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 ; Wed, 16 May 90 02:52:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Wed, 16 May 90 02:51:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #409 SPACE Digest Volume 11 : Issue 409 Today's Topics: Re: SPACE Digest V11 #399 Re: Galileo Update - 05/11/90 Re: Niven's Inertialess Drive Re: Vatican Connection ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V11 #399 Date: Tue, 15 May 90 13:14:06 MESZ From: Joseph C. Pistritto Mailer: Elm [revision: 64.9] > Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V11 #387 > > Mark S. also questions the ability of Space Industrialization to make > > a difference in how we live here, saying the military will eat all of the > > benefits and nothing here will change. > > > > [some stuff about solar powersats & asteroid mining] > I must agree with Mark S.' assessment of the situation, as must any reas- > oning person. The percentage of materiel being lifted into orbit that is > of a military nature is increasing logarithmically. Perhaps you meant 'exponentially'? Whatever you meant, it'd be real nice to back up numbers like that with a few facts. Spy satellites have always been launched, if anything we put up FEWER of them now than before (albeit more capable ones). Perhaps you consider the GPS satellites 'military stuff'. Partially they are, but they have a non-military side as well. > The u.s. "space program" > has been completely militarized (the desired outcome of the Challenger affair)... wait a minute... less than 50% of shuttle launches are military (I think around 20-30% is more accurate). And what about this "desired outcome". The military got OFF the shuttle for most of its work after Challenger, preferring their own expendables for their work (as they had for sometime, and been 'forced' to stay with Shuttle). > ...and with deployment of SDI weapons systems on the way, I don't really see > any sort of improvement in life on Earth, unless you call the very REAL threat > of nuclear death from the sky replacing the UNLIKELY POSSIBILITY of nuclear > death from the ground an improvement. What deployment? The most we've had is a few tests, the most important of which are not related to the manned space program. Most of the Shuttle work has been in advanced sensors, which can be used (and are used) for SDI unrelated purposes as well, (even non-military purposes). "nuclear death from the sky or ground?"... Well, nuclear death by any means, (or just even the less dramatic natural causes), sounds pretty unpleasant. On the other hand, a working SDI system makes nuclear attack increasingly UNlikely, after all, who's going to waste their main strike force without having a good idea of the outcome? Even a marginally effective SDI complicates ENORMOUSLY attack planning, which is A GOOD THING. And almost ALL SDI weapons are non-nuclear (for lots of reasons, but EMP has a lot to do with it). > > We are as far from being able to mine the asteroid belt as we are from > finding Oz at the end of the yellow brick road. They are both farfetched > fantasies. No, neither Yellow Brick Road or Oz exist, (unless you mean Australia...), asteroids do. We can think about propulsion systems today that would enable transport to/from the asteroids, (near Earth asteroids would be easier). We can think about mineral extraction techniques in space, and practice them on the moon. We will be getting some composition data from some asteroids in the next couple of year (courtesy Galileo, already launched). While it might take a while to put all this together, we could be doing space based, (or at least moon-based) mineral extraction in 10 or 20 years. That's not very farfetched, (maybe nearfetched?) > The space program of lunar exploration followed by Mars ex- > ploration that would have led to our eventual mastery of space travel > has been replaced by the "space program" that explores new and better > ways of launching new and better weapons systems into orbit around the > Earth, that will eventually lead to confrontation and nuclear-armed > conflict in space. Perhaps you should follow George Bush's statements more closely, but then, you sound like it wouldn't do any good, your mind is made up... As Pournelle says "You can prove anything if you make up your data"... > There are no benefits for mankind to be derived from > this course of action, unless you loosen the definition of mankind to > include the profiteering weapons-builders who derive their vast incomes > from producing horrifying devices to kill humans on a massive scale. > They, as always in our "society," will benefit. Gee, this sounds great. If you want to get in on the action, buy stock! Almost all the 'profiteering weapons-builders' are listed on the NYSE. I sure wish more analysts would get the word though, my defense stock positions are getting killed lately... Pretty soon, you'll be able to arrange a 'stradle' on the Moscow Stock Exchange, say 100 shares of McDonnell Douglas and 100 shares of Sukhoi Design Bureau. Just think of the possibilities with futures and options! (only a half :-) here)... > > Given the several tens of thousands of asteroids out there, there are more > > than enough for us to supply ourselves with metals well into the fourth > > millenium, build space colonies, and still have enough left over for > > Dr. Sagan to find out the ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and > > Everything. (42!). > > > Before we can capture and mine asteroids for metals, and build "space colonies," > we must learn to keep men alive and HEALTHY in space for more than seven days at > a time, must develop REAL spacecraft that are not just bullets with men in their > noses, develop human psyches that will not become deranged by close confinement > with other humans for more than 30 days at a time, develop equipment that can > do more in space than just open its doors and pop weapons satellites into orbit... I suppose you're not aware of this thing called 'Mir' that the Russians have? a 365 day max duration in space? (I think actually 2 cosmonauts did this?), The KVANT materials processing module (just returned samples from orbit for a commercial outfit). And the thing before it called 'Salyut 7', and the thing before that called 'Skylab'? > ...considering that at our present rate of destruction of the planet Earth, we have > perhaps between 50 and 100 years left to exist, well..., you get the idea. no, I'm afraid I don't. Even if the worst predictions I ever read about for 1) destruction of the Ozone layer, 2) Greenhouse effect, etc. all came true, we'd still have plenty of folks left alive to enjoy life... Might be a bit different, and we might live in different places (Hint to the Dutch, Move!). But we'd still be here, (or rather, our children). Pessimism will get you nowhere, remember, in the end we're all dead... > THE main problem with the u.s. "space program" is that everyone is being > fooled by this misnomer. It should immediately be corrected to the far > more truthful, "orbital weapons deployment program." Then everyone can stop > pipe-dreaming about colonizing space, and concentrate on being scared > s**tless of nuclear death from the skies. Perhaps when someone makes a few more cogent arguments on the subject, I'll get scared. Leftist EcoCrap arguments don't cut it. A few facts please! Just because half the population can be deluded by handwaving arguments doesn't make them true, any more than the Louisiana Legislature can make pi equal 3! > Football, baseball, basketball, soccer, hockey, tennis, wrestling, boxing, > lacrosse, and gladiatoring are all CHEAPER than conquering space, and in > fact are the DIRECT CAUSE of the u.s.' failure to do so. So, batter up... Eh? You mean the NFL is killing NASA? Where? the Nielsen's perhaps? Oh boy, are you screwed up... > Marlen > AZM@NIHCU > -jcp- -- Joseph C. Pistritto (cgch!bpistr@chx400.switch.ch, jcp@brl.mil) Ciba Geigy AG, R1241.1.01, Postfach CH4002, Basel, Switzerland Tel: +41 61 697 6155 (work) +41 61 692 1728 (home) GMT+2hrs! ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 90 17:32:55 GMT From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sunybcs!bowen@ucsd.edu (Devon E Bowen) Subject: Re: Galileo Update - 05/11/90 In article <3675@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: |> Two SITURNS to lead the sun were successfully completed on May 7 and |> May 11. Can someone please define "SITURN" for me? I've tried to infer its meaning from the posts I've seen over the last few months, but haven't gotten enough info. Any assistance is appreciated. Devon ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 90 17:59:44 GMT From: mcsun!ukc!harrier.ukc.ac.uk!spt1@uunet.uu.net (Stephen Thomas) Subject: Re: Niven's Inertialess Drive In article netmgr@finsun.csc.fi (Pekka Kytolaakso) writes: >If I remember right humans got the inertialess drive from the Outsiders. >It happend during the first Man-Kzinti war. The Puppeteers had something to >do with it, read 'Ringworld Enginers' for the whole tale. No. The humans on We Made It were sold the *hyperdrive* by the Outsiders during the first Man/Kzin war, whereup we proceeded to clobber the Kzinti very hard. The Puppeteers were sold a reactionless drive by the Outsiders when their planet got too hot, and they wanted to move it to a more distant orbit. Apparently, this happened way back in our stone age, and they are still paying off the installments ... >Pekka Kyt|laakso Stephen -- Never give | Stephen Thomas fate an | JANET: spt1@ukc.ac.uk even chance | Telephone: +44 (0)227 764000 ext 3824 | Snail: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK. ------------------------------ Date: 16 May 90 01:07:22 GMT From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!watyew!jdnicoll@ucsd.edu (Brian or James) Subject: Re: Vatican Connection Much as I like astronomy, I would want to err on the side of caution. If the pro-transport group is wrong, a species vanishes *forever* [Yeah, in theory, samples of the squirrels cells could stored and used to reboot the species went the technology becomes available, but in reality, no-one will bother to save the cell samples]. If the anti- transport group is wrong, we lose one of many possible telescope sites, but astronomy will hardly be extinguished as a result. JDN ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V11 #409 *******************