Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Sun, 14 Aug 88 04:09:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sun, 14 Aug 88 04:04:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sun, 14 Aug 88 04:04:17 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00472; Sun, 14 Aug 88 01:04:25 PDT id AA00472; Sun, 14 Aug 88 01:04:25 PDT Date: Sun, 14 Aug 88 01:04:25 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808140804.AA00472@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #324 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 324 Today's Topics: Date of Afghan mission to Mir announced Economic Conversion Re: Spacesploitation Re: Satellites Re: Space Shuttle fuel leaks Re: Skintight Space Suits Re: Satellites Re: Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells) Re: Disagree? I'll cut you off! Re: "NukeWinter" garbage (was Re: Aegis, SDI) Re: Spacesploitation SDI and space station partners Re: Economic Conversion ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 5 Aug 88 17:02:24 EDT From: Glenn Chapman Subject: Date of Afghan mission to Mir announced The Soviets have announced Aug. 29th as the launch date for the Soyuz TM-6 mission to Mir. This mission will bring up an Afghan guest cosmonaut, either Col. Mohammad Dauran or Capt. Abdol Ahad. Unfortunately, the Russians have retreated a bit from announcing the crew in advance. For a while they would give out the full flight crew list well in advance. Now they will list the names of people training for the flight, and the probable make up of the prime and backup crew. The mission date will be announced well in advance, but not the crew makeup stating that will be selected shortly before they fly. For those keeping count the in orbit crew of Vladimir Titov and Musahi Manarov have now been up for 228 days, nearly 2/3 of their full year mission. The Russians have also talked again about future Mars missions. There will not be a 1992 flight, but the 1994 mission will contain a rover vehicle (no details as to size). The 2000 AD mission will return samples to earth from Mars. 2010 is the earliest they are now talking about manned missions. With their on orbit experience the USSR will be in a position to send humans to Mars by that date. It is clear that unless this country's program changes there is little chance that it will be able to do so also. Yours truly Glenn Chapman ------------------------------ Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim Date: Sun, 31 Jul 88 16:48:18 PDT From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim Bowery) To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space Subject: Economic Conversion Those calling for international cooperation in space have had the crucial insight that science has always been an international activity of tremendous value in its own right. They understand the need to get away from letting NASA hold our space activities hostage to the permanent war economy. We must: * Expand our scientific activities in space so that we can have broad international cooperation in space. * Ensure that all NASA civil servants and contractors working on large development projects participate in economic conversion so they can truely contribute to our economy. Like the economic conversion of the military development industry, the economic conversion of the civilian aerospace development industry to the support of open scientific research will promote a higher standard of living and greater international harmony. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 88 01:02:24 GMT From: aramis.rutgers.edu!klaatu.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) Subject: Re: Spacesploitation >If you think that "common heritage of mankind" is some sort >of romantic tripe, or Third-World blathering, or One-World >Commie-nism, so be it. It is all three. However, more importantly, it is (an attempt at) an exercise in power for its own sake, and is merely another of the endless string of conceits by which the governments of the world justify the impoverishment of their people. --JoSH ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 88 19:16:47 GMT From: hp-pcd!hpcvlx!bturner@hplabs.hp.com (Bill Turner) Subject: Re: Satellites > [Text of satellite list deleted] Isn't it a bit depressing that a deep scientific mission hasn't been launched by the US since 78? --Bill Turner ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 88 18:46:44 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space Shuttle fuel leaks In article <8808041733.AA17257@nrl-radar.ARPA> mueller@NRL-RADAR.ARPA (Harold Mueller) writes: >How do you find a leak in a hydrogen line? Hydraulic fluid would be >easy to spot oozing out, but liquid hydrogen would vaporize... I think they use portable mass spectrometers to spot hydrogen in the air; they also has the advantage of being sensitive to very small traces. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 88 19:42:03 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Skintight Space Suits In article <880801130417.0000204E092@grouch.JPL.NASA.GOV> PJS@grouch.jpl.nasa.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: >I'm very interested in reading about actual data where it exists, rather >than speculation. Where can I find papers on these vacuum chamber >experiments? The major source is NASA CR-1892, Development of a Space Activity Suit, by James Annis and Paul Webb. Be warned that it's out of print. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 88 18:42:30 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Satellites In article <62689@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >Pioneer 6 12/16/65 US (still returning good data) >Pioneer 7 8/16/66 US (still active) >Pioneer 8 12/13/67 US (still active) You missed Pioneer 9, which is also still active. And I think one of the earlier ones -- Pioneer 8? -- is out of contact and presumed dead, as of quite recently. Also, at least one of these Pioneers is returning data only intermittently, because its spin axis is off enough that its semi- directional antennas (which see a plane perpendicular to the axis) are not aligned with Earth most of the time. You also missed Pioneers 10 and 11, heading out of the solar system. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 88 18:45:42 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Space Station power supply (was Re: Lithium cells) In article <2090@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> chiaravi@silver.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes: >>Main power on the space station is specified as 220 VAC at 20 kHz. > > Isn't this going to cause considerable inefficiency of power >transmission due to radiative losses... Actually, what it is mostly going to cause is expenditure of vast sums of money to develop all-new power hardware to save a few kilograms, when the money would be much better spend on launching those few extra kilos of standard aviation (400 Hz) power hardware. The 20 kHz power is technically a cute idea, but in terms of getting a space station into orbit and making it useful, it's totally unnecessary and really dumb. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 88 18:22:23 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Disagree? I'll cut you off! In article <6540@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes: >weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >>For your further information, Henry Spencer is probably one of the most >>respected posters on USENET, and most certainly in sci.space. If Henry >>Spencer tells you to get some topic off this newsgroup--in this case, SDI, >>which has its own newsgroup--then YOU GET THIS TOPIC OFF THIS NEWSGROUP. > >And who elected him dictator? Or you his enforcer? This network does not >need to answer to any one person, even you. I will listen to what Henry >Spencer says, and will likely follow any reasonable suggestions. I will >certainly not do either for you... The thought of good old Obnoxious supporting me truly makes the mind reel; at least it made mine reel. While I may sometimes sound like the dictator of sci.space, especially when the reappearance of the SDI debate makes me grouchy, I have never claimed any particular authority over the group. And I do my own enforcing... :-) I'm unaware of any newsgroup specifically for SDI, although misc.headlines [I almost wrote talk.headlines... :-)] comes to mind. >... SDI IS RELEVANT TO SPACE. No; certain aspects of SDI are relevant to space. I wouldn't get grouchy about it if the sci.space discussion confined itself to those aspects (and preferably to new issues rather than endless shouting matches, which really accomplish nothing...). -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 88 18:34:31 GMT From: attcan!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: "NukeWinter" garbage (was Re: Aegis, SDI) In article <2358@epimass.EPI.COM> jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: >>I was really hoping I had heard the last of the NukeWinter (NW) fabrication. >>It just goes to show how much damage a politician can do when people think he >>is a scientist and trust him. > >Dr. Sagan has unquestionable scientific credentials in astronomy and >planetary science. On the other hand, I've never heard of you. Like >other human beings, he also has political views. And what do you mean >by "damage"? ... In my opinion, there is some reason to wonder whether the TTAPS study was quite as objective as one would prefer for ground-breaking science. And the way it was publicized was, to put it bluntly, political propaganda rather than careful popularization of science. This probably did do some harm to objective investigation of the issue, not to mention science's reputation as a whole. But overall, a fabrication it was not. It was certainly a crude first cut at analysis, using very simplistic models. And it did make some assumptions which qualified as dubious even at the time and just don't hold up to careful investigation (for example, wildland fires were assumed to make a contribution equal to urban fires, which was demonstrated to be nonsense by a detailed study). However, the overall conclusion stands: a major nuclear war could have serious effects on the climate. Even if one ignores the howling-blizzard scare stories, there is good reason to believe that it might produce enough world-wide cooling to cause massive crop failure. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 88 19:10:21 GMT From: polya!cayuga!andy@labrea.stanford.edu (Andy Freeman) Subject: Re: Spacesploitation In article <8808051554.aa05436@note.note.nsf.gov> fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Fred Baube) writes: >so that we don't end up with something like Heinlein wrote about in >"The Man Who Sold the Moon", where rockets lay carbon trails on the >lunar surface to create a giant soft drink logo. A Coca-Cola logo on the moon bothers me a lot less than no human presence on the moon. I don't care whether someone makes a buck (or trillion) as long as space is opened to us IN MY LIFETIME. Govts aren't going to do it. >Or nuclear contamination of Mars. Governments are the worst polluters on Earth because they aren't liable. That's not going to change in space. >Presumably, if Capitalist Company "A" can profitably develop a >tract, then so can Multi-National "ISA", if it has access to >comparable technology, and a modicum of managerial competence. >This should then preclude unilateral exploitation. Ah, but the terms say that "A" has to pay for the surveys, interpret them, and pay for the mining technology development. It will have to recover these costs from the mining profits on inferior locations. The ISA doesn't have to pay these costs and I'll bet it will end up being tax-exempt. I can get better terms from the Mafia; no wonder the countries with substantial ore deposits love this treaty. If the Pacific is "our common heritage" so is the African continent. -andy UUCP: {arpa gateways, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!andy ARPA: andy@polya.stanford.edu (415) 329-1718/723-3088 home/cubicle ------------------------------ Date: 6 Aug 88 13:52:40 GMT From: thorin!lhotse!symon@mcnc.org (James Symon) Subject: SDI and space station partners >In article <1988Jul29.024014.15610@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >>In article <3657@thorin.cs.unc.edu> symon@lhotse.cs.unc.edu (James Symon) writes: > . . . >>Why? Where else does a discussion of the legitimate uses of space >>belong? ... > >*WHAT* discussion of the legitimate uses of space? . . . >But the SDI debates always spend most of their time and energy arguing >about TOTALLY NON-SPACE ISSUES like whether the software can be made to >work and whether deployment would be destabilizing and whether the Soviets >could defeat it easily and so on and so on ad nauseam. > . . . >I repeat: get it off sci.space, please. Or at least restrict the sci.space >discussion *entirely* to space-related issues. >-- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Now that I can agree with. I enjoyed the discussions about particle beams in space and how far they might reach into the atmosphere, also the ones about fast acceleration boosters that might allow separation of warheads before leaving the atmosphere. Those are certainly space science related. Of course, one might argue that destabilization might lead to no one getting to space ever, but that's reaching and I agree it doesn't belong. "Space-related issues" has, in the past, included the politics of funding of space exploration. I would like to hear from this group whether they have seen indications that insistence on the part of our government that the space station not be off limits to the military IS seriously jeopardizing our getting international cooperation. Now that we are a little further down the road, my impressions are that initial hysteria and propaganda has died down and the SS partners are still on board. Jim Symon Rt 4 Box 443 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 at school: Jim Symon Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175 "Better get Helms on the UUCP: uunet!mcnc!unc!symon scrambler, we got incoming UUCP: decvax!mcnc!unc!symon treaties all over the screen" Internet:symon@cs.unc.edu - MacNelly ***Don't use "r" or my header line address*** ------------------------------ Date: 7 Aug 88 00:29:40 GMT From: jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) Subject: Re: Economic Conversion In article <8807312356.AA03328@crash.cts.com> mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov writes: >They understand the need to >get away from letting NASA hold our space activities hostage to >the permanent war economy. I wrote a paper a few years ago on holding space "hostage" (not in those words). My thesis: the US space program has been a political tool, and has been crippled by its use as such. I could see NASA where it is now without the military, but if it were not for the rushes to score quick political victories we could have done much better (initial prohibition of orbital flight; later rush to get man in space/in orbit/to Moon; termination of Apollo when it had served its political purpose;...). The military has contributed to the space program (you decide for better or worse), but politics has done far more. The military is at least capable of long term planning. John Carr "When they turn the pages of history, jfc@Athena.mit.edu When these days have passed long ago, Will they read of us with sadness For the seeds that we let grow?" --Neil Peart ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #324 *******************