Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 05:07:36 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #095 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Tue, 11 Aug 92 Volume 15 : Issue 095 Today's Topics: Capsule location list (at last!) Energiya's role in Space Station assem (6 msgs) EURECA orbit raising manoeuvre Historical records of NASA (selected) [continued] Home made rockets Info on Challenger accident More second-hand info on TSS Seeding Mars with life (4 msgs) SPS fouling astronomy Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Aug 92 18:51:17 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Capsule location list (at last!) Newsgroups: sci.space In article aero@io.ecn.uoknor.edu (Aero Student Account) writes: >Apollo 1 (Article lists Langley; I > believe it was placed in the > Titan silo with Challenger's > debris) There was talk of doing that but it hasn't actually happened, I believe. For a long time the capsule was in carefully-protected storage at Langley against the possibility that improvements in forensic technology could shed new light on the fire. Maintenance of the storage facility (which included nitrogen overpressure) was becoming troublesome, and the idea of further investigation of the accident is no longer taken seriously, so there was talk of moving it to the Challenger-debris silo. In the end, I think, they settled for leaving it where it was but dispensing with some of the more elaborate protective measures. >Apollo 2 Kansas Cosmosphere Error: there never was an "Apollo 2". The three unmanned tests before the fire were known as AS-201, AS-202, and AS-203. The first manned flight was designated AS-204, but there was debate about a name for it; the crew wanted "Apollo 1" but the booster people were calling it "Apollo 4" by analogy with Gemini naming. After the fire, the matter was resolved in favor of the crew's choice, at the request of their widows. This left the early unmanned tests in limbo, the more so because for some reason the first post-fire unmanned test was officially named "Apollo 4". NASA HQ finally decided that there would be no retroactive naming of the unmanned tests. So there is no "Apollo 2" or "Apollo 3". -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 92 20:41:29 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem Newsgroups: sci.space In article <65528@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >>Come now Mr. DeLuca, your grasping as straws. When fabrication begins >>it won't take long to build another. As to killing the project, not >>likely give the huge and lasing political support it has received. >And after we build the other, do we put it on an Energia again? I dunno about >that. Well why not? Are you saying that is a launcher fails then it sholdn't ever be used again? Well that would pretty well wrap it up for the Shuttle woldn't it. >Huge and lasting political support? Come now...they keep trying to pull money >from it, and it barely survives. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I remember it quite well. The last three attempts to kill Freedom went down to defeat by almost a 2 to 1 margin. You may consider that 'barely surviving' but I don't. >>If it bothers you that much, let's build spares along with the original. >>We will still save billions. >One reason why I distrust your scheme is your willingness to toss around >money building useless backups or fixing inadequacies. Those 'useless backups' are called risk reduction. *NO* large scale effort is done anywhere without a lot of it. Suppose HL Delta fails and is grounded? Wouldn't it be nice to have a backup? Wouldn't it also be nice to have two suppliers competing against each other to provide us the best service for the lowest cost? As for fixing inadequacies, I don't accept all as inadaquacies. All I am doing is showing that if they are indeed problems they can be fixed with a small portion of our savings. What would you do? Suppose somebody comes up with an idea to save GM $4 billion a year and they come to you for advice. You spot a flaw in the plan which can be fixed for a fraction of the savings. From what you say above, you would rather toss the plan and loose the savings rather than make any changes. >How is this form >of waste any different from the waste that currently exists in NASA? Because it provides more and better capability. >And no, we aren't really saving money, because every time someone points >out yet another flaw in your reasoning you toss another couple hundred >million dollars at the problem. My allocation of the savings buys us: 1. An unmanned return vehicle 2. Cheaper launch costs 3. A lunar base 4. Two separate HLV's 5. Two separate SSTO development efforts 6. An orbital maneuvering vehicle. If the Shuttle lasts another 20 years, we could have all this AND an additional $50 billion or so in life cycle cost savings. So not only are we saving money, we are getting pieces of infrastructure we don't have today and need. >You've already allocated your savings well into the next century. No, we have allocated my savings to about the year 2,000. Hardly 'well into the next century'. Also, the biggest item I am adding is a lunar base which if removed takes away about half the allocation. >>Sure there are engineering concerns as well. So far nobody has posted >>anything more than vague worries about pogo but nothing specific. >There are also political concerns and capability concerns. Nobody has raised any capability concerns which haven't been addressed. >You've refused >to acknowledge any political stumbling blocks and you ignore the fact that >our capability *will* be reduced in space. First of all, nobody has shown any capability which will be lost. As to political stumbeling blocks, sure there will be some. However, the US space program will be far better off if we take that chalange. >Without that, we're spending a little less money >on less capability in space, and sacrificing budgetary flexibility. No, we are spending less money of a more flexable system able which is far more productive (space stations do a lot more research than Shuttles). Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they | | aws@iti.org | put a man on the Moon?" | +----------------------256 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 18:08:50 GMT From: Dennis Newkirk Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug9.220304.10650@samba.oit.unc.edu> cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil) writes: >In article <14632@ksr.com> clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones) writes: >>To date, all (both) flights of the Energiya used two strap-on boosters, I >>believe. >You may be right about flight #2 w/ Buran ... I'll look for pictures >tomorrow. Both Energia flights have used 4 strap-on boosters. They are designed to be recoverable but were not intended to be recovered from at least the first flight. Reusability of the core stage is only the concept of putting Buran wings and tail on it. A photo of such a model was in Aviation Week a couple of years ago. > Anyone know of a picture that shows the 3rd stage? The only pictures I've found so far are from television coverage of the launch. They show two cylinders attached the sides of the payload at its base that could be related to the upper stage. The payload has since been reported in the Russian press to be both a prototype Salyut Design Bureau automated material processing station AND a 'laser battlestation'. The lack of information supports belief that it was a classified payload. >Clark states that the SL-16 has different engines than the Tsyklon (SL-11 and >SL-14), but this is attributed to private conversations with ``officials''. There's nothing unusually mysterious about the Tsyklon first stage engine. I don't have a summary handy, but it's definitly not related to the RD-170. Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com) Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector Schaumburg, IL ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 92 20:49:48 GMT From: Doug Mohney Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem Newsgroups: sci.space In article <65528@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: > >>>You can 'save' $3 billion, but you better be happy spending >>>that $3 billion on social welfare programs, because it sure as hell won't be >>>spent in space. > >>First of all, even if I agreed with that, so what? > >Wasn't it just last week that you were allocating your savings to lunar bases >and planetary probes? One of your selling points was all the new space >projects we can get started. Without that, we're spending a little less money >on less capability in space, and sacrificing budgetary flexibility. Looks >like a bad deal to me. He's a Democrat. Hassss to be a democrat. Just fill in "Cut the Defense budget" and "use the savings for -------" to get the bottom line. Of course, trying to point out the fight to save SSTO funding as an illustration of how things don't really change all that much in Congress slips past him. Maybe he's going to get commission on sales of Russian space hardware? Support U.N. military force against Serbia -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 92 17:33:20 GMT From: Gerald Cecil Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem Newsgroups: sci.space In article 14632@ksr.com, clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones) writes: >To date, all (both) flights of the Energiya used two strap-on boosters, I >believe. Nope, the Buran flight also used 4 strap-ons. There's a great picture of the whole stack on the pad on p. 23 of the May 1992 Physics Today. seds%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >Also has anyone even looked at the dynamics of the vibration >environment? Bet you would have to do a lot of beefing up to get station >elements on Energia from a structural standpoint. > ... the numbers that I quoted the other day on structural qualification >levels (payloads)on the Shuttle (+/- 10 G in Z, +/- 6 G in X and Y) are to >qualify at a 1.1 factor for a very benign shuttle system. ... >For other launchers without throttable engines or with large >thrust chambers, the qualification g factors are much higher. Good points to consider. But note that Energiya is DESIGNED to launch the CIS Shuttles which have wings, are derivatives of the US Shuttles, and are therefore subject to similar constraints on launch stresses as the US STS. The Energiya strap-ons are liquid boosters, so they should be throttable (is this a word?). Also, as we discussed last week, you apparently need to increase the wall thickness of the SSF modules from 4 mm to 2 cm or so anyway, to handle the extra radiation load at 40+ deg. inclination orbits. --- Gerald Cecil 919-962-7169 Dept. Physics & Astronomy U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA -- Intelligence is believing only half of what you read; brilliance is knowing which half. ** Be terse: each line on the Net costs $10 ** ------------------------------ Date: 9 Aug 92 23:16:00 GMT From: Anthony Frost Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem Newsgroups: sci.space > Considering the operational record of Energia and its > Cyclone Boosters I would Minor point, AFAIK the Energia boosters are based on the Zenit, not the Tsyklon/Cyclone launcher... Anthony ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 92 22:03:53 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug10.173320.21563@samba.oit.unc.edu> cecil@physics.unc.edu writes: >... But note that Energiya is DESIGNED to launch the CIS >Shuttles which have wings, are derivatives of the US Shuttles, and are >therefore subject to similar constraints on launch stresses as the US STS. Despite much popular mythology, and a few paranoid pronouncements from the military, there is no particularly good evidence (that I know of) that the Buran design is an STS derivative. Clearly it was strongly influenced by the US design, but the similarities are superficial. Certainly its structural design would be very different, since the main engines are on the Energia core rather than the Buran orbiter. >The Energiya strap-ons >are liquid boosters, so they should be throttable... There is potential for making them throttlable, but they probably aren't throttlable as designed. Making a rocket engine throttlable is not simple; it is done only when necessary. In Energia's case, the crucial engines are not in the strap-ons but in the core. The strap-ons are pushing a fairly fully fuelled core, so they can run flat out without producing particularly high accelerations. The crucial question is whether the core engines can be throttled back as their tanks empty out. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 92 22:56:34 GMT From: Bev Freed Subject: EURECA orbit raising manoeuvre Newsgroups: sci.space European Space Agency 06 August 1992 EURECA ORBIT RAISING MANOEUVRE SUCCESSFUL The evaluation and testing undertaken in the ESOC control centre have resulted in a full understanding of the mechanisms that led to the early termination of the first Orbital Transfer Manoeuvre of EURECA on 2 August. Appropriate adjustments have been introduced in the ground segment and the EURECA spacecraft. Consequently, it was decided to execute the Orbit Raising Manoeuvre on 6 August in the time period 10 hrs. 27 min. to 10 hrs. 56 min. Universal Time. Real-time telemetry received showed excellent performance of EURECA in all subsystems. The attitude was maintained very stably throughout the manoeuvre. The spacecraft is now in an elliptical orbit with an apogee altitude of 507 km and a perigee altitude of 471 km. The second burn, which circularized the orbit, is now scheduled to take place on Friday, 7 August. Some of the experiments of the payload which do not depend on a microgravity environment are already activated. The rest of the payload will be switched on when the operational orbit has been achieved. 07 August 1992 EURECA IN ITS MISSION ORBIT The successful accomplishment of EURECA's ascent manoeuvre carried out yesterday, 6 August 1992 at 12.27 local time enabled ESA's operations centre at Darmstadt, Germany, to proceed today 7th August, with the circularization of the elliptical orbit, according to plan. On 7 August 1992 at 11 hrs. 26 min. local time, while the spacecraft was traveling over the Maspalomas ground station, EURECA's thrusters were fired by control centre command for a duration of 11 minutes and 14 seconds. Indications received half an hour later from the satellite via ESA's ground station at Perth, Australia, confirmed the nominal execution of the burn, with the spacecraft in a healthy state and orbiting the Earth at slightly more than a 508 km altitude. Subsequent to further checkout and calibration runs, the experimental phase of the mission will commence on Monday. -- Bev Freed - via FidoNet node 1:129/104 UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!freed INTERNET: freed@nss.org ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 92 23:20:07 GMT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Historical records of NASA (selected) [continued] Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug10.165606.274861@cs.cmu.edu>, TWICK@corral.uwyo.edu (Tony Wickersham) writes: > Oops! I just found more entries. These records were _not_ classified, > but have been accessioned and (probably) cataloged. > > NATIONAL ARCHIVES - GREAT LAKES REGION > 7358 South Pulaski Road > Chicago, IL 60629 > (312) 581-7816 > > _Records of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration_ > (Record Group 255, 4 cubic feet). Speeches and papers, 1960-61, and > Project NERVA records, ca. 1960-73, from the Lewis Research Center, > Cleveland, OH. Materials open. > > (ibid., p. 75) Thanks, Tony. Interesting! NERVA records in Chicago, eh? Might be worth some snooping around. Like I need one more project... O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/ - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap! / \ (_) (_) / | \ | | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory \ / Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET - - Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV ~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 92 20:18:04 GMT From: Bob Pendelton Subject: Home made rockets Newsgroups: sci.space From article , by henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer): > In article <1992Aug6.182520.18534@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes: >>> I have recently got into the field of making home-made rockets ... >> >>What you describe doing is amazingly dangerous. If you persist in it, I >>hope you do get caught and arrested, as you are a public menace, if >>you're still alive to read this post! > > What I posted the last time this came up: > In article <1175@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes: >>If you're not a pro, DON'T try it. It just isn't as simple as it >>looks. > > I'd revise that slightly: if you're not a pro, don't try it unless you > are prepared to turn yourself into at least a semi-pro first. Sheesh! I hardly ever read this list any more. So I decide to read it while waiting for a build and find something I wrote 2.5 years agoing being quoted. Never underestimate the memory of the net. There is one other danger to consider. Even if you become a pro or semi-pro, you may inspire non-pros to blow their hands off. During my teenage basement bomber phases (an amazing number of bright kids go through this phase, I think of it as evolution in action) I used carefully prepared propellants and wound paper tubes. My failures burned and made loud *pops*. Some other kids in the neighborhood "copied" me. They were not nearly as careful as I was. One kid lost most of a hand and part of his face. There are many levels of danger to building home made rockets. Bob P. -- Bob Pendleton | As an engineer I hate to hear: bobp@hal.com | 1) You've earned an "I told you so." Speaking only for myself. | 2) Our customers don't do that. <<< Odin, after the well of Mimir. >>> ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 92 21:47:29 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Info on Challenger accident Newsgroups: sci.space In article rda834x@nella4.cc.monash.edu.au (J. Zufi) writes: >... When Challenger >was destoryed in 1987 (?), was this newsgroup around, and if so >were there official responses/analysises of the accident posted? 1986. Yes, the group was around. There were various postings concerning the accident, including (I think) a scanned-in copy of the conclusions of the Rogers Commission, but I don't know where you'd find it online today. The Rogers Commission report is, or was, available from the US Government Printing Office. It's a substantial book; I don't think anyone is going to type it in for you. :-) -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 1992 14:27 EDT From: Greg Macrae Subject: More second-hand info on TSS Newsgroups: sci.space In article , henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes... >In article mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald) writes: >> >>But how hard would it be to carry several spooling systems, and try >>them all? > >Not hard at all... except that Congress will then ask why you want to >spend its hard-stolen money on developing more than one. After all, It would have been difficult to switch between spooling systems. Remember that space walks are a last resort, and the hardware must have a high probability of working without a space walk. Now design a system that uses several spoolers, doesn't dangle any broken cables, and uses only one line at a time... -------------------------------------------------------------------- MacRae | In what windy land | Wanders now my dear little spgreg@mars.lerc.nasa.gov | Dragonfly hunter? | -Chiyo-ni -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 92 18:47:06 GMT From: Paul Dietz Subject: Seeding Mars with life Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug9.153730.3911@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes: |> In article <1992Aug8.172659.25573@hellgate.utah.edu> tolman%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes: |> > |> > It appears that with today's technology an attempt to begin terraforming |> >Mars could begin now. |> I think you should put that idea out of your head immediately. |> |> If we *do* allow for even a non-sterilized craft to enter Mars atmosphere, |> we endanger the ability to detect any previous life that may have existed there. |> We also have no idea whatsoever what Earth's life forms (mostly bacterias |> and funguses I'm guessing) would do to Mars. Actually, the idea that we could "seed Mars" right now is nonsense. The driest places on Earth, like the dry valleys of Antarctica, are tropical rain forests compared to Mars. Liquid water cannot exist at the surface of Mars. No terrestrial cell could survive, let alone reproduce, there. Even the icecaps have pressures too low for liquid water to exist. No liquid water = no terrestrial life. Period. And let's not forget the lethal unfiltered UV, and the oxidizing surface conditions. Remember that the Vikings didn't even detect the expected carbonaceous meteorite remnants, so we know there are active processes destroying organic matter there. This likely has something to do with the UV, which steadily produces highly oxidizing hydroxyl radicals in the atmosphere. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 21:57:30 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Seeding Mars with life Newsgroups: sci.space In article <20617@sbsvax.cs.uni-sb.de> dietz@mpii01036.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Paul Dietz) writes: >... Liquid water cannot exist >at the surface of Mars. No terrestrial cell could survive, let >alone reproduce, there... Paul has presumably forgotten that a bacterial colony was found alive inside the Surveyor 3 camera retrieved from the Moon by Apollo 12. Staph, it was; presumably one of the technicians who assembled it had a sore throat. It survived the sterilization process and three years on the Moon. It wasn't exactly thriving -- almost certainly it was completely dormant -- but it was alive. However, I do agree with his basic point: the present surface of Mars is lethally inhospitable, enough so that seeding it with Earth organisms is probably pointless now. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 92 23:04:14 GMT From: Bob Kanefsky Subject: Seeding Mars with life Newsgroups: sci.space In article <9208092342.AA00674@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>, roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) asks: |> Does anybody have the [Planetary Protection] requirements for a |> [Mars] lander? No, but I know the answer to this: |> I presume the Viking landers were sterilized, otherwise their tests for |> Mars life would have been meaningless. I was reading about that a few months ago, probably in a book called _To_the_Red_Planet_. As I recall, they sterlized the Viking landers by heating them to something like 100 degrees Centigrade for a couple of days. They needed to design a special computer that would still work after this treatment. Bob Kanefsky ______________ If I accidentally expressed any opinions above, they're mine, and not Sterling's or NASA's. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 23:03:11 GMT From: David Knapp Subject: Seeding Mars with life Newsgroups: sci.space In article <20617@sbsvax.cs.uni-sb.de> dietz@mpii01036.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Paul Dietz) writes: >In article <1992Aug9.153730.3911@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes: >|> In article <1992Aug8.172659.25573@hellgate.utah.edu> tolman%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes: >|> > >|> > It appears that with today's technology an attempt to begin terraforming >|> >Mars could begin now. > >|> I think you should put that idea out of your head immediately. >|> >|> If we *do* allow for even a non-sterilized craft to enter Mars atmosphere, >|> we endanger the ability to detect any previous life that may have existed there. >|> We also have no idea whatsoever what Earth's life forms (mostly bacterias >|> and funguses I'm guessing) would do to Mars. > > >Actually, the idea that we could "seed Mars" right now is nonsense. > >The driest places on Earth, like the dry valleys of Antarctica, are >tropical rain forests compared to Mars. You don't know that, and, in fact, nobody else does either. There is strong evidence that there exists abundant water supplies within the Martian regolith. We might expect that life forms would exist lower in the soil *anyway* due to the atmospheric pressure, constinuents and abundant UV. We will need to go there and physically investigate the strata to confirm or deny amounts of water in the regolith. >Liquid water cannot exist >at the surface of Mars. But it can deeper in the regolith. >No terrestrial cell could survive, let >alone reproduce, there. Not on the surface, but perhaps deeper in the regolith it could. More research needs to be done to confirm the upper crust and regolith structures and other properties. Do you know for a fact that there is no geothermal activity *anywhere* on Mars that might still be supplying enough heat to maintain liquid water within the soil? >Even the icecaps have pressures too low >for liquid water to exist. No liquid water = no terrestrial life. >Period. It's not that simple (comma) If it were that simple, NASA would not be so concerned about contamination. >And let's not forget the lethal unfiltered UV, and the >oxidizing surface conditions. Remember that the Vikings didn't >even detect the expected carbonaceous meteorite remnants, so >we know there are active processes destroying organic matter there. Viking landers didn't look everywhere. They looked not even as deep as what the dust storms could pile up. >This likely has something to do with the UV, which steadily produces >highly oxidizing hydroxyl radicals in the atmosphere. > > Paul F. Dietz > dietz@cs.rochester.edu -- David Knapp University of Colorado, Boulder Highly Opinionated, Aging and knapp@spot.colorado.edu Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics. Write me for an argument on your favorite subject. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 92 19:07:22 GMT From: Paul Dietz Subject: SPS fouling astronomy Newsgroups: sci.space In article <63732@cup.portal.com>, lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman) writes: ... |> ..and reducing debt, cutting the population growth curve and salving |> first world consciences into the bargain. |> |> This futuristically global argument reminds me of the James Burke idea |> of the Carbon Ration system he proposes in the epilogue to his "After |> The Warming" documentary. Whether the idea is technologically sound I |> leave to the Spencers, Dietzs, Szabos, Coffmans and Sherzers. It's mostly bullshit. Using the situation in Ethiopia, etc. to justify SPS is flagrant pandering to the guilt-du-jour. Africa's problem is *not* lack of electricity. There is enormous untapped hydroelectric potential there right now, much more than they could absorb anytime soon. There is potential at the mouth of the Congo River for 30 GW of hydropower -- and that would only be stage one of a project there. Technology exists to transport this power anywhere in Africa (there has even been talk of building dams there for exporting power to Europe). They can't use or afford to do this now, but then they can't afford or use SPS power either. A generic problem with all SPS gee-whiz macroengineering dreams is that they assume that no advances will be made in any competing technologies. Multiple orders-of-magnitude improvements in economics are waved around for SPS, but all the competitors are assumed to go nowhere. Considering how far in the future SPS is, this is just absurd. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 92 17:47:28 GMT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle [Jon Leech is taking a vacation from cyberspace. Our Special Guest Host this week: Usenet's favorite ukulele-playing physicist, W. Skeffington Higgins!] "Thankyouthankyouthankyou. It's great to be here. Say, do you know how many elephants can fit in a Soyuz? Three! But they have to be REALLY GOOD FRIENDS! And now, on with the Weekly Reminders!" This notice will be posted weekly in sci.space, sci.astro, and sci.space.shuttle. The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list for sci.space and sci.astro is posted approximately monthly. It also covers many questions that come up on sci.space.shuttle (for shuttle launch dates, see below). The FAQ is posted with a long expiration date, so a copy may be in your news spool directory (look at old articles in sci.space). If not, here are two ways to get a copy without waiting for the next posting: (1) If your machine is on the Internet, it can be obtained by anonymous FTP from the SPACE archive at ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3) in directory pub/SPACE/FAQ. (2) Otherwise, send email to 'archive-server@ames.arc.nasa.gov' containing the single line: help The archive server will return directions on how to use it. To get an index of files in the FAQ directory, send email containing the lines: send space FAQ/Index send space FAQ/faq1 Use these files as a guide to which other files to retrieve to answer your questions. Shuttle launch dates are posted by Ken Hollis periodically in sci.space.shuttle. A copy of his manifest is now available in the Ames archive in pub/SPACE/FAQ/manifest and may be requested from the email archive-server with 'send space FAQ/manifest'. Please get this document instead of posting requests for information on launches and landings. Do not post followups to this article; respond to the author. "Thanks, ya been a great audience!" ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 095 ------------------------------