Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.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 ; Mon, 13 May 91 01:24:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 13 May 91 01:24:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #534 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 534 Today's Topics: Re: Ethics of Terraforming (was Re: Terraforming Venus) An International Civil Space Agency 93 Re: Saturn V DDT&E costs (was: SPACE Digest V13 #494) Re: Saturn V DDT&E costs (was: SPACE Digest V13 #494) Re: mars orbiter NASA Prediction Bulletins: Space Shuttle Re: Holding Down an Atmosphere (was Re: Teraforming Venus?) Re: Ethics of Terraforming (was Re: Terraforming Venus) Re: Terraforming Mars? Why not Venus? World's Smallest GPS Receiver? Re: SPACE Digest V13 #499 NASA commercial use of space symposium set for May 14 (Forwarded) Re: NASP Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 May 91 20:46:30 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!watyew!jdnicoll@ucsd.edu (James Davis Nicoll) Subject: Re: Ethics of Terraforming (was Re: Terraforming Venus) In article <1991May7.183026.9800@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: > >I myself note that it took us over 3 million years to climb out of our >gravity well. I wonder why anybody would want to climb back down another >one? For this reason I don't think teraforming is a good idea. > Perhaps some people *like* living at the bottom of a gravity well. A possible example from Canadian history: It's amazing how the Canadian Scots immigrants often chose to farm areas which resembled their homeland, which is to say, rocky beyond belief. One might think they'd prefer to look for farms that had less stoney soil, given the choice. There are perceived advantages to planet sized habitats. We know, for example, that at least one such life support system has continued to provide LSU service for over three billion years with minimal maintainance (Although the turnover in resident species has been fairly high); we *don't* know that the tin-can habitats can match that record. Is it more efficient to creat a life support system that, while using most of the mass involved to merely generate gravity to contain the biosphere, persists for billions of years, or is it better to build myriads of small habitats, whose peak population might be higher, but whose lifespans might be much lower? James Nicoll, who doesn't miss springtime rock-picking *at all* ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 91 01:06:35 GMT From: vax5.cit.cornell.edu!usf@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu Subject: An International Civil Space Agency 93 An International Civil Space Agency by 1993! For more inforemation: BITNET: USF@CRNLVAX5 BITNET: USF@CORNELLA INTERNET: USF@CORNELLA.CIT.CORNELL.EDU VAX: USF@VAX5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU US Mail Address: United Space Federation, Inc. International Headquarters P.O. Box 4722 Ithaca, New York 14852-4722 In the United States of America ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 91 23:31:39 GMT From: att!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu!irvine@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (/dev/null) Subject: Re: Saturn V DDT&E costs (was: SPACE Digest V13 #494) In article <1991May7.165955.3291@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: > In article <9105062230.AA00326@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> space+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU@msu.edu writes: > > >If anyone does know of more solid figures, please, post them. (Mary?) > > According to a NASA presentation to the House Science Committee we spent > $13.81 billion on the stages, engines, and vehicle integration. An > additional 2.37 was spent for facilities for a total of $16.19B. This > estimate is in 1991 dollars. > This thought just occured to me: In order to calculate the cost of the Saturn V we have to include the development costs of the (defunct) ALS development ! Maybe we've crossed the fiscal 'point of no return.' Point of no return (def): The point at which the costs of NOT doing something in lieu of something else exceeds the cost of doing that something. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Society of Philosophers, Luminaries, | Brent L. Irvine | | and Other Professional Thinking People..... | Only my own ramblings | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 91 04:27:13 GMT From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: Saturn V DDT&E costs (was: SPACE Digest V13 #494) In article <9105062230.AA00326@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> space+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU@msu.edu writes: >If anyone does know of more solid figures, please, post them. (Mary?) Mary is much too smart to get involved in costing disputes, thank you very much. Mary is running around trying to raise some real money, so the Air Force Flight Test Center will let her use a little electricity, and finds this sufficiently difficult to ensure that she'll never get involved in figuring out the cost of anything more complex. Actually, being an engineer and being accustomed to _one_ answer, plus and minus some delta, I find the determination of costs to be irrational at best and downright silly at worse. I suspect that the real cost is quite different from the apparent cost, by the time you add in the tax break for IR&D, the interest the gov't makes by paying late, the cost of money, etc. Now then, back to the 220V stuff .... -- Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA "Turn to kill, not to engage." CDR Willie Driscoll ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 91 22:12:09 GMT From: psuvm!gws102@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu Subject: Re: mars orbiter Yes there is a plan for a followup visit to Mars. The Mars Observer is planned for launch on a Titan sometime in 1992. I became familiar with Mars Oberver ( MO) while I was co-oping at GE-Astro Space, the primary contractor for it. I w orked on the preliminary propsal for a follow on to the MO design, the Lunar Ob server, but that is in limbo right now. Glenn Szydlowski Penn State Aerospace Engineeing GWS102@PSUVM.PSU.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 91 23:04:27 GMT From: udecc.engr.udayton.edu!blackbird.afit.af.mil!tkelso@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (TS Kelso) Subject: NASA Prediction Bulletins: Space Shuttle The most current orbital elements from the NASA Prediction Bulletins are carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated several times weekly. Documentation and tracking software are also available on this system. As a service to the satellite user community, the most current elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below. The Celestial BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, or 2400 baud using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity. STS 39 1 21242U 91 31 A 91119.84787458 .00482360 12232-3 60674-3 0 57 2 21242 56.9948 282.9710 0010041 257.9861 102.1525 16.07002851 227 -- Dr TS Kelso Assistant Professor of Space Operations tkelso@blackbird.afit.af.mil Air Force Institute of Technology ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 91 11:24:48 GMT From: mcsun!inesc!unl!unl!ray@uunet.uu.net (Vitor Duarte & Sergio Duarte) Subject: Re: Holding Down an Atmosphere (was Re: Teraforming Venus?) In article <7470012@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> mll@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Mark Luce) writes: > How much gravity does a body need to have an atmosphere anyway? > > Ganymede is evidently large enough to have an atmosphere, since Titan > > has about the same surface gravity and has an atmosphere about half > > again as dense as Earth's. My question would be, why does Titan have > > such a thick atmosphere while Ganymede does not? > And if it were a satellite (Ganymede), would its focus (Jupiter) steal > the atmosphere away anyway? I think that Gravity isn't the only factor to consider. Surface temperature is also very important because the speed of gas molecules is determined by its temperature. The increase of temperature may cause the atmosphere molecules of a planet reach the escape velocity and after a while they'll all be gone... That probably happened to the moon, Mercury and several other minor planets closer to the sun, including Ganymede. Mars too. Titan being further from the sun retained most of its atmosphere, however the lighter gases like hidrogen escaped because of their higher molecular speed even at such low temperatures. If anyone would like to make further comments or corrections, please do so... Sergio Duarte -- +------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Departamento de Informatica | ray@fct.unl.pt | | Faculdade de Ciencias e Tecnologia | | | Universidade Nova de Lisboa | | | PORTUGAL | | +------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 91 04:23:01 GMT From: sun-barr!ccut!wnoc-tyo-news!astemgw!kuis!rins!will@lll-winken.llnl.gov (will) Subject: Re: Ethics of Terraforming (was Re: Terraforming Venus) Well, I really think that we are going to have to take a much better look at MARS before we do a transforming. It is strange that humanity thinks that in order for intelligent life to exist somewhere there must be citys and space shuttles at least before it is considered intelligent Also, if there was life before, and it was lost, it should be discovered and studied. A lot must be done before we go and wipe out a planet just for our own use. Seems very selfish to me. After all, man has been on this planet for millions of years and still don't even understand all of it. We continue to find life that was thought to be extinct millions of years ago. Will... ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 91 00:21:54 GMT From: hpfcso!mll@hplabs.hpl.hp.com (Mark Luce) Subject: Re: Terraforming Mars? Why not Venus? In article <1422@nih-csl.nih.gov> sullivan@alw.nih.gov (Sullivan) writes: > ... Is there anyway a catalyst could > be dropped onto venus that would convert some atmospheric gases > into something else? And Henry Spencer responds: No; Venus's atmosphere is disgustingly stable. Some early proposals suggested using airborne algae as a sort of self-reproducing catalyst, but closer analysis suggests it won't work. Terraforming Venus is going to take fairly drastic measures. Question: What would happen if we were to seed the upper atmosphere of Venus with sulfur-chomping bacteria? You say that analysis of the idea of using airborne algae as a self-reproducing catalyst suggests that it wouldn't work. Can you elaborate on this? Do you have any details? Sources? I'm quite curious... Mark Luce Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins, Colorado ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 91 13:31:42 ADT From: Richard Langley Subject: World's Smallest GPS Receiver? Rockwell International claims to have developed the world's smallest Global Positioning System receiver. The NavCore V receiver module consists of about half a dozen integrated circuits and a handful of other components on a 2-1/2 inch by 4 inch printed circuit board. This five channel receiver is based on Rockwell's Miniaturized Airborne GPS Receiver which it developed for the military. The receiver is designed for integration into OEM products for commercial aerospace applications. The price? $450, dropping to as low as $225 for bulk orders! (Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology, 15 April 1991) ============================================================================== Richard B. Langley BITnet: LANG@UNB.CA or SE@UNB.CA Geodetic Research Laboratory Phone: (506) 453-5142 Dept. of Surveying Engineering Telex: 014-46202 University of New Brunswick FAX: (506) 453-4943 Fredericton, N.B., Canada E3B 5A3 ============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 91 18:33:32 GMT From: psuvm!dbh106@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #499 OOPS! I meant not to post that. I tried to quit that article to reply privately. Dan ------------------------------ Date: 9 May 91 22:44:30 GMT From: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA commercial use of space symposium set for May 14 (Forwarded) Barbara Selby Headquarters, Washington, D.C. May 9, 1991 (Phone: 703/557-5609) N91-34 NOTE TO EDITORS/NEWS DIRECTORS: NASA COMMERCIAL USE OF SPACE SYMPOSIUM SET FOR MAY 14 The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's second annual Symposium on Industrial Involvement and Successes in Commercial Space will take place at the Hotel Washington, Pennsylvania Avenue at 15th Street, Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, May 14, from 8:15 a.m. to 6 p.m. EDT. The 1-day conference, sponsored by NASA's Office of Commercial Programs and Centers for the Commercial Development of Space (CCDS), will provide an overview of the agency's Commercial Use of Space Program with a strong focus on the high level of industry involvement and investment in the program. The morning session will feature speakers Dr. Mark J. Albrecht, Executive Secretary, National Space Council, and James R. Thompson Jr., NASA Deputy Administrator, followed by a discussion on balanced access to space. Afternoon speakers will consist of CCDS industrial affiliates who will provide insight from a user's perspective. -end- NOTE: News media planning to attend the symposium should complete the attached registration form and FAX it to 703/521-3205. Further inquiries on the conference should be directed to Rebecca Gray, 703/521-3125. The symposium agenda is available by calling the NASA Headquarters newsroom at 202/453-8400. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 91 15:27:32 GMT From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Subject: Re: NASP In article <73462@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> v071pzp4@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Craig L Cole) writes: Any chance anyone out there working on the NASP can post regular updates on progress with the NASP? No. A great deal of what you're asking for is restricted--ITAR, FEDD, and just plain classified. Scientific/Engineering hurdles & successes, budget concerns, progress on the prototype when its construction is started... You are highly unlikely to ever find anything about the scientific and engineering information or the construction of the prototype in the open literature. Even our unclassified briefing last year was embedded in a classified document. Budget concerns, etc, are probably easier to come by. I for one am very interested, and can't seem to find enough about it in magazines, etc. I bet a lot of others are interested too. I don't want to discourage your interest, but you should be prepared for a lack of real information. -- Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA "Turn to kill, not to engage." CDR Willie Driscoll ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #534 *******************