Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_7/V13_797.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-06 | 19KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
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/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/4cReLJe00WBwIMYE5k>;
          Sun,  7 Jul 91 01:25:41 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun,  7 Jul 91 01:25:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #797

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 797

Today's Topics:
            SPACE Digest V13 #667
           Re: Asteroid grazed atmosphere in 1972?
               Re: SDI funding
       Re: NASA technology development vs. utilization
           Re: Asteroid grazed atmosphere in 1972?
            SPACE Digest V13 #667
           Re: Asteroid grazed atmosphere in 1972?
     Re: Cosmonauts to do space walk June 25th for antenna repair

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 26 Jun 91 18:45:30 EDT
Resent-From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Wed, 19 Jun 1991 04:35:29 TZONE
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #667
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>

> Re: Unrestricted Launches;
>
>This does not even address the problem.  The present law prohibits individuals
>who are American citizens from launching
>anywhere without permission.  I understand that the ARRL had to get permission
>to launch an amateur radio satellite on Ariane.

Who cares?  If you accept citizenship anywhere else, the U.S. considers you
a non-citizen (read not subjuct to U.S. Laws).  The effect, of course, is
that the U.S. will see almost no private launching, since it will be
allowed somewhere else.

>Secondly, having an international space administration instead of the US
>government would make things even worse.  I cannot imagine any earth
>government being desirous of having a significant human presence in space
>not firmly under the thumb of earth.  There are a few countries now in which
>there is still enough freedom to hopefully get them to allow significant
>free human activity in space, and a few small countries which recognize
>that they are not in a position to block space activity might cooperate.

This brings up tons of fascinating and unanswerable soacial-type questions:

I think we can assume that the group that controls space will control
the planet.  (In other words, a space-group of sufficent power being
'under the thumb' of any Earth-side gov. is a non-sequiter).  This is
the reason that I think many gov.s are dragging their feet, though I
have read that the Soviets Space Plans are based in the assumption that
humans are destined to evolve into space.

How far along does a space-industry society have to develop before it
decides it doesn't need the Earth, and destroy/exploit/cutoff/ignore it?

WHen will the corporations of the world revolt and replace national-ism
with multi-national-ism (ie, you won't be a citizen of the U.S. but rather
a citizen of IBM, who, of course, has great relations with Intel, etc)
How could we make war with IBM?  Especially if they'd made a treaty with,
say, Standard oil, GM, Toshiba, Sony, etc. for the express
purpose of reforming society into a capitalist world?   How do you keep
fighting an entity composed of your own citizens, which has no 'territory'
except a sales region, and controls vast amounts of material that you need
in order to make war in the first place?

How will such a change affect space-activities?

Given that any good space-faring infrastructure will give it's controllers
enough power to take over the planet (at least) what's a good way to keep
any power in plural hands?  "International" just means "not any of the
current nation-states" in this context, since said "internatonal" power
can takeover as easily as any nation.   Could the multi-nationals be
an alternative?  Their products are needed for all phases of space-activity.

I agree that an 'international' space agency is a non-idea, since, with
enough power it would just become another nation.  Other than that, I have
only questions and speculations on issues like this.

But I still am curious about the International Space-Port idea.

Tom
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 91 00:13:00 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ctcvax.ccf.swri.edu!rocke![e-mail]  (Robert Fenske Jr)
Subject: Re: Asteroid grazed atmosphere in 1972?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J. Patrick Harrington) writes:

)   The date was 10 August 1972. In "The Search for Life
)in the Universe" by D. Goldsmith & T. Owen, page 240,
)there is a photo of this fireball streaking over the
)Grand Tetons in Wyoming. The authors claim that it was
)"only 4 meters across", not up to 260 feet.

    A video of this event does exist--I've seen it on TV.  It was
a rather spectacular fireball considering it was broad daylight.

--
Robert Fenske, Jr.                      Sw     | The Taming the C*sm*s series:
Electromagnetics Division              /R---\  |
Southwest Research Institute          | I    | | "The Martian canals were the
dfsun1.electro.swri.edu 129.162.160.4  \----/  |  Martians' last ditch effort."

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 91 18:10:01 GMT
From: ssc-vax!bcsaic!hsvaic![e-mail]  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: SDI funding

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>
>DoD's SDI boondoggle has cost hundreds of billions with no missile
>defense near deployment. . . .
>No new military capabilities are in place due to SDI,. . .
>SDI is under strong
>attack in Congress and by members of the space science community as
>a total waste and duplication of effort.
>

First, let us get the right order of magnitude.  The SDI budget has
been close to $3 billion since 1983, for a total of about $24 billion.
We in fact already have a missile defense in deployment, the Patriot.
The ERIS and HEDI projects within SDI will do a similar job, but
will attack bigger missiles from further away, possibly using
different detectors than the Patriot radar.  The basic job is the
same, though, of hitting an incoming missile with an outgoing
ground launched missile.

The fact that no new military capabilities are in place due to SDI
should not be read as an indictment against it, since the program
was designed to be a research program to determine if a missile
defense system against large-scale attack is possible.  Deployment
of a missile defense system requires approval of the president and
congress, and would require abrogating or re-negotiating the ABM
Treaty, so it would in fact be illegal if we had deployed an SDI
type system.

As far as being a duplication of effort, who else besides SDI is
developing megawatt class lasers?  Can you cite what areas SDI
duplicates other military or civilian research?  As far as being
a waste, I suggest that is a matter of opinion.  For myself,
I believe that SDI has done more for space development's future
than NASA in the last decade, simply because SDI has been spending
far more for actual R&D, and has had such a difficult mission (
combating ICBMs), that it is forced to spawn ideas and develop
new technology.  Going to the Moon in it's day had a similar
effect - the challenge of a difficult project spawned all sorts
of new developments.

Specifically, SDI has directly and indirectly promoted better
access to space at lower cost.  Directly in supporting such programs
as ALS, now NLS, where the amount of stuff SDI had to put in space
REQUIRED low cost and high annual lift capacity to make SDI
possible.  Recently, though very small interceptors (brilliant
pebbles) has reduced the need for launch to space for SDI, so you
have seen less emphasis on launchers by SDI.

SDI indirectly promoted access to space by: developing big lasers
that can someday be used for laser launch and beamed power to
run propulsion systems, developing gas guns to
deliver brilliant pebbles, developing coilguns to shoot down
warheads, but which could also be used for space launch, developing
small, smart spacecraft, which technology can be adapted to planetary
exploration, and developing stronger, stiffer materials (SDI wanted them
for beam weapon structures), which materials can be used by any space
system.

Dani Eder
Advanced Civil Space Systems
Boeing

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 91 19:23:24 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Alan M. Carroll)
Subject: Re: NASA technology development vs. utilization

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (J. Porter Clark) writes:
> In this newsgroup the following opinions are often expressed:
>
>   (1) NASA should develop new technology; spinoffs are part of its
>       reason for being.
>
>   (2) NASA should use off-the-shelf technology and existing industry
>       and government standards as much as possible to reduce costs.

IMHO, if (2) is a concern on the level of (1), then that's a very good
indication that it's not something NASA should be doing.

--
Alan M. Carroll          <-- Another casualty of applied metaphysics
Epoch Development Team
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 91 19:31:34 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu![e-mail]  (Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again))
Subject: Re: Asteroid grazed atmosphere in 1972?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Charles Packer) writes:
>
>  "In 1972 a large asteroid, estimated at up to 260
>   feet in diameter, or nearly the length of a football
>   field, zipped through the upper atmosphere over the
>   northern United States and Canada, blazing across the
>   sky in a daylight fireball witnessed by thousands of
>   people before it re-entered space."
>
>I checked the Times's own annual Index for 1972 and found
>nothing about this under any related heading. There was one
>occurrence mentioned in which (have you stopped laughing
>about the 260-foot "large asteroid?") "400 shooting meteors"
>were seen over Japan on Oct. 8.
>
>Anybody know if there's anything to the asteroid story?


I believe S&T had a picture of it, taken from Idaho, in the past year.

                            Ray Swartz

------------------------------

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 26 Jun 91 18:27:45 EDT
Resent-From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Wed, 19 Jun 1991 04:35:29 TZONE
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #667
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>

Subject: Energy Sources for Society


>>Paleolithic to Neolithic    Wood (Probably)
>>Agricultural to Industrial  Coal
>>Industrial to 'Post modern' Oil, Nuclear
>
>>These sources all appeared unlimited to the ones who started using them, but
>>we now know they are all limited.

>Nuclear's limits are very far away.  Uranium in breeders will last
>for thousands of years, even at many times the current world energy
>use.

This is based, of course, on the same argument that oil companies us:
"Every time we've looked, we've found more, therefore, it's unlimited".
This is a simplification of the idea, but this is the idea, nevertheless.

>> Look around the major cities (even minor ones nowdays).  They are lit by
>> oil.  They are full of devices that use oil.  The materials were mined
>> and refined (glass, steel, etc) with oil-based energy.  The food eaten
>> by the inhabitants was fertilized by oil-produced compounds.  Etc, etc.

[Details about oil vs coal vs other chemical fuels deleted]

Fine, replace fertilizer with pesticides, oil with fossile fuels, etc,
and I think all your details are addressed.
The point I was making is that the energy we use determines the
structure of our society by the limitations it imposes on our personal
abitlity to shape reality (control power)

>Powersats may, someday, produce electricity, but by that time
>competing technologies, including fast breeders, will be well
>advanced.  Nuclear reactors can also produce process heat at the
>Earth's surface without conversion to electricity, which is not
>possible with powersats.

The real benefits of powersats will be in the production of HEAT, right
there, where the materials are, not on Earth.  Nothing will be able
to compare to immediate conversion of Star-light into heat.  Fusion
will still require mining, processing, waste-management, etc.  Power-
sats will come into their own when a factory is just a giant reflector
with a place to dock raw materials, and aplace to package products.
And when it does happen, why not divert some of the heat into radiation
for electricty on Earth?  It'll be cheap enough that a few percent
efficiency won't matter (look at the '57 Chevy).  Who'll complain about
micro-waves on Earth?  I got one in my kitchen.  I don't even have a
nuclear reactor in my STATE, becuase of environmentalists.  Do you
think that dark and evil force will just go away?

>Powersats and space industrialization are not necessary to save
>civilization from collapse anytime soon (read: for many centuries,
>if then).  The beginning of "The High Frontier" screwed this up
>badly.

Would you care to bet?  Are you sure enough to face a form of fuedalism
where the kings have atomics?  Cuz that's the other option.  Maybe not
while yer alive, but it's still there for your kids and grandkids.
(where did you get 'several centuries' from?)

Besides, my original point, again, is that when powersats become viable,
they will re-create society just as oil, coal, and wood did before them.

Tom
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 91 02:46:23 GMT
From: dftsrv!amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Charles Packer)
Subject: Re: Asteroid grazed atmosphere in 1972?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Charles Packer) writes...
>Last Tuesday there was an article about the danger of an
>asteroid hitting Earth published in the New York Times.
>It contains this statement:
>
>  "In 1972 a large asteroid, estimated at up to 260
>   feet in diameter, or nearly the length of a football
>   field, zipped through the upper atmosphere over the
>   northern United States and Canada, blazing across the
>   sky in a daylight fireball witnessed by thousands of
>   people before it re-entered space."
>
>I checked the Times's own annual Index for 1972 and found
>nothing about this under any related heading. There was one
>occurrence mentioned in which (have you stopped laughing
>about the 260-foot "large asteroid?") "400 shooting meteors"
>were seen over Japan on Oct. 8.
>
>Anybody know if there's anything to the asteroid story?
So far I've received e-mail from five people on this,
of whom Michael Keane was the most specific.
The event was on August 10, 1972, when a fireball moving
south to north was seen over the Rocky Mountains.
In the meantime, I found an article in Sky & Telescope,
October 1972 (vol. 44, page 269) that has photographs
and quotes from people who saw it.

In view of the immediate response from you folks, I wonder
why I can't recall having heard of the fireball. I checked
the microfilms of both the NY Times and Washington Post for
August 11 and 12 and there was nothing on it. I also
checked the TV News Index and Abstracts and found one
mention by John Chancellor on August 10. Seems that the
FAA said a Frontier Airlines pilot saw a fireball go
=under= his plane. Nice going, Johnnie.

Now what interests me is exactly when the first articles were
published that stated that it was an asteroid. It seems odd that
the October Sky & Telescope article didn't say anything about
what it was, just reported the sightings. Michael Keane says
there were several articles in Sky & Telescope in subsequent
months. Tarl Neustaedter mentioned seeing something about it in
National Geographic. Stay tuned.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 91 21:49:29 GMT
From: agate!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!kksys!wd0gol!newave![e-mail]  (John A. Weeks III)
Subject: Re: Cosmonauts to do space walk June 25th for antenna repair

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> On board the Soviet's Mir space station cosmonauts Anatoli Artsebarski and
> Sergei Krikalev, are preparing for a space walk that will take place
> tomorrow (June 25th).

CNN (Headline News) is showing video of the spacewalk as I read this note.
The video is looks very good, as good as the best color video from the
Shuttle.  The backgound is a very bright while & blue earth.  Perhaps they
will show more of the footage during the weekend science show on CNN.

This video looks like it might have been recorded live (rather than being
a video tape that was mailed across the ocean).  Having video available so
quickly is very un-Soviet, and doing live video of Soviet space activities
is very rare.  Perhaps they are doing a bit of advertising?

> [...]  It could not be repaired until the new crew arrived after
> May 12th on Soyuz TM-12.  This new EVA is planed to be 4 hours long.

The report went by very quickly (I was trying to watch it rather than
listen), but I think they said it ended up being 5 hours and it was
sucessful.

-john-

--
=============================================================================
John A. Weeks III               [phone]             [e-mail]
NeWave Communications, Ltd.                        ...uunet!tcnet!newave!john

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V13 #797
*******************