Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Sun, 6 May 90 01:41:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sun, 6 May 90 01:41:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #364 SPACE Digest Volume 11 : Issue 364 Today's Topics: A Non-military economy possibility Re: Rename the Earth? Re: Krystall addition to Mir delayed until June 1 Re: Krystall addition to Mir delayed until June 1 Re: Our galaxy Re: Need info on Space Stations Re: Manned mission to Venus Re: Space Shuttle history/mission profile/dimensions Re: Space Shuttle history/mission profile/dimensions Re: Fermi Paradox ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 May 90 23:04:09 GMT From: tappan.cis.udel.edu!pezely@louie.udel.edu (102SMI) Subject: A Non-military economy possibility I was watching something on PBS TV the other day about the current US economy and that with all that is happening in Europe and in Russia, the US no longer needs to have this much of a military economy. The show was Bill Moyers (I think), and the interview was with a professor at Columbia University in New York City. I believe the professor's name was Melman or Melmak.... They were talking about swithching from a military enconomy to a civilian one. My question is, why not a SPACE ECONOMY? The problem with switching to a civilian economy, they said, was that the DOD contractors would have to lay-off lots of people. But, if you look at who the DOD contractors are, you'll see that most of them are also heavilly into aerospace. Hmm. That solves the problem with laying-off the factory workers, and the engineers and creative people just switch departments. It's just a thought. Don't send me mail because I wont reply to it, and I wont be checking the newsgroups to see the follow-ups. -Dan Computer Science Lab, Smith Hall, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716 Pezely@cis.udel.edu; Lab: 302/451-6339,fax: 451-8000; Home: 302/368-5931 *** BITNET: a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. *** ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 90 21:33:57 GMT From: well!avery@apple.com (Avery Ray Colter) Subject: Re: Rename the Earth? tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >"Earth" is considered to derive from Indo-European 'ar' meaning the >(plowed) ground, via lots of Northern European intermediate forms including >Hertha the Icelandic earth goddess. It is in no sense less appropriate >than the Latin 'tellus' form. The latter just sounds more exotic to our >Anglophone ears. If there were Latin language SF writers they would >probably call their characters Earthlings for that nifty sound. :-) I presume the Indo-European term is the reason for what the Germans were calling themselves a while back. Certainly "Earth" is Germanic-descended. -- Avery Ray Colter Internet: avery@well.sf.ca.us | {apple|hplabs}!well!avery o/~ Mama, mama, mama, keep those skinny girls at home, o/~ `Cause this skinny boy wants a BIG FAT BLONDE! - The Rainmakers ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 90 22:11:06 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Mark.Perew@apple.com (Mark Perew) Subject: Re: Krystall addition to Mir delayed until June 1 >One Soviet >biological experiment ended when six young Japenese Quails, hatced from >eggs, >but failed to adapt to sapce, refused to eat and had to be put to sleep. Do you suppose that they would accept an American Quayle as a substitute experiment? --- Opus-CBCS 1.12 * Origin: Universal Electronics, Inc. (1:103/302.0) -- uucp: Mark Perew internet: Mark.Perew@ofa123.FIDONET.ORG BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 90 20:29:42 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Krystall addition to Mir delayed until June 1 In article <339.26420F8D@ofa123.FIDONET.ORG> Mark.Perew@ofa123.FIDONET.ORG (Mark Perew) writes: >>One Soviet >>biological experiment ended when six young Japenese Quails, hatced from >>eggs, .... failed to adapt to sapce, refused to eat... > >Do you suppose that they would accept an American Quayle as a substitute >experiment? Only if you taped its mouth shut, which would interfere with its feeding habits... -- If OSI is the answer, what is | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology the question?? -Rolf Nordhagen| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 90 21:30:23 GMT From: well!avery@apple.com (Avery Ray Colter) Subject: Re: Our galaxy I kinda like "Milky Way". What's a matter, sound a little too Freudian for you or what? -- Avery Ray Colter Internet: avery@well.sf.ca.us | {apple|hplabs}!well!avery o/~ Mama, mama, mama, keep those skinny girls at home, o/~ `Cause this skinny boy wants a BIG FAT BLONDE! - The Rainmakers ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 90 22:25:56 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Mark.Perew@apple.com (Mark Perew) Subject: Re: Need info on Space Stations In article <1990Apr25.192123.10130@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes (in reply to moi): >>Doesn't the "habitable volume" of an orbiter depend on the positioning >>of the airlock? If the airlock is mounted in the middeck it reduces >>the "habitable volume" from what it would be if the airlock were >>mounted in the cargo bay. >Correct. OK ... Ask a simple question, get a simple answer. Can someone provide the figures for "habitable volume" for the above two configurations? And, BTW, what is the "normal" position of the airlock? Thanks. --- Opus-CBCS 1.12 * Origin: Universal Electronics, Inc. (1:103/302.0) -- uucp: Mark Perew internet: Mark.Perew@ofa123.FIDONET.ORG BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 90 18:04:41 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a575@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Michael G. Henders) Subject: Re: Manned mission to Venus > msdos@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca writes: > > athmosphere: You would carbonize. On the other side, if a sudden > recompression accident took place on a manned station on Venus, the poor > guys would probably be killed by impacts of carbon ice (Well, of course > the temperature would raise quickly as the equilibrium would be reached...). > > > An interesting thought... I'm afraid that I've long forgotten my > first-year Thermodynamics (it's been a while, and it was arcane to begin with > :) ), but, would it be possible to use this for cooling the station? Ie, > use the Venusian atmosphere as the working fluid in a refrigeration system. > Of course, you need to input energy to get rid of the expanded gas; a > conventional system re-compresses it. If it expands and freezes to solid > CO2, maybe you could just cycle it out an airlock, instead. It certainly > wouldn't stick around long, once it got 'out the door'! What I don't know > is, would you end up with a net energy transfer OUT of the station, once you > figure all the extra inputs? Just a wild idea... > > -- Mike Henders ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 90 08:13:49 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Re: Space Shuttle history/mission profile/dimensions In article <341.26420F8F@ofa123.FIDONET.ORG> Mark.Perew@ofa123.FIDONET.ORG (Mark Perew) writes: >I realize that this is a bit late, but I would suggest that you >log on to Spacelink. Spacelink is operated by the Marshall Space >Flight Center. The number is (205) 895-0028 N81 24hours. > >They will have downloadable files with just about all the info >you have requested. Or you can get the files from the SPACE archives on ames.arc.nasa.gov. I have downloaded virtually all of the files from Spacelink. Getting files from ames is considerably cheaper than making a toll call, although I do not have a complete index for everything (coming soon!). -Peter Yee yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov ames!yee ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 90 22:31:20 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Mark.Perew@apple.com (Mark Perew) Subject: Re: Space Shuttle history/mission profile/dimensions I realize that this is a bit late, but I would suggest that you log on to Spacelink. Spacelink is operated by the Marshall Space Flight Center. The number is (205) 895-0028 N81 24hours. They will have downloadable files with just about all the info you have requested. --- Opus-CBCS 1.12 * Origin: Universal Electronics, Inc. (1:103/302.0) -- uucp: Mark Perew internet: Mark.Perew@ofa123.FIDONET.ORG BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 May 90 00:56:49 EST From: Dennis_Grant%CMR001.BITNET@vma.cc.cmu.edu Subject: Re: Fermi Paradox I have been reading the postings about the probability of life on other planets, and it got me thinking.... One of the big variables in determining if life is possible in a given star system is there must be a planet of sufficiant mass + makeup in the "life zone" of the star. Trying to estimate the number of potential life- supporting planets is difficult because we don't now for sure if other stars even have planets - we only know about one system for sure. However, concider this. If we assume that our home system is typical of other systems that have a star of the same spectral class/mass, we can also assume that the mass of the cloud that made up the solar system in the first place has about the same mass. (ie a cloud with X mass will form a star of x mass, a cloud of Y mass will form a star of y mass etc.) This is a pretty big assumption, but (to me, at least) it seems reasonable. OK, so let's call the total mass of the solar system Mt. Let's call the mass of the sun Msun. So the mass of what's left (which can form planets) must be Mt - Msun = Mplan. Out of this leftover material, a certain amount will be of the heavy elements which form rocky planets, and the rest will be the gases that form gas giants, Mrock and Mgas. Again, following the assumption that our system is typical of systems formed from a cloud of mass Mt, Mgas will be (approximatly) equal to the mass of Jupiter + Saturn + Uranus + Neptune, and that Mrock = whatever's left. ie Mrock = Mplan - Mgas. (as not all of Mrock is actually rock - some planets must have air, after all) So now we have numbers (however imprecise) for Mrock and Mgas. If we say that the Earth is an "average" rocky planet, and that the mass of the earth = Mlife, then Mrock/Mlife gives you the maximum number of Earth-sized planets. (Any remainder becomes moons, etc.) As well, using Uranus as an average size gas giant, and the mass of Uranus = Mggiant, then Mgas/Mggiant gives the number of gas giants in the system. (remainder becomes comets?) So we now have a fixed number of planets, some of which can support life, and some that can't. The probability that one of the rocky planets is in the "life zone" should now be fairly easy to compute. (left as an exercize for the reader.) We can take this even further, if we assume that the ratios Msun/Mt and Mgas/Mrock are more or less constant. If we do, and we don't change Mlife and Mggiant, then for any given star of mass X, we can work out the number of planets, the number of each type of planet, and the probability that a rocky planet is in that star's "life zone". It's not much, but it seems to me to be a reasonable way of "creating" star systems. Perhaps someone out there who knows more than I about stats and astronomy can expand upon this. If I have made some gross error in my assumptions, please don't flame me - I'm only a CS student trying to figure out a way of generating 50 star systems for a game he is writing. I am in no way an expert. So what do you think? Dennis Grant CMR, St. Jean, Quebec Computer Science '92 DETUD595@CMR001.BITNET PS. CMR is now offering degrees in Space Science. We made Marc Garneau an honourary graduate of it today. Feel free to contact me if interested. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V11 #364 *******************