Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_0/V15NO017.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 32KB

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 05:00:09
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #017
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 21 Jul 92       Volume 15 : Issue 017

Today's Topics:
            Antimatter (was propulsion questions) (2 msgs)
                  Chemical unit operations in space
                        DSN Update - 07/20/92
                              ESA Future
            First International Conference on Optical SETI
         If the sun went out-how long life survive? (3 msgs)
                        Labour Costs (2 msgs)
                    Propulsion questions (2 msgs)
                            Salyut-7 diary
                             Space Power
   Space Transportation Infrastructure Costs (Was Re: Interstates)
     Star Trek and public perception of space/science/engineering
             Whale killing for "science" -- so for what?

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]".  Please do **NOT** send (un)subscription
    requests to that address!  Instead, send a message of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses:
    listserv@uga (BITNET), RICE::BOYLE (SPAN/NSInet),
    UTADNX::UTSPAN::RICE::BOYLE (THENET), or
    [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 92 15:54:33 GMT
From: Rob Douglas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antimatter (was propulsion questions)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John S. Novak III) writes:
|> >... just exactly how much antimatter are we capable of
|> >producing today, without extra tool-ups, and how much would it
|> >cost?  How much cost to store it?

|> Today, we make enough for experimental particle physics
|>
|> According to Forward, there appears to be no fundamental obstacle to
|> making the stuff in fractional grams at a few million dollars per milligram.
|> That may sound expensive, but it's cheap enough to wipe out all competition
|> for in-space propulsion.  Not just chemical rockets, but fission and fusion
|> rockets stop being competitive.  The dominant cost of all of them is mass
|> lifted from Earth into orbit, and antimatter needs far less.  Milligrams
|> may not sound like much, but they can turn an awful lot of hydrogen into
|> incandescent gas.  This would put the solar system in our hands.
|>
OK, now to play earths advocate, what kind of danger does releasing all that
incandescent gas, etc. cause.  Also, security has to be pretty damn tight to keep
people away from this stuff, I suppose, because releasing it makes it go BOOM,
right??

So how safe is the idea of starting an antimatter drive system??? Anybody involved
in the safety studies???

ROB

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ Rob Douglas          | [phone]    | Computer Science Department     ~
~ [e-mail]  | AI Research Group | Worcester Polytechnic Institute ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 18:25:35 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antimatter (was propulsion questions)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rob Douglas) writes:

   OK, now to play earths advocate, what kind of danger does releasing
   all that incandescent gas, etc. cause.  Also, security has to be
   pretty damn tight to keep people away from this stuff, I suppose,
   because releasing it makes it go BOOM, right??

   So how safe is the idea of starting an antimatter drive system???
   Anybody involved in the safety studies???

You don't do it on earth. Anyone who brings more than milligrams of
antimatter onto a planet has to be crazy. One gram of antimatter can
cause a 43kT explosion. Even a milligram is bigger than any
conventional bomb. A microgram would be as big a bang as, say, the IRA
bomb in the City of London earlier this year.

Nick

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

Date: 20 Jul 92 13:11:18 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Chemical unit operations in space
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Richard Bell) writes:
> The point of building a chemical plant in space is not to make the things
> that chemical plants make on Earth, but to make things that cannot be made
> in the Earth's gravity field, things like perfect crystals and foamed steel.


The point of building a chemical plant in space *is* to make the
things that chemical plants make on Earth, but *not to be used on
Earth.*  You make the things that *are to be used in space.*  You just
can't keep dragging mass up the gravity well and still expect to
achieve an economically stable system.  The reason for making the type
of special materials you mention that can only be made in microgravity
or hard vac is to trade for the tools/raw materials/personnel that
can't be more economically produced in space.

Has there been an analysis of what can be provided by the space
environment and what cannot?  (Along the lines of a strategic
materials survey done by military planners.)  This would be at some
point in the future when space habitats become self-sustaining trading
partners with Earth.  How long would this take?  Can we even *think*
of an economic breakevn poin where total economic output exceeds total
economic input from the start of the project?

What about personnel?  It seems to me that the sf idea of emigration
to space as a way of reducing population pressure on earth would never
work because fo the vast amounts of energy required.  With that kind
of energy you could build a pretty comfortable life down here, so why
burn it up getting people out there?  With that kind of energy
available population  would probably stabilize faster than you could
stabilize it by removing excess through emigration.  No, space will
have to provide its own personnel, but if that resource becomes
limiting then selective emigration to space may be necessary.

--Electric Monk                   (Bruce Gaede)

"...and then time started seriously to pass."
--Douglas Adams, _Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency_

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

Date: 21 Jul 92 00:08:13 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: DSN Update - 07/20/92
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,ca.earthquakes

                        Deep Space Network Status Report
                               July 20, 1992

     On July 19 at 9:47PM PDT, a 4.6 earthquake centered 5 miles northeast
of Barstow caused DSS-12 (Goldstone 34 meter antenna) to halt their Voyager 1
support and DSS-15 (Goldstone's other 34 meter antenna) to halt their Voyager 2
support.   DSS-15 took the antenna to stow to check for structural damage,
and DSS-12 also checked for structural damage but did not go to stow.  The
station reported that there was no structural damage to any of the antennas.

     The Goldstone 70 meter antenna which was damaged by the two earthquakes on
June 28 is still having its subreflector repaired, and is due to be back
up on July 22.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Most of the things you
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | worry about will never
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | happen.

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 16:52:12 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: ESA Future
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>
>outlook:
>    Poor.  If you think NASA is in deep do-do over Freedom, take a
>closer look at ESA.  Our space agencies globally may need our help
>just to survive much longer, at this rate. 8-(

ESA could buy space and transport to Mir. Somebody should make sure the Russian
capabilities don't rot.


   Previous signature chastized by Canadian Grad Student who flayed the United
   States as a bully from his bastion of free speech in Pittsburgh, PA.
                    Yes, fact IS stranger that fiction.
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 13 Jul 92 15:41:00 GMT
From: Derek Wee <[e-mail]>
Subject: First International Conference on Optical SETI
Newsgroups: sci.space

Original to: higgins
  What IS optical SETI? Looking around for LGMs with nothing but a pair of
binocs?
  I'd just like to mention here that with the enormous amount of money gone
into the Hubble Telescope, I would have expected pictures of aliens waving
at
us.


---
 * Origin: Coffee Au Go-Go. We don't know what it means either. (3:680/820)

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

Date: 20 Jul 92 12:10:28 GMT
From: FRANK NEY <tnc!m0102>
Subject: If the sun went out-how long life survive?
Newsgroups: sci.space

If memory serves me correctly, a SF short story was written on this
premise and was made into a show during the 'Golden Age' of radio.

I forget the author, but the title was "A Bucket of Air."

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-P  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Marrou/Lord in 1992.  And get all 535 bums out of congress!
--
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.

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

Date: 20 Jul 92 14:25:26 GMT
From: Richard Ottolini <[e-mail]>
Subject: If the sun went out-how long life survive?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Maybe the sun has gone out already, at least in the fusioning core :-)
The measured number of neutrinos is only a half to a third of that
predicted.

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

Date: 20 Jul 92 14:25:32 GMT
From: "James D. Jones" <[e-mail]>
Subject: If the sun went out-how long life survive?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (FRANK NEY) writes:

>If memory serves me correctly, a SF short story was written on this
>premise and was made into a show during the 'Golden Age' of radio.

>I forget the author, but the title was "A Bucket of Air."

The author is Fritz Leiber.  The story should be available in one
or another of his short story collections.  In the story, I believe, the
sun did not go out.  Rather, a massive planet or dead sun passed near enough
to the earth to pull it out of orbit and away from Sol.

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

Date: 17 Jul 92 18:39:18 GMT
From: Ralph Buttigieg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Labour Costs
Newsgroups: sci.space

Does anyone have an idea as to how much labour cost contribute to the cost
of a launch of a commercial rocket like the Atlas or Ariane?

It seems to me that rockets from  third world countries like, Russia,China
etc may have an advantage here.
ta
Ralph

--- Maximus 2.00
 * Origin: Vulcan's World-Sydney Australia 02 635-1204 (3:713/635)

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 14:12:40 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Labour Costs
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ralph Buttigieg) writes:

>Does anyone have an idea as to how much labour cost contribute to the cost
>of a launch of a commercial rocket like the Atlas or Ariane?

>It seems to me that rockets from  third world countries like, Russia,China
>etc may have an advantage here.

Cost is only half the battle. US workers make more because they produce
more with their time. Don't think about just money, think about value
for money.

Example: a friend of mine did a tour teaching people in a third world
nation to repair jet engines. In the US the first lesson would be on
the principles involved and how the components work. In this nation,
the first lesson was on what screwdrivers and wrenches where. Then
they tought them how to screw in screws.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------277 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 20 Jul 92 14:49:26 GMT
From: Bob Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Propulsion questions
Newsgroups: sci.space

What about Arthur C. Clarke's A-Drive.  Blow a small stream of
reaction mass past a mini-black hole (A few tons??, the size of a
proton??)  Some of the stream is accellerated into the singularity.
The frictional heating of its accelleration and accreation is absorbed
by the rest of the matter in the stream which then roars out the
exhaust nozzle and supplies thrust.

The singularity can be held in place by putting a whopping charge on
it and using electrostatic fields....

The advantage of this scheme is that you don't need any fuel, the
energy comes from a small percentage of the potial energe of the
reactio mass.

Of course, the creation of mini-black holes is problematic...


--
+---Robert C. Martin---+-RRR---CCC-M-----M-| R.C.M. Consulting         |
| [e-mail] |-R--R-C----M-M-M-M-| C++/C/Unix Engineering    |
|     (Uncle Bob.)     |-RRR--C----M--M--M-| OOA/OOD/OOP Training      |
+----------------------+-R--R--CCC-M-----M-| Product Design & Devel.   |

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 16:58:50 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Propulsion questions
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <rmartin.711643766@thor> [e-mail] (Bob Martin) writes:

   What about Arthur C. Clarke's A-Drive.  Blow a small stream of
   reaction mass past a mini-black hole (A few tons??, the size of a
   proton??)  Some of the stream is accellerated into the singularity.
   The frictional heating of its accelleration and accreation is absorbed
   by the rest of the matter in the stream which then roars out the
   exhaust nozzle and supplies thrust.

Problems:

- if the black hole is small enough to be light (you have to carry it
  along, you don't want too much mass) it's also small enough to
  evaporate in a burst of extreme gammas.

- you still need lots of reaction mass.

- it's probably at least as tricky to control as a bottle full of
  anti-hydrogen.

BTW, John Novak and I have had a short email discussion about
anti-matter propulsion. He suggested using naked anti-protons rather
than anti-hydrogen, so that you can keep it in a magnetic bottle. I
thought there was something wrong with this idea, and I was right: the
energy needed to put anti-protons (in any quantity) in a bottle is
significantly _larger_ than that generated by annihilating them.
Specifically, if you have a bottle size d (metres) with N anti-protons
in it, the mass energy is

    1.5e-10 N joules

And the energy it took to put them there (to overcome the repulsion) is

    1.5e-28 (N^2/d)    joules

So for a kilogram of anti-protons in a one-metre bottle, mass energy =
9e16 J but potential energy = 5e25 J.

Clearly such a bottle is going to be very difficult to build. :-)
Seriously, can someone tell me what happens if you confine protons
like this? I guess once the per-particle potential energy becomes too
high you start generating new particle-pairs, but I don't know.

(if you have only a microgram of protons in your one-metre bottle, the
potential energy is as high as the mass energy).

So the anti-proton idea seems to die. So how _do_ you contain
anti-hydrogen?

Nick Haines [e-mail]

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

Date: 20 Jul 92 11:33:28 GMT
From: TIMOTHY FREER <[e-mail]>
Subject: Salyut-7 diary
Newsgroups: sci.space

SALYUT-7 DIARY (Apr82 to Feb91)
-------------------------------

    This is the third in my series of 'Salyut' diaries. This particular
diary was compiled by Robert Christy, and was published in the June 1987
issue of the now defunct Space Flight News magazine. In his introduction,
Christy suggested that tis was the first time a complete diary of major
events involving the Salyut-7 orbital laboratory had been published. The
listing includes all the launches to Salyut, all dockings, all docking port
transfers, all undockings and re-entries and all spacewalks.
    To make this diary complete I have added the date of Salyut-7's re-entry
which occured after the publication of the magazine article. I trust that
sci.space readers will find this diary to be a usefull resource.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salyut-7 diary (Apr82 to Feb91).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1982.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 APR    Salyut-7 launched by Proton rocket into 213 x 261km orbit at 51.6
          degrees inclination.
09 MAY    Salyut-7 established in its 350km, operational orbit.
13 MAY    Soyuz T-5 launched with Anatoly Berezovoi and Valentin Lebedev
          aboard.
14 MAY    Soyuz T-5 docks at the front port.
17 MAY    Iskar-2 experimental amateur-radio satellite released from
          Salyut-7's airlock.
23 MAY    Progress 13 launched.
25 MAY    Progress 13 docks at the rear port.
04 JUN    Progress 13 undocks.
06 JUN    Progress 13 directed into the atmosphere to burn up.
24 JUN    Soyuz T-6 launched with Vladimir Dzhanibekov, Aleksandr
          Ivanchenkev, and Jean-Loup Chretien (France) aboard.
25 JUN    Soyuz T-6 docks at rear port, despite computer problem.
02 JUL    Soyuz T-6 undocks and re-enters with Dzhanibekov, Ivanchenkev,
          and Chretien aboard.
10 JUL    Progress 14 launched.
12 JUL    Progress 14 docks at the rear port.
30 JUL    Berezovoi and Lebedev make a 2 hour, 33 minute spacewalk to
          retrieve samples from outside of Salyut-7.
11 AUG    Progress 14 undocks.
13 AUG    Progress 14 directed into the atmosphere to burn up.
19 AUG    Soyuz T-7 launched with Leonid Popov, Aleksandr Serebrov, and
          Svetlana Savitskaya (second woman cosmonaut) aboard.
20 AUG    Soyuz T-7 docks at rear port.
27 AUG    Soyuz T-5 undocks and re-enters with Popov, Serebrov, and
          Savitskaya aboard.
29 AUG    Soyuz T-7 transfered to front port by Berezovoi and Lebedev.
18 SEP    Progress 15 launched.
20 SEP    Progress 15 docks at rear port.
14 OCT    Progress 15 undocks.
16 OCT    Progress 15 directed into the atmosphere to burn up.
31 OCT    Progress 16 launched.
02 NOV    Progress 16 docks at rear port.
18 NOV    Iskra-3 experimental amateur-radio satellite released from
          Salyut-7's airlock.
10 DEC    Soyuz T-7 undocks and re-enters with Berezovoi and Lebedev aboard.
          They have set a new, 211 day spaceflight duration record.
13 DEC    Progress 16 undocks.
14 DEC    Progress 16 directed into the atmosphere to burn up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1983.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
02 MAR    Cosmos 1443 (prototype space-station module carrying cargo)
          launched by Proton rocket.
10 MAR    Cosmos 1443 docks at the front port.
20 APR    Soyuz T-8 launched with Vladimir Titov, Gennady Strekalov, and
          Aleksandr Serebrov aboard.
21 APR    Soyuz T-8 approaches Salyut-7 but fails to dock because of a
          problem with its renezvous radar.
22 APR    Soyuz T-8 lands.
27 JUN    Soyuz T-9 launched with Vladimir Lyakhov and Aleksandr Aleksanderov
          aboard.
28 JUN    Soyuz T-9 docks at the rear port.
14 AUG    Cosmos 1443 undocks.
16 AUG    Lyakhov and Aleksanderov piolet Soyuz T-9 round to the front port.
17 AUG    Progress 17 launched.
19 AUG    Progress 17 docks at the rear port.
23 AUG    Cosmos 1443 sends a landing capsule (containing experimental
          material) back to earth.
17 SEP    Progress 17 undocks.
18 SEP    Progress 17 directed into the atmosphere to burn up.
19 SEP    Cosmos 1443 directed into the atmosphere to burn up.
27 SEP    Soyuz T-10A launch fails when the rocket explodes - Vladimir Titov
          and Gennady Strekalov use an escape system to pull themselves
          clear of the pad.
20 OCT    Progress 18 launched.
22 OCT    Progress 18 docks at the rear port.
01 NOV    Lyakhov and Aleksanderov make a 2 hour, 50 minute spacewalk to add
          extra solar cells to one of Salyut-7's three solar panels.
03 NOV    Lyakhov and Alexanderov make a 2 hour, 55 minute spacewalk to
          complete installation of the solar cells.
13 NOV    Progress 18 undocks.
16 NOV    Progress 18 directed into the atmosphere to burn up.
23 NOV    Soyuz T-9 lands with Lyakhov and Aleksanderov aboard, after 150
          days in space.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1984.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
08 FEB    Soyuz T-10B launched with Leonid Kizim, Vladimir Solovyov and
          Oleg Atkov aboard.
09 FEB    Soyuz T-10 docks at the front port.
21 FEB    Progress 19 launched.
23 FEB    Progress 19 docks at the rear port.
31 MAR    Progress 19 undocks.
01 APR    Progress 19 directed into the atmosphere to burn up.
03 APR    Soyuz T-11 launched with Yuri Malyshev, Gennady Strekalov and
          Rakesh Sharma (India) aboard.
04 APR    Soyuz T-11 docks at the rear port.
11 APR    Soyuz T-10B lands with Malyshev, Strekalov, and Sharma aboard.
13 APR    Kizim, Solovyev and atkov pilot Soyuz T-11 round to the front port.
15 APR    Progress 20 launched.
17 APR    Progress 20 docks at the rear port.
23 APR    Kizim and Solovyev make a 4 hour, 15 minute spacewalk to repair
          Salyut-7's rocket engines.
26 APR    Kizim and Solovyev make a 5 hour spacewalk to continue the engine
          repairs.
29 APR    Kizim and Solovyev make a 2 hour, 45 minute spacewalk to continue
          the engine repairs.
03 MAY    Kizim and Solovyev make a 2 hour, 45 minute spacewalk to complete
          the engine repairs.
06 MAY    Progress 20 undocks.
07 MAY    Progress 20 directed into the atmosphere to burn up.
07 MAY    Progress 21 launched.
10 MAY    Progress 21 docks at rear port.
18 MAY    Kizim and Solovyev make a 3 hour, 5 minute spacewalk to add extra
          cells to the second of Salyut-7's three solar panels.
26 MAY    Progress 21 undocks and is directed into the atmosphere to burn up.
28 MAY    Progress 22 launched.
30 MAY    Progress 22 docks at the rear port.
15 JUL    Progress 22 undocks and is directed into the atmosphere to burn up.
17 JUL    Soyuz T-12 launched with Vladimir Dzhanibekov, Svetlana Savitskaya,
          and Igor Volk aboard.
18 JUL    Soyuz T-12 docks at the rear port.
25 JUL    Dzhanibekov and Savitskaya (the first woman to do so) make a
          3 hour, 35 minute spacewalk to perform a number of technical
          experiments.
29 JUL    Soyuz T-12 lands with Dzhanibekov, Savitskaya and Volk aboard.
08 AUG    Kizim and Solovyev make a 5 hour spacewalk to purform further
          repair work on Salyut-7's rocket engines.
14 AUG    Progress 23 launched.
16 AUG    Progress 23 docks at the rear port.
26 AUG    Progress 23 undocks.
28 AUG    Progress 23 directed into the atmosphere to burn up.
02 OCT    Soyuz T-11 lands with Kizim, Solovyev and Atkov aboard - they have
          set a new space endurance record of 237 days.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1985.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
06 JUN    Soyuz T-13 launched with Vladimir Dzhanibekov and Viktor Savinykh
          aboard.
08 JUN    Soyuz T-13 docks at the front port.
21 JUN    Progress 24 launched.
23 JUN    Progress 24 docks at the rear port.
15 JUL    Progress 24 undocks and is directed into the atmosphere to burn up.
19 JUL    Cosmos 1669 (a progress-type cargo ferry) launched.
21 JUL    Cosmos 1669 docks at the rear port.
02 AUG    Dzhanibekov and Savinkh make a 5 hour spacewalk to add extra solar
          cells to Salyut-7's third solar panel.
28 AUG    Cosmos 1669 undocks.
30 AUG    Cosmos 1669 directed into the atmosphere to burn up.
17 SEP    Soyuz T-14 launched with Vladimir Vasyutin, Georgi Grechko and
          Aleksandr Volkov aboard.
18 SEP    Soyuz T-14 docks at the rear port.
25 SEP    Soyuz T-13 undocks, carrying Dzhanibekov and Grechko.
26 SEP    After a day of independent flight, Soyuz T-13 lands.
27 SEP    Cosmos 1686 (a forerunner of the Kvant astrophysics module) launched
          by Proton rocket.
02 OCT    Cosmos 1686 docks at the front port.
21 NOV    Soyus T-14 lands with Vasyutin, Savinykh and Volkov aboard - the
          mission cut short by Vasyutin's illness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1986.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
05 MAY    Soyuz T-15 leaves Mir space station with Leonid Kizim and Vladimir
          Solovyev aboard.
06 MAY    Soyuz T-15 docks at the front port.
28 MAY    Kizim and Solovyev make a 3 hour, 50 minute spacewalk to retrieve
          equipment from outside Salyut-7, and experimental space construction
          techniques.
31 MAY    Kizim and Solovyev make a 5 hour spacewalk to continue space
          construction experiments.
25 JUN    Soyuz T-15 undocks to carry Kizim and Solovyev back to Mir - the
          end of the last planned expedition to the laboratory.
22 AUG    Salyut-7 reaches a 475km high, circular orbit, after a combination
          of firings by both its own and Cosmos 1686's engines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1991.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
07 FEB    Salyut-7 with Cosmos 1686 still attatched re-enters the atmosphere,
          burning up over Argentina.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    My final diary will be the Salyut-6 diary that I have compiled. It will
be posted soon.    Bye for now   Tim.

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

Date: 12 Jul 92 16:17:56 GMT
From: Ralph Buttigieg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Power
Newsgroups: sci.space

Original to: [e-mail]
  [e-mail] (Nick Szabo), via *IXgate 3:713/602 jabbered:

>x) Szabo's  Jupiter Satellite Scheme. Wrap one or two of Jupiters inner
>moons in superconducting coils and it will act as a huge generator as it
>orbits in Jupiter's powerfull magnetic field.

 s> This is more properly called Dietz's scheme, though I jabber about it
 s> alot and have some refinements.  I might argue with your heiarchy of
 s> difficulty.  Putting a conducting tether (a la TSS-1) on Metis is
 s> pretty easy, given a magsail or electromag brake for getting low enough
 s> in Jupiter orbit.  Equipment mass per kilowatt is
 s> orders of magnitude less

 Would not the radiation be a danger to the deployment? Or do you (or Mr
 Dietz) intend to use robots teleoperated from Callisto?

 s> than SPS.  The hard part is getting the power back to Earth.  Somebody
 s> suggested using an IR laser for beaming from the Moon; anybody ready for

 s> X-ray power transmission?  :-)

  How about anti-matter production? Bring it back to Earth a tiny-weeny
 bit at a time to minimise any adverse political reaction. Or use it for
 Spaceship (Starship?) engine.

 " Engage!"

 Ralph

--- Maximus 2.00
 * Origin: Vulcan's World-Sydney Australia 02 635-1204 (3:713/635)

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 14:05:13 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Transportation Infrastructure Costs (Was Re: Interstates)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>>    If NASA were willing to look past the Shuttle, it would realize
>>that it could redesign the station in 15klb chunks (ugh), develop the
>>DC SSTO concept, and fly Freedom in it for less than it'll cost to
>>fly it on Shuttle as is.

>Yea right. What is your expertise for this wonderful suggestion?
>Consider the assembly problems for such a tinker toy approach just for starters

Using modular chunks it should be doable. Remember, with SSTO it saves about
$8,000 for each pound of weight it launches compared with the Shuttle. It
is therefore worth a lot to find a way to do it.

>SSRT is a good idea but it has a specific place and that place is not
>putting up small chunks of a theoretical space station.

BTW, many think that the SSTO concept will scale very nicely. If so,
building a second generation vehicle which lifts Shuttle weight
payloads for the same low price is possible.

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------277 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 13 Jul 92 15:53:01 GMT
From: Derek Wee <[e-mail]>
Subject: Star Trek and public perception of space/science/engineering
Newsgroups: sci.space

Original to: bmartino
> Anyone remember the first STNG episode with Lt. Barkley?
> (silly question.  EVERYONE remembers it)

I thought the first STNG episode was the one where they first met Q. Oh
well,
it was here in Oz.

> The ship's warp engines got stuck *ON* and the people in
> engineering
> were trying to figure out what was happening.

Maybe Geordi forgot to take his foot off the accelerator <grin>

> hypothesis about contamination by a substance that couldn't be
> scanned by conventional sensor sweeps, and used a process of

Whoah! That's a pretty hefty hypothesis. Couldn't they have gone for the
simpler ones? (i.e. computer's fault)

> A big problem with public education today is that students
> don't
> find the subjects interesting.

Damn right! I'm a student and the only thing I find interesting are Physics
and Lunch. Cest la vie!

> kids to
> think critically about what they see and hear on TV.

One problem: TV doesn't realy help stimulate thinking. In fact, it dampens
it.  I suppose not many teachers have tried using commercial programs
(instead of  the ones made by the education dept) which are more popular.
But TV in terms  of subversive quality rates very high indeed.
---
 * Origin: Coffee Au Go-Go. We don't know what it means either. (3:680/820)

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 15:45:42 GMT
From: Ken Arromdee <[e-mail]>
Subject: Whale killing for "science" -- so for what?
Newsgroups: sci.misc,sci.skeptic,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Hartmut Frommert) writes:
>Contributions to these magazines are usually written by serious scientists.
>So having a language, well-developed social behavior, etc. are not
>manifestations of intelligence.

Communicating with one another is not a language, and reacting to the actions
of one another is not "social behavior" in the sense that humans have social
behavior.  Otherwise, computers and ants are intelligent.

>(As I see, spacecraft Galileo found *NO*
>evidence for the existence of intelligent life on the surface of Earth).

Wrong.
--
Hi! Ani mutacia shel virus .signature. Ha`atek oti letoch .signature shelcha!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: [e-mail])

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 017
------------------------------