly experimental and not a prototype weapon system, disabled five AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air heat-seeking missiles, causing them to veer off target and eventually crash-land. The challenge was to target and track an incoming missile precisely so that the infrared (carbon dioxide gas) laser could continuously illuminate one point on the missile's exterior long enough to burn through and destroy its sensitive guidance components inside. Initial trials two years ago ended in failure. Even this time, the Airborne Laser Laboratory's first eight attempts were unsuccessful. Explains Major Sam Giammo of the Air Force Systems Command, "We'd fire one [Sidewinder], fine tune the equipment a little bit, then fire another." This was over a period of two weeks at the end of May. "But once we got the equipment calibrated," he said, "we were five for five." The Air Force is calling the achievement "a major milestone" in its high energy laser program. It is one of the most visible advances in research by the Department of Defense (DOD) on directed-energy weaponry. Although this particular effort began long before DOD outlined its Space Laser Program Plan last year, Giammo acknowledged the technology demonstrated in these tests would apply to other DOD laser programs. Over the past year, DOD has expressed growing interest in laser weapons -- particularly for defensive purposes; for use against incoming enemy missiles and for protection of important data-gathering satellites in space. Describing his agency's new posture before the Senate subcommittee on strategic and theater nuclear forces earlier this year, Undersecretary for Directed Energy Weapons Major General Donald Lamberson said DOD currently expects to spend $900 million for research on space lasers during the next five years, prior to beginning extensive demonstrations in orbit. Roughly $600 million will go for programs to investigate the technical feasability and cost effectiveness of using lasers in space. Three programs directed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) -- ALPHA, LODE and TALON GOLD -- will dominate these efforts. Lamberson says ALPHA is investigating the prospects for high-powered mid-infrared-wavelength devices, though some shorter wavelength laser systems are being looked at too. LODE is examining the feasability of producing very large, precision mirrors to direct laser beams at their targets. It is also focusing on the difficulties of directing these beams at high brightness levels. TALON GOLD is concentrating on problems associated with locking a laser beam onto a moving target from space -- a target that will likely be moving at five or more times faster than the Sidewinders encountered in the recent Air Force tests. The Army's role in the Space Laser Program is more modest. Focusing on ballistic-missile defense, it is chiefly investigating the extent to which missiles can be "hardened" (protected) against laser radiation. The Army is also concentrating on short-wavelength lasers, the type expected to prove most useful in space operations. For its part, the Air Force is studying the hardening of aircraft, satellites and other potential targets for their survival under an attack by enemy weapons, including lasers. Responding to a growing public concern over further militarization of space, DARPA Director Robert Cooper told the Congress on March 23 of this year, "We are conducting research and planning related to space weaponry, but I emphasize that no commitment has been made to acquire space-based weapons. And we will proceed only if our national security is so threatened." --- J. Raloff Chip Weems ------------------------------ Date: Fri 12 Aug 83 12:26:31-PDT From: Robert Amsler Subject: There is only one solar system To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA I happened to check my nearby dictionary, and just as I suspected. The ``solar'' system is defined as ``The sun with the group of celestial bodies that are held by its attraction and revolve around it''. I.e. SOL, our sun, is built into the definition -- hence, Vega doesn't have a ``solar system'', but a ``stellar system''. Of course---there is one other definition of ``solar system'', namely a collection of solar panels to heat a home... :-) ------- ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 1983 1456-PDT From: METH at USC-ISI Subject: Other Planetary Systems To: SPACE at MIT-MC cc: METH at USC-ISI The 2.4 meter diameter NASA Space Telescope, to be placed in a 500 km orbit by the Shuttle in 1986, and left there for at least 5 years, will be able to measure a Jupiter-size planet orbiting a Sun-size star at a distance of 150 light years...Stand by... --Sheldon Meth ------- ------------------------------ Date: 12 Aug 83 1636 PDT From: Hans Moravec Subject: AM-Focus-Microwave Weapons, Bjt,780 To: space@MIT-MC a209 1110 12 Aug 83 TODAY'S FOCUS: Increasing Research On Microwave Beam Weapons By BARTON REPPERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States is quietly stepping up research on microwave beam weapons, which some American specialists say could pose a significant arms-proliferation problem in the future. According to Pentagon officials, scientists at military laboratories and defense experts on Capitol Hill, the U.S. effort has been spurred partly by concern over an apparent Soviet lead in several areas of high-power microwave technology. Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger alluded briefly to microwave warfare in a detailed ''Soviet Military Power'' report released last spring. Weinberger warned that signs of ''Soviet interest in radio-frequency technologies, particularly the capability to develop very high peak-power microwave generators, indicate that the Soviets intend to develop such a weapon.'' Since President Reagan's March 23 speech calling for development of a defensive shield against nuclear missile attack, attention has focused largely on possible use of visible-light lasers, particle beams and exotic X-ray laser systems. But several microwave specialists say it is already a more ''mature'' technology and may be more quickly utilized in directed-energy weapons. Microwave weapons are being considered for short-range tactical use against planes, cruise missiles and infantry forces as well as strategic defense. The microwave frequency spectrum is being used in radar, television, long-distance telephone lines, satellite communications, microwave ovens, medical therapy and various manufacturing processes. At high power levels, microwave radiation can burn out electronic components of weapon systems. People exposed to such a beam can suffer cataracts, third-degree skin burns, severe internal injuries, unconsciousness or death. A report issued early this year by the Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future expressed concern over the arms-control implications of offensive microwave weapons, which it said could pack ''great destructive power.'' ''Since these weapons might be easier to develop than nuclear arms, microwave devices could eventually be used by a large number of nations if the technology is not controlled,'' said the report, based on data compiled by House committees. John M. Bachkosky, a research and engineering official at the Pentagon, said in a recent interview that the development of high-power microwave weapons involved fewer technological hurdles than either high-energy lasers or particle beams. ''From a hardware standpoint, we are probably much further along in the area of microwave weaponry - or those components that could be used to make up a microwave weapon - than in the other two areas,'' he said. U.S. research efforts in the microwave area, Bachkosky said, are aimed largely at studying the vulnerability of various electronic components and weapon systems to high-intensity microwave bombardment. Bachkosky and other defense officials declined to give a dollar figure on research, but said the microwave program still comprised only a small fraction of the overall beam weapons budget, totaling about $480 million for fiscal 1984. However, the effort represents a substanial growth from the 1970s, officials said. Lt. Col. Richard L. Gullickson of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency noted that ''high-power microwave isn't really all Buck Rogers-type weapons.'' He cited examples including secure tactical communications systems, imaging radars able to precisely identify spacecraft in high orbit and special low tracking-angle radars to spot sea-skimming cruise missiles. Gullickson said military commanders tend to be skeptical about the value of microwave weapons because the beams would be more likely to cause a ''soft kill'' - disabling of electronics - rather than immediate destruction, as with an explosive warhead. Military facilities involved in high-power microwave research include Harry Diamond Laboratories, a unit of the Army's Electronics Research and Development Command; the Naval Research Laboratory, in Washington; the Naval Surface Weapons Center, Dahlgren, Va.; and the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, at Kirtland Air Force Base near Albuquerque, N.M. At Harry Diamond Laboratories, whose main complex is located in Adelphi, Md., scientists said they are working with magnetrons and other microwave-generating devices powered by very high-energy relativistic electron beams. ''You're really at the forefront of science and technology here and you have to struggle your way along, from day to day,'' physicist Edward A. Brown said in a recent interview. But he added: ''We're definitely making progress.'' Brown said the laboratory was attempting to push microwave technology ''considerably beyond'' the megawatt-level power outputs obtainable with conventional radar equipment. Asked about the prospects for developing a tactical microwave weapon system that can actually be deployed by the Army, Brown replied cautiously: ''We're in the realm of the possible. We're not in the realm of the probable, yet.'' ap-ny-08-12 1411EDT *************** ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 14-Aug-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #185 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 185 Today's Topics: Second solar system found? Veega PM-Vega Halo,620 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Aug 83 20:29:59-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!markp @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Second solar system found? Really? A second solar system? I thought Sol had only nine planets. I know it's nit-picking, but only Sol has a solar system. Objects in orbit about Vega could form a planetary system or a vegan system, but never a solar system. Mark Paulin ...tektronix!tekmdp!markp ------------------------------ Date: Saturday, 13 August 1983 14:56:22 EDT From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS To: space@mc cc: decvax!tektronix!tekecs!orca!davidl@ucb-vax Subject: Veega Message-ID: <1983.8.13.18.31.17.David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS> ...the star Veega (sic) ... The film reporter consistently pronounced the name of the star with a long E A strange criticism. Webster's Unabridged Dictionary gives one pronunciation: with a long E. Funk and Wagnall's Collegiate dictionary shows a long E in the first pronunciation, with a long A for the secondary pronunciation. As for astronomers rewriting their textbooks, I recall that little gem in both CBS and INN reports. It is careless wording, which suggests that previous theories would have to be thrown out. They should have just said that the discovery is important enough to demand coverage in textbooks. *** The articles posted to the net give Vega's distance as 26 light years. My 1980 Information Please Almanac gives it as 23 light years as of January, 1979. What's the true distance? (I don't suppose it moved that far in four years!) David Smith ------------------------------ Date: 13 Aug 83 1835 PDT From: Hans Moravec Subject: PM-Vega Halo,620 To: space@MIT-MC a059 0652 13 Aug 83 Vega's Halo Emerges As 'Super-Duper Asteroid Belt' LOS ANGELES (AP) - The vast ring of objects around the nearby star Vega is more likely ''a super-duper asteroid belt'' than a new solar system, some astronomers say. Stuart Weidenschilling, an astronomer with the Planetary Sciences Institute of Tuscon, Ariz., said the strong infrared signal coming from the region suggests an enormous number of small particles radiating at the same frequency, comparable to the asteroid belt within the Earth's solar system. The Earth's belt consists of more than 100,000 fragments believed to be leftovers from the formation of the solar system. They range in size from a few inches to several hundred miles in diameter. The 15-billion-mile shell of debris around Vega was discovered earlier this week. The star is 150 trillion miles from Earth and the third brightest star in our sky. The debris has yet to be glimpsed clearly, but it appears to be ''a super-duper asteroid belt,'' Weidenschilling said. ''If there were just a few big planet-sized objects there, they wouldn't radiate (infrared energy) as strongly as a large number of small objects with a greater total surface.'' That means there may be much more material the size of buckshot, popcorn and boulders surrounding Vega than revolve around the sun. If there are any large bodies, they are probably few and far between. George W. Wetherill, a geophysicist with the Carnegie Institution of Washington, agreed. ''There's got to be a lot of small stuff, debris, around Vega,'' he said, ''and for that very reason, I'd be reluctant to call it a 'planetary' system. In fact, you could even argue the evidence is against calling it a 'planetary' system because it is such small stuff.'' The scientists' comments were reported today in the Los Angeles Times. Wetherill and Richard Greenberg, another Planetary Sciences Institute astronomer, are skeptical that material could ever amount to a planetary system. They said that if it has not happened by now, it is not likely to happen in the future. Astronomers have been searching for decades for evidence of other solar systems. Some argue that uncountable millions of planets must exist in the universe and some should harbor extraterrestrial life. None has yet been found. But the Vega particles sparked guarded excitement that scientists might be on the trail of one. The particles were discovered by H.H. Aumann of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena and Fred Gillett of Arizona's Kitt Peak National Observatory, at a tracking station at Chilton, England, for a telescope rocketed into space in January to map the heavens. The infrared satellite measured a temperature of minus 300 degrees Fahrenheit for the frigid matter circling Vega, in the consellation Lyra, similar to that found within the inner rings of the planet Saturn. Conway Snyder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory cautioned when the discovery was announced that whether it represented a solar system ''was very much conjecture.'' He termed it an ''exciting'' find, however. Despite the doubts over whether the matter is forming planets, the spotting of the Vega particles is a shot in the arm for cosmogony, the science that seeks to understand how astronomical structures such as stars and stellar systems form. It offers scientists an example of how huge clouds of gas and dust condense to build a central star and, perhaps, a retinue of planets. Until now, scientists have had only one subject to study: our solar system. ''When you only have one of something you're trying to study, no matter what the subject is, it's hard to do much,'' said Charles Beichman, an astronomer at the Jet Propulsion lab. ''But when you find two, there's probably a lot more out there just waiting to be discovered.'' ap-ny-08-13 0953EDT *************** ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 15-Aug-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #186 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 186 Today's Topics: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #185 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Aug 1983 0621-PDT From: Henry W. Miller Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #185 To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC, SPACE at MIT-MC cc: Miller at SRI-NIC In-Reply-To: Your message of 14-Aug-83 0303-PDT As I recall, didn't they (the scientists) find evidence of a gas giant (or two) around Barnard's star? (This was a few years back...) -HWM ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 17-Aug-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #187 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 187 Today's Topics: Palomar ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 16 Aug 83 13:12-EST (Tue) From: Steven Gutfreund Return-Path: Subject: Palomar To: space@mit-mc Via: UMASS-CS; 16 Aug 83 18:12-EDT News Item: San Diego decides to go ahead (against Palomar astronomers' wishes) and install street lighting that will "significantly" degrade viewing at the Palomar obserbatory. The town insists on using high pressure sodium lights that give off a "peachy" color. They say that the low pressure sodium lights are yellow looking and make people look like cadavers under their light. The astronomers say that the current mercury lights only emit along about 7 distinct frequencies, and that gives them room to work around. They would perfer the City to go with the low pressure sodium lights that would only emit on 1 frequency. The high pressure sodium lights emit across the entire spectrum and present a wall to astronomers that they cannot work around. [I may have gotton some of the numbers wrong here, perhaps someone with the NYT clipping service can provide the complete article] - Steven Gutfreund ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 18-Aug-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #188 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 188 Today's Topics: STS-8 Flight Time Extended Name of the sun TDRS update W5RRR and STS-8 US Space Station TDRS-1 Succesfully Tested 2nd Solar System Found???? Veega PM-Vega Halo,620 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Aug 83 19:36:13-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: STS-8 Flight Time Extended NASA announced today that STS-8 will remain in orbit for six, rather than five, days in order to have more time in which to check out the TDRS-1 satellite. The new landing time is 0025 EDT on 5 September. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 83 18:13:57-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!bronze!billp @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Name of the sun The discussion about a possible planetary system around Vega brought up the question about names. "Sun" is just a generic term that applies to the star closest to the planet on which one stands. A few years back I spoke with someone who insisted that the name of our star is "Copernicus". Can anyone confirm or deny? I have not heard anyone use that name since. The same person said that the name of our galaxy is "Bruno Galaxy". Bill Pfeifer {decvax,ucbvax,zehntel,uw-beaver} !tektronix!tekmdp!billp ------------------------------ Date: 17 Aug 83 1450 PDT From: Ron Goldman Subject: TDRS update To: space@MIT-MC a288 2053 15 Aug 83 AM-Satellite,320 Test of Communications Satellite Is Successful REDONDO BEACH, Calif. (AP) - A $100 million communications satellite that will be used in space shuttle flights has successfully completed its first operational test, relaying information from another satellite to the Earth, a spokeswoman said Monday. The Tracking and Data Relay Satellite, known as TDRS-1, was able to relay data from the earth resources satellite Landsat 4 to the TDRS ground station in White Sands, N.M., said TRW Inc. spokeswoman Julie Wright. ''For the first time in the history of scientific data-gathering satellites, two unmanned orbiting satellites communicated with euch other and a groansmission,'' Ms. Wright said. TDS-1 which was designed and built by Redondo Beach-based TRW, was sent into the wrong orbit by a misfiring rocket following its launch last April. It took scientists until June 29 to correct the error. The satellite is now in an orbit 22,236 miles above a fixed point on Earth. Lower-orbiting satellites such as Landsat circle around about 175 to 300 miles above the Earth's surface and can therefore only be tracked by ground stations over about 15 percent of their orbit. But because of its high orbit, TDRS-1 is able to receive and relay signals from the lower-orbiting satellites over a much larger area. Ms. Wright said once a sister satellite, TDRS-2, is in place, the two TDRS satellites will be able to track satellites over an estimated 85 percent of the Earth's surface. The second TDRS is scheduled for launch next spring. Landsat 4 has been unable to communicate to ground stations at all since one of its transmitter bands failed earlier this year, Ms. Wright said. But using a different transmission band in the tests Friday and Saturday, Landsat 4 was able to beam computerized images up to TDRS-1, which in turn sent them down to White Sands. The tests were conducted from White Sands and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., Ms. Wright said. ap-ny-08-15 2354EDT *************** ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 83 17:49:36-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: W5RRR and STS-8 Does anyone know whether or not W5RRR is planning to rebroadcast STS-8 ground-shuttle and shuttle-ground transmissions like they have done in the past, and, if so, which frequencies they plan to use? ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 83 9:45:21-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!linus!vaxine!agr @ Ucb-Vax Subject: US Space Station >From Aviation Week and Space Technology, Aug. 15, 1983: "Influential members of the White House Senior Interagency Group (SIG) for space last week indicated the US should not undertake development of a space station project. The viewpoints did not represent a SIG consensus but do illustrate the strong opposition that is developing to counter NASA's station plan. SIG members lining up against the station included the Office of Management and Budget, State Dept., the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Defense Dept. The movement of Defense from a neutral position to one opposing a $7.5-9 billion development reflected oncern that the station cost would drain federal development money in general and, more specifically, funding to maintain shuttle program support. SIG members believed NASA has not made strong enough tradeoff studies about manned versus unmanned space systems. Favoring the station were NASA, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the Commerce Dept. It will now be up to President Reagan to determine which side of the argument to support. The SIG did not evaluate the possible international and domestic political advantages of a station development, and this is viewed by all participants as an important factor President Reagan will consider in the debate." If you want a space station this century write Reagan now! Arnold Reinhold ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 83 7:25:20-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: TDRS-1 Succesfully Tested TDRS-1 was successfully tested yesterday, as it relayed signals from the Landsat 4 satellite to the TDRS ground station. The next major test of the satellite will come on STS-8, when it will relay signals from the shuttle to the ground. ------------------------------ Date: 17 August 1983 21:40 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: 2nd Solar System Found???? To: ihnp4!ihuxb!alle @ UCB-VAX cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC Indeed "Sol" is the name of our star, also called the "Sun", and there is only one Solar system, ours. It seems to me we could use the generic term "planetary systems" and not confuse anyone. Anyone have a way to get this suggestion to the major wire services? ------------------------------ Date: 17 August 1983 21:59 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Veega To: David.Smith @ CMU-CS-IUS cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC, decvax!tektronix!tekecs!orca!davidl @ UCB-VAX Date: Saturday, 13 August 1983 14:56:22 EDT From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS The articles posted to the net give Vega's distance as 26 light years. My 1980 Information Please Almanac gives it as 23 light years as of January, 1979. A chart of nearby (17 ly or closer) and bright (1st magnitude or brighter) stars in Sky&Telescope (1982 Sept, page 254) lists Vega as 26.5 lightyears from here. I guess that means the almanac has an error and "needs to be rewritten" . ------------------------------ Date: 17 August 1983 22:04 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: PM-Vega Halo,620 To: HPM @ SU-AI cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC That article refers to it as a "shell", i.e. a spherical surface. The asteroid belt of our Sun is more like a ring. Was that a mistake in terminology or has the Vegan system definitely been identified as a shell instead of a ring? Perhaps the shell is really a Dyson sphere, i.e. artificial. Do the current observations refute that possibility? I would rather doubt a shell of natural particles could remain after a billion years, while a ring could. If it's really a shell that would seem to indicate somebody's artificially maintaining it. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 19-Aug-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #189 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 189 Today's Topics: Re: Name of the sun Re: Veega Re: SPACE Digest V3 #188 The name of our sun is "Sol". STS-9 Frequencies Announced ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 17 Aug 83 18:18:00-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ihuxl!esj @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Name of the sun In-Reply-To: Article <690@bronze.UUCP> Since I have my bachelor's and graduate work in astronomy/astrophysics, I feel compelled to relate the rules for using terms like "solar system", "sun", etc. The main rule is that there are no firm rules, at least to the best of my recollection. For example, when one says "stellar system" one can be referring to a binary or larger system of stars going around a common center of gravity or one can be talking about a whole galaxy. The "Sun" is Sol but to a person standing on say Vega X "the sun" is Vega. It's sort of like "South" meaning Dixie and "south" meaning the the direction. Take things in context and there won't be problems. If somebody wants to talk about planets of Vega, I would use the term "planetary system" but mainly just because I'm a heliocentric chauvinist. The *context* in which I heard "stellar system" used always implied stars, not planets. Aside from the astronomer, the only Copernicus I know is a satellite. Our galaxy has always been known to me as "The Milky Way" or "The Galaxy" (being chauvinistic again). Just be thankful it wasn't named Ford. Hey UTASTRO! Any comments? Jeff "Given to demented ravings" Johnson ihnp4!ihuxl!esj ------------------------------ Date: Thursday, 18 August 1983 11:35:34 EDT From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS To: Robert Elton Maas cc: SPACE@MIT-MC, decvax!tektronix!tekecs!orca!davidl@UCB-VAX Subject: Re: Veega Message-ID: <1983.8.18.15.35.6.David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS> Thank you for the correction. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Aug 83 15:01 PDT From: MKrigel.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #188 In-reply-to: "OTA@S1-A.ARPA's message of 18 Aug 83 03:03 PDT" To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: MKrigel.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA The name of our sun is Sol, but the system name elludes me, Sol system? Marc ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 83 11:57:16-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!markp @ Ucb-Vax Subject: The name of our sun is "Sol". Of course the name of our sun is "Sol", hence "solar system". The name of our galaxy is "The Milky Way", or sometimes just "the Galaxy" with a capital "G". Mark Paulin ...tektronix!tekmdp!markp ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 83 0:06:45-EDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!iwu1c!jgpo @ Ucb-Vax Subject: STS-9 Frequencies Announced According to Westlink, the frequencies which Dr. Owen Garriott, W5LFL, will use on the historic STS-9 Shuttle mission have been announced. Dr. Garriott will transmit, using mode F3, on 145.550 MHz. He will monitor frequencies between 144.910 MHz and 145.090 MHz, in 20 kHz steps. According to an article in the September issue of 73 Magazine, Dr. Garriott will announce which call area(s) he will listen for. He will announce his intentions for 60 seconds. For the next 60 seconds, he will monitor his preprogrammed frequencies between 144.910 and 145.090. During the next 60 seconds, he will read back a list of the callsigns he has recognized. It is recommended that earth stations limit their transmitter output power to 10 watts. Remember, that Dr. Garriott is in charge of the show and can easily bypass any channel having excessive QRM caused by the high-power boys. Use a good antenna; a 2M turnstile is recommended. Do not use a highly directional antenna; the Shuttle will be moving way too fast to keep it aimed properly. Westlink's Hollywood number, (213)-465-5550, will be devoted entirely to STS-9 information starting September 1. Be sure to listen to the W1AW bulletins. Good luck! 73, John Opalko KA9MNK ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 20-Aug-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #190 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 190 Today's Topics: Shuttle and Philately whats in a name Re: Name of the sun Re: The name of our sun is "Sol". TRDS-1 Impact? Re: Name of the sun Re: 2nd Solar System Found???? - (nf) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Aug 83 8:58:37-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!glinski @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Shuttle and Philately Does anyone know which shuttle flight will carry the 'space covers' issued by the U.S. Postal Service? (These are cacheted covers with the new $9.35 express mail stamp affixed and canceled). Orders must be received after the shuttle lands. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 83 15:07:34-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!seismo!tiberio @ Ucb-Vax Subject: whats in a name I vote for Sol. It's what I always understood to be the name of our sun. Ty ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 83 11:29:44-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ihldt!jhowe @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Name of the sun In-Reply-To: Article <690@bronze.UUCP>, <494@ihuxl.UUCP> I would tend to agree with Jeff Johnson. Based on this, I looked in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary for support. The following is an excerpt from that entry. sun 1 a: the luminous celestial around which the earth and other planets revolve. . . b: a celestial body like the sun ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 83 10:39:12-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: npois!hogpc!houti!ariel!hou5f!hou5e!hou5d!kwmc @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: The name of our sun is "Sol". In-Reply-To: Article <2137@tekmdp.UUCP> Our galaxy is NOT called the Milky Way. The Milky Way refers to the band of stars which are visible form the earth, when looking away from the galactic center. i.e. The Milky Way refers to a part of our galaxy in a spiral arm. Ken Cochran hou5d!kwmc P.S. does anybody disaggree ? ------------------------------ Date: 17 Aug 83 18:10:03-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxj!mhuxl!mhuxm!pyuxi!u1100a!u1100s!dad @ Ucb-Vax Subject: TRDS-1 Impact? Does anyone know whether having the single TDRS satellite (i.e. TDRS-1) functioning during STS-8 will significantly increase the percentage of time that there will be shuttle to ground communications? Or do we have to wait until there is a full set of TRDS satellites before they really begin to have an impact? ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 83 13:56:15-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: npois!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!sts @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Name of the sun In-Reply-To: Article <690@bronze.UUCP>, <494@ihuxl.UUCP> There's also a lunar crater named Copernicus.... From the smart-aleck in the crowd, stan the leprechaun hacker ssc-vax!sts (soon utah-cs) ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 83 22:49:10-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: 2nd Solar System Found???? - (nf) #R:ihuxb:-29500:uicsl:11100013:000:370 uicsl!preece Aug 18 09:45:00 1983 My recollection is that the Bernard's Star data has since been written off as observational anomalies, rather than gravitational, and that the consensus is that there is no evidence to support the claim of a planet there. (I'm not an astronomer, and I'd love to know there's another proved planet out there, so if somebody knows better than I, please enlighten us...) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 21-Aug-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #191 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 191 Today's Topics: I can name that star in 1 note... Re: The name of our sun is "Sol". Re: I can name that star in 1 note... Re: The name of our sun is "Sol". Space Shuttle Philately ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Aug 83 13:38:10-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!alice!rabbit!wolit @ Ucb-Vax Subject: I can name that star in 1 note... Contrary to the apparent tide of public opinion, I think "Sol" is a dumb name for our star. First of all, no one seems to know whether it's pronounced to rhyme with "doll" or with "dole." Secondly, "Sol" is a boy's name, which is gonna get a lot of girls ticked off. (On the other hand, as a boy, I'm not sure I like a big ball of hot gas automatically being named after one of us.) Also, given the role of our star in the development of our species -- it's either a distant ancestor, if you believe in evolution, or our Creator, if your a Sun worshipper (Judeo-Christo-Islamo types can flame to /dev/null) -- it seems a little informal to refer to it as just "Sol," rather than "Honourable Sol," or even "Solomon." Why can't we just go on referring to it as "the sun" (or "the Sun," if you will)? I mean, going metric is tough enough without also having to relearn old sayings like, "Sol rises in the east and sets in the west" and songs like, "Here come Sol." New Yawkers always refer to New York as "the city," even if they're in California at the time, and everyone knows what they mean. What are we risking by maintaining the status quo -- being considered parochial by Alpha Centaurians? I move that this discussion be continued on Vega, or at least on net.misc, if at all. Jan Wolitzky, Bell Labs, Murray Hill ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 83 15:37:58-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ihuxb!alle @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: The name of our sun is "Sol". In-Reply-To: Article <2137@tekmdp.UUCP>, <612@hou5d.UUCP> The name of our galaxy is "The Milky Way". The band of stars that we see at night is The Milky Way seen edge on. Allen England at Bell Labs, Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxb!alle ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 83 17:45:19-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!cmcl2!lanl-a!bb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: I can name that star in 1 note... In-Reply-To: Article <1820@rabbit.UUCP> I like the word 'Sol'. It is Latin and it rhymes with dole. It has sort of a majesty about it, probably because I have never known anyone named Sol, so I associate it only with the Sun, which is just what it's called, not what its name is. It occurs to me that if boys might get mad about being named Sol, every living male has reason to get upset about being called Sun. [very bad, I know :-)] The Milky Way is a wonderful name for our galaxy. I remember reading somewhere (perhaps in Science 78) about a star cluster or small galaxy discovered very close to the Milky Way. The name proposed by the discoverers was 'Snickers'. Can anyone verify? b2 ...!ucbvax!lbl-csam!lanl-a!bb ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 83 11:56:21-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!linus!utzoo!dciem!ntt @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: The name of our sun is "Sol". In-Reply-To: Article <612@hou5d.UUCP> Some authors use "Sol" (especially in science fiction, but then, they have the most need), some use "the Sun", some use "the sun", some use "our sun"... and similarly with "Milky Way", "our galaxy", etc. In short, it is a matter of opinion. But there is one group whose opinion matters more, and that is the people who assign names to comets and the like. The International Union of Astronomy, is it? Now, if anybody knows the proper name of the group and the usages that THEY prefer, tell us please. Mark Brader, NTT Systems Inc., Toronto ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1983 16:29 EDT Message-ID: <[MIT-OZ].MERMAN.20-Aug-83 16:29:10> From: Dave Goodine To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC Subject: Space Shuttle Philately In-reply-to: Msg of 20 Aug 1983 06:03-EDT from Ted Anderson STS-8 will be carrying the 250,000 comemorative postal covers for the U.S. postal service "to commemorate NASA's 25th anniversary". This, by the way, will be the first night launch of the space shuttle, and possibly a night landing from the Edwards Air Force Base. Extracted from "Space '83" Dave Goodine. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 22-Aug-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #192 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 192 Today's Topics: Re: The name of our sun is "Sol". Is the sun Jewish? BC-CERAMICS-2takes-08-22 Glenn & space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 August 1983 21:46 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: The name of our sun is "Sol". To: npois!hogpc!houti!ariel!hou5f!hou5e!hou5d!kwmc @ UCB-VAX cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC I've always seen our galaxy called "the Milky Way Galaxy", and M31 called "the Andromeda Galaxy". Thus while "the Milky Way" might refer just to what you see from the Earth, add the word "Galaxy" and it's the usual name for our galaxy. Is there any other name for our galaxy in common use other than local names such as "the Galaxy" or "our galaxy" etc.? Is there any other name for M31? ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 83 20:04:38 PDT (Sunday) From: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Is the sun Jewish? To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA "Sol" isn't a bad name, but why not Mel, or Sid, or Mort, or... --Bruce :-) ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 83 2137 PDT From: Hans Moravec Subject: BC-CERAMICS-2takes-08-22 To: space@MIT-MC, arms-d@MIT-MC n102 2020 21 Aug 83 By Robert Cooke (c) 1983 Boston Globe (Independent Press Service) Propped against the wall in Jim Hannoosh's office is a dark gray slab of sparkly material that represents tomorrow. ''That,'' Hannoosh said, pointing to the slab, ''is state of the art'' in modern ceramics. It's made of silicon nitride, which, through research, has been made into a 21st Century material so strong, so heat-and-corrosion resistant it makes steel seem a weakling. On Hannoosh's desk at the Norton Co. in Worcester, Mass., there's also a handful of small ball bearings. These, too, are made of silicon nitride, and they're capable of standing three times more pressure and two times more heat than most steel bearings. Such products are just the beginning. In modern research laboratories around the world, scientists have developing a new family of exotic ceramics that are opening a new era of super-strong, ultra-hard, heat-resistant materials for high technology. Other high technology ceramic materials include aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide and silicon carbide, each of which has its own set of useful properties. In time, these new ceramics are expected to replace rare and expensive metals in many applications, especially where heat resistance, hardness and durability are critical factors. In diesel engines, for instance, or in gas turbines. Because of recent progress, and increasing demand for ultra-durable materials, says Prof. G.B. Kenney, at MIT, high technology ceramics have now reached a threshhold, ''a leverage point ... where you make a major or quantum jump with a new materials technology, and a lot of (other) new technologies open up.'' Thus, observers expect high technology ceramics use to increase dramatically in the electronics industry, in gas turbines, jet engines, in automotive engines and elsewhere. As should be expected, the Japanese are out front in the race to take command of this hot new technology. As reported by MIT Professors H. Kent Bowen and Kenney, Japan's aggressive new emphasis on ceramics ''represents a bold initiative to achieve technological and market leadership'' in the field. They estimated the current worldwide market for high technology ceramics is around $4.25 billion. Half of it is now being met by Japanese companies, with sales of $2 billion in 1980. ''Fine ceramics (high performance ceramics) are expected to significantly influence the future of electronics, machining operations, automotive and utility power plants and processing and manufacturing system automation.'' In fact, say Bowen and Kenney, half of the high-technology ceramics now marketed worldwide are made by the Japanese. And on top of that, the Japanese government and industry have teamed to support an ambitious, richly endowed research program that may make Japan unbeatable in high performance ceramics. As Japan has pushed into the lead, they added, ''Great Britain, a traditional leader in the development of ceramics, has lost its advantage ... . The current challenge for ceramic industry leadership comes from Japan, where ceramics production and technology are flourishing.'' Hannoosh, a scientist involved the Norton Co.'s expanding ceramics research effort, added that the United States ''is actively competing with them. In some areas we're behind. But in other areas we're ahead.'' And, he said, one should remember that ''the United States has been the benchmark against which other work has been compared.'' Recently, Hannoosh said, several U.S. agencies ''have begun increasing funding in this area, in part because of the increased spending in Japan and Europe, but also because this is recognized as a technology that the United States needs. And we do have the people, the materials science techniques and the resources to make it work.'' In addition, he said, ''Norton considers itself a leader in this field of high performance ceramics, and we plan to be a key player in the future in this area.'' Looking ahead, Hannoosh said ''there are going to be applications for these materials where they haven't been used before,'' since their properties suit them for use in high performance machinery as bearings, as blades, bushings and other critical parts. This is especially true, he said, for the ''hot'' zones in new machinery where components must stand up reliably to extremes of heat and pressure. MORE nyt-08-21-83 2310edt *************** n104 2041 21 Aug 83 BC-CERAMICS-1stadd-08-22 X X X HEAT AND PRESSURE. At present, many such parts - especially those made for use in extra-hot environments - are made from expensive metals, the so-called super-alloys. These alloys require large amounts of metals such as cobalt and chromium, which are not abundant in the United States. Ceramics, on the other hand, are made from common and plentiful elements such as silicon, nitrogen, carbon and zirconium, which are abundant. According to researchers, some of the emerging uses for the new ceramics include: - The ceramic diesel engine, already built and being tested in separate programs by the U.S. Army and Japanese industrial firms. Ceramic engine parts are so heat-resistant they can operate at very high temperatures. Thus cooling equipment can be minimized, or even eliminated, savi ght. As a result of less weight and higher ''burn'' temperatures, fuel efficiency is boosted by as much as 50 percent. - Ceramic armor, made of boron carbide backed by Kevlar, is formed into crashworthy and bullet-resistant seats for military helicopters. A Norton Co. official, Richard Alliegro, said the seats provide protection at 35 percent of the weight of comparable steel armor. - In energy production systems, ceramic turbine blades allow hotter, more complete combustion. Researchers expect fuel savings of up to 15 percent. - Inclusion of high technology ceramics in metals, such as aluminum, to increase stiffness without increasing weight. The military is especially interested in such ''metal matrix'' materials for use in helicopters, tanks, bridges and other applications where weight is important. Ceramics, of course, are among the oldest materials used by humans. The use of ceramics dates back thousands of years to the oldest clay bowls, fashioned from mud and baked in the hot flames of a campfire. But these new ceramics are a far cry from the bowls and basins thrown on a potter's wheel, very different indeed from the familiar cups, saucers and toilet bowls that also are known as ceramics. Unfortunately, most ceramic materials, including some of the high technology ceramics, share a common problem, brittleness, the tendency to shatter. In other words, ceramic materials tend to be hard, and they can be strong, but they're limited by not being very tough. Norton's vice president for high performance ceramics, Robert A. Rowse, noted that ''The problem has been reliability. When they (ceramic parts) fail, they fail catastrophically.'' As a result, engineers designing machinery tend to avoid using ceramics in rapidly rotating parts. ''So,'' Rowse said, research is ''aimed now at improving strength, and to avoid catastrophic failure.'' In looking at current research and development, Hannoosh said the most exciting areas are: - Ceramic matrix composite materials, in which ceramic fibers are embedded in a ceramic structures to supply toughness, overcoming the difficult problem of brittleness. - Transformation-toughened materials, in which the interior structure of a ceramic part is toughened by controlled application of heat, similar to the heat-treating of metals. - Hot isostatic pressing, in which intricately shaped ceramic parts can be toughened under special conditions in very high-pressure furnaces. As for the ceramic diesel engine, the Cummins Engine Co., working with the U.S. Army's Tank and Automotive Command, has developed a five-ton truck powered by an uncooled engine that has ceramic-lined combustion chambers. According to Robert Katz, chief of the ceramic research division of AMMRAC (Army Materials and Mechanics Research Center) in Watertown, on a 500-mile trip the truck achieved about 9 miles per gallon, a 50 percent improvement over a conventional diesel engine. Also, the Kyocera Corp., in Kyoto, Japan, has built an automobile powered by an uncooled diesel engine, which is made substantially of silicon nitride. Company officials estimate the fuel savings will be close to 30 percent. END nyt-08-21-83 2331edt *************** ------------------------------ Date: 21 Aug 83 2356 PDT From: Ron Goldman Subject: Glenn & space To: space@MIT-MC a086 0852 19 Aug 83 PM-Glenn-Space,210 Candidate Calls For Expanded Space Program WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. John Glenn, D-Ohio, is calling for an expanded U.S. space program keyed to the orbiting of a permanently manned space station. Glenn, a former astronaut who is now running for the Democratic presidential nomination, also urged that the United States enter into talks with the Soviet Union to prevent deployment of weapons in space. ''A bold space program can produce large-scale benefits for the American people in the form of new products, new services and increased productivity,'' the senator said in outlining his proposals for the next 25 years of space exploration. Glenn stressed that ''the key to cost-effective space operations by 2008 is a permanently manned space station in near-earth orbit.'' His program also envisions development of unmanned space platforms ''capable of supporting large microwave reflectors and antennas, solar energy collectors and radiators, and telescopes,'' according to a statement released Thursday by Glenn's office. In addition, his program calls for stepped-up scientific efforts geared to exploration of planets, asteroids and comets. On the issue of anti-satellite systems and other space weapons, Glenn said he favors the use of space for ''passive defensive measures'' such as satellites intended for reconnaissance, military communications and verification of arms control treaties. But he contended that ''it would be in the interests of both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. to enter negotiations to reverse the trend toward and to eliminate any weaponization of space.'' ap-ny-08-19 1154EDT *************** ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 23-Aug-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #193 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 193 Today's Topics: Extrasolar planets Thanks for making my day ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Aug 1983 10:22-PDT From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL To: space@mit-mc Subject: Extrasolar planets Via: Usc-Cse; 22 Aug 83 11:38:52 I've also heard that the Barnard's star data has been written off as spurious. A new interferometer is being built somewhere back east for high precision astrometry. The device should collect in a few hours data that would have taken a year by previous techniques. Accuracy is a few milliarcseconds, good enough to detect Jupiter sized planets around nearby stars. The shuttle could orbit an interferometer accurate to microarcseconds, which would allow the detection of earth sized planets out to many light years, and Jovian planets out to great distances. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Aug 1983 1156-PDT From: Wmartin@OFFICE-3 (Will Martin) Subject: Thanks for making my day To: Space@MIT-MC I just read the last 6 Space Digests in a group and am about to be overcome by fits of giggling.... There was a delightful typo in #188 that squished "ground transmission" into "groansmission". I would define "groansmission" as 1. A guilt-inducing call or telegram from your sick mother, aunt, or other relative; or 2. A military detail inducing much griping amongst the participants. As for the name of the sun, no one brought up reading MAD could vote for anything but "Melvin". Sol is OK, but "Melvin", now THAT'S got class... (And "Bruno Galaxy" isn't far behind. [I think I saw him listed on a double bill at the local wrestling hall last week...]) Gibber, gibber, hee, hee, hee... ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 24-Aug-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #194 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 194 Today's Topics: Re: Snickers distribution list Re: SPACE Digest V3 #185 - Barnard's planet Re: There is only one solar system - (nf) Re: TDRS update ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Aug 83 8:44:17-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!cbosgd!djb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Snickers In-Reply-To: Article <1820@rabbit.UUCP>, <739@lanl-a.UUCP> Indeed, you are correct about "Snickers." As I remember it was in 1978 that some astronomers discovered a collection of stars just outside the confines of our galaxy. Some studies and calculations confirmed that it was a truly separate "cloud" very much like the Magellanic Clouds, but considerably smaller. After much deliberation, they named this new member of our Local Group "Snickers" since "it is like the Milky Way, only peanuts." And they say astronomers are a dull, humorless breed... David Bryant Bell Labs Columbus, OH (614) 860-4516 (cbosg!djb) ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 1983 14:34:06 PDT From: Subject: distribution list To: space@MIT-MC Folks, Please add my name to your mailist Thanks, Frank Soos ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 83 15:08:36-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!genrad!security!linus!philabs!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!darrelj @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #185 - Barnard's planet In-Reply-To: Article <4198@sri-arpa.UUCP> There is believed to be a gas giant planet (i.e. half of a binary star system not big enough to ignite) around Barnard's star, but the evidence is more circumstantial than for the ring around Vega. The existence of the planet is deduced from a very slight, regular wobble in the position of Barnard's star. The amount of the wobble is barely above the noise level (imposed by atmosphere mostly), so it's presence is based in part on a long term Fourier analysis of it's position. It also requires great patience (Jupiter's period is 12 years) to detect. Also, since it hasn't been observed directly, there is also the (slight) chance it is some other exotic, massive object. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Aug 83 5:33:03-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!hamilton @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: There is only one solar system - (nf) #R:sri-arpa:-415500:uiucuxc:12600008:000:69 uiucuxc!hamilton Aug 21 18:52:00 1983 or, if we send a probe to Vega, will it need Vegan panels for power? ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 83 12:38:30-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: pur-ee!CSvax.cmh @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: TDRS update In-Reply-To: Article sri-arpa.4284 Is this past failure of Landsat why Reagan wants to sell the system? Chris Hoffmann. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 25-Aug-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #195 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 195 Today's Topics: Re: I can name that star in 1 note... Extrasolar planets Re: 2nd solar system found???? - (nf) Re: Name of the sun ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Aug 83 0:07:33-EDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!seismo!hao!csu-cs!silver @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: I can name that star in 1 note... In-Reply-To: Article lanl-a.739 Meanwhile, the "local group" (of galaxies) is floating around out there without even a semblance of a proper name. Now's our chance to stick it with something pronounceable (unlike Sol) and dignified (unlike Milky Way, which is TOTALLY silly). I propose we call it "Fred" (with a LONG "e", of course). Comments to /dev/vega. :~) ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 1983 8:53-PDT From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL To: space@mit-mc Subject: Extrasolar planets Via: Usc-Cse; 24 Aug 83 09:32:25 I've also heard that astronomers have detected something orbiting T Tauri. T Tauri was the first "T Tauri star" discovered. It is supposed to be a newly formed star with a very strong stellar wind. The object detected has a mass 5-10 times that of Jupiter. Since the system isn't done forming, astronomers aren't sure if the object will become a star or just a very large planet. ------------------------------ Date: 24 August 1983 1708-mst From: Kevin B. Kenny Subject: Re: 2nd solar system found???? - (nf) To: SPACE @ MIT-MC I seem to recall that several years back someone found fairly conclusive evidence for an object several times the mass of Jupiter (too big for planet, too small for star) orbiting a nearby star (61 Cygni?). Can anyone refresh my memory about this? Is this finding in debate along with the putative planetary system about Barnard's Star? /k**2 (Kevin Kenny) [Kenny.OSNI%PCO-MULTICS@CISL-Service-Multics (host is also called MIT-DevMultics or just CISL, depending on how up-to-date your host table is.)] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Aug 83 21:54 PDT From: Gloger.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: Name of the sun In-reply-to: "Bill Pfeifer's message of 15 Aug 83 18:13:57-PDT (Mon)" To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA Bill Pfeifer suggests that the name of our sun is "Copernicus," and the name of our galaxy "Bruno Galaxy." These are indeed the proper names for those entities. I believe the first person to suggest these names was Andrew Galambos, an astrophysicist and social theorist. His rationale is that, in science, things are properly and usually named after their discoverers or inventors or other primary contributors. Copernicus is the first person to correctly, permanently identify for all mankind the nature and relative position of the sun; likewise, Giordano Bruno was the first to identify that the visible stars, the visible components of our galaxy, are suns like our own. Who better to credit than these two men? ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 26-Aug-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #196 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 196 Today's Topics: Query: American Space Foundation Re: Name of the sun Language perigee, apogee ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu 25 Aug 83 14:31:44-CDT From: Art Flatau Subject: Query: American Space Foundation To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA I received a letter today from the American Space Foundation (signed by Ed Gibson, one of the Skylab III astronauts) asking me to sign a petition to congress to "Reaffirm America's serious commitment to space, restore the American space program's budget and put America back in the space race 100%". I'd like to know if anyone can tell me more about the American Space Foundation (i.e. some history, what they've done and whatelse, if anything they do besides lobby in congress). Thanks, Art cmp.flatau@UTexas-20 ------- ------------------------------ Date: 25 Aug 83 13:58 PDT (Thursday) From: Manley.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: Name of the sun In-reply-to: Gloger.es message of Wed, 24 Aug 83 22:04 PDT In-reply-to: "Bill Pfeifer's message of 15 Aug 83 18:13:57-PDT (Mon)" To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: Manley.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA, Gloger.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA It is appropriate to name our galaxy after Giordano Bruno and our sun after Copernicus, especially since Bruno was burned at the stake for holding these views while Copernicus just barely escaped this fate by dying before his book was published. ------------------------------ Date: 25 August 1983 1026-mst From: Kevin B. Kenny Subject: Language To: Space-Enthusiasts @ MIT-MC While attempting to explain why a belt would be stable and a shell wouldn't be (in the discussion about objects around Vega), I used the terms "aphelion" and "perihelion" for the points in an orbit furthest from and closest to the primary. My friend pointed out that since "Helios" is _the_ Sun (i.e., _our_ sun), I should have rather said "apastron" and "periastron". That means we have the following set of terms: Earth: apogee, perigee. Moon (i.e., _our_ moon): apolune, perilune (a solecism favoured by NASA) -or- apocynthion, pericynthion (correct but obscure) -or- aposeleneion, periseleneion (hardest to spell, but the clearest in meaning). Sun (i.e., _our_ sun, Sol/Helios): aphelion, perihelion. Stars in general: apastron, periastron. I have also seen "apocythereion, pericythereion" (pronounced, incidentally, with a hard "c") applied to Venus (correct, I suppose, but extremely obscure). Is there a good pair of terms to use for the apsides irrespective of the identity of the primary? /k**2 (Kenny.OSNI%PCO-Multics@CISL-Service-Multics) ------------------------------ Date: 25 Aug 83 1655 PDT From: Hans Moravec Subject: perigee, apogee To: space@MIT-MC I vote for apogee and perigee as generic terms for orbits around any body. There is a similar need for a generic term for "geology", "geochemistry", "geography", "geophysics", etc. The conversion to generic form of the "geo" root is already well established for words like "geometry" and "geodesic". ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 27-Aug-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #197 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 197 Today's Topics: Re: names generic terms Re: SPACE Digest V3 #195 Stamps on STS-8 Re: There is only one solar system - (nf) Barry Poses Little or No Threat to STS-8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sender: Heiny.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Date: 26 Aug 83 10:31:22 EDT (Friday) Subject: Re: names To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA From: Chris Heiny cc: Heiny.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Generic terms should be used whenever they will not cause confusion, even though the excruciatingly literal translation or exact definition does not fit. Thus we should refer to what is called geometry on Earth as geometry when we are on the Moon, Venus or Tau Ceti V, rather than calling it selenometry, cytherometry or taucetipentometry. If we discover some situation on Tau Ceti V that distinguishes geometry there from geometry on Earth (perhaps triangles on TC V have 42 sides), then we would be justified in calling it taucetipentometry. As to peri-whatever or apo-whatever: bizarre roots (like '-cythereion') should only be used if it is not understood by most of the audience just what it is that you are orbiting, and only if the root is going to be understood by the audience. Maximum and minimum distance points are features of all orbits, and the existence of them is not dependent on the body orbited. I prefer -gee for planet/asteroid/etc type bodies and -helion for stars and suns. Thus, if it is known that the mission to Tau Ceti V is currently in orbit around Tau Ceti V, then one would say 'perigee' and 'apogee'. If it is not immediately obvious, then you should say 'perigee/apogee of its orbit about Tau Ceti V', or in some other way make it clear that it is orbiting TC V. Terms like apotaucetifive or peritaucetifive should be avoided. Chris ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1983 12:50 EDT Message-ID: <[MIT-OZ].CARLF.26-Aug-83 12:50:58> From: CARLF@MIT-OZ To: space-enthusiasts@mit-mc Subject: generic terms I have seen the words "apopoint" and "peripoint" used to mean the highest and lowest points of the orbit. This seems to be the most common set of words. I have also seen "apoapsis" and "periapsis", which I personally prefer, but which seems to be considerably less common. -- carl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Aug 83 10:14 PDT Sender: MKrigel.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #195 In-reply-to: "OTA@S1-A.ARPA's message of 25 Aug 83 03:03 PDT" To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA from: MKrigel.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA I beg to inform you all that in this months Science Digest is a article about the shape of our galaxy (4 arms now thought to exist, with crimped edges, half the galaxy crimped 180 degrees from the other half, etc., etc); they call our galaxy the Milky Way. Marc ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 1983 1221-PDT Subject: Stamps on STS-8 From: Alan R. Katz To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: katz@USC-ISIF.ARPA Everyone, You can get an Express Mail postal stamp and souvenir envelope, which will fly on the space shuttle STS-8 by sending $15.35 to: Shuttle Flight Folder Philatelic Sales Div. Washington, DC 20265-9997 ORDERS MUST BE POSTMARKED AFTER THE SHUTTLE LANDS (now scheduled for Sep 6). THOSE POSTMARKED BEFORE WILL BE RETURNED UNOPENED. So mail your orders in the hour after the shuttle lands (I suggest in this case to use all 9 digits of the above zip). Alan ------- ------------------------------ Date: 26 August 1983 21:52 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: There is only one solar system - (nf) To: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!hamilton @ UCB-VAX cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC Date: 22 Aug 83 5:33:03-PDT (Mon) From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!hamilton @ Ucb-Vax or, if we send a probe to Vega, will it need Vegan panels for power? Indeed, "solar cells" etc. are misnomers, since the light shinging on them can be an artificial source or another star instead of the Sun (Sol). Let's all call them "light-to-electric tranducers" ok? "Look at this new apartment building along Bayshore freeway, with light-to-electric tranducers all along the roof." I guess eventually we'll have to change "solar" to be something else, just like we changed the names of our planets and the constellations to no longer be references to Greek mythology. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Aug 83 18:03:12-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Barry Poses Little or No Threat to STS-8 NASA today said that tropical storm Barry should have no effect at all on next week's scheduled launch of STS-8. Preparations are still well on or ahead of schedule for the 0215 EDT launch on the 30th. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 28-Aug-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #198 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 198 Today's Topics: naming names Extrasolar planets Dates for STS-9 and any others this fall?? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Aug 1983 09:33:52-EDT From: Bruce.Lucas@CMU-CS-G To: space@mc Subject: naming names Should then the Earth be called Columbus, in recognition of Columbus's contribution to convincing his contemporaries of the Earth's (er, sorry, Columbus's--the planet, that is, not the man) true nature? ------------------------------ Date: 27 Aug 1983 15:44-PDT From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL To: space@mit-mc Subject: Extrasolar planets Via: Usc-Cse; 27 Aug 83 16:33:46 Science News reports that astronomers using a 1.5 meter astrometric telescope in Flagstaff, Arizona have found "wobbles" around two stars, indicating planet sized orbiting bodies. One of the stars (I forget its name) is a dim (yet glowing) body about 40 times the mass of jupiter. The mass can be determined since it is orbiting another star. The article pointed out that some astronomers have (falsely) claimed that Jupiter would have to be 80x larger to ignite fusion. The same astronomers looked at Barnard's star, and found no evidence of large planets there. This directly contradicts earlier claims of stellar motion caused by a superjovian planet. ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 83 10:38:48-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!hou5h!hou5a!hou5d!hogpc!houxo!lpa @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Dates for STS-9 and any others this fall?? Does anyone out there know the tentative dates for the liftoff of STS-9 and any other launches scheduled for this fall (Until Dec. actually) ?? I live in NJ and some of my buddies and I want to go to Florida and watch the liftoff. Please mail me the dates if you know them and thanx in advance. Andy Andres AT&T Consumer Products Laboratories (??) ...houxo!lpa ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 29-Aug-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #199 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 199 Today's Topics: perigee, apogee Extrasolar planets Re: Laser Weapons ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 August 1983 18:14 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: perigee, apogee To: SPACE @ MIT-MC cc: HPM @ S1-A HPM has a good point. Let me play devil's advocate in favor of his point (although I probably would have take the other side in a vote yesterday): Originally the Earth was the whole known universe (except for the Heavens which were regarded as of a fundamentally different nature, later were believed to be minor objects orbiting the Earth). "Geo" as a prefix probably began back then and ambiguously meant both this planet and the whole universe. When we become aware that Earth and Universe aren't the same, in fact that the Earth is a small planet in a very big Universe, we can choose whether "geo" should stick with "Earth" or with "Universe". Up to this time the stuffy people (including myself) have been claiming that "geo" meant "Earth", but maybe we should have it mean "Universe" instead, and use "Sol-3" when we mean "Earth". Thus "Geology" would be the generic study of land while "Sol-3 geology" would be the specific study of land on Earth. Any good arguments why "geo" should stick with Earth instead of with Universe? Or for that matter, any good arguments the other way? My only argument for picking HPM's choice is simplicity, better have a short term ("geo" is 3 letters) apply everywhere and have longer terms for specific cases. But that's a weak argument when there are 4.5 thousand million people who have never left Earth and only about a hundred who have ever left Earth momentarily, and nobody who actually resides elsewhere yet. Maybe we should postpone decision until 50% of our population is in off-Earth, then make HPM's choice officially? ------------------------------ Date: 28 August 1983 18:43 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Extrasolar planets To: dietz%usc-cse @ USC-ECL cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC This is an astrophysics question: Small stars can't ignite hydrogen fusion at all. Large stars ignite it and burn until it's virtually exhausted, starting in the center and working outward until the helium core is the whole star and the hydrogen outer part is infinitesimal. Question, are there just-barely-stars which ignite hydrogen fusion in their centers but can't maintain it and go out before the burning-shell has reached the surface, leaving a helium core and a hydrogen outer part permanently? ------------------------------ Date: 28 Aug 83 4:15:40-PDT (Sun) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Laser Weapons In-Reply-To: Article <4145@sri-arpa.UUCP> "......DARPA Director Robert Cooper told the Congress on March 23 of this year, 'We are conducting research and planning related to space weaponry, but I emphasize that no commitment has been made to acquire space-based weapons. And we will proceed only if our national security is so threatened.'" The director of DARPA does not think that 1000+ Soviet ICBMs (the most prominent targets for space weaponry) are a threat to the national security of the United States. Charming. He's been in the Pentagon too long, I think. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 30-Aug-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #200 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 200 Today's Topics: mis-information in Newsweek Re: Laser Weapons Re: There is only one solar system - (nf) Re: Name of the sun Countdown Begins ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 August 1983 12:58 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: mis-information in Newsweek To: SPACE @ MIT-MC Newsweek for Aug 22 claims "Vega is visible only in the Northern Hemisphere". This is false. Vega is located about 38 degrees north (from the celestial equator), so it can be seen above the horizon all the way to about 90-38 = 52 degrees southern latitude at the right time of night. I might write a letter to Newsweek pointing out their error. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 1983 16:13:22 PDT From: METH@USC-ISI Subject: Re: Laser Weapons To: SPACE@MIT-MC cc: METH@USC-ISI Re: Laser Weapons The more appropriate point is that the Soviets already have a space weapon. Be that as it may, things are not always as they seem. Dr. Cooper has the freedom to say what he said because the state of the art in space (laser, particle beam, microwave, kinetic, etc.) weaponry is still at the point where the mere threat of developing the technology is a viable leverage point in negotiations. The threat to our security is not the missiles the USSR has already, but would be the fielding of an operational space weaponry system, or the development of a significantly better ICBM. -Sheldon Meth ------- ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 83 11:04:51 PDT (Mon) From: Katz.UCI@Rand-Relay Return-Path: Subject: Re: There is only one solar system - (nf) To: Robert Elton Maas Cc: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!hamilton@Ucb-Vax, SPACE@Mit-Mc, katz.UCI@Rand-Relay In-Reply-To: Your message of 26 August 1983 21:52 EDT. Via: UCI; 29 Aug 83 17:04-PDT The proper term for a "light-to-electric transducer" is a photovoltaic cell. It is a generic term which includes all such transducers and includes both generators (solar cells) and sensors (e.g. electric eye door openers). ------------------------------ Date: 30 August 1983 03:31 EDT From: Keith F. Lynch cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC, KFL @ MIT-MC Date: 25 Aug 83 13:58 PDT (Thursday) From: Manley.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: Name of the sun It is appropriate to name our galaxy after Giordano Bruno and our sun after Copernicus, especially since Bruno was burned at the stake for holding these views while Copernicus just barely escaped this fate by dying before his book was published. Who shall we name the local cluster after? Or the local supercluster? I wonder who will finally work out the all-over structure of the universe as a whole and hence will have the whole universe named after him (her?). ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 28 Aug 83 12:12:11-PDT (Sun) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Countdown Begins With the call to stations yesterday, the countdown for the laucnh of STS-8 began. Launch is still scheduled for 0215 EDT on 30 August. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 31-Aug-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #201 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 201 Today's Topics: Countdown Continuing Flawlessly Re: Name of the sun Lexical Obfuscation Night Launching ET Fueling Begins Gold disk sent out of solar system Re: Dates for STS-9 and any others this fall?? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Aug 83 9:38:40-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Countdown Continuing Flawlessly The countdown towards the launch of STS-8 continued on schedule today, and NASA predicted the best weather yet for tomorrow's early morning launch of Challenger. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 83 10:03:13-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ihuxl!esj @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Name of the sun In-Reply-To: Article <4526@sri-arpa.UUCP> Have these names been officially adopted by the IAU or are these *suggestions* ? ihnp4!ihuxl!esj ------------------------------ Sender: Heiny.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Date: 30 Aug 83 09:58:47 EDT (Tuesday) Subject: Lexical Obfuscation To: Katz.UCI@Rand-Relay.ARPA cc: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA, REM@Mit-Mc.ARPA, pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!hamilton@Ucb-Vax.ARPA, Heiny.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA From: Chris Heiny "light-to-electric transducer"? Why not 'Photon powered current generator', or 'device which generates electricity from incident light'? Shades of the Department of Defense and their "Portable hand held communications inscriber" (known as a pencil in the real world). When a word is too cumbersome for ready use (and often if it is not), a shortened derivative will be used by the common speaker, much as 'aeroplane' went to 'airplane' and is now just 'plane', or 'piano' comes from 'pianoforte'. A light-to-electric transducer is bound to suffer the same fate, perhaps coming to be called an ellted, which is no more meaningful than 'solar cell'. Chris ------------------------------ Date: Tue 30 Aug 83 14:08:49-CDT From: Clive Dawson Subject: Night Launching To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA A few weeks ago somebody questioned the necessity of a night launch, given that Cape Canaveral and the ultimate destination of the Indian Communications Satellite are fixed relative to each other regardless of what orientation the earth has at any given time. Was this question ever answered? If so, could somebody send me a message with the explanation? (I left town and missed several digests.) Thanks, Clive P.S. The only theory I can come up with is that the deployment sequence makes use of certain fixed stars for navigation and/or they want it to happen at a certain time of day in India (or Houston). ------- ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 83 19:47:18-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: ET Fueling Begins Workers starting fueling Challenger's external tank with oxygen and hydrogen this evening, in preparation for tomorrow morning's launch. Meanwhile, NASA today announced that a news conference with the astronauts still in space will be held this coming Saturday at 0339 EDT. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Aug 83 18:37:46-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!houxm!houxj!wapd @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Gold disk sent out of solar system Sorry about the cryptic title. What I am referring to is the gold disk on the side of whatever vehicle is leaving the solar system (Pioneer ?). The thing with the drawing of a man and a woman, picture of solar system, etc. I forget where I saw it, but I saw a picture of it that explained everything on it. The question is : what were the little dashes or dots that were supposed to be the numbers 1-10 in binary ? I looked at it and could not decipher it as that or anything else meaningful, and I had been "told what it was". Could someone reproduce that piece and explain it ? Bill Dietrich houxj!wapd ------------------------------ Date: 28 Aug 83 0:48:52-PDT (Sun) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!cbosgd!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!allegra!alice!rabbit!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Dates for STS-9 and any others this fall?? In-Reply-To: Article <186@houxo.UUCP> STS-9 is scheduled to launch on 28 October. STS-10 was scheduled to launch on 5 November, but it looks like it will in fact be cancelled due to lack of payload. STS-11 (STS-10??) is scheduled to launch on 23 December, but with STS-10 probably gone, it may be moved ahead. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 01-Sep-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #202 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 202 Today's Topics: Re: Is there more here than meets the eye NASA Goals and Objectives "Solar cells" **LAUNCH** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 83 09:10 PDT From: MKrigel.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: Is there more here than meets the eye To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: MKrigel.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Is everybody satisfied with NASA's explanation for the night take-off and landing of Challenger? The explanation for the night lift-off had something to do with the Indian Satelite which will be deployed sometime today! (31-Aug). Now, about the night time landing . . . Marc ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 1983 16:14:22 PDT From: METH@USC-ISI Subject: NASA Goals and Objectives To: SPACE@MIT-MC cc: METH@USC-ISI On August 24, James M. Beggs, NASA Administrator, announced goals and objectives for his Agency. A summary follows: 1. Provide for our people a creative environment and the best of facili- ties, support services, and managment support so they can perform with excellence NASA's research, development, mission, and operational responsibilities. - Increase construction budget 50% in FY84 and another 33% in FY85. - Hire 370 recent science and engineering graduates in 83 and 400 more in 84. - Meet or exceed EEO goals. - Complete development of TDRSS to be ready for operations in FY84. 2. Make the STS fully operational and cost effective in providing routine access to space for domestic and foreign, commercial and governmental users. - Carry out 21 STS missions in FY84 and FY85. STS operations R&D costs not to exceed $1.8B in FY84 and $2.2B in FY85. - Capture 75% of the planned free-world commercial launch payloads through 1988. - Develop a Centaur upper stage compatible with STS by 2Q FY86. 3. Establish a permanent manned presence in space to expand the explora- tion and use of space for activities which enhance the security and welfare of mankind. [NOTE: The jury (i.e. President Reagan) is still out on this one!] - Complete analysis of requirements and define system architecture to support inclusion of a space station in President's FY85 budget. - During FY84, conduct advanced development and technology programs to insure readiness of key technologies to support space station development. 4. Conduct an effective and productive aeronautics research and and technology program which contributes materially to the enduring pre- eminence of US civil and military aviation. - Provide a fully operational Class IV computational capability at the research centers by September 1983; implement the Numerical Aerodynamic Simulator (NAS); complete a satellite data link bet- ween the research centers by October 1984. - By October 1984, develop and implement a long range aeronautical facilities acquisition strategy. 5. Conduct an effective and productive Space and Earth Sciences Program which expands human knowledge of the Earth, its environment, the solar system, and the universe. - Maintain Space Telescope schedule for launch in last half of 1986; total funding not to exceed $196M in FY84. - Maintain Galileo Project on schedule for launch in 2Q 1986; total funding not to exceed $80M in FY84. - Reduce Spacelab preparation times and mission costs; complete Spacelab 3 to launch September 1984; total real year mission management/integration costs not to exceed $20M. - By 1985, establish an active long term Earth Sciences program. 6. Conduct effective and productive space applications and technology programs which contribute materially toward US leadership and securi- ty. - Complete negotiations by December 1983, for the Advanced Communi- cations Technology Satellite. - Real growth in NASA space research and technology program of 30% per year in FY85 and FY86. 7. Expand opportunities for US private sector investment and involvement in civil space and space-related activities. - Formulate a space commercialization policy and implementation program plan by the end of 1983. - Support commercialization of expendable launch vehicles by recom- mending appropriate procedures in FY 84. 8. Establish NASA as a leader in the development and application of advanced technology and management practices which contribute to sig- nificant increases in both Agency and national productivity. - Establish, by end 1983, strategies for greater involvement of employees in the decision making process. - Reduce by 20%, management and administrative paperwork. - Establish NASA-wide guidelines for office automation and adminis- trative ADP by end 1983; assess pilot projects in 1984; begin full scale implementation in 1985. - Beginning in FY84, conduct pilot productivity incentive programs on a major development project. - Establish a capability for Agency-wide sharing of CAD/CAM techniques by FY84. ------------------------------ Date: 1 September 1983 00:56 EDT From: Keith F. Lynch Subject: "Solar cells" To: Heiny.henr @ PARC-MAXC cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC, KFL @ MIT-MC Date: 30 Aug 83 09:58:47 EDT (Tuesday) From: Chris Heiny "light-to-electric transducer"? Why not 'Photon powered current generator', or 'device which generates electricity from incident light'? At SAI (which uses them extensively) we always call them photovoltaic cells or just PV cells or PV panels. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 83 2:48:31-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: **LAUNCH** Delayed 17 minutes due to bad weather at KSC, the Challenger achieved a perfect launch and ascent this morning, beginning at 0232 EDT. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 02-Sep-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #203 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 203 Today's Topics: space stamps Re: naming names Orbit Attained -- TDRS Tested NASA Goals and Objectives Re: Gold disk sent out of solar system Re: Techno-philosophy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Aug 83 10:59:09-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!hou5h!hou5a!hou5d!kwmc @ Ucb-Vax Subject: space stamps Is there any limit to the number of stamps that can be ordered ? and Can the order be sent in by Express Mail (TM) or must it go in in the regular mail ? Ken Cochran, hou5d!kwmc ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 83 10:07:04-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!houxm!houxz!halle1 @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: naming names In-Reply-To: Article <4609@sri-arpa.UUCP> Actually, our planet should be called !^$(<<+=}[[| after the Jovian astronomer who first discovered it. 88=)) (well, that's what they look like) ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 83 12:31:40-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Orbit Attained -- TDRS Tested The Challenger achieved its intended orbit flawlessly after this morning's launch. Afterwards, the crew held a conversation with ground control via the TDRS-1 satellite, the first voice relay test of the bird. More extensive testing of the satellite is planned for the duration of the mission. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 1983 0707-PDT Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3 Subject: NASA Goals and Objectives From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) To: Space at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3] 1-Sep-83 07:07:07.WMARTIN> Did anyone else notice the blatant age discrimination in the report of Beggs' announced goals and objectives? "Hire 370 RECENT science and engineering graduates in 83 and 400 more in 84." (My emphasis added.) Specifying "recent graduates" is one of the standard age-discrimination tactics constantly being pointed out by Irwin Feerst and his Committee of Concerned EE's; instead of hiring by pure ability, whereby you may hire older engineers who earn higher salaries, you hire only cheaper new graduates. (Of course, the engineering pay system differentials have broken down so far that the difference between a new graduate's and a senior engineer's salaries is too small to allow reasonable career progression these days. This helps "encourage" the older engineer to move into management or leave...) Interesting that such a blatant example has been publicized so widely; I hope some fuss gets raised over it. Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 83 10:39:56 PDT (Thursday) From: Lynn.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: Gold disk sent out of solar system In-reply-to: Bill Dietrich's message of 29 Aug 83 18:37:46-PDT To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: Lynn.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA The gold disks were on the Voyagers (1 and 2), had recordings of sounds and sights of earth on them, and are not what you are describing. The gold-anodized aluminum rectangular plaques have the drawings you refer to, and were on Pioneers 10 and 11. The binary numbers are represented by ones for ones and dashes for zeros. They are used in four places on the plaques. 1) There is a one by the drawing of hydrogen atoms emitting their characteristic wavelength (21 cm). This is to show that this is the time and distance unit for the other numbers. 2) There is an eight (1---) next to a dimension (of 8 x 21 cm) on a picture of the spacecraft and people. This gives the size of the people and double checks the size units against the spacecraft itself. 3) There are large binary numbers giving the periods (in units of the time period of 21 cm hydrogen) of 14 prominent nearby pulsars. 4) The distances from the sun to each of the nine planets is given in weird units (approx 0.039 AU). The directions and relative distances of the pulsars are given by a diagram. The positions and periods would allow determination of the location of our system within several light years and the time of launch within a year (because pulsar periods increase with time). The diagram of the planets would allow precise identification of the sun and earth. More info on the plaques is in one chapter of "The Cosmic Connection" by Carl Sagan. /Don Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 1 September 1983 19:29 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: Techno-philosophy To: Haas @ UTAH-20 cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC If a couple's reason for having children is to use them as slaves on the family farm, then indeed technology can provide a cheap replacement for children. If a couple's reason is to have heirs (biologically, financially, etc.), technology doesn't help any. Expansion into space will however alleviate the common pasture problem, because there will be for the disadvantaged people who can't get land on Earth some alternative to death, namely getting "land" in space. Still there's be those who refuse to accept spaceland as a substitute for Earthland, so the problem won't totally go away, but at least there'll be a viable choice for many people. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 03-Sep-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #204 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 204 Today's Topics: SRB's Recovered Miles per gallon of space shuttle Re: BC-CERAMICS-2takes-08-22 Re: Gold disk sent out of solar system Re: Techno-philosophy Bad science reporting by AP NASA's exposure via the media and the future of space Re: naming names Re: Gold disk sent out of solar system - (nf) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 30 Aug 83 16:37:06-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: SRB's Recovered The SRB's used for STS-8 were spotted by radar just 8 minutes after today's launch, and by 0750 EDT this morning, they were already under tow back to Port Canaveral. They are due to arrive there tomorrow (Wed.) morning. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 83 14:44:11-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5e!hou5d!kwmc @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Miles per gallon of space shuttle Would anyone like to hazard a guess to the fuel consumption figures EPA est. hwy. or whatever of the space shuttle. I would think that on a miles per gallon basis it was quite fuel efficient. Just think of the distance it travels on one (external) tank full. Calculations to the net please. Ken cochran hou5d!kwmc ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 83 15:11:05-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!tektronix!tekecs!shark!sdb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: BC-CERAMICS-2takes-08-22 I don't know much about chemical bonds, but it seems to me that silicon nitride should be extremely explosive. Obviously it isn't if they can line the cylinders of a diesel engine with it... ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 83 20:11:10-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!bronze!patm @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Gold disk sent out of solar system The dashed lines represent the patterns of radio signals generated by a dozen or so pulsars. In theory a reasonably intelli- gent being could triangulate the position of our solar system by the angular relationships of these signals to one another. I don't know how this is done in three dimensions given a two dimensional representation. But at any rate, let's hope that the beings that pick up this wandering roadmap don't have to park their battle cruisers to haul it in... Pat McNamara Tektronix, Inc. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 1983 1200-MDT From: Walt Subject: Re: Techno-philosophy To: REM@MIT-MC cc: SPACE@MIT-MC So far, all feasible techniques of expansion into space are highly capital-intensive. Capital-intensive societies tend to have declining populations. The same technologies that make expansion into space possible also remove the population-pressure incentive for expanding into space. There are, of course, plenty of other incentives- of which my favorite is the same incentive that makes me climb mountains. Cheers -- Walt ------------------------------ Date: 02 Sep 83 1135 PDT From: Robert Maas Subject: Bad science reporting by AP To: REM@MIT-MC, SPACE@MIT-MC Editor of the Times-Tribune: I was greatly dismayed to see the shoddy journalism in the AP story you published on September 1 on page A-3. You and AP seem to be conspiring to confuse the public about how the simple laws of motion discovered and formulated by Isaac Newton work. You say "To move an object in outer space takes force sufficient to overcome the inertia. And once the object is moving, it takes force equal to the inertia, plus the velocity of the movement, to bring it to rest." This is uneducated mindrot which has virtually nothing to do with the correct formulation of Newton's laws of motion. First, you seem to be saying there's a particular amount of force needed to overcome the inertia of an object. You're wrong, any amount of force no matter how small will start an object moving. The more force you use the more rapidly it will gain speed, and the longer you continue to apply a given force the faster speed it will reach. But there's no such thing as "force sufficient to overcome the inertia". Then you claim the force to stop is equal to the inertia plus the velocity. This is definitely nonsense since neither inertia nor velocity is in the same units as force, and neither can be equated to force. It also implies the force to stop is greater than the force to stop. This is false, the force to stop is the same as the force to start, if both are applied for the same time. To stop you have to exactly do the opposite of what you did when you started, apply the same force for the same time, or half the force for twice the time, or twice the force for half the time, etc. In the next paragraph you say that Newton passed that law about inertia. What has the writer been smoking lately? Doesn't the writer know the difference in usage of the word "law" between legal statutes which are passed by some legal group such as Congress, and formulations of how nature behaves which are merely observations of how things already are? Newton didn't "pass" the laws of planetary motion! He formulated them to explain the way things are. Finally you show disrespect for Newton when you refer to "that law, and some others Newton dreamed up". Those formulations of natural action were NOT dreamed up, they were carefully thought out. You sound like you think Newton made up these laws just to make more work for people, and then forced them on the rest of us, the way some lawmakers pass complicated income tax regulations that only lawyers can understand. Actually Newton's laws of motion unified and simplified our ways of predicting the behaviour of objects in motion, replacing ideas like gods carrying planets in chariots (or planets attached to gigantic glass spheres), and objects trying to get to their natural place. Even so, none of his laws were forced on us, we had the choice of which formulations to use, and we found that Newton's laws were much more accurate than anything before so we took to using them for our calculations of motion. Instead of publishing that totally wrong and confusing stuff, you would have done better not to publish anything at all. Next time how about asking somebody who has had a course in high-school physics to proofread this kind of article before you publish it? ------------------------------ Date: 2 September 1983 21:14 EDT From: Robert E. Bruccoleri Subject: NASA's exposure via the media and the future of space To: space @ MIT-MC With the space shuttle making space travel routine, the coverage of space activies by the major news media is disappearing. I am really fearful that this will result in the old apathy about space among the general public which will make it easier for space budgets to be cut. There is a way to circumvent this problem, namely getting a space channel established on a major cable TV company. The NASA feed is already there, NASA has a transponder on SATCOM IIa which is used to broadcast all of NASA's video (you can't listen in on it with the usual satellite receivers since the signal is weak and requires a 30 foot dish). Has anyone ever had any experience try to convince a cable company to add a new channel? Does anybody know the addresses of the major cable companies so that I could write them a letter? By the way, when I was in Washington sightseeing in April, I asked some people at NASA headquarters about their satellite links, and the most important thing they said relating to rebroadcast is that anyone would be free to do it. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 83 14:10:27-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hao!csu-cs!bentson @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: naming names In-Reply-To: Article sri-arpa.4609 How about calling them stellar cells? Other light sources are (largely) secondary from a star. Randy Bentson csu-cs!bentson Colo State U - Comp Sci ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 83 19:28:53-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!tektronix!tekcad!paulp @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Gold disk sent out of solar system - (nf) #R:houxj:-28700:tekcad:9000001:000:656 tekcad!paulp Aug 30 19:11:00 1983 The directions of the lines, and the dot dashes along them, point to pulsars as seen from the earth. The binary information relates their rotational periods in terms of the 21 cm line of neutral hydrogen. Presuming the spin down rates of pulsars are constant, or that the perturbing factors can be determined, the finder can identify the pulsars, regress their proper motions, and find the solar system. Paul Pomes Usenet: {ucbvax,decvax,pur-ee,ihnss,chico}!teklabs!tekcad!paulp CSnet: paulp@tek ARPA: paulp.tek@rand-relay US Mail: Paul Pomes, Tektronix, Inc. Box 500 MS 59-323, Beaverton OR 97077 Phone: 503-627-2341 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 04-Sep-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #205 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 205 Today's Topics: Indian Satellite Launched False Alarm Aboard Shuttle RMS Flexed Radio Contact Lost and Regained Fusion process in stars Re: Gold disk sent out of solar system Apogee and Perigee space telescope ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 31 Aug 83 4:22:49-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Indian Satellite Launched The crew of the Challenger successfully deployed an Indian comminucations satellite at 0349 EDT today. Forty-five minutes later, the satellites own rocket fired and it began the journey to a geosynchronous orbit. An Indian tracking station confirmed the firing and its accuracy. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 83 19:44:56-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: False Alarm Aboard Shuttle An alarm signalling possible fire conditions in an instrument bay sounded aboard the Challenger today, but it turned out to be false. The alarm, which senses gasses, tends to be overly sensitive, and has gone off before, on the prototype shuttle Enterprise, but never in flight. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 83 7:26:13-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: RMS Flexed The astronauts yesterday flexed the remote manipulator system and tested its strength in space by grappling a 7460 pound dummy satellite and moving it around the cargo bay. It was the heaviest payload the arm has lifted yet. On STS-13, the arm will grapple the 5000 pound sun observatory satellite, bring it into the cargo bay for repair, and then redeploy it in orbit. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 83 9:49:56-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Radio Contact Lost and Regained Problems with computers at the TDRS ground station at White Sands led to a three hour period this morning in which NASA received no information from the shuttle. The information was supposed to be relayed through the TDRS-1 satellite. NASA said there was no danger to the astronauts, and they could have been awakened at any time in order to put the spacecraft in direct communication with ground stations. Finally, they were awakened 40 minutes early to do just that. Later, the problems at White Sands were cleared up. So far, 11 of 19 TDRS tests planned for this flight have been executed. ------------------------------ Date: 31 Aug 83 14:35:40-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekecs!davidl @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Fusion process in stars In-Reply-To: Article sri-arpa.4631 As I understand it, a "just-barely star" which ignites but then burns out before all its hydrogen fuel is consumed is called a white dwarf. The fate of a star is determined by its mass. All stars on the Main Sequence begin as clouds of cold hydrogen. If the mass of the cloud is insufficient to cause its collapse and ignition, the cloud remains a cloud. If the mass is great enough, pressure and gravitational potential energy force the atoms in the center together into fusion (actually a very complex process, not just bashing two hydrogens together to make one helium). At this point the star "flashes", which blows the more tenous outer nebula away. The mass of the star itself is that portion of the nebula which was close enough to the center that its gravitational attraction is greater than the pressure caused by fusion. This balance of pressure versus gravity determines the star's size throughout its life. The star burns until the hydrogen in the core (the core is the part where pressures are high enough to sustain hydrogen fusion) is all turned into helium. Note that the outer parts of the star, where pressures are too low for hydrogen fusion, remain hydrogen. At this point the star goes out. Pressure drops and gravity begins to take over. The star begins to collapse. Again the mass of the star determines what happens. A star with sufficient mass collapses until the pressure at the center is great enough to fuse helium. Again the star ignites in a "helium flash," which blows away a portion of the outer atmosphere of the star. Now the star is a red giant. (When this happens to the sun, the Earth and all the inner planets will be absorbed.) For stars smaller than a certain mass, there is insufficient gravity to cause helium fusion and the star simply fades away as a white dwarf -> black dwarf. It takes a long time for a white dwarf to cool off. In fact, any which exist in our galaxy, even the very oldest, are still cooling. After the red giant phase, this scenario repeats again and again: burn out core, collapse, re-ignite with a new form of fusion. At each iteration stars with mass too small to ignite the next phase cool off and die. More massive stars continue building up shells of unburned material (hydrogen on the outside, then helium, etc.), resembling onions. Eventually the most massive stars reach the point that the core is fusing into iron. Iron is funny. All elements lighter than iron release energy when they fuse, but iron and the heavier elements require energy input to cause fusion. When the progenitor element of iron in the star's core is all fused away, the star burns out and collapses again. This time, when fusion of iron begins the process takes energy away rather than adding it, hastening the collapse. As the star collapses faster and faster, strange things start to happen. Hydrogen and other unburned fuels begin to fuse as pressures rise, and fusion of iron increases as well (accelerating the process further). Now neutrinos (a byproduct of the fusion process) are generated in vast numbers. Normally these neutrinos escape the star (this is happening all the time), but at this point the star is so dense that they are stopped (!!). The energy carried by each is re-absorbed by the star, hastening fusion and collapse still further. This results in a chain reaction: a supernova! The star explodes when pressures exceed the gravity of such a massive star, scattering the elements manufactured to the four (solar) winds. Eddies of phenomenal pressure in the process cause fusion to create the heaviest elements, which are not otherwise produced in stars. In this way are all the elements in the Periodic Table produced from hydrogen. A modern just-so story from -- David D. Levine (...decvax!tektronix!tekecs!davidl) [UUCP] (...tekecs!davidl.tektronix@rand-relay) [ARPA] ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 83 14:14:46-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: pur-ee!CSvax.cmh @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Gold disk sent out of solar system In-Reply-To: Article houxj.287 bronze.715 I don't think we are of such intergalactic importance that unknown space races pull out their space fleet to zap us... Chris Hoffmann ------------------------------ Date: 3 Sep 1983 2238-PDT Subject: Apogee and Perigee From: Alan R. Katz To: space@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: katz@USC-ISIF.ARPA The real definition of apogee and perigee comes from the "Space glossary for unspacefied people" by Loyd Rosenfield of the Saterday Evening Post: Apogee: The opposite of perigee Perigee: The opposite of apogee (other definitions: Lift Off: An English elevator out of order, and Absolute Zero: What I am left with on April 15). Sorry, Alan ------- ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 83 13:00:32-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: menlo70!nsc!chongo @ Ucb-Vax Subject: space telescope does anyony know what the status of the space telescope is? chongo /\../\ ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 05-Sep-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #206 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 206 Today's Topics: Name change? When? Dial-A-Shuttle Name of the moon? Re: When? Status of Space Telescope Re: Name change? Re: Name of the sun Re: Name change? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Sep 83 14:30:06-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ihuxk!summers @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Name change? Shouldn't the name of this newsgroup change from net.columbia to net.shuttle? There is more than one space/aircraft. Any comments? -- Robert L. Summers Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois 60566 (312) 979-1649 ucbvax!ihnss!ihuxk!summers ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 83 12:34:37-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: pur-ee!ecn-ec.stocker @ Ucb-Vax Subject: When? What is the latest date/time for the landing of STS-8? ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 83 14:23:05-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ihuxk!summers @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Dial-A-Shuttle For those interested there is a 900 number which operates during shuttle missions which you can call and listen in to Mission Control-Shuttle communications. It is run by the National Space Institute (a non-profit organization). The number is 1-900-410-6272. This is a toll call. -- Robert L. Summers Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois 60566 (312) 979-1649 ucbvax!ihnss!ihuxk!summers ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 83 9:30:33-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!turner @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Name of the moon? In-Reply-To: Article <4526@sri-arpa.UUCP> ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 83 19:30:52-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5g!hou5h!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: When? In-Reply-To: Article <1107@ecn-ec.UUCP> The shuttle is scheduled to land at 0340 EDT on 5 September at EAFB. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 1983 19:11:13 PDT From: METH@USC-ISI Subject: Status of Space Telescope To: SPACE@MIT-MC cc: METH@USC-ISI The current semiofficial launch date for the Space Telescope (ST) is the second half of 1986. The main mirror has been installed in the main ring of the optical telescope assembly (OTA) at Perkin-Elmer (this structure is truly a sight to behold). Most of the OTA structural compo- nents have been fabricated and baked out. The secondary mirror assembly has just completed vibration testing at PE and the main line OTA assembly should begin shortly. The entire OTA is sched- uled to be shipped to Lockheed Missiles and Space Company (LMSC) in late 1984. One of the critical paths currently is the Fine Guidance Sensor (FGS). Several problems still plague these devices, but the assembly and integration is still just on schedule. The optical control system (OCS) is also in assembly and on schedule. The scientific instruments have experienced slight delays in their initial construction, test, and shipment to Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) for their Verification and Acceptance Prog- ram (VAP). The overall VAP program is barely on sechdule and will probably be delayed a month or so. The scientific instru- ments are scheduled to be shipped to LMSC in March of 1985. The computers and software for the ST are experiencing the usual problems inherent in a multiprocessor system. Parkinson's law (things expand to fill the available space) is operative here with regard to the computer memory, however the problems are being addressed satisfactoraly, and no software "show stoppers" are expected. In conclusion, while there are continuous problems cropping up (and being expertly solved by those involved in the program) as ST moves from component fabrication and test to system integ- ration, I expect there is an excellent chance that the launch date will be met. -Sheldon Meth ------- ------------------------------ Date: 1 Sep 83 22:28:00-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!cbosgd!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Name change? In-Reply-To: Article <448@ihuxk.UUCP> I don't believe this! For (hopefully) the LAST time, we have been over and over this again and again. When this group was cut off a couple years ago and merged with net.space, people wrote me and asked to reinstate net.columbia. When a poll was held after that (for the first time) asking if we should change the name, the overwhelming response was no. Since then, the subject has come up countless times, and every time the decision is to let it stay net.columbia. Put it to rest already! ------------------------------ Date: 30 Aug 83 11:19:41-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!genrad!security!linus!philabs!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trw-unix!trwspp!urban @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Name of the sun In-Reply-To: Article sri-arpa.4526 When we discuss the "name of the Sun" or "Snickers" or that stuff, what is the name of the body that officially sanctions these names? Not afraid to ask a dumb question. Mike Urban [ucbvax|decvax]!trw-unix!trwspp!urban ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 83 11:33:22-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!james @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Name change? Probably, but this way makes the newsgroup more ___________. Fill in the blank with, maybe, exclusive, anachronistic, clever. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 06-Sep-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #207 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 207 Today's Topics: Orbit Lowered -- New Landing Time Supernovae... Re: Techno-philosophy naming stars ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Sep 83 7:22:50-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Orbit Lowered -- New Landing Time Truly yesterday fired the orbiting maneuvering engines to lower the Challenger's orbit from 193 to 139 miles. The planned lowering is to allow the shuttle to pass through a dense layer of atomic oxygen particles to see how they will erode several samples of different surfaces, from paint to telescope lenses, that will be used in future flights. I erroneously reported the landing time of the shuttle as 0340 EDT on the 5th. It will be at 0323 EDT. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Sep 1983 10:51-PDT From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL To: space@mit-mc Subject: Supernovae... Via: Usc-Cse; 05 Sep 83 11:35:27 Actually, we really don't know what makes a supernova explode. Here's what we do know: as a large star burns, iron accumulates in its core. The iron is inert. The core is kept from collapsing by the pressure of degenerate electrons. As the core becomes more and more massive, the electrons become relativistic. This limits the maximum pressure they can exert. Eventually, the electron start burrowing into the nuclei, converting protons to neutrons and electron neutrinos. The core dissolves into a sea of neutrons. It was formerly thought that the core was transparent enough to let these neutrinos escape. Calculations showed that there would be so many produced that they could actually blow the star apart (by the weak interaction). Unfortunately, further calculations with the new electroweak theory show that the neutrinos are trapped in the core. This has interesting effects, one of which is to retard the conversion of protons to neutrons. It is now thought that the degenerate iron core collapses to a neutron star and beyond. The equation of state of neutron star matter is only poorly understood, but it is believed that after collapsing beyond the density of a neutron star the core is suddenly halted by nucleon-nucleon repulsion. A shock wave is generated, propagating the tremendous kinetic energy of the collapse outwards, blowing away the rest of the star. This model only describes one kind of supernova (two kinds are observed). Other theories include the collapse of white dwarf stars that grow to more than 1.4 solar masses, or large stars that undergo "catastrophic carbon burning". This refers to a kind of nuclear reaction in large stars with a rate that goes as the 11th power of temperature. The theory is that this reaction raises the temperature, which makes the reaction run faster, etc. until a runaway explosion occurs. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Sep 83 21:26:36 PDT (Monday) From: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: Techno-philosophy To: Robert Elton Maas cc: SPACE@MIT-MC.ARPA, Haas@UTAH-20.ARPA, Hamilton.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Let's once and for all get rid of this notion that expansion into space will have any significant impact whatsoever on the population problem. Let's do some ballpark arithmetic: say we're adding 3 billion people in the next 30 years (conservatively). A linear approximation of this exponential function will suffice for this argument -- 3 billion over 30 = 100 million new bodies (net) per year. 100 million over 365 = 273972. That's more than 10K people per hour, roughly 3 people per SECOND. Even with some sort of "elevators to orbit" technology, the energy and resources required to stablized earth's human population would be incredible. But ever more to the point, any exponentially growing population will eventually reach the point where it would have to be expanding outward in a sphere at the speed of light to keep the internal density from increasing. Personally, I suspect that the optimal human population (large enough to allow for certain economies of scale in basic industries, and redundancy in all important sectors of the economy) is on the order of 100 million. Does anyone know of any studies addressing this question, or the question of the minimal population required to sustain something resembling our present economy and lifestyles? It's certainly an important issue for space colonization. I don't care to see the entire surface of the earth and other nearby bodies, natural or artificial, approach the density of mid-town Manhattan. --Bruce ------------------------------ Date: 2 Sep 83 11:29:34-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!watmath!echrzanowski @ Ucb-Vax Subject: naming stars Can anyone give me the name of the organization that put names on stars. In other words you pay them a set fee and they will put the name you want on one of the stars out there. Is there a Canadian organization that does the same thing? I would like an answer as soon as possible. Thanks in advance (watmath!echrzanowski) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 07-Sep-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #208 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 208 Today's Topics: Re: Name change? Re: Night Launching - (nf) Solar/Vegan/... panels Re: naming stars Question about fusion in stars Shuttle Landings Re: The name of our sun is Sol. - (nf) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Sep 83 11:35:41-PDT (Sat) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!watmath!bstempleton @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Name change? In all the debate about changing the name that has gone on so many times, one thing was never pointed out. Keeping the columbia name means that new members of the net will constantly be asking why we kept the name, thus starting up the debate again. This will never cease. While it is nice to have a name that honours the first shuttle, this is understood only to people who have read the group for a long time. With current net growth, this is a small portion of the readers. The rest of the names on the net are designed to be descriptive (except net.general and net.test) but this one is way off, and we will keep having this discussion as long as new people don't understand the name. Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304 ------------------------------ Date: 3 Sep 83 21:37:52-PDT (Sat) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!cca!ima!stevel @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Night Launching - (nf) This was discussed in net.columbia. The reason is that they want to release the satillite during the longest daylight exposure over India so the astronaunts can see what they are doing. ------------------------------ Date: 1 September 1983 1941-mst From: Kevin B. Kenny Subject: Solar/Vegan/... panels To: Space-Enthusiasts @ MIT-MC But "solar panels" includes not only photovoltaics but also photochemical installations and even passive thermal ones. How about "radiant energy collectors" or "wrecks" for short? lexically yours k**2 (Kenny.OSNI%PCO-MULTICS@CISL-Service-Multics) ------------------------------ Date: 6 Sep 83 10:17:38 PDT (Tuesday) From: Lynn.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: naming stars In-reply-to: echrzanowski's message of 2 Sep 83 11:29:34-PDT To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: Lynn.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA There are several organizations that have jumped on the star naming bandwagon. I have intentionally lost the addresses of two that I once had. Most authorities consider them a sham and ripoff. The IAU (the body that by international agreement has the authority to name astronomical objects) has objected to these new organizations, but has no power to stop them. What they do is take a star catalog, and for about $30 - $50, write your chosen name next to one of the index numbers identifying a star, then copyright that piece of paper. Some companies even give you a certificate and/or a map with your star circled. They won't run out of stars soon. There is at least one uncopyrighted catalog of stars with matching maps listing over 1/4 million stars. /Don Lynn ------------------------------ Date: 6 September 1983 21:09 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Question about fusion in stars To: SPACE @ MIT-MC Betelgeuse and Antares are both red supergiants. News stories say they may go supernova within the next 1000 years. What stage in development are they in? Obviously they have burned their Hydrogen, but are they still burning Helium, or have they burned out their Helium too and now burning their Carbon or Iron now? Deneb is a very bright star, 1600 lightyears away yet first magnitude. That makes it brighter than Betelgeuse or Antares intrinsically. On the HR (Hertsprung&Russell (sp?)) diagram Deneb isn't main sequence, it's somewhere between red supergiant and main-sequence blue-giant, sort of a white supergiant. What is its status and ultimate fate? By the way, casual observation with binoculers shows many red or orange stars visible to the nakid eye (it takes binoculers to get enough light to show color, but just the eye to see it as a spot of light). Yet only a few of them (about twenty or so) are main-sequence red or orange dwarfs, according to the listing in Sky&Telescope. Are the rest of them all far-away red giants and red supergiants? ------------------------------ Date: 6-Sep-83 22:46 PDT From: William Daul - Tymshare Inc. Cupertino, CA Subject: Shuttle Landings To: space@mit-mc Message-ID: <[OFFICE-2]TYM-WBD-34762> I was one of the 2000 folks at Edwards lastnight. Very interesting! The base was darkened of all bright lights so as to avoid confusing the shuttle crew. The air above the dry lake bed was completely still. The double sonic boom was the loudest of the 4 landing I have been to. It reverberated for quite a few seconds. The runway seemed to be further away than usual, my guess 1/2 to 1 mile away from the viewing area. After the sonic boom, all eyes and ears were on the night sky. About 15 seconds before touchdown we could actually hear the shuttle gliding thru the air. It was a very "spectacular" sound. I assume that was the 100-ton spacecraft changing from it's 20 degree glideslope to it's 1.5 degree which is only 135 feet above the runway. It was only in view for 20 seconds as it raced down the runway. The few number of people was such a change from the usual masses. I am refering to the special guests as opposed to the general public. Does anyone know which future launches are scheduled for landings at Edwards? And what are the dates? Thanks, --Bi<< ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 83 17:54:20-PDT (Sun) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!notes @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: The name of our sun is Sol. - (nf) Re: the Galaxy, the Milky Way, and Everything. {~ And don't forget: the name of my neighborhood is "the Neighborhood", with a capital 'N'. And the name of my family is "the Family". And if you don't quite agree, members of the Family will fit you with concrete foot- wear, and relocate you to the River. ~} Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner) P.S. To members of the REAL Family: I'M KIDDING! ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 08-Sep-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #209 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 209 Today's Topics: Re: naming stars STS-8 Termed a Complete Success **LANDING** Landing Set Name of the sun The name of our local galaxy cluster Re: Space and Overpopulation Truly becomes Commander of Space Navy The Discovery Plans for Discovery and Columbia naming stars - ripoff Re: NASA's exposure via the media and the future of space Only Small Problems on Shuttle -- Insat 1B Has More ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Sep 83 12:19:18-PDT (Sun) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hao!kpno!ut-sally!utastro!bill @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: naming stars In-Reply-To: Article watmath.5688 Please, everyone, be warned: The outfit that "names" stars after you for a fee has no more right to do so than I do. This is a commercial business that has a copy of the Smithsonian Star Catalog, and for a modest fee they will send you a nice certificate that says that "star number such-and-so is now called Barry's star"; The certificate is worthless and means nothing. The organization, of course, keeps your money. I consider it a rip-off (like those "genealogy researchers" we heard about a few months ago). There is only one organization that has the right to name objects in the Heavens. It is the International Astronomical Union, and is the organization that speaks for all the world's astronomers. It has a Commission on Astronomical Nomenclature whose responsibility is to name objects, features on planets and so on. There is one good way to get your name legitimately on a heavenly body: Discover a comet (and be one of the first to inform Dr. Brian Marsden at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, Mass.) This is easier said than done. Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (Snail) ihnp4!kpno!utastro!bill (uucp) utastro!bill@utexas-11 (ARPA) ------------------------------ Date: 5 Sep 83 11:10:04-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: STS-8 Termed a Complete Success NASA today said that STS-8 was 100% successful, and one flight controller said it was the ''best flight yet.'' The Challenger ended its 6 day, 1 hour, 8 minute, and 40 second flight at 0340 EDT this morning at Rogers Dry Lakebed, EAFB. Before the landing, the crew turned their cameras on and took the first ever unbroken movie of a complete pass around the Earth. Earlier in the day, one of the shuttle's computers became out of sync with a twin; 40 minutes later, mission control put it back on track but gave it secondary status for the landing. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Sep 83 3:47:35-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: **LANDING** Right on time, at 0340 EDT this morning, the Challenger made a picture perfect landing at EAFB. Just before landing, coverage of the shuttle was picked up with infrared cameras, and we were shown those pictures for the first time. Real images were attained just a few seconds before the actual touchdown. If only the anchorpeople would shut up, if only when the mission control people were talking... ------------------------------ Date: 4 Sep 83 23:26:08-PDT (Sun) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Landing Set In just over four hours, at 0340 EDT, the Challenger is scheduled to land at EAFB. All the major TV networks plan live coverage, although NASA says there won't be much to see until the shuttle is about 50 feet above the landing area. ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 7 September 1983 12:00:57 EDT From: David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS To: space@mc Subject: Name of the sun Message-ID: <1983.9.7.15.58.27.David.Smith@CMU-CS-IUS> The word "sun" means no more and no less than "sol" or "helios." It's just that some people won't use a name that is not Latin or Greek. People from the Vegan system won't object to our calling the sun Sun, just as we don't object to the Aleuts calling themselves Aleuts ("the people"), or to the Germans calling themselves Deutsch (which came from Diot, "the people"). ------------------------------ Date: 7-Sep-83 09:37 PDT From: Kirk Kelley Subject: The name of our local galaxy cluster To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC Message-ID: <[OFFICE-2]TYM-KIRK-34872> In-reply-to: EXT-OTA-347MF In 1973 I implemented the shell of a "Whole Universe Catalog" using the mouse to demo, among other things, zooming through the universe down into an atom in the planet earth (a video tape is viewable at the Stanford University Communications Library). I had a name problem out at the galaxy cluster level. It seems all of the clusters in the Atlas of the Universe had names but our own. So I called ours the "Dairy cluster". "Local cluster" was too anthropocentric I guess. Ever since then, (when I give a demo) I wonder if there is an official name for our local galaxy cluster. -- kirk ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 1983 8:54-PDT From: dietz%usc-cse@USC-ECL To: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC Cc: space@mit-mc Subject: Re: Space and Overpopulation Via: Usc-Cse; 07 Sep 83 09:43:14 So we have to move 100 million people into space every year? So what? That's only a fraction of the current number of people who ride airliners every year. It will use lots of energy? The amount of energy needed to put people in orbit with currently feasible technology is equal to the amount of energy used by the average American in several months. Once a person is off the earth they will use no energy here, so the payback is very fast (at least for Americans). One would also hope that once millions of people are in space we'd be getting lots of cheap energy from solar power satellites, and that half a century (or whatever) of R&D will reduce the cost even more. No one ever said that space colonization will allow infinite exponential growth. It will allow living space to expand much faster than population can, because we'll be manufacturing it. The standard of living should shoot upwards. All the evidence suggests that birth rates will then decline. There is an excellent argument for the population to be as large as possible: the more people there are, the faster discoveries and inventions will be made. What is holding back science today is mostly a lack of scientists. A population of 4.7 trillion will produce interesting discoveries, excellent works of art, clever inventions, entertaining films, etc. a thousand times faster than we do today. ------------------------------ Date: 07 Sep 83 1119 PDT From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Truly becomes Commander of Space Navy To: space@MIT-MC a059 0500 07 Sep 83 PM-Truly,220 Astronaut Named Head of Naval Space Command SPACE CENTER, Houston (AP) - Richard H. Truly, a Navy captain whose first command was aboard the latest flight of space shuttle Challenger, is leaving the astronaut corps to take charge of the newly organized Naval Space Command. In a joint announcement Tuesday, the Navy and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration said the 45-year-old former test pilot will take over the Naval Space Command on Oct. 1 when the organization formally starts operations in Dahlgren, Va. He will become the first astronaut to return to naval service in the 25-year history of NASA. Asked in a telephone interview if it was hard to leave space flight, Truly said, ''You bet it was.'' But the new job was described by a NASA official as ''a good career move'' for Truly, who spent almost 18 years as an astronaut and made two space flights. ''This will be my first Navy command,'' said Truly, who served as a pilot and a flight instructor before becoming an astronaut. The Naval Space Command organization was announced by Navy Secretary John Lehman on June 15 as a counterpart of the Air Force Space Command. The command will include the naval space surveillance system with headquarters at Dahlgren; the naval astronautics group at Point Mugu, Calif.; and elements supporting the fleet satellite communications system. ap-ny-09-07 0801EDT *************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Sep 83 11:52 PDT From: BollenG.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: The Discovery To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.Arpa cc: BollenG.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. - The third space shuttle, Discovery, is nearly completed and is to begin flying next year. With Challenger and Discovery in operation, and Columbia in reserve, the space agency plans 11 missions in 1984, compared with four this year. ------------------------------ Date: 07 Sep 83 1118 PDT From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Plans for Discovery and Columbia To: space@MIT-MC n099 1939 06 Sep 83 AM-SHUTTLE With Challenger Safely Back, All Eyes Turn to Discovery By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD c.1983 N.Y. Times News Service EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. - As technicians serviced the space shuttle Challenger here after its six-day flight, workers at a nearby plant were putting the finishing touches on the third shuttle, the Discovery, which is set to be rolled out next month and to begin flying next year. With the Challenger and the Discovery both in operation, and the first shuttle, the Columbia, in reserve, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration plans 11 missions in 1984, as against four this year. The Rockwell International Corp., the prime contractor, expects to roll out the Discovery from its hangar in Palmdale, Calif., on Oct. 1, the 25th anniversary of the space agency's formation. The winged spaceship, which is the size of a DC-9 jetliner, will be towed here, a journey of 30 miles by highway. And then, a week or two later, it is to be ferried to the Kennedy Space Center in Florida atop a Boeing 747 to undergo final processing and inspection. The Discovery's first mission is scheduled for May 7, 1984. For at least a year after that, the Discovery and the Challenger are to fly alternate missions. The Columbia, meanwhile, is being prepared for a mission to begin Oct. 28 and then could remain out of service for nearly two years. Space agency officials are studying a plan to ''mothball'' the Columbia, which flew the first five shuttle missions, at the Kennedy center and to use many of its components for spare parts to support the other two vehicles. It would be kept ready, however, as a backup vehicle in case either of the other two ran into serious problems. Lt. Gen. James A. Abrahamson, chief of NASA's shuttle program, emphasized that no decision had been made to store the Columbia after its October mission. However, he said that the program was suffering from a shortage of some critical spare parts, which he attributed to tight budgets in the late 1970s. An inspection of the Challenger Tuesday indicated that it would have need of few new parts, if any. At a news conference here, Herman K. Widick, ground operations manager for the shuttle at the Kennedy Space Center, reported that the spaceship survived its six days in orbit in better shape than a shuttle did on any previous flight. Widick said only 27 of the craft's 31,000 heat-shielding tiles appeared to need replacement because of damage in the liftoff or re-entry. A few of the craft's small maneuvering thrusters, which developed minor leaks in the flight, would also have to be replaced. Continuing problems with leaks and other malfunctions of the shuttle's toilet will be investigated before the next mission, General Abrahamson said. The unit will probably be removed and shipped back to the manufacturer, the General Electric Co. in King of Prussia, Pa. The Challenger is scheduled to be ferried back to the Kennedy Space Center this weekend, where it will be inspected more carefully and prepared for its next flight in January. Capt. Richard H. Truly, commander of the eighth shuttle flight, was named Tuesday as the first commander of the Naval Space Command, which will consolidate the Navy's operations in space communications, navigation, surveillance and other space activities. The appointment, which will take effect Oct. 1, was announced in Washington by Adm. James D. Watkins, chief of naval operations, and James M. Beggs, the administrator of NASA. The Naval Space Command will be based in Dahlgren, Va. nyt-09-06-83 2239edt *************** ------------------------------ Date: 8 September 1983 02:46 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: naming stars - ripoff To: Lynn.es @ PARC-MAXC cc: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC It would seem that writing somebody's name on a star chart and copyrighting that sheet of paper would prevent anyone from making copies of that chart&name or of forging it by writing or printing the name again on another clone of that original chart. Thus it would be illegal to include that star with that name on any published star chart. That would seem to be just the opposite of what somebody wants when heesh has a star named after hir, namely requiring makers of star charts to include that name for that star. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Sep 83 11:37:47-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!linus!philabs!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!louie @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: NASA's exposure via the media and the future of space In-Reply-To: Article <4840@sri-arpa.UUCP> I agree with the idea of a 'space' channel on a cable TV system. I once had the pleasure to watch a shuttle launch from a NASA control room which had the NASA video and audio feed. It was quite a difference not having to listen to the constant babble of network newspersons who feel a need to keep words flowing from their mouths, no matter what they say. Heck, I'd even PAY real MONEY for such a service! Louis A. Mamakos Internet: louie@cvl.arpa CSNet: louie.cvl@umcp-cs uucp: ..!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!louie phone: (301) 454-2946 Snail Mail: Computer Science Center - Systems Staff University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 -- Louis A. Mamakos Internet: louie@cvl.arpa ------------------------------ Date: 6 Sep 83 7:20:25-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Only Small Problems on Shuttle -- Insat 1B Has More NASA yesterday said that STS-8 experienced only 18 minor anomalies, the fewest of any shuttle flight so far. Most of those had to do with the ever-failing toilets. Meanwhile, India says that the Insat-1B satellite launched by the shuttle has failed to fully deploy its solar panels. Engineers at an Indian ground station yesterday succeeded in partially unfolding the array, and they are working with people from Ford Aerospace, manufacturer of the satellite, to get the array fully deployed. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 09-Sep-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #210 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 210 Today's Topics: Re: Techno-philosophy night landing fuss Re: Name change? Re: gold disk ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 September 1983 2023-mst From: Kevin B. Kenny Subject: Re: Techno-philosophy To: Space-enthusiasts @ MIT-MC Bruce Hamilton's comments that expansion into space can have little impact on the population problems of the Earth are quite believable and seem convincing at first. There are, however, counterarguments which he apparently overlooks. The most obvious assumption is that the scale of the project is entirely infeasible. He quotes an out-migration figure of 300K persons/day as incredible. In fact, commercial aviation deals with problems of that scale as a matter of course; check the passenger loads for the major airlines. Is it unreasonable to expect that space technology after half a century of development will have reached a comparable capability? (Admittedly, I'm considering only passengers at present; however, the fact that something like half that number of people move [change permanent residence] every day within the US alone [!] suggests that a comparable amount of cargo capacity is also within reason.) As far as constructing habitats for that many people goes, remember that some fixed fraction of the productivity of those already in space will be devoted to the task. That's an exponential curve, too! His more fundamental argument about unrestricted exponential growth is valid, of course. Nevertheless, there is substantial evidence that exponential growth (and "boom-and-bust" cycles) is not the only, nor even the primary pattern of population growth. I'll do some reading to refresh my memory on this topic, and report on it later. He then goes on in the next paragraph to define the "optimum" population as the minimum needed to provide today's economies of scale in the production of goods and services. What makes the minimum level necessarily preferable? It seems to me that defining the optimum as the maximum level achievable without seriously degrading the quality of life is at least as valid. Clearly the density of Manhattan is unacceptable to most, but is there conclusive evidence that the relative sparseness of Colorado (for example) is preferable to the density of Denmark or Holland? /k**2 (Kenny.OSNI%PCO-Multics@CISL) ------------------------------ Date: 6 Sep 83 8:26:27-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!utah-cs!arizona!budd @ Ucb-Vax Subject: night landing fuss About a year ago I had a conversation at KSC with some of the IBM people from Houston who wrote the software for the shuttle. They indicated that the software could land the shuttle totally automatically, that the astronauts could just sit there and watch, if they wanted to. However, the astronauts generally didn't like this, so as a compromise the software folks let them have control for the last 30 seconds or so (as i understood, just when the craft broke through the clouds and was in visual sight of the landing area). Actually I think they still don't have control, the computer just has a range of acceptable values for things like the degree of inclination (is there a technical word for keeping the nose up to increase drag? ) and will let them play with variables a bit, so it SEEMS they are in control. Actually I believe all commands go through the computer anyway, and the computer (or computers, given the redundancy) must "ok" them before it (they) will act. Given this, all the fuss about a night landing seems somewhat silly. The computer doesn't care if its dark out! ------------------------------ Date: 6 Sep 83 14:56:25-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: menlo70!nsc!chongo @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Name change? In-Reply-To: Article <448@ihuxk.UUCP> what about changing the name to net.space.shuttle? chongo /\../\ ------------------------------ Date: 6 Sep 83 16:11:53-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!schneids @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: gold disk I realize that the gold disk was included in hopes of finding other intelligent life; but, what if that intelligent life is a conquering race like the Klingons??!! OR WORSE - what if they were like the Zylons on Battlestar Galactica and think that all humans should be destroyed??!! Schneids ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 10-Sep-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #211 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 211 Today's Topics: Re: Name of the sun Shuttle in Superb Condition Re: gold disk Re: NASA Goals and Objectives Re: Shuttle in Superb Condition Re: Name of the moon? Truly to Head Naval Space Command The Perfect Tan The Gold Plates Re: night landing fuss ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Sep 83 7:22:40-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hao!kpno!ut-sally!utastro!bill @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Name of the sun In-Reply-To: Article trwspp.98 >When we discuss the "name of the Sun" or "Snickers" or that >stuff, what is the name of the body that officially sanctions >these names? >Not afraid to ask a dumb question. >Mike Urban Not a dumb question, as my previous posting shows. The International Astronomical Union's Commission of Astronomical Nomenclature is responsible for all "official" names of astronomical bodies. However, the names "Copernicus" for the Sun and "Bruno" for the galaxy are to my knowledge only suggestions. "Snickers" is a joke. Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (Snail) ihnp4!kpno!utastro!bill (uucp) utastro!bill@utexas-11 (ARPA) ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 83 7:21:50-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Shuttle in Superb Condition The shuttle Challenger came back with the least damage of any shuttle flight so far, NASA said yesterday. Twenty-seven tiles (!) have small nicks in them, and two of the 44 maneuvering rockets have very minor leaks in them. And, of course, the toilets broke again. NASA currently plans to have the Challenger leave EAFB this Saturday. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 83 10:00:56-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!decwrl!FLAIRMAX!ellis @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: gold disk It's hard to believe a gold disc on an object crawling through space to be a reasonable way of finding intelligent life! Far more believable a motive is to leave some civilized relic of ourselves after we blow this place to smithereens. -michael ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 83 9:43:06-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!decwrl!FLAIRMAX!ellis @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: NASA Goals and Objectives Any age discrimination (in favor of young graduates) on the part of NASA is particularly saddening in light of the tragic careers of many older aerospace engineers who were dumped 10 years ago after they landed a human on the moon. I saw with many of these my first year out of college performing mundane work at truly disgusting government jobs they had little option but to accept. Many shattered dreams back then... -michael ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 83 15:03:41-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!houxm!houxz!halle1 @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Shuttle in Superb Condition In-Reply-To: Article <2197@alice.UUCP> Did the toilets break because they couldn't decide whether the lid went up or down, or was it because the TP was hung backwards? :) ------------------------------ Date: 6 Sep 83 13:36:02-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!gummo!whuxlb!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ubc-visi!mprvaxa!johans @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Name of the moon? In-Reply-To: Article <4526@sri-arpa.UUCP>, <1509@randvax.ARPA> Here we go again. My bid goes for ROVER. Why, you may ask? Well ROVER has so many conotations. ie: In the OLDEN days, many of the celestial bodies had referances to animals and the moon follows the EARTH much like a good dog is suposed to. or; the moon is allways TRAVELLING (ROVING) through-out our skies etc.,etc.,etc.,...... ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 1983 1444-EDT From: J. Scott Hamilton To: space at MIT-MC Could you please take off Hammy@Mit off the mailing list. I'm not sure which machine it is being sent to. Thanks. Hammy ------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1983 16:23 EDT Message-ID: <[MIT-OZ].OAF. 9-Sep-83 16:23:14> From: OAF@MIT-OZ To: space@MIT-OZ Is there a reason why announcements of the class of when the shuttle lifted off, when it is supposed to land, and similar stuff which can be gleaned from any wire service or newpaper must go out over this mailing list? Thanks, Oded ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 83 7:22:44-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Truly to Head Naval Space Command NASA said yesterday that Dick Truly, just back from STS-8, will head the new Naval Space Command, due to start operations on 1 October. The assignment makes Truly the first Navy astronaut to return to Naval service. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Sep 1983 21:35-PDT Sender: WARD@USC-ISIF Subject: The Perfect Tan From: Craig E. Ward To: SPACE@MIT-MC Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF] 8-Sep-83 21:35:21.WARD> The October 83 issue of Discover contains a feature relating a current controversy in San Diego. It seems that the city is planning on installing high pressure sodium lamps throughout the city and not the low pressure sodium kind. This would have the unfortunate side effect of severely hampering the operations of the Palomar observatory due to the enlarged spectral lines the lamps would emit. The arguments for using LPS lamps are that they are cheaper to operate and cast light over a wider area. They would also have only a minor affect on the observatory. The only argument for the HPS is that people look better. (The LPS can make peoples' complexions look somewhat sallow). Things like this make me wonder about the values of this society. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 83 11:14:00-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!cca!ima!ism70!chris (Chris Kostanick) @ Ucb-Vax Subject: The Gold Plates I don't think that the gold plates with information about us are a significant danger. The reason is that they are moving very slowly compared to the distances they must cross. They will be in the near neighborhood of the sun for thousands of years to come. Anyone who is close enough to find them would have already seen the radio emisions of earth. (We are quite bright in the radio spectrum, and the spectra is decidedly non-random). Thus anyone who could get the disks already knows about us. We only have to worry about attack during our window of vulnerability. The window of vulnerability for a new species is the period between the time they start doing things that register at a distance (radio, tv, etc) and the time they get tough enough to take care of themselves. Since i expect that we will be ready for anybody within 500 or so years (or extinct by our own hand), it would surprise me greatly if there was anyone close enough to find the plates, who hadn't already spotted us. There are only 2 or 3 stars within about 15 light years that look to be possible abodes of life. All the others are either too large (and hence don't last long enough) or are too dim, and have too small a water zone. I don't have my list of the 50 nearest stars handy, but the Alpha Centauri system, and 61 Cygni are the ones that stick in my mind. It seems very probable to me that there are many other intellegent space-faring cultures out there, but they are probably pretty far apart. I doubt if we will encounter any other space-faring groups until we have interstellar capability ourselves, and have visited some of the more likely places. chris -------- ------------------------------ Date: 7 Sep 83 13:43:49-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!drux3!druxu!sef @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: night landing fuss In-Reply-To: Article <4528@arizona.UUCP> I believe the proper name for increasing drag by keeping the nose up is "Dynamic Braking". Scott E. Farleigh AT&TIS Denver ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 11-Sep-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #212 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 212 Today's Topics: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #211 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat 10 Sep 83 03:22:51-PDT From: Henry W. Miller Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V3 #211 To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC cc: Miller@SRI-NIC In-Reply-To: Message from "Ted Anderson " of Sat 10 Sep 83 03:03:00-PDT Actually, we are already doomed. Somewhere, out there, a few parsecs from here, are a race of beings that resemble the "Jack in the Box" clown. And they have seen us waste their kinsman. They are coming for us. "The Clowns Strike Back" -HWM ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 18-Sep-83 0304 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #213 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 213 Today's Topics: MAILING LIST Planets, Kidsicles, Galileo Star-naming commercial organization Factual announcements Columbia benched? Re: Name of the sun NAS Opposes Space Stations Re: NASA's exposure via the media and th - (nf) Re: Name change? Challenger Back at KSC Insat-1B Deploys Solar Array Re: The Gold Plates - (nf) night landing question Re: Shuttle Landings SPACE Digest V3 #212 Re: Space and Overpopulation Re: Columbia benched? Re: "Naval Space Command" Re: none Re: Columbia benched? Re: Columbia benched? re:none space colonies ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Sep 1983 2223-PDT From: Terry C. Savage Subject: MAILING LIST To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS@MIT-MC cc: Andromeda: ;, tcs@USC-ECL PLEASE DELETE ME FROM THE SACE MAILING LIST. TCS@USC-ECLA ------- ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 14 September 1983 17:18:52 EDT From: Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER To: space@mc Subject: Planets, Kidsicles, Galileo Message-ID: <1983.9.14.21.11.45.Hans.Moravec@CMU-RI-ROVER> n537 0304 13 Sep 83 BC-SCIBRIEFS-09-13 (c) 1983 Boston Globe (Independent Press Service) Astronomers have made three key discoveries this summer on stars and their companions, in addition to the much-heralded discovery of a possible solar system around the star Vega, according to a report in Science News. And the Vega finding was independently confirmed by University of Texas astronomer Paul M. Harvey, using a telescope aboard a NASA-operated jet. Three astronomers from the U.S. Naval Observatory report that they have made precise measurements showing that two other stars have relatively small companions orbiting them. The scientists used measurements of the ''wobble'' in the motion of two dim stars, called VB8 and VB10, to deduce the existence of companions around those stars. And one of the Naval Observatory astronomers, Robert Harrington, also reported strong evidence that might help resolve a 20-year controversy about whether a Jupiter-sized giant planet is in orbit around Barnard's Star. According to Harrington, his data show clearly that Barnard's Star does not have a giant companion. --- Six months after a fertilized, previously frozen embryo was implanted in an Australian woman, her pregnancy ended in miscarriage. There has not yet been a successful pregnancy involving a frozen human embryo. An Australian research team led by Dr. Alan Trolunson reported that a streptococcal infection led to a stillbirth at 23 weeks. Studies showed the fetus was a girl, whose tissues all appeared normal, according to the scientists. Manipulation of living embryos - including freezing them and splitting them to obtain twins - is now routine in animals such as cattle, pigs, and sheep. Frozen embryos can be stored for years. Scientists expect these techniques will be equally applicable to human embryos. --- After being lifted 19 miles high by a balloon, and then dropped, the Galileo Jupiter Probe successfully passed a test simulating part of its mission into the atmosphere of the solar system's largest planet. The test, carried out high above the California desert, essentially duplicated the spacecraft's entry through the outer fringes of Jupiter's deep, thick atmosphere, according to officials at NASA's Ames Research Center. The probe will be launched in 1986, and will be released in 1988 when the spacecraft carrying it reaches Jupiter. The main Galileo vehicle will stay in orbit around Jupiter. If all goes as planned, the craft will use the gravitational pull from Jupiter's largest moons to visit each in turn, taking close-up photos. ******************* ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 1983 1259-PDT Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3 Subject: Star-naming commercial organization From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) To: Space at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]12-Sep-83 12:59:23.WMARTIN> The following item appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of 12 Sep 83: NOW, YOU TOO CAN BE A STAR By Marylin Schwartz, c 1983, Dallas Morning News If you've been wishing for the moon and the stars, here's an update. The moon is still out of reach. But the stars can now be put on your American Express card. For just $35, an Illinois company will name a star in your honor. "This is definitely for the person who has everything," explains Jane Johnson, a spokesman for International Star Registry of Northfield, Ill. "You can even pick your own constellation. We have a copyright on the concept of designating stars with names instead of numbers. This includes about 400,000 stars in the Northern Hemisphere." Ms. Johnson says this means, 2000 years from now, explorers could very well uncover the charting of the Eiseman Star. This is not Eiseman named for a famous astrologer or even Eiseman named for a famous philosopher. This is Richard and Louise Eiseman of Dallas. "We were just thrilled when some friends surprised my husband and me with our very own star for our anniversary," explains Mrs. Eiseman. International Star Registry makes a record of each star and then sends detailed charts to the people whose names they designate. "We also send a parchment proclaiming a star has been named in your honor," says Ms. Johnson. "You need a telescope to find them. That's why we stick to the Northern Hemisphere. All our stars can be sighted within the United States." Ms. Johnson says astrologers have 26 different, more scientific listings of star locations. "There is a Smithsonian listing, a Czechoslovakian listing, a Hungarian listing and so on," she says. "We are all talking about the same stars. But we use names. They use numbers." She points out that even real-life stars like having a heavenly star. "Johnny Carson has a star named after him," she says. "So do Suzanne Pleshette, Barry Manilow, Dolly Parton, the late Shah of Iran, Elvis Presley, Lucille Ball, Burt Reynolds, Calvin Klein, Elton John, and all that television M*A*S*H gang." She won't say who made the purchases. That is confidential. "But I can tell you that we reserve the constellation of Andromeda for celebrites," she explains. "The stars in Andromeda just seem to shine brighter than anywhere else." She says customers frequently request constellations that are their birth signs. Binary stars are also popular. They are recommended for lovers. "That's because binary stars are actually two stars that revolve around each other," she says. Ms. Johnson explains that her organization always tries to be creative in its recommendations. For instance, the registry suggests that pilots might like the Aquila constellation. That's the sign of the eagle. Dog lovers like Canis Major and Canis Minor, the greater dog and the lesser dog. "For lawyers," she says, "we always recommend the Big Dipper." ***End of article*** So help me, that is what it said... After typing this, I now feel like a National Enquirer staffer. Can you believe that a for-real newspaper published this drivel?!?!? I realize that some of the text makes no sense at all, but I guess it fits in with the subject... Note how "astrologers" is used instead of "astronomers" and I still can't make head or tail of what explorers in 3983 are doing when they "uncover the charting of the Eiseman Star"! Regards, Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 1983 1132-PDT Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3 Subject: Factual announcements From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) To: space at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]12-Sep-83 11:32:25.WMARTIN> I vote to continue the practice of posting basic info, such as shuttle takeoff or landing times, etc., on this list. Saying that they can be "gleaned from any wire service or newspaper" isn't an argument against this, but actually one FOR continuing the practice. The "gleaning" is what this list is for; to collect and compile any and all on-line info (or anything anyone is willing to take the time and effort to put on-line) related to space or the space program. Aside from what I see on these lists, I have no way to get wire-service data on any of the computers on which I have accounts, so I certainly appreciate getting that data from those machines that have such links. As for newspapers, with the current low visibility of the space program, it is no simple matter of picking up any paper and immediately finding specific data on these subjects. Why go to all the trouble of finding a paper (remember not everyone buys those rags), dig through it and read every headline from pages one through 23 until you find the shuttle item, and then find out that they have edited away the specific data you are interested in, in order to make room for another cigarette ad? What could be more sensible than to take advantage of a topic-oriented mailing list to include everything you can about the topic? My thanks to those who continue to post all the info they can on any space-related subjects! Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 83 13:21:05-PDT (Mon) To: space@mit-mc From: sri-unix!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!Pavel.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA@CCA Subject: Columbia benched? From: Pavel.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA To: net-columbia@CORNELL Sunday's New York Times had a tiny article mentioning that Columbia will soon be benched for a period of about two years; NASA decided that they had a 'surfeit' of shuttles for the amount of flights in the next two years (11 in 1984 and 12 in 1985 as I recall). This is very confusing to me. Could someone who knows please tell us exactly what's going on? Specifically, I have the following questions: 1) When is Columbia being benched and for how long? 2) When are Atlantis and Discovery scheduled to come into service and are they on-time? 3) What flights are being flown by which shuttles (I'd like to know as much about their schedules as I can, as far into the future as possible). 4) Is NASA still OK to make all four shuttles? 5) And what about that company that wants to buy the fifth one? If anyone knows these things, please post 'em, eh? Pavel Curtis ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 83 21:02:17-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!wivax!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Name of the sun In-Reply-To: Article <4548@sri-arpa.UUCP> It is appropriate to name our galaxy after Giordano Bruno and our sun after Copernicus, especially since Bruno was burned at the stake for holding these views while Copernicus just barely escaped this fate by dying before his book was published. I am not sure about Bruno, but this comment about Copernicus is a common misconception that is 100% wrong. The reasons for the long delay in the publication of Copernicus's book are complex, but there was no deliberate intent to delay beyond his death. What's more, the Church in general and Church astronomers in particular thought quite highly of Copernicus's ideas for some time thereafter. (There is firm historical evidence for this.) In fact, the Church of the time had no objection to unusual theories, provided they were stated as *theories* and not as facts (unless truly convincing proof was available), and provided that the discussion avoided theological issues unless the participants were competent in this tricky area. And the Church was quite willing to alter its dogma once the evidence was conclusive -- there was, after all, a precedent: the Church once held that the Earth was flat, but this dogma had been revised when solid proof of a round Earth became available. Copernicus wisely stated his ideas as a theory, since there was no proof to be had (simplicity of explanation was not proof, and it was many years before the discovery of the Foucault pendulum supplied a phenomenon that could not easily be explained by a geocentric theory), and he avoided religious issues. Galileo, unfortunately, was not so cautious, and his near-total lack of tact aggravated the situation until a confrontation was inevitable. Things sort of went downhill from there. In fact, Copernicus's theory was not even strictly heliocentric. His book did *not* have the planets orbiting the Sun, but orbiting a point that happened to be quite near the Sun. This was an artifact of the preoccupation with circular orbits and epicycles. The jump to making the Sun the center of the solar system was made not by Copernicus but by his successors, although he is so often credited with it that if you want to check on this you're going to have to go back to Copernicus's book itself. I don't belittle Copernicus's contribution, but if we're doing to name something after him, we should do it in honor of what he *did* do and not what he didn't. If you want to know more about this, including dispelling still more popular misunderstandings (about, for example, Galileo's trial), I recommend Arthur Koestler's book "The Sleepwalkers". I'm not impressed with the other books of his that I have seen, but this one is first-rate. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 15 Sep 83 6:35:52-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: NAS Opposes Space Stations The National Academy of Sciences, in a report released yesterday, said it opposes NASA's plan for a manned space station in this century, because it sees it as unnecessary. The report goes on, however, to say that a manned space station may become useful early in the next century. The committee who published the report said they did not want funds drained from other programs in order to complete the station. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 83 22:31:14-PDT (Sat) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!whaley @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: NASA's exposure via the media and th - (nf) #R:sri-arpa:-484000:uiuccsb:15700001:000:192 uiuccsb!whaley Sep 10 15:59:00 1983 When Voyager flew by, it was broadcast on channel 10 here, which it seems to me was the nationwide "special event" channel for boxing matches and whatnot. If JPL can do that, perhaps NASA... ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 83 14:17:16-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!we13!burl!clyde!crc @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Name change? In-Reply-To: Article <5691@watmath.UUCP> If you are woried obout people asking why do we call it net.*, why not call it net.nasa ? everybody will understand it then. I don't under stand why this group should be separate from net.space, but I am not asking that it be merged... floyd!clyde!crc ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 83 13:23:22-PDT (Sat) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5g!hou5h!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Challenger Back at KSC The Challenger returned to KSC yesterday, a day early, and was quickly rolled back into the Orbiter Processing Facility. The shuttle was diverted from a planned refueling stop at Kelly AFB, San Antonio, Texas, due to bad weather there; instead, it stopped at Sheppard AFB, Wichita Falls, Texas, at 1130 EDT and took off for KSC at 1440 EDT, landing at KSC at 1857 EDT. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Sep 83 6:52:07-PDT (Sun) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5g!hou5h!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Insat-1B Deploys Solar Array Ground engineers yesterday successfully deployed the solar array of Insat-1B, deployed by the Challenger last week. Earlier, the engineers turned the satellite so that the hinges would be in the sun, and the temperature raise, coupled with a re-sequencing of the firing procedure to unfold the array, seems to have done the trick. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Sep 83 0:01:06-EDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: The Gold Plates - (nf) #R:ism70:-600:uicsl:11100015:000:270 uicsl!preece Sep 12 09:25:00 1983 I surmise we'll go out and pick up the Pioneers as souvenirs for the Smithsonian long before they run into anyone else. Either that or we'll fall back to a condition in which we won't much care whether anyone else finds them... scott preece pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 83 15:29:51-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!ubc-visi!alberta!auvax!tech @ Ucb-Vax Subject: night landing question I ask this out of total ignorance. I understand that the shuttle landed at night without lights. Isn't it rather dangerous to be making their final approach without navigation loghts? I would think that it is not impossible for some aircraft to be where it doesn't belong at the wrong time. Are there any efforts to design navigation lights, rotating beacons and such that could survive one or more high speed atmosperic(?) tours? Richard Loken ------------------------------ Date: 10 Sep 83 16:39:44-PDT (Sat) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!cbosgd!mhuxi!mhuxt!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Shuttle Landings In-Reply-To: Article <4916@sri-arpa.UUCP> Very few future landings will be at EAFB. STS-9 will land there, because Spacelab is so heavy (they want to have a large margin for error on the first Spacelab flight). STS-10 (former STS-11) will (or is scheduled to) be the first KSC landing. If it is successful, future landings will be at KSC (or VAFB, depending on where the next launch will be), with EAFB dropping to backup status (as is White Sands). ------------------------------ Date: 17 September 1983 23:14 EDT From: Stewart Cobb Subject: SPACE Digest V3 #212 To: SPACE-ENTHUSIASTS @ MIT-MC cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC In-reply-to: Msg of 11 Sep 83 0302 PDT from Ted Anderson In regard to braking by keeping the nose up -- when an F-15 fighter plane does this, it's called `aerobraking.' --Stewart ------------------------------ Date: 15 Sep 83 12:29:40-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ihuxm!gjphw @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Space and Overpopulation In this discussion of the use of space as a repository for the excess population of the Earth, I would like to argue that the technique of colonization has never succeeded before in reducing overpopulation. Greek mythology holds that the Trojan wars were begun by the gods to reduce the world's population. While the wars were long and costly, they failed to achieve this goal. One historian that I heard said that one of the reasons for supporting the colonies in the New World was to relieve Europe of its overpopulation. The less desirable were sent first. This relief valve for Europe's population also failed at the time, and the population of the U.S. derived from slow and steady immigration and local reproduction. I have also heard that population pressure is the diving force for technology. As the population density increases, different kinds (more complex and extensive) of technology are required to sustain it. The "quality of life" can be related to the relationship between population density and technology. Colonization on Earth has not served as a relief valve for population pressures. I don't see any reason why space colonization would succeed at this objective. Patrick Wyant AT&T Bell Labs (Naperville, IL) *!ihuxm!gjphw ------------------------------ Date: 15 Sep 83 10:32:28-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!drux3!druxu!sef @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Columbia benched? In-Reply-To: Article <5263@cornell.UUCP>, <609@achilles.UUCP> Ah yes. The shuttle Columbia is now going to become a "Hanger Queen"! Anyone who has been in Naval Aviation or the Air Farce will recognize the term. For the rest of you "Hanger Queen" means an airplane that always sits in the hanger, has more parts "robbed" off of it than are on it. Unfortunately when "Hanger Queens" are finally put back together they usually have lots of problems for a long period of time. Sounds as if NASA has some dumbass ex-sailor incharge of shuttle maintenence. Scott E. Farleigh Dumbass ex-sailor (parachute rigger noless) ------------------------------ id AA15337; Sat, 17 Sep 83 21:43:28 PDT Date: Sat, 17 Sep 83 21:43:28 PDT From: research!alb@Berkeley Message-Id: <8309180443.AA15337@ucbvax.ARPA> To: DMRussell.PA%PA.PARC-MAXC.ARPA@Berkeley Subject: Re: "Naval Space Command" Cc: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA, Stefik.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Like I said, Dick Truly has been named to head the new agency. Other than that, I really know nothing about it. Adam ------------------------------ Date: 15 Sep 83 9:44:51-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplvax!eric @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: none In-Reply-To: Article <4975@sri-arpa.UUCP> I like having these announcements. They are short, succinct, and factual. They are also much more timely than my local newspaper's reporting (a small town paper called the "Washington Post"). Please keep posting them. eric ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!eric ------------------------------ Date: 15 Sep 83 13:12:13-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!clyde!crc @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Columbia benched? In-Reply-To: Article <609@achilles.UUCP> WRONG! NASA and congress did not decide that shuttles need no repairs, ROCKWELL has decided to build B-1 bombers in the shuttle assembly areas. Complain to ROCKWELL and REGAN. only they have controll over this. Nasa intends to steal subassemblies from Columbia to speed up assembly of the other orbiters since ROCKWELL will have less facilities to do it. I won't say what ROCKWELL management can do and where they can go... (Info from Avaition Week.) floyd!clyde!crc ------------------------------ Date: 16 Sep 83 11:01:31-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!ittvax!swatt @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Columbia benched? In-Reply-To: Article clyde.149 I seem to recall about a year ago that a private consortium had gotten together and proposed to NASA that they *buy* an extra shuttle ('extra' in terms of what NASA had proposed to build at that time), and lease it back to NASA on a per-flight basis. I don't remember who all was in on it, but I think Boeing was one of them. What ever happened to this? - Alan S. Watt ------------------------------ Date: 16 Sep 83 3:27:52-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!duke!crm @ Ucb-Vax Subject: re:none I for one like! to get the announcements that "can be gleaned from any wire service" -- I see them this way! If someone is good enough to enter them, I can only be grateful (sp?). ------------------------------ Date: 16 Sep 83 14:49:07-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!duke!phs!jtb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: space colonies Anyone who is interested in the question of space as a possible solution to the population problem and the question of obtaining natural resources from space for use in space colonies or on earth should read: THE HIGH FRONTER by Gerald K. O' Neil (sp?) (non-fiction) 2082 by Gerald K. O' Neil (a novel) SPACE INDUSTRY (title?) by G. Harry Stine (non-fiction) All three are excellent sources. One of the main points made in these books is that space colonies could be built with essentially current technology, O' Neil in particular has described clever solution to several potential problems (and is currently working actively to develop the necessary equipment). Relevant to the question of reducing population by sending people into space it is important to remember that the potential for population increase is concentrated in one subset of the population specifically teenagers. If most of the people sent were young people who had not begun to have children the effect on the future growth rate of the population would be large relative to the number sent. Jose Torre-Bueno decvax!duke!phs!jtb ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 19-Sep-83 0304 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #214 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 214 Today's Topics: Re: Columbia benched? Re: Columbia benched? Galileo's tactlessness Re: Re: Space and Overpopulation - (nf) Star-naming commercial organization Re: Space and Overpopulation Re: Columbia benched? Re: Space and Overpopulation Re: overpopulation re: Interplanetary Migration for population control ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Sep 83 18:04:30-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Columbia benched? Now wait a minute, NO ONE decided that shuttles don't need repairs. Anyone who thinks this is totally irresponsible. There has not been a shuttle flight yet after which nothing needed at least minor repairs or replacement (granted, though, that the recent flight came back in the best shape of all previous ones). NASA and Congress both recognize this. If you want to put the blame on someone, put it on the OMB, who doesn't think it necessary to provide money for all the programs we want or need (and Reagan, for that matter, keeps preaching that we should have the best space program around, yet he offers no money). Enough, I do not mean to flame, especially here (at least net.columbia should be kept clean of things like that!) In any case, NASA has said that with Discovery due off the line and in space by this coming spring and Atlantis the year after, they will have enough shuttles with three to meet their launch schedule (11 launches are planned for 1984), what with shorter turnarounds and all. Obviously, four active shuttles are better than three, but we can't have everything we want. I've already written my congressman asking him to vote for more money for a fifth shuttle and also to look into the prospect of mass producting shuttles. If you feel as I do, I suggest you do the same. Adam ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 83 9:54:46-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxv!mhuxa!achilles!smb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Columbia benched? One item I saw about grounding Columbia is that they want to cannibalize it for spare parts! Yes, folks, in their infinite budget-cutting wisdom, Congress and NASA decided that space shuttles don't need repairs. So, at a time when the shuttle is booked solid for the rest of the decade, with the military taking almost half the flights, NASA may have to ground one of their working shuttles to keep the others flying. *sigh* ------------------------------ Date: 15 Sep 83 7:44:24-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ihuxr!lew @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Galileo's tactlessness I read "The Sleepwalkers" some time ago and also recommend it highly. Part of the reason I liked it was that Koestler freely admitted that much of what he said (about Galileo in particular) was strongly colored by his feelings about the events. This allowed me to disagree with him without having to suffer the frustration of not being able to jump into the book and argue with him. Regarding Galileo, I recall that Koestler stated at the outset that he found Galileo, "wholly and frighteningly modern". This is an interesting assesment, which bears some contemplation. Henry Spencer made a number of statements aimed at pointing out the Church's enlightened tolerance of debate on theoretical matters, under the quite reasonable restriction that everybody had to agree that they didn't really believe any of it. Of course, Bruno waxed a little too enthusiastic about his ideas so the Church demonstrated its rhetorical adroitness by burning him at the stake. Galileo was 36 years old at the time. His "total lack of tact" is even more remarkable when one considers this circumstance. Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew ------------------------------ Date: 14 Sep 83 19:34:48-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!krueger @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Re: Space and Overpopulation - (nf) I doubt that proliferation of technology would increase linearly with population. To do so would imply that communications efforts increase quadratically (at least). Scientists would also have to cope with the ever-increasing flood of information. In any case, population growth cannot exceed its ecology's ability to handle it (extensive though it may be) without serious consequences. The topic of agriculture comes to mind. Food might be cultivated in space, but basic raw materials are required, like fertilizer and perhaps soil. Certainly population could not grow unbounded (not that this was suggested) without consuming something besides the earth's resources. An intriquing subject, though. I would like to see more discussions about future life in space. Jonathan Krueger U of IL ...pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!krueger ------------------------------ Date: 18 September 1983 13:11 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Star-naming commercial organization To: WMartin @ OFFICE-3 Sigh, the ripoff continues. By the way, you can't get a copyright on a concept, only on a specific writing which describes it. The FTC should be told about that misleading advertising. ------------------------------ Date: 18 September 1983 13:30 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: Space and Overpopulation To: ihnp4!ihuxm!gjphw @ UCB-VAX This is not a complete answer, but whereas on Earth the habitable area (or volume) roughly doubled at each major new discovery ("New World" for example), in space we suddenly have several orders of magnitude more habitable area (or volume). This may constitute a qualative change in the relationship between population and habitat which could break the overpopulated-poverty cycle (overpopulated --> nearly everybody poor --> gotta have lots of children so maybe one will survive --> more overpopulation). ------------------------------ Date: 18 September 1983 13:34 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: Columbia benched? To: decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!clyde!crc @ UCB-VAX Damn. So not only is the B-1 bomber diverting funds that could go to building a space station and a lunar mining base, but it's diverting workspace for shuttle repairs! I think I'll write to my Congressman. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Sep 83 10:23:46-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!linus!utzoo!utcsrgv!utcsstat!laura @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Space and Overpopulation In-Reply-To: Article <529@ihuxm.UUCP> It might have little effect on the population of the earth, but the density of population in space could be much less than the population on earth. (if you do not like it, off with your singleship and mine the asteroids... :-) ) Personally, I find Toronto too populated. i could never live in Hong Kong. I wonder what the effect of having people around all the time does to thought in Hong Kong. laura creighton utcsstat!laura ------------------------------ Date: 16 Sep 83 10:52:00-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!fred @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: overpopulation Space Colonization will probably not solve the overpopulation problem unless you force people off at gun point. While I have no doubt that there are more than enought people who are willing to colonize space, getting massive numbers of Earthers to move off is not likely. What is more likely is that the heavy, environmentally hazardous industries will find it economical to move off planet. In addition, the communication/information explosion can reduce the amount of ground travel necessary and free people to live and work away from cities. Both of these changes will make the Earth a more desirable place to live. If we don't blow ourselves into subatomic goo the future can be better for both the colonies and the Earth. That is the real rational for going out and builting them. Fred AT&T CP ------------------------------ Date: 15 Sep 83 20:46:59-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!eagle!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxl!mhuxm!pyuxi!u1100a!u1100s!dad @ Ucb-Vax Subject: re: Interplanetary Migration for population control Several people have recently posted articles arguing that since commercial aviation is able to move more than 300K people per day, it should be possible to have an out migration from Earth of the same magnitude. One significant problem with this line of reasoning is that the vehicles used to transport commercial aviation passengers one day are still around to transport more passengers the next day. In an out bound migration, the vehicles used to transport the passengers are gone from the system once they are used. (I am talking about the interplanetary vehicles, not the shuttles used to move the passengers to Earth orbit.) I would hate to think what would happen to the Earth's supplies of spaceship building materials (e.g. titanium) after 100 years of sending out thousands of ships each day. Doug Davey Bell Labs ihnp4!u1100s!dad ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 20-Sep-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #215 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 215 Today's Topics: Re: tolerance of unusual theories re: Interplanetary Migration for population control Atmospheric effects of interplanetary migration Plymouth and Jamestown re: Interplanetary Migration for population control ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Sep 83 8:45:56-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ihuxr!lew @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: tolerance of unusual theories Regarding the Church's tolerance of various planetary theories in Galileo's time, I would point out that the Church (and everybody else I guess) was going on the assumption that these were all mathematical artifices which did nothing more than account for the apparent positions of the planets in the sky. No matter how nice such an artifice worked out, it was incapable of challenging the Church's world view. Galileo changed everything when he reported his telescopic observations. He was seeing things in the REAL WORLD which had no place in the Church's world view. I cite the phases of venus, the mountains of the moon, the spots on the sun, and the moons of jupiter. That all these made sense under the Copernican system is not the main issue. The main thing was that Galileo stole the REAL WORLD right out from under the Church. It is my opinion that this is fundamentally the same battle that is being fought today over creationism. When religion relinquished the REAL WORLD to science it was reduced to a secondary role in human affairs. Creationism is an attempt by religion to steal the REAL WORLD, and the preeminence that goes with it, back from science. I can feel the "get this out of net.space" flames licking at my feet. I agree that this belongs in net.religion, and I'll look there for further discussion. Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Sep 83 11:33 EDT Sender: Heiny.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: re: Interplanetary Migration for population control To: ihnp4!u1100s!dad@Ucb-Vax.Arpa cc: space@Mit-Mc.ARPA, Heiny.Henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA From: Chris Heiny "One significant problem with this line of reasoning is that the vehicles used to transport commercial aviation passengers one day are still around to transport more passengers the next day. In an out bound migration, the vehicles used to transport the passengers are gone from the system once they are used. (I am talking about the interplanetary vehicles, not the shuttles used to move the passengers to Earth orbit.) I would hate to think what would happen to the Earth's supplies of spaceship building materials (e.g. titanium) after 100 years of sending out thousands of ships each day" Detroit has been consuming much more steel to produce autos than it has in it's natural environs for the past 70 years. Perhaps titanium, etc. can be imported to earth. The ships could even be built on the moon, a much more reasonable place to construct them: you wouldn't have to lift them out of earths gravity well. And the ships would also probably be used to make round trips: it is probably more economical to send an partly loaded liner back to earth from the asteroids than to build another and let that one rust. Eventually trade between the colonies and earth would reach a point where vessels would be fully laden each way (as with trade between the New World and Europe). Europe was not denuded of trees and iron during the conquest of the New World. Chris ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Sep 83 10:19:36 PDT From: Willard Korfhage To: space@mit-mc Subject: Atmospheric effects of interplanetary migration Some time ago I read that a large number of spacecraft launches might affect the atmosphere, particularly the ozone layer, what with all the combustion products being released by the engines into the upper atmosphere. Does anyone know if this is true? If it is, then you may have to rethink your plans for mass migration until you find some non-combustion powered way to get people above the atmosphere (elevators?). ------------------------------ Date: 19 September 1983 17:35 edt From: SSteinberg.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Plymouth and Jamestown Sender: SAI-relay.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS To: space at MIT-MC *from: SAS (Seth A. Steinberg) Local: space at mit-mc Original-date: 08 AUG 1983 11:02:48 The Pilgrims left the old world because they were NOT being persecuted and their children were being assimilated. A few more generations and they'd have been wiped out by sheer religious tolerance. Jamestown was founded as a glassblowing center since it had a wonderful supply of wood which was as important then as oil is now. From what I gather, Virginia was heavily settled by people trying to make a quick buck. If we follow these two paradigms we might find the Unification Church and U.S.Steel as the primary explorers of space in the next hundred years. I am not sure if anyone has noticed but the gap between the discovery of land on this side of the Atlantic and the establishment of the first colonies ran about 100 years. If a similar pattern holds there will be a few specialized military/scientific bases in space in 50 years or so, but that the colonization is still far in the future. ------------------------------ Date: 20 September 1983 03:50 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: re: Interplanetary Migration for population control To: harpo!eagle!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxl!mhuxm!pyuxi!u1100a!u1100s!dad @ UCB-VAX cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC You are arguing a red herring. Nobody (in hir right mind) would propose building millions of spacecraft on Earth and sending them up once and never bringing them back for reuse, when a shuttle exists as an alternative. The idea is to reuse shuttles many times, like commercial airliners, to transport people in large numbers from Earth to space stations. At that point the people may move into new space habitats which are built in space out of space-found materials, or may be moved to other places in spaceships built again out of space-found materials. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 21-Sep-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #216 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 216 Today's Topics: Columbia Lives!!!!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Sep 1983 09:29:50 PDT From: METH@USC-ISI Subject: Columbia Lives!!!!! FROM AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY, September 19, 1983: BEGGS ENDS PLAN TO STORE SHUTTLE ORBITER NASA head James T. Beggs has reversed an agency shuttle program office decision that would have placed the orbiter Columbia in storage for two years and made the spacecraft available for spare parts cannibalization half that period... Shuttle managers had treated their earlier decision as a routine adjustment of program assets and therefore had not included Beggs in the planning. He immediately reversed it, characterizing it as bad political and engineering policy... "I think they were wrong in considering it that way," Beggs said, "but I can understand why they would." ... "There are two reasons I felt it was a bad thing to do. One is that it is bad engineering policy to make a hangar queen out of a flying airplane. "It would be a very bad thing to lay Columbia up and cannibalize it because I don't think we would ever get it back to the condition it's in now. "The second reason is that it would leave the wrong impression not only politically, but also with our customer base..." ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 22-Sep-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #217 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 217 Today's Topics: Space Station Politics Re: Number 213 : space colonies Re: re:none - (nf) Columbia Lives!!!!! game theory and nuclear war - who will inherit the galaxy? Does space relieve crowding? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Sep 83 1229 PDT From: Tom Wadlow Subject: Space Station Politics To: space@MIT-MC n013 0736 21 Sep 83 BC-SPACE-STATION By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD c.1983 N.Y. Times News Service NEW YORK - President Reagan is reported to be under pressure from his political strategists to endorse a major new space endeavor, the orbiting space station, as a tactical move against Sen. John Glenn, the former astronaut who could be Reagan's Democratic opponent in the next election. Administration officials say the president is being encouraged to announce the new multibillion-dollar project soon and in some dramatic fashion that, in tone and spirit, would be reminiscent of President Kennedy's dramatic call in 1961 to send men to the moon. In this way, according to some White House thinking, the president might neutralize Glenn's ''hero image'' and demonstrate a commitment to maintaining American leadership in space technology. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has lobbied vigorously in recent months to win support for the space station as ''the next logical step'' in the nation's space program. Although the project has strong backing in Congress, in the aerospace industry and among some in the White House, opposition has been raised by the Defense Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Office of Management and Budget. The opponents argue that NASA has not made a convincing case to justify the project's estimated cost of $6 billion to $9 billion by 1991. Bruce Abel, press secretary to the president's science adviser, George A. Keyworth 2d, emphasized Tuesday that no decision has been reached by the administration and that no announcement appeared to be imminent. The matter, he said, would ''continue to be discussed over a couple of months.'' Even if Reagan decided in favor of the space station, Glenn's science adviser, Lynn Weiss, said it would be ''a little late'' to show that the administration's support for a stronger civilian space program was anything but lukewarm. Although as a Senator he has taken little direct part in space politics, Glenn is the only Democratic candidate so far to announce support for a more active space program. In an article in the September issue of Spectrum, a publication of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Glenn said: ''Our spirit as a nation is reflected in our willingness to explore the unknown for the benefit of all humanity, and space is a prime medium in which to test our mettle. We have the resources and the talent to maintain our superiority in space as well as on earth. All we need is the leadership and the will.'' The senator added that a permanently manned space station in earth orbit was ''the key to cost-effective space operations.'' In an announcement in July, the space agency said that if development began next year a large space station could be put into orbit by 1991. Preliminary plans call for a station, an assembly of living and working modules, that could house four to six astronauts at a time and serve as a base for scientific experiments, the processing of industrial products in the micro-gravity environment, earth observations and the deployment of vehicles going out to the more distant reaches of space. People and supplies would be ferried to the station by the space shuttles. The Soviet Union has made no secret of its plans to assemble a large station in orbit, perhaps later in this decade. The Salyut 7, now in orbit with two astronauts aboard, is believed to be a precursor to such an installation. James M. Beggs, the NASA Administrator, said Monday that the United States would build a space station sooner or later. ''If we delay, we will lose part of our lead,'' he said at an aerospace electronics conference. ''It would not only be dangerous, but tragic, if we lose the momentum we have developed in the last 25 years. We, therefore, believe the space station is an idea whose time has come.'' But Dr. Victor M. Reis, former assistant director of the President's Office of Science and Technology, reflected the go-slow attitude of many opponents of the program. ''We have plenty of study and experimentation to do before we need to move on to another level of sophistication,'' he said at the same conference. ''What corporation would spend billions to construct a plant before either the manufacturing technology or the market were even established?'' Both the Pentagon and the CIA contend that there is no military or intelligence-gathering mission that the space station could perform that could not be done as well and at less cost with unmanned satellites. The National Academy of Sciences issued a report last week saying that there was no immediate scientific need for the station but acknowledging ''the possibility that a suitably designed space station could serve as a very useful facility in support of future space science activities.'' nyt-09-21-83 1034edt *************** ------------------------------ Date: 19 September 1983 1825-mst From: Kevin B. Kenny Subject: Re: Number 213 : space colonies To: Space-Enthusiasts @ MIT-MC From Jose's description, I can't tell which of the Harry Stine books he meant: <>, <>, <> <> On the subject, I'd also recommend Jerry Pournelle's <>. /k**2 (Kenny.OSNI%PCO-Multics@CISL) ------------------------------ Date: 18 Sep 83 23:29:25-PDT (Sun) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcdaniel @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: re:none - (nf) #R:duke:-354800:uiucdcs:12700037:000:383 uiucdcs!mcdaniel Sep 18 14:42:00 1983 Some of us don't get the New York Times or the Washington Post, or don't have enough time to wade through them. Some of us are stuck with the Daily Illini (we'd be lucky if they'd bother to report World War III). Keep it up, alice!alb ! Tim McDaniel, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, CS dept. (UNIX mail: . . . pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcdaniel) (CSNET: mcdaniel.uiuc@RAND-RELAY) ------------------------------ Date: 22 September 1983 03:14 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Columbia Lives!!!!! To: METH @ USC-ISI cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC I think Beggs is warming up to the job, and may turn out quite well. People are doing bad things behind his back, but as soon as he finds out about them he is overruling them. Maybe we should all write him letters congradulating him on his decision to keep all existing shuttles in working order, and offering him our support in getting Congress to fund a fifth shuttle. ------------------------------ Date: 22 September 1983 03:44 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: game theory and nuclear war - who will inherit the galaxy? To: ARMS-D @ MIT-MC, SPACE @ MIT-MC cc: cunningh @ NOSC-CC Assuming full MIRVs such as MX on both sides... As a two person game, with payoffs sort of like the "prisoner's dilemma", the optimal strategy will be to strike first in any crisis, any time we lose trust of the other side. But in the overall context of which civilization survives to inhabit the galaxy, it may be something like the round-robin, where the overall winner may lose every one of his one-on-won battles but because he gets in fights less he survives overall better than the winners do. Suppose that lots of different technological lifeforms evolve around the galaxy, each with different ways of looking at the Universe and what to do in it. On each planet two superpowers are in control at the critical time when nuclear weapons have been invented but space hasn't yet been habitated. If both of those superpowers are "winners", they'll have a crisis and anihilate each other. If both are "losers", they'll survive. I don't think the case of one "winner" and one "loser" would produce the balance of terror that we're considering. In any case the one "loser" would go away and the one "winner" would fragment and result in two "winners" at the critical stage. Now imagine this experiment all over the galaxy. Most planets have the two "winners", and they promptly go away. Those rare planets with two "losers" would end up populating the galaxy. Is Earth a 2-winner dinosaur, or a 2-loser rare gem? I don't know. When the inevitable crisis occurs, we'll find out. (Thanks for Hofstadter's article a few months ago in Sci.Am. for getting the basic idea in my brain churning around until now.) ------------------------------ Date: 18 Sep 83 16:27:15-PDT (Sun) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!tektronix!tekcad!keithl @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Does space relieve crowding? "Overpopulation"; an interesting word. Per inhabitant (assumed pop. 5E9), the Earth has 30,000 square meters of land 72,000 square meters of ocean 25,000,000 watts solar irradiance 70 tons of "alive" matter (including almost 1 billion insects!) 2,000 tons of biosphere 1,000,000 tons of atmosphere 300,000,000 tons of ocean I figure the planet COULD support about 5 TRILLION people with the "right" technology, covering the land to Manhattan density. Some people appear to ENJOY living that densely! I suspect overpopulation is more a psychological problem than a technical one. What is it that makes people feel crowded? Competition for scarce resources, perhaps, or pollution. Personally, I don't like the social pollution (crime, intolerance, laws, taxes, war) that "crowded" people generate. I find the idea of space colonization very appealing. Freedom! Elbowroom! Virtually unlimited growth! Sure, there will be problems, but I've gotten bored trying to solve the present set, which are mostly between the ears of others. I would rather cope with a meteor shower than a politician with "good intentions". The planet might be a better place with irritants like me off it, as well. You wouldn't have to move a very large percentage off planet to eliminate a lot of the perceived crowding. The people remaining wouldn't have to accommodate as much "difference". To those who wish to stay, go ahead! When the crazies leave, you may find the people left behind more to your liking. People who want to solve their problems by political means, for example, I'd rather have stay on Earth anyway. Governments are for gravity wells! Enough spouting. Flames can be addressed to: -- Keith Lofstrom uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!keithl CSnet: keithl@tek ARPAnet:keithl.tek@rand-relay ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 23-Sep-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #218 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 218 Today's Topics: Overpopulation Overpopulation Shuttle announcements Space Station Politics Space 25 in IEEE Spectrum Columbia NOT Benched! columbia re: Shuttle announcements ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 83 09:47 PDT From: STOGRYN.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Overpopulation To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: STOGRYN.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA I applaud the comments made by Keith Lofstrom; I agree that it's is most times easier to cope with the natural environtment than with the "elements" found in big cities (and else where). . . . I find the idea of space colonization very appealing. Freedom! Elbowroom! Virtually unlimited growth! Sure, there will be problems, but I've gotten bored trying to solve the present set, which are mostly between the ears of others. I would rather cope with a meteor shower than a politician with "good intentions". . . Keith Lofstrom This country was built on the idea of manifest destiny (not necessarily conquering others), spreading out, exploring, discovering new lands and new cultures, to boldly go . . . ( I got carried away); that's progress! I don't feel that the United States is progressing like it could or should. How can we? We can't, without taking from others. Let's go out there and explore what doesn't belong to anyone yet. Let's go out there and really see for ourselves what's out there. The early explorers of the new world found resources beyond their comprehension, yet they didn't find THE treasure that they had been searching for. The Russian have found enough excuses to put up a "permanent space station"; can't we? Let's at LEAST get started. Steve Stogryn P.S. We may get the beginings of a space station because of the presidential election, Glenn vs. Regan. Isn't it funny how political expedience has always been the driving force for all US Space projects? No. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Sep 83 09:52 PDT From: STOGRYN.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Overpopulation To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: STOGRYN.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Let's show all those third world countries especially that we have no designs on their puny resources. We have our eyes on bigger things. We have better places to go. Go west, young man. . . Out there. . . thata way! Steve Stogryn ------------------------------ Date: 22 September 1983 20:24 EDT From: Keith F. Lynch Subject: Shuttle announcements To: SPACE @ MIT-MC cc: KFL @ MIT-MC Yes, lets continue having announcements as to when the shuttles are due to lift off and land. What I *am* tired of seeing is messages announcing that there was a perfect takeoff -- two days after the landing. There is too much latency in the net to bother announcing events as they happen. ...Keith ------------------------------ Date: 22 September 1983 20:52 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Space Station Politics To: TAW @ SU-AI cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC What, even with Glenn having his way it'll take until 1991 before the very firstperanent space station is up there? Whatever happened to quick-and-dirty space station out of old Apollo/Gemini airlocks and used STS fuel tanks etc? Can't we get something primitive working in 3-4 years and then see where to go from there? What do the rest of you think of the timetable for getting a space station up there? ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 1983 20:48:02 EDT (Thursday) From: Stephen X. Nahm Subject: Space 25 in IEEE Spectrum To: space@mit-mc I don't remember seeing anyone mention this: the September IEEE Spectrum (Vol. 20, No. 9) is a special issue called "Space 25," in honor of the 25th anniversary of NASA. The issue attempts to "assess where human beings are and where they are headed in space." On the cover is a picture of the proposed Mariner Mark II flying by an asteroid. Steve Nahm ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 83 16:01:40-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!wivax!linus!vaxine!agr @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Columbia NOT Benched! from Aviation Week & Space Technology Sept. 19, 1983: "NASA head James M. Beggs has reversed an agency shuttle program office decision that would have placed the orbiter Columbia in storage for two years and made the spacecraft available for spare parts cannaibaization for half that period. . . . Beggs said. 'There are two reasons I felt it was a bad thing to do. One is that it is bad engineering policy to make a hanger queen out of a flying airplane. It would be a very bad thing to lay up Columbia and cannibalize it because I don't think we would ever get it back to the condition it is in now. The second reason is that it wopuld definitely leave the wrong impression not only politically, but also with our customer base. . . . While we do have shortages now we have put plenty of money in to by and lay-in the necessary spares over the next two to three years.' . . . Now that the decision has been reversed, the agency will have to revise its manifest and find one or two missions for Columbia between Spacelab 1 [which was to be its last for two years] and Columbia's modification period. The most likely candidates are Mission 17 in August 1984 carrying the Earth radiation budget spacecraft and the Spacelab 3 life sciences mission scheduled for shuttle Mission 20 in November 1984." ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 83 13:26:33-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: harpo!gummo!whuxlb!floyd!clyde!crc @ Ucb-Vax Subject: columbia NASA Head James M Beggs has reversed the shuttle program office decision to use Columbia as a parts supply/hanger queen. They had not consulted him when they made the decision. In fact, they are now planning to shift two missions to Columbia from the other shuttles. Most likely these will be Mission 17 in August 84 (Earth radiation budget spacecraft) and Mission 20 in November 1984, (Spacelab 3). For more info see Aviation week, Sept 19, 1983. /crc ------------------------------ Date: 19 Sep 83 20:02:16-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!cbosgd!cbdkc1!pyuxmm!pyuxnn!pyuxi!u1100a!u1100s!dad @ Ucb-Vax Subject: re: Shuttle announcements Regarding OAF@MIT-OZ's complaint about shuttle announcements in net.space: Most, if not all, annoucements of when the Shuttle look off or is supposed to land appear in net.columbia not net.space. These reports are retieved from one of the Wire Service computer systems by Adam Buchsbaum. This is a feature, not a problem. Many machines are not tied into the wire services. This is a way of getting timely shuttle reports over the net. I, for one, find these reports among the best things on the net. If you find them boring, type n when you get the prompt. Doug Davey BTL ihnp4!u1100s!dad ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 24-Sep-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #219 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 219 Today's Topics: Re: Star-naming commercial organization Columbia NOT Benched! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Sep 83 9:45:26-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ihuxl!esj @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Star-naming commercial organization In-Reply-To: Article <5458@sri-arpa.UUCP> As someone from UT Astronomy (I think) pointed out, the IAU is the body which officially names celestial bodies. There can be a thousand of these ripoff companies naming stars and it doesn't mean squat, except for the people who are getting rich by using other peoples' ignorance. Jeff "I'll sell you a plot on Mars" Johnson ------------------------------ Date: 23 September 1983 10:17 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Columbia NOT Benched! To: decvax!wivax!linus!vaxine!agr @ UCB-VAX cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC I don't quite understand the problem with finding missions for the Columbia. First of all, does it make any difference to some mission which particular orbiter it flies on? I thought the orbiters were supposed to be essentially identical. So why not just put the next mission on the next available orbiter? Second, as I understand it, STS is about three years behind schedule. Why can't they just speed up launches and drift back towards the original schedule? Most companies wanting to put up satellites, thinking of switching to Arianne et al because STS is delayed so very long, would be glad to have an earlier launch, wouldn't they? Once things are moving faster, companies contemplating reserving a launch way down the road will be encouraged by the chance of a launch not quite as far down the road, and reservations should start piling in. If I'm mistaken, would somebody please explain why we have to scrounge around for missions for Columbia instead of just moving ahead with the already-scheduled missions in an obvious way? (The suggestion I'm replying to did involve already-scheduled missions, but it sounded like it was easier said than done for some unknown reason.) ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 25-Sep-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #220 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 220 Today's Topics: Re: Does space relieve crowding? Re: Columbia benched? Re: Does space relieve crowding? Re: Does space relieve crowding? re: Shuttle announcements from wire services ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Sep 83 13:16:07-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: pur-ee!CSvax.Pucc-H.ab3 @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Does space relieve crowding? Quoting here: From: keithl@tekcad Subject: Does space relieve crowding? "Overpopulation"; an interesting word. Per inhabitant (assumed pop. 5E9), the Earth has 30,000 square meters of land 72,000 square meters of ocean 25,000,000 watts solar irradiance 70 tons of "alive" matter (including almost 1 billion insects!) 2,000 tons of biosphere 1,000,000 tons of atmosphere 300,000,000 tons of ocean I wonder about these statistics; not that I disupte their validity; but I think the interpretation needs to be qualified. If I enjoy 3e4 square meters of land which happends to be on top Mount Kilamanjaro, I probably won't enjoy it very much... I see your basic point, but I think that w/o assuming great strides in terraforming and energy technology we are going to be running out of land, energy, water, etc... by and by. Darth Wombat Doing my part to combat those 1 billion insects! ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 83 8:39:07-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!cbosgd!cbdkc1!pyuxmm!pyuxnn!pyuxi!pyuxvv!brt @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Columbia benched? In-Reply-To: Article <1016@ittvax.UUCP> This monday's AWST has a half-page article on the benching of OV102 (a.k.a. USS COLUMBIA) . In essence , the decision to mothball it for two years was made by the lower echelon of management and had to do with the fact that Rockwell Intl. is too busy with th B1-B project to get to COLUMBIA for at least 14 month . It would have been cheaper to mothball it for while than to keep it flying . But J.Beggs , (NASA's administrator ?), upon hearing of this , reversed the decision . So now , JSC and KSC are faced with reworking the shuttle manifest , to find some work for COLUMBIA. One of the candidate missions would be another flight of the ESA Spacelab-1. ...!pyuxvv!brt (B.Reytblat , AT&T-BL , PY ) ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 83 13:46:33-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxl!achilles!ulysses!princeton!astrovax!wls @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Does space relieve crowding? In-Reply-To: Article <44@tekcad.UUCP> I, for one don't believe that 70 tons of alive matter figure. A simple astronomer's kind of order-of-magnitude calculation: 4 billion people (roughly) x 1/20 th of a ton (100 lbs a bit small but right order of magnitude) yields 200 million tons for the human "alive matter" alone. William L. Sebok {allegra,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,kpno}!astrovax!wls ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 83 11:57:00-PDT (Wed) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!csd1!condict @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Does space relieve crowding? In-Reply-To: Article <295@pucc-h> Anyone who thinks that 30,000 square meters of land is a lot (or even sufficient) per person should consider the following facts: 1) That is a plot of land only 180 meters on a side -- barely enough for a house and a little bit of privacy (you city slickers probably think it's big enough to have a farm). Would you want to live in a world where all the houses are 180 yards apart? Of course, you say that the density will not be uniform, being concentrated in cities, but it is sobering to think that this is all the space available to satisfy the standard American dream of a house and a little elbow room. 2) Considering that maybe half of the land surface is desert, artic or swamp, we're really talking about, say, 15000 square meters per person -- roughly 120 meters square. Anyone who disputes the unsuitability of the other half for supporting a reasonable quality of life should go live there (a fitting punishment). Notice that I'm willing to allow that jungles are livable; at least they are teeming with life forms, if not humans. But I balk at the notion of sending people to the middle of the Sahara or Gobi deserts or to the Antartic without very sophisticated and expensive technology. 3) The figure must again be reduced, if these people are to live as Americans do, because we need at least half (and probably all) of the remaining space to mine, farm, graze, manufacture and waste dispose (including auto junkyards and garbage dumps). In fact it is widely agreed that it would be impossible, even in the short run, to support the entire world population at the level of consumption that takes place in the U.S. There is simply not enough energy, grazing land (for beef cattle), farm land, and residential living space. Thus anyone who thinks that there are not too many people in the world either believes that it is okay for the major cause of death in underdeveloped countries to be malnutrition, or they have a very naive view of the limits of current life support technology. It is extremely unfeeling, if not arrogant, to sit down in front of your electronic wonder in your energy-intensive office building with an automobile parked outside that cost more in dollars and in consumption of resources than a worker in some countries can hope to earn in a lifetime, and claim that everything is hunk-dory, let's have billions of more people (as long as they don't move in to share my apartment). In my opinion, the only reason this tired planet has a chance of survival is because one of the two impending causes of its demise -- nuclear holocaust -- is likely to provide a horrible cure for the other -- overpopulation (assuming it doesn't terminate all life). Michael Condict ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 83 16:38:51-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!cbosgd!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxl!achilles!ulysses!princeton!astrovax!wls @ Ucb-Vax Subject: re: Shuttle announcements from wire services In-Reply-To: Article <144@u1100s.UUCP> Most machine are not tied to the wire services. If only we were so lucky (or could afford it, for that matter). William L. Sebok {allegra,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,kpno}!astrovax!wls ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 26-Sep-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #221 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 221 Today's Topics: Re: Space and Overpopulation Transfer to VAD Delayed Re: Plymouth and Jamestown Re: Question about fusion in stars Re: naming stars Re: Does space relieve crowding? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Sep 83 9:29:40-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ihuxm!gjphw @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Space and Overpopulation In this discussion of the use of space as a repository for the excess population of the Earth, I would like to argue that the technique of colonization has never succeeded before in reducing overpopulation. Greek mythology holds that the Trojan wars were begun by the gods to reduce the world's population. While the wars were long and costly, they failed to achieve this goal. One historian that I heard said that one of the reasons for supporting the colonies in the New World was to relieve Europe of its overpopulation. The less desirable were sent first. This relief valve for Europe's population also failed at the time, and the population of the U.S. derived from slow and steady immigration and local reproduction. I have also heard that population pressure is the diving force for technology. As the population density increases, different kinds (more complex and extensive) of technology are required to sustain it. The "quality of life" can be related to the relationship between population density and technology. Colonization on Earth has not served as a relief valve for population pressures. I don't see any reason why space colonization would succeed at this objective. Patrick Wyant AT&T Bell Labs (Naperville, IL) *!ihuxm!gjphw ------------------------------ Date: 22 Sep 83 14:23:18-PDT (Thu) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: npois!hogpc!houca!orion!hou5f!hou5g!hou5h!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Transfer to VAD Delayed NASA has postponed the transfer of the Columbia from the OPF to the VAB by 48 hours, but they say the delay will not affect the launch of STS-9. The delay is to give engineers more time to reinforce the shuttle's midsection, giving it more strength in its steeper reentry for this mission. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 83 22:36:01-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hao!kpno!ut-sally!jsq @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Plymouth and Jamestown In-Reply-To: Article <11822@sri-arpa.UUCP> The gap between the (late European) discovery of land on this side of the Atlantic and the establishment of the first *British* colonies ran about 100 years. It took more like *two* years for the first Spanish colony. Practically all the hispanoamerican capitals were established almost a century before Jamestown. The primary colonizers of the New World were Spanish and Portuguese conquistadores in search of gold for their kings and themselves and converts for their God. They had a monopoly for a hundred years because the Pope divided the entire hemisphere among their govern- ments, they had the most advanced sea-going technology, and they had the resources of the New World to support them. It took the Dutch, French, and British a long time to begin to compete. Fortunately, the settlement of space isn't likely to follow precisely the same pattern, as there aren't any natives in solar space to convert, and the resources available are thousands of times greater in space. -- John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas {ihnp4,kpno,ut-ngp}!ut-sally!jsq, jsq@ut-sally.{ARPA,UUCP} ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 83 15:45:27-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!genrad!security!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!kpno!ut-sally!utastro!bill @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Question about fusion in stars In-Reply-To: Article <4919@sri-arpa.UUCP> f the stars that one sees with the naked eye are intrinsically bright, and are not representative of the stellar population as a whole. In my elementary astronomy class I sometimes have the students plot (on the Temperature-Luminosity diagram) the positions of the 20 nearest stars, and then the positions of the 20 brightest (to the naked eye) stars. The distribution is entirely different. It's sort of like reading the obituary column in Newsweek. One seldom finds the average Joe or Jane there. Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (Snail) ihnp4!kpno!utastro!bill (uucp) utastro!bill@utexas-11 (ARPA) ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 83 15:55:10-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!genrad!security!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!kpno!ut-sally!utastro!bill @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: naming stars In-Reply-To: Article <4906@sri-arpa.UUCP> For Robert Elton Maas, who has an ARPA address I don't know how to reach. More on the IAU: The International Astronomical Union adheres to the International Council of Scientific Unions, which itself is supported by UNESCO. If you discover a comet or nova (better yet, supernova! We haven't had one for over 300 years) immediately *wire* Dr. Brian Marsden: His TWX is 710-320-6842 ASTROGRAM CAM. He can be reached by telephone at (617) 864-5758. His snail address is: Dr. Brian Marsden Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory 60 Garden St. Cambridge MA 02138 As for an ARPA address for Brian, he may have one, but I don't know it. My apologies. Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (Snail) ihnp4!kpno!utastro!bill (uucp) utastro!bill@utexas-11 (ARPA) ------------------------------ Date: 23 Sep 83 16:20:24-PDT (Fri) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!ihuxs!okie @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Does space relieve crowding? In-Reply-To: Article <44@tekcad.UUCP> Anybody partaking in this discussion read Ben Bova's novel "Colony?" Might make a good counterpoint to all of this speculation. B.K. Cobb ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 27-Sep-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #222 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 222 Today's Topics: re: space colonization insects MMU Gravity ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Sep 1983 0946-EDT From: John Redford To: space at MIT-MC cc: redarpa at SHORTY Subject: re: space colonization Message-ID: <"MS10(2124)+GLXLIB1(1136)" 11954703285.24.583.5808 at DEC-MARLBORO> When people talk of colonizing space, the analogy that always comes to my mind is colonizing Antarctica. The two have a great deal in common; both are vast and empty, and contain potentially rich resources, and both environments are fatal to unprotected humans. Both have a desolate beauty that one could grow to like. I knew a guy who had spent a year down in Antarctica at a research base, and he brought back some extraordinary pictures of the aurora. Antarctica has an edge over outer space in that there is an occasional penguin to liven things up. Plus, it can be settled with today's technology. (Please, no comments about how space colonies could be built with current technology. Current technology means things that are done in regular practice, not things that are just physically possible.) And yet, there are no steamers packed with hopeful settlers on their way south. This might be because only scientists and the military can get permission to go there, but there doesn't really seem to be much demand for homesteads. Antarctica is a barren wasteland. Living there means spending all your time in a metal can, with an occasional few minutes outside. No birds, no sunshine, no frisbee out on the grass. One can imagine building enclosed domes full of greenery, but in fact no one can afford to. How is space different? Well, Antarctica is finite and space is not. The possibilities for expansion are limited. Remember, though, that ten million people have hardly begun to fill up Austrailia. Antarctica is of similar size, but with four orders of magnitude less people. There would hardly be any reason to feel cramped. And space isn't really infinite. The only parts you can do anything with are Mercury, Mars, the Moon, the few hundred asteroids of appeciable size, and the moons of the gas giants. The total area of all of these probably doesn't come to much more than that of the Earth. Venus is too hot, the gas giants are not solid, and the stars are too far away. (Again, please, no talk of hyperdrives.) Is life in space likelier to be freer than that in Antarctica? I don't see how can it can be. There are already a maze of regulations and treaties governing what you can do up there. As the military's presence grows, one's freedom of action is likely to become even more restricted. People living in near-Earth space can destroy cities just by dropping things on them; Earthside authorities are not likely to let that go unchecked. Still, the reason for going to Antarctica is the same as the reason for going to space, knowledge. Knowledge is the cheapest commodity to transport, so it's the first to be returned from distant places. Knowledge is far more valuable than Antarctic coal or asteroidal steel. I don't really care much if we can mine hydrocarbons from the surface of Titan, but I would sure like to know what's going on down there. Perhaps someday we will put lots of people and industry into space. Micro-gravity could become a major component of industrial processes, as major as, say, catalytic cracking is to chemical production. But the real excitement of space is exploration and science. If all you are looking for is a bigger backyard, then try the South Pole. John Redford DEC - Hudson -------- ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 1983 10:53:03-EDT From: Bruce.Lucas@CMU-CS-IUS To: space@mc Subject: insects Somehow, 1 billion insects doesn't sound quite right either: that's only one insect for every man, woman and child on earth. I might believe 1 trillion. ------------------------------ Date: 25 Sep 83 21:21:45-PDT (Sun) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!ronnie @ Ucb-Vax Subject: MMU Does anyone have any information on the MMU (Manned Maneuvering Unit) which is to flown on STS-11? What does it look like? What are the plans for it? -Ron (..decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!ronnie) ------------------------------ Date: 27 Sep 83 01:16:06 PDT (Tuesday) Subject: Gravity To: Space@MC.ARPA cc: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA From: Bruce Hamilton Reply-To: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA [A little humor from SPACEWATCH: The Journal of the Chicago Society for Space Studies. --Bruce] GRAVITY: when you want to hold something down it can be your friend. But treat it carelessly and it can hurt you. Over 31,000 people died last year from falls and other gravity-related accidents. Don't be one of gravity's victims this year! GRAVITY: NOT JUST A GOOD IDEA. IT'S THE \LAW/. For more information, write: The President's Commission on Gravitation, Dept. 981, Newton, Virginia 32174 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 28-Sep-83 0302 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #223 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 223 Today's Topics: Re: Does space relieve crowding? Elevators?? The Great Silence Antartic Blues Re: Space Station Politics Re: Space Station Politics ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 25 Sep 83 18:06:48-PDT (Sun) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!mark @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Does space relieve crowding? In-Reply-To: Article <44@tekcad.UUCP> <389@ihuxs.UUCP> Anybody partaking in this discussion read Ben Bova's novel "Colony?" Might make a good counterpoint to all of this speculation. Right. Bova isn't just speculating, of course. -- spoken: mark weiser UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!mark CSNet: mark@umcp-cs ARPA: mark.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 83 9:59:27-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!duke!crm @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Elevators?? There are lots of nift ways to avoid lots of launches, but elevators are a pretty good one. Check out Charles Sheffields 'Beanstalk' stuff or Clarke's 'Fountains of Paradise' ... the math works out, all we need is a little technological innovation... ------------------------------ Date: 25 Sep 83 10:07:36-PDT (Sun) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ukc!dgd @ Ucb-Vax Subject: The Great Silence Harping back to the question of extra-terrestrial civilisations, there is an excellent paper by G.D. Brin entitled "The Great Silence" in vol 24 No. 3 (Sept.) of the Quarterly Journal of The Royal Astronomical Society. The upshot of this is that deadly von Neumann probes or Ecological Holocaust would adequately account for the lack of contacts so far. This might have some bearing on the present discussions of interplanetary migations. ------------------------------ Date: 27 Sep 1983 10:11:45 EDT (Tuesday) From: Stephen X. Nahm Subject: Antartic Blues To: vlsi@dec-marlboro Cc: space@mit-mc John, While your comparison of Antartica to off-planet colonization destinations seems plausible on the surface, it ultimately doesn't hold space. On the surface of the moon, or Mars, the primary thing you have going against you is lack of air (and some sun radiation problems, so grant it, don't plan on sun bathing on the shores of Mare Imbrium). So if you set your solar power array down outside your inhabitation facilities, you can expect it to be there in the morning. But in Antartica, the environment is actively against you. Forget solar power, even during the summer there's very little light. And in the morning you'll be lucky to find your inhabitation facility, much less any thing you left outside it! By contrast, the moon is a tranquil, benign environment. Sign me up for the first settlement. Antartica? I'll give it the cold shoulder. Steve Nahm ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 83 7:28:48-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hao!kpno!ut-sally!riddle @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Space Station Politics Funny that the CIA opposes a space-station project on the grounds of cost. According to figures mentioned by former CIA agent John Stock- well in a talk given recently in Austin, the CIA could pay for such a project two or three times over in a s i n g l e year. And what return do we get on our investment with the CIA? -- Prentiss Riddle {ihnp4,ut-ngp}!ut-sally!riddle riddle@ut-sally.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 83 19:41:53-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!chris @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Space Station Politics In-Reply-To: Article <11914@sri-arpa.UUCP> NEW YORK - President Reagan is reported to be under pressure from his political strategists to endorse a major new space endeavor, the orbiting space station, as a tactical move against Sen. John Glenn.... @begin(cynicism) As ever, the march of science is subservient to politics.... @end(cynicism) Well, looks like we've got a good chance of putting up a space station (finally!). ... opposition has been raised by the Defense Department.... The opponents argue that NASA has not made a convincing case to justify the project's estimated cost of $6 billion to $9 billion by 1991. $1 billion a year, and the @i[Defense Department] is screaming about the cost?!?! Even if Reagan decided in favor of the space station, Glenn's science adviser, Lynn Weiss, said it would be ''a little late'' to show that the administration's support for a stronger civilian space program was anything but lukewarm. Actually, I doubt it. The average guy will only remember Reagan by the last few months of his term in office. [Glenn] added that a permanently manned space station in earth orbit was ''the key to cost-effective space operations.'' Which it is. But Dr. Victor M. Reis, former assistant director of the President's Office of Science and Technology, Good thing it's "former".... [said] ''We have plenty of study and experimentation to do before we need to move on to another level of sophistication.... What corporation would spend billions to construct a plant before either the manufacturing technology or the market were even established?'' But the Defense Department does that all the time! Chris -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 29-Sep-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #224 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 224 Today's Topics: Re: The Great Silence Columbia Rollout Wednesday ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Sep 83 04:30:33 PDT (Wednesday) From: Murray.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA Subject: Re: The Great Silence To: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC.ARPA cc: Murray.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA What's are "deadly von Neumann probes"? ------------------------------ Date: 26 Sep 83 17:27:20-PDT (Mon) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxi!eagle!allegra!alice!alb @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Columbia Rollout Wednesday The Columbia will be rolled to pad 39A this Wednesday, beginning at 0730 EDT, NASA said today. The launch of STS-9 is still scheduled for 28 October. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* 30-Sep-83 0303 OTA SPACE Digest V3 #225 To: SPACE@MIT-MC Reply-To: Space-Enthusiasts at MIT-MC SPACE Digest Volume 3 : Issue 225 Today's Topics: Shuttle info on 800 number mailing list Re: Space Station Politics What is a deadly Von Neuman probe? The following is from Paul Torek -- Don't belieive the address! Re: Space Station Politics ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Sep 1983 1055-PDT Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3 Subject: Shuttle info on 800 number From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) To: Space at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]29-Sep-83 10:55:17.WMARTIN> Just received a form letter sent out by Electra to Bearcat scanner dealers discussing an advertising tie-in with the STS-9 flight and Owen Garriott's plans for ham radio contacts during the flight. Since most programmable scanners will cover the ham frequencies to be used, Electra is putting together various advertising materials to promote their products using this shuttle mission. Anyhow, Electra has a toll-free info number that anyone can call to get scanner frequency information and the like. This is 800-S-C-A-N-N-E-R (or 800-722-6637, I suppose, though it is never shown that way on their literature, of course). They state, "Electra Company wil be offering up-to-date information on the shuttle flight, and specific details of Garriott's transmission schedule, free of charge through our toll-free 1-800-S-C-A-N-N-E-R service." Maybe somebody who has a good source of current info on the flight schedules and details can check this out and see how really "up-to-date" the info is; if it does turn out to be up-to-the-minute, this 800 number can be a useful resource. Will Martin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1983 20:31 EDT Message-ID: <[MIT-OZ].ESG.CYNDI.29-Sep-83 20:31:42> From: ESG.CYNDI@MIT-OZ To: space-request@MIT-MC Cc: Space-Enthusiasts@MIT-MC Subject: mailing list In-reply-to: Msg of 27 Sep 1983 06:02-EDT from Ted Anderson Please take me off the space digest mailing list. I am one or more of the following: esg.cyndi%mit-oz@mit-mc, dvw.cyndi@oz (with appropreiate routing), brand.cyndi@oz, cyndi@oz, cyndi@mit-mc. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: 30 September 1983 00:37 EDT From: Robert Elton Maas Subject: Re: Space Station Politics To: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!chris @ UCB-VAX cc: SPACE @ MIT-MC One point that seems to have been missed is that it's precisely because no company would invest 1E9 dollars in something not really proven, that we have to get government to do it. It's these major things that are a step forward, that are too big for any company to risk, and with not enough payoff for the investor, but obviously good for the nation (or world) as a whole, that we need government (specificaly NASA) to do. If the payoff was good for the company making the investment, with proven technology, and not much payoff for other companies not investing or for the populace at large, the big oil companies and conglomerates would be doing it. Thus the comments that "gee, it's not a sure thing, no company would do it because it's too much risk, so let's not have government do it either" are nonsense. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Sep 83 23:57:09 PDT From: Willard Korfhage To: space@mit-mc Subject: What is a deadly Von Neuman probe? What is one of these things? ------------------------------ Date: 27 Sep 83 13:13:45-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!genrad!security!linus!utzoo!utcsrgv!utcsstat!laura @ Ucb-Vax Subject: The following is from Paul Torek -- Don't belieive the address! (for complicated political reasons involving who does, and does not get to post news, umcp-cs!dr_who has been gagged at umcp-cs. I am, however, perfectly willing to help Paul beat the system by posting articles from him until he gets his own system (prometh) up and ready to send news. If you want to reply to this, however, you had better send mail to allegra!umcp-cs!prometh!paul. While I will forward any mail for him that ends up here, the turn around time is not guaranteed to be fast -- laura) ******** begin forwarded article ************ The following is from Paul Torek. Send replies to ..umcp-cs!prometh!paul Whether or not the move into space can have a significant impact on the population problem depends on what you think "the population problem" is. Are there too many people on the earth? "Too many" for what? The very concept of overpopulation is an evaluative one; "over"-anything is bad, by definition. This is totally obvious and yet the point passed me by for a long time. So first of all, we need a definition of the optimal population before we can decide whether earth is over- or underpopulated. Kevin B. Kenny objects to defining the optimum population as the minumum needed to provide today's economies of scale; he suggests defining it as the maximum level that doesn't seriously degrade the quality of life. But, to state the obvious again, there is a question of *whose* lives are being considered here -- only those who are already living, or also those who we are debating over whether to bring into the world? There is a straightforwardly ethical question here, and my opinion is that the more people who are able to enjoy life here on earth (or anywhere else), the better. From this perspective, the expansion of the human species into space is great -- we could increase the human population of the universe drastically. If there are eventually millions of planets with billions of humans each, that would be fantastic even apart from its beneficial effects here on earth! Bruce Hamilton asked if there are any studies on what is the optimal population. Yes -- for references, see Julian Simon's book, *The Ultimate Resource*. Simon argues, and I agree, that what level is optimum depends on the state of the technological art, and that the earth's ability to accomodate more people will probably increase in the future, due to technological advances and economic growth. He argues furthermore that population growth has long-term beneficial effects, particularly increased scientific and technological advancement (as noted by some writers on the net.) That's it for now -- flame away! --Paul Torek, ..umcp-cs!prometh!paul ------------------------------ Date: 27 Sep 83 16:52:28-PDT (Tue) To: space @ Mit-Mc From: decvax!genrad!security!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax Subject: Re: Space Station Politics In-Reply-To: Article <11946@sri-arpa.UUCP> Many things, including the space program and the proposed space station, would work a lot better if emphasis was placed on building prototypes quickly and getting hard test results instead of having to plan the perfect on the basis of theoretical pontification and computerized guesswork. (The current debate about ABM systems is a really gross example of how bad things get when there is no hard test data to support or refute peoples' arguments.) The trouble is, NASA cannot afford to make mistakes. The preferred "try it and see" attitude is impossible in a political environment where any failure is a major disaster. As long as space development has to go through NASA, and as long as NASA has to fight for every last dollar every year, there is little hope of getting fast results out of a new project. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest *******************