Date: Mon, 29 Mar 93 05:00:10 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #381 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Mon, 29 Mar 93 Volume 16 : Issue 381 Today's Topics: better planets through nanotechnology (was Re: How to cool Venus) Coral and Dyson Sphere.. GPS/SEDS-1 Launch Window Gravity waves, was: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise (2 msgs) Making Those Venusian Oceans mars coordinates Orbital Skysurfing Club/DTO... (2 msgs) Speculation: the extension of TCP/IP and DNS into large light lag enviroments (4 msgs) SSF Redesign.... Terraformers (was Re: How to cool Venus) Terraforming Venus the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms ) Venus is covered with water? Why is Venus so bad? 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: 28 Mar 93 16:43:37 GMT From: "David M. Palmer" Subject: better planets through nanotechnology (was Re: How to cool Venus) Newsgroups: sci.space The big problems with living on Venus are the atmosphere (pressure and composition) and the temperature. One way to terraform Venus is through the miracles of nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is the sufficiently advanced technology (in the Clarkian sense) of molecular-scale machines. See Drexler's books ("The engines of Creation", "Unbounding the future", "Nanosystems") for more details. mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter) gives the composition of the atmosphere: >Gas Volume Mass/kg >CO2 96.5% 4.60e20 >N2 3.5% 1.06e19 >SO2 200 ppm 1.40e17 >Ar 70 ppm 3.40e16 >CO 40 ppm 1.17e16 >Ne 10 ppm 1.09e15 >H2O 100-1000 ppm? 0.19-1.86e17 Most of the proposals for converting the atmosphere to something breathable have concentrated on blowing it off into space. However, there is a way to bind this atmsophere into solid form and deposit it on the surface of the planet, if you do not require that this be done with simple equilibrium chemical reactions. Once you have nanotechnology at a fairly low level (2 decades to eternity from now, depending on your optimism level) you can design a nanomachine which makes a hollow diamond shell out of the carbon in the CO2 in the atmosphere, and then fills it with atmosphere at high pressure. The shell is then allowed to drop to the surface, and the nanomachine repeats the process. Once the air is thin, a sunshade at L1 can rapidly cool of the atmosphere. The ground will take longer to cool, but it is easy (using the word 'easy' in a sense you have probably not encountered before :-) to program the nanomachines to lay down a layer of insulation (maybe a few meters of low density graphite-vacuum foam) before putting down arable soil on top. This will let people move in almost immediately, although they will not want dig very deep. The Pressurized gas in diamond (PGID) could be used as a rocket fuel. The specific impulse would depend on (among other things) the internal gas pressure. Unfortunately, I don't know the tensile strength of diamond, so I can't calculate that. (Actually, diamond's tensile strength is a lower limit. Since a pressure vessel need be strong only in 2 dimensions, rather than 3, you can probably boost the strength somewhat.) I suggest that we wait fifty years or so to see whether nanotech will get us a quick way to terraform Venus before we try the more conventional, slower techniques which have been discussed. -- David M. Palmer palmer@alumni.caltech.edu palmer@tgrs.gsfc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 93 15:20:46 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Coral and Dyson Sphere.. Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Mar27.114023.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >So I am wierd.. No argument. :-) >How to get the coral to build the "reef" in the shape wanted?? More importantly, what are you going to *feed* the coral organisms? At a minimum they're going to need N,P,K,O,C, and Ca, all in a form they can organically process, plus plenty of H2O as a carrier. What are you going to use to *anchor* the first segments? Coral grows against a gravity gradient toward nutrient and energy rich sources. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1993 08:30:15 -0500 From: Alan Kirschbaum Subject: GPS/SEDS-1 Launch Window Newsgroups: sci.space Dean Adams asks: >* Mar 27 - GPS/SEDS-1 Delta II Launch >Does anyone know the LAUNCH WINDOW times for this flight? The flight was delayed one day due to 1st stage motor commonality with last week's Atlas launch failure. The launch window for Mar 28 is 10:13pm to 10:41pm, EST. Look to the Northeast, if you happen to be at my house. * Origin: 1.L.C. BBS: Source For Information! 407-676-2998 (1:374/60) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1993 09:32:17 GMT From: Dave Kipfer u Subject: Gravity waves, was: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics,alt.sci.planetary Nick Haines (nickh@CS.CMU.EDU) wrote: : In article <25MAR199314440102@csa1.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes: : Simple: you measure the area or circumference of a circle. You can : : the surface is flat. Likewise, if the ratio of the circumference to : the diameter is pi, the surface is flat. If these are less than pi, : the surface is positively curved (like a sphere); if they're more : than pi then it's negatively curved (like a saddle). (If one is more : and the other is less then you've fouled up your measuring). : : Remember, pi is not defined here by using circles, but as the limit : of some number-theoretic series. If your ant civilisation doesn't I don't quite see how you expect to differentiate between the curve of the surface being concave or convex. In particular, take the circle that you drew on the surface which is curved upwards. Now, considering this surface to have negligible thickness, take a look at this circle you drew from the OTHER side, which will be curved DOWNWARDS. Now, it's the same circle, right? So, it would be obvious that it has the same circumference, correct? The test I have been accustomed to for figuring out the curvature of a surface is to draw a triangle on the surface, and measure its angles. If we are on a flat (Euclidean) surface, the sum will be the famous 180 degrees. If we draw it on a surface curving downwards, it will have less than 180 degrees, and, if drawn on a surface curved upwards, we will have more than 180 degrees. It is a rather simple situation to visualize. Just my thoughts... -- Dave Kipfer | FidoNet: 1:221/204 DragoNet: 9:519/100 Wilfrid Laurier University | -Excuse me, I have to recharge my Waterloo, Ontario, Canada | flamethrower. Internet: kipf7064@mach1.wlu.ca | These are my opinions, not those of WLU. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 93 16:25:55 GMT From: Bruce Scott Subject: Gravity waves, was: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics,alt.sci.planetary "Downward" and "upward" curvature are not intrinsic functions. These can be defined only with respect to an embedding space of higher dimension. What does matter is the sign of the curvature. This can be found by measurement of areas and circumferences (or the higher-dimensional analogs thereof). The difference between positive and negative curvature is not that between "upward" and "downward": the shape of the surface differs. It is the difference between a spherical surface and a saddle surface in the case of 2D isotropic spaces. Gruss, Dr Bruce Scott The deadliest bullshit is Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik odorless and transparent bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de -- W Gibson -- The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service. internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Mar 93 13:01:58 EET From: flb@flb.optiplan.fi (F.Baube[tm]) Subject: Making Those Venusian Oceans Someone suggested importing hydrogen to get CO2 + 4 H -> C + 2 H2O Well, gee, the *Sun* has lots of hydrogen floating around free for the asking .. How to get it from Point S to Point V ? -- * Fred Baube (tm) * In times of intellectual ferment, * baube@optiplan.fi * advantage to him with the intellect * #include * most fermented * May '68, Paris: It's Retrospective Time !! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1993 18:34:10 GMT From: Frank Crary Subject: mars coordinates Newsgroups: sci.space In article collins@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Collins) writes: >I heard recently that there have been several "official" prime meri{dians >for mars{. It's possible: There are at least three meridians in use for Jupiter. >...Does anyone know if this is true and if so, whether the >prime meridian (or pole) has moved a long ways from the current >(IAU ?) location? But I've only seen the IAU 1971 standard meridian in use for Mars. If there are others in use, they are either very similar or not commonly used... Frank Crary CU Boulder ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 93 15:26:36 GMT From: "David M. Palmer" Subject: Orbital Skysurfing Club/DTO... Newsgroups: sci.space nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >> In article <1993Mar25.104726.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >> |> Anyone want to start a Skysurfing Club, >One of the basic ideas to be used is an asbestos "surfboard" and a man/woman in >a space suit.. Some form of manuvering jets and away we go, now to get into >orbit.. People already do skysurfing, but from airplane rather than orbital altitudes. I've seen several ads on TV showing somebody doing it. (The ads were for lifestyle products, like beverages or shoes.) -- David M. Palmer palmer@alumni.caltech.edu palmer@tgrs.gsfc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1993 20:07:18 GMT From: Tom A Baker Subject: Orbital Skysurfing Club/DTO... Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1p4g3cINNjf5@gap.caltech.edu> palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes: >nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: > >>> In article <1993Mar25.104726.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >>> |> Anyone want to start a Skysurfing Club, > >>One of the basic ideas to be used is an asbestos "surfboard" and a man/woman in >>a space suit.. Some form of manuvering jets and away we go, now to get into [BLOCK MOVE] >People already do skysurfing, but from airplane rather than orbital >altitudes. I've seen several ads on TV showing somebody doing it. >(The ads were for lifestyle products, like beverages or shoes.) I've reacted positively to this idea, as a very long-range thing. For instance ... [BLOCK MOVE] >>a space suit.. Some form of manuvering jets and away we go, now to get into >>orbit.. ... I assumed you would start in orbit. That is, some folks in LEO would strap on a big board, and somehow get into a trajectory that intersected with the atmosphere. You dip in, do acrobatics, but you probably skip back out again, where you re-assume orbit. (Either you had a rocket all along for that purpose, or your friends rendezvoused with you in a quarter- or half-orbit and boosted you.) The attraction is the same as for those who skysurf by dropping out of airplanes. Only the speed is 17000 mph faster, and the view .... (Hmm, I was going to say that the view was 90 miles higher. But if you start in orbit, I would say any view results from getting tens of miles *lower* than that.) tom ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 1993 07:02:45 -0500 From: Paul Robinson Subject: Speculation: the extension of TCP/IP and DNS into large light lag enviroments Newsgroups: alt.internet.services,sci.space M. Sean Bennett (sean@ugcs.caltech.edu) wrote: : As man moves outward into space it will become essential to provide an : information structure for communication of data. I got thinking about this myself. Humanity must expand beyond the planet earth and out to the stars, because this planet is not going to be able to support unlimited breeding forever. If human beings are to survive, outmigration *must* occur. This will then lead to a whole new set of problems. : The current set of protocols make no alowance for light 'lag' between : targets of wide divergence. (Mars-Earth). The current DSN is expensive to : use for continous data flow. If however we could use a series of store and : forward systems for data - we have no mechanism to ensure that the data is : delivered securely (Appart from ad-hoc protocols constructed by NASA). I would suggest something on the order of a "continuous transmission channel" concept using something akin to ZMODEM with patch retransmission, indexing and table of contents. Patch retransmission means that after I transmit a 2 billion byte file, you may ask me, two days later, to retransmit the blocks from 100,000 to 120,000 bytes, 2,030,140 to 2,303,140 bytes, and perhaps 50 or 60 other places where noise damaged the file. Or the file can be transmitted multiply in sections, or other such things. But the file would have to be available the entire time of round trips, plus communications delays. One consideration is the "IHAVE" / "SENDME" protocols in news; as a file is received, the other side sends back lists of files it has gotten okay until the other side confirms that it has received the okay, like this. Earth: "At 21:00 file 31032.33307, time 00:10 At 21:11 file 31032.33308, time 00:20 Confirm receipt youhave 31030.00401 Confirm receipt youhave 31030.00403..." Mars: Retransmit file 31031.01202 block 401 Retransmit file 31031.01202 block 402 I HAVE 31031.01203 I HAVE 31031.01204 Retransmit file 31031.01202 block 403 And so on, probably both sending on different channels. : We need some form of ISO standard (I know they are hard to set, : but if NASA/GlavCosmos publish a protocol it will be the defacto standard) If it deals with Internet, the correct place is in the Internet RFCs. A good idea would be to propose a mailing list to handle the ideas and pass things around beforehand. Or send out an RFC for the purpose of soliciting the standards. : How are we to devide the domains to deal with other worlds? If a domain is not directly related to a specific place, it can be on the .COM, .EDU, .ORG or .NET domains for Commercial, Educational, Organization, or Network sites. There is also an .INT domain for international organizations (replaces the old .NATO) domain. I'll mention the .GOV domain below. For "countries" outside of earth, the domain name table for specific countries consists of a two-letter code. Now, all of the combinations of two letters (AA-ZZ) is 676 areas. Also the codes can be changed to allow codes consizsting of a digit and a letter, such as "domain.3x" That would add another 260 domains. In fact, that might be better, i.e. non-earth domains would be a digit and a letter. : (yes I know this sounds mad - but if we have not made some : form of descision we will have moonbase.nasa.gov - implictly : making that instalation part of the USA..a dangerous precedent) I don't think the .GOV domain is explicitly U.S. Government, but I can't guarantee that. I know that some states use the .GOV domain (OHIO.GOV is one, but as to whether or not other countries do, it's probably that they prefer their own country code). : These are just my random thoughts. I make no claims that they hold great : thought or meaning. : biff@base-camp.olympus-mons.mars I'd rather stick with the 2 and 3 letter codes. They are having a hard enough time getting rid of the .ARPA domain as it is. Some software isn't designed for 4-letter domains. And I'd rather see short names than long ones. Also, it would require going to something other than TCP/IP for a transmission protocol. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 1993 07:08:44 -0500 From: Paul Robinson Subject: Speculation: the extension of TCP/IP and DNS into large light lag enviroments Newsgroups: alt.internet.services,sci.space Tom A Baker (tombaker@world.std.com) wrote: : In article <1ovhnjINNpv7@gap.caltech.edu> sean@ugcs.caltech.edu (M. Sean Bennett) writes: : >As man moves outward into space it will become essential to provide an information : >structure for communication of data. : > : > The current set of protocols make no alowance for light 'lag' between : >targets of wide divergence. (Mars-Earth). The current DSN is expensive to : Now hold on there. Even terrestrial protocols take notice of "lightspeed : delay". And transmissions over satellite links in the Clarke orbit : require special parameters for their error correction protocols. They : don't use XMODEM or Kermit; there is something like a 570 mS round trip : time, so the handshaking is arranged with that in mind. : > We need some form of ISO standard (I know they are hard to set, : >but if NASA/GlavCosmos publish a protocol it will be the defacto standard) : I do think we will indeed have a standard, when the need arises. Until : that time, we will have to wait to learn of the resources available then. : I for one would be tickled pick if we could set up optical fiber cables : between the two planets. And don't say that is flatly absolutely : impossible. But I would rather dread trying to run a wire 60 million miles, even if you use relays. How much would it cost to spin 60 million miles of fiber optic cable from, say, the Moon to Mars, plus the cost of booster stations, plus the (rare but possible) chance of meteor collision across the particular wire. You've got vacuum out there, you can just *pump* the light directly from spot to spot. Use directional microwave or lasers; but don't go sending solid wire all that distance. Of course, you could use both, or use multiple transmission paths. This is such an interesting idea that I think it's worth discussing. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 1993 11:53:22 GMT From: "M. Sean Bennett" Subject: Speculation: the extension of TCP/IP and DNS into large light lag enviroments Newsgroups: alt.internet.services,sci.space Now of course point-to-point with optic fiber is not possible - as the targets move The beauty of optic fiber is its that you minimise evesdroping possibilities. Now imagine this: {We need skyhook material - thanks jerry} First we relocate some asteroids to some mid Earth-Mars orbit, link them together with skyhook stuff and run optic-fiber along the entire length with routers every 10% of the cable. Next we build a cascade of spining skyhooks, A skyhook rotating against its direction of motion a few 100km long. Now every so often the lowest of these would dip one tip into the atmosphere to the hight of 10km altitude - moving ground relative v.slowly . At that point we would do a point to point laser transfer. This data would be stored - then transfered to the next highest orbit until it reached the L1 point (Langrange point narest earth) where it would be transfered to L1 then via a skyhook cable to the luna surface,across to the far side of the moon and up to the luna farside Langrange point (L2). We then have a series of spining solar orbit skyhooks that just touch L2 and the solar cable. You reverse the procedure down to the MARS surface. Keeping this mess in line, dealing with accidents and problems -would be a major task. The real reason you would build this set up would be to drop your travel times for non-cyberspace objects. You could reach the moon in a few hours (faster if you build a true skyhook) Mars within a week (faster if the target is inanimate). So we could >>almost<< give you point to point and only for brief moments. Sean ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 1993 07:16:43 -0500 From: Paul Robinson Subject: Speculation: the extension of TCP/IP and DNS into large light lag enviroments Newsgroups: alt.internet.services,sci.space Phil G. Fraering (pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu) wrote: : sean@ugcs.caltech.edu (M. Sean Bennett) writes: : >>Why is it a dangerous precedent? Should NASA or the CIS be building bases : >>that aren't under any jurisdiction? : >It is my fault for not making myself clearer. : >The Moon, Mars, etc. are "claimed for all mankind". : >The dangerous precedent is the exporting of our national bigotries - irespective : >of the nation involved. : It's not really dangerous; what _is_ dangerous, is the regime you outlined : above, which was implemented by the COPOUS Treaty. : >What is this COPOUS treaty you speak of? : A treaty that gave space "to all mankind;" literally, it gave _any_ nation : on the face of the earth veto power over anything done by anyone up there. : The death-squad-installed presidents of Honduras or Cuba would have : just as much say in being able to stop space exploration as the : heads of state of any other countries. In short, space exploration : becomes even more of a hostage to tyrranical politicians, wheras : in my opinion (which I do not think is humble, but is as close to : absolute truth as humans get) it should not be hostage to any politicians : at all. Only to the extent that (1) someone is from a country that signed the treaty and (2) that there is local law giving some organization the authority to enforce the treaty provisions. If someone starts their own country (and in theory you could do it with a combination of buying some unused island and bribing some other country for recognition) then this piece of paper has no jurisdiction there, either. And, further, a treaty is only binding on the government that signs it; a government can force people to comply with some treaty, but it has no authority to bind non-signatories to it. For example, it is a violation of the Moscow Treaty of 1964 to fire thermonuclear weapons above ground, by the signatory governments. This does not apply to non-governmental parties. And then it would only be effective to the extent that some organization was on earth. Once someone got off earth, local governments would have no jurisdiction. (Where are their transports to send troops?) ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 1993 18:16:53 GMT From: Dave McKissock Subject: SSF Redesign.... Newsgroups: sci.space Note that Hugh's comments are only for the *ONE* option the Shea team is looking at. Yes, the existing SSF program took our suggestions to the Shea team, but we were only one of many options the Shea team is looking at. Also, it seems to me that we (the existing SSF team) have a bit of a credibility problem relative to projected costs of the "redesigned" SSF. Just weeks ago, our Associate Administrator (Aldrich) reported to congress that part of the cost overrun was due to poor estimates of the impact of the last redesign. It seems to me a rather obvious question is "What confidence does NASA have in the new cost estimates for the redesigned SSF?" I also think the Shea team has a difficult task in coming up with credible cost estimates for all of the wild ideas floating around, in a 3-month timeframe. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 93 11:19:21 GMT From: Del Cotter Subject: Terraformers (was Re: How to cool Venus) Newsgroups: sci.space <827@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp> will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (William Reiken) writes: > > Hey you guys, I am posting a question about Venus. I would like >to know: > > ""What is the total composition of the Atmosphere of Venus?"" > > That means every little element, etc. ever detected in its Atmosphere. >If you can give me the percentage ratios that would also be very welcomed. Gas Volume Mass/kg CO2 96.5% 4.60e20 N2 3.5% 1.06e19 SO2 200 ppm 1.40e17 Ar 70 ppm 3.40e16 CO 40 ppm 1.17e16 Ne 10 ppm 1.09e15 H2O 100-1000 ppm? 0.19-1.86e17 Refs. G Schubert and C Covey 'The Atmosphere of Venus' from 'The Planets' pp. 16-25 published by W H Freeman and Co., San Francisco (1983) -- ',' ' ',',' | | ',' ' ',',' ', ,',' | Del Cotter mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk | ', ,',' ',' | | ',' ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1993 13:03:35 GMT From: Paul Dietz Subject: Terraforming Venus Newsgroups: sci.space In article roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes: > As you wisely point out, it's vitally important to try to plug in actual > numbers to see if the idea makes any sense at all. I seem to have taken the > results offline from the last time the math was worked out, but it came out > as a really ridiculous expenditure of effort - the hydrogen bomb to do the > job would make a pretty respectable moon. Paul Dietz may still have the > calculations. Let's do the computations. Venus's atmosphere has a mass of about 5e20 kilograms. Escape velocity is about 1e4 m/s, so at least 2.5e28 J is needed to eject the atmosphere. Only a small fraction of this gets lost to the crust, if we do it right: the pressure increase in the heated atmosphere (ignoring brief peaks) will only be on the order of several hundred bar, and the temperature increase, while large (in the tens of K) will no affect much rock, as rock is a very poor conductor of heat. Loss of energy to thermal radiation to space is also negligible. Probably the largest losses would be nonuniform ejection of mass to space, and dissociation/ionization in the gas (but much of that gets recovered as the gas expands and cools). Multiple by a factor of several if you want to eject the mass out of the solar system. What fuel would the bombs use? (Note that I say bombs, as a single bomb would not uniformly heat the atmosphere.) Let's assume deuterium for the moment. Deuterium reacts with itself via two reactions; one making 3He, the other tritium. The tritium is promptly consumed, releasing a neutron. In a sufficiently large mass of fuel the neutron will be captured. The net reaction will approach d + d --> 4He + energy, with some energy lost to the net side reaction d -> p + n. Let's call the net energy release 10 MeV/deuterium nucleus. 2.5e28 J would then require the fusion of about 50 billion tonnes of deuterium, which, as a liquid, would make a sphere about 9 km in diameter. At $2M/tonne, this would cost about 100 quadrillion dollars. Adequate deuterium should be available in the outer solar system, although it would require in-situ processing of on the order of tens of trillions of tons of hydrogen. Perhaps floating ammonia/hydrogen isotope exchange factories in Jupiter's atmosphere could be used. One source of deuterium is Venus itself, where the D/H ratio is about 100x larger than elsewhere in the solar system. But I don't believe there's enough there, by itself. Deuterium does produce neutrons, and requires isotope separation. Perhaps a better fuel would be p + 11B. This requires no isotope separation (11B is the dominant isotope). On the other hand, boron is much less common than hydrogen. The boron in the earth's oceans would more than suffice. More fuel would be required -- this reaction liberates about 8 MeV -- but the fuel is more dense, and essentially aneutronic (and the minor 10B will soak up neutrons that are produced). Some cheap way of separating out the boron would be required (say, by bioengineering?). If Mars once had oceans (or, if Mars is terraformed first), perhaps borate deposits will occur there in sufficient quantity. If it can be made to work, reactions involving protons with carbon, nitrogen or oxygen would be best. But these go at low rates, due to the high coulomb barrier and (for the dominant isotopes) the inherent slowness of (p,gamma) reactions. Paul ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 93 15:12:17 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms ) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1p261c$10g@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: > >Will blats about how japan is going to rise again on a nuclear phoenix. > >Please document the ROI for Nuclear Power, once all costs have been >allocated. Take the cost of WWII to the Japanese, inflate it to current dollars, and you have the de minimus value of a domestically controlled energy source to the Japanese. Add to that the fact that the Japanese don't approve and license their plants in adversarial proceedings. They can go from plans to operating plants in one third the time, and one tenth the cost it took for the last US plant to be licensed. The relative lack of lawyers in Japan makes every business venture there less costly than in the US. They have a fuel reprocessing plan in place, and they have a waste disposal plan in place. They don't intend to be caught without energy to run their industrial base, or their military, again. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1993 16:50:57 GMT From: Joe Cain Subject: Venus is covered with water? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In article <1993Mar27.085904.166194@zeus.calpoly.edu> jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes: > >Noted astrophysicist Jay Leno said on the Friday 3/26 Tonight >Show that Venus is covered with 75 feet of water! Come on now. Anyone who has seen the JPL video based on the Magellan data KNOWS it is covered with scrambled eggs. Joseph Cain cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu cain@fsu.bitnet scri::cain (904) 644-4014 FAX (904) 644-4214 or -0098 ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 93 11:31:53 GMT From: Del Cotter Subject: Why is Venus so bad? Newsgroups: sci.space arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements) writes: >nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: > >>So here is a good question, why is venus so hot? the gasses known and such and >>the effects and such?? We need why so that we can attack the reasons why and >>defeat them or neutralize them... Now what is the parameters for a "normal >>planet" basically so we have something to know how to work towards?? [...] >There's also a small problem in dealing with an atmosphere that has about >a hundred times more pressure at the surface than at Earth. (Do you think >you could live in a 100atm environment? :) ) That reminds me. Don't forget that when you've got rid of all the CO2, there are still 2 atms of nitrogen. Can anyone confirm that this is dangerously close to narcosis levels? -- ',' ' ',',' | | ',' ' ',',' ', ,',' | Del Cotter mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk | ', ,',' ',' | | ',' ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 381 ------------------------------