Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_3/V16NO382.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 35KB

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 93 05:11:21
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #382
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon, 29 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 382

Today's Topics:
better planets through nanotechnology (was Re: How to cool Venus) (2 msgs)
                          curvature of space
                            Dust for Venus
                        gov agents and ethics
Gravity waves, was: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise
                          Luddites in space
                         Manned vs. Unmanned
              Nasa's budget, was what happened to CRAF?
                               Omnimax
                           People in space
                     Pioneer Venus Last Findings
                        Plans, absence therof
                Robots, intelligence, and luddites :-)
                    Space Station Freedom Redesign
Speculation: the extension of TCP/IP and DNS into large light lag enviroments (3 msgs)
                  Status of U.S./Soviet Cooperation

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests 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: 29 Mar 93 01:48:45 GMT
From: Jeff Bytof <[e-mail]>
Subject: better planets through nanotechnology (was Re: How to cool Venus)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David M. Palmer) writes:

>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.

If the "solid form" mentioned here (buckyballs excreted from genetically
engineered organisms or "diamond shells" from nanomachines) was black,
would a surface covering of such on the surface of Venus help to radiate
away the heat stored in the underlying rocks faster?

-rabjab

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

Date: 29 Mar 93 01:51:38 GMT
From: Jeff Bytof <[e-mail]>
Subject: better planets through nanotechnology (was Re: How to cool Venus)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David M. Palmer) writes:

>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.

Or engineer plants and animals that can digest nutrient-filled buckyballs!

-rabjab

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

Date: Sun, 28 Mar 93 20:54:30 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: curvature of space

>>  Curvature can only exist relative to something non-curved.  In your
>>  first example, both balloon dimensions are curved, so there must
>>  exist a third spacial dimension for them to be curved in.  In the
>>  cone/cylinder example, only one of the two surface dimensions is
>>  curved, so measuring circumference:diameter ratios is not a test for
>>  curvature in a third dimension.

>The first sentence is incorrect. "Existence" is undefined unless it is
>synonymous with "observable" in physics. We cannot observe more than
>the four dimensions we know about. But curvature of the
>four-dimensional manifold of space-time is measurable through relative
>distances.

How do you measure unobservable things?   Maybe this thread could use
a bit about 'appearance' and 'substance' and their relation or identity.
You know, is there a substance behind the appearance? Or is the appearance
the reality?  I say the latter, though appearance can have facets.

If we say, "space is curved" and that idea helps us understand and
manipulate reality, in my mind, that's just as good as saying "light
is a wave" or "light is a particle" and using those concepts to
build lenses or lasers.  Is light *really* a particle or is space
*really* curved?  That begs the appearance/substance question.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\     Inhale to the Chief!
[e-mail]  | 336-9591 (hm)\\  Zonker Harris in 1996!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sun, 28 Mar 93 19:42:50 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dust for Venus

>Gregso Vaux says:
>>>Will this proposal of putting dust
>>>in orbit around Venus in order to cool the planet work?

I said;
>>Venus's albedo is already pretty high.  The dust that fell out from orbit
>>would only decrease the albedo, increasing absorbtion.  Maybe if you had some
>>really reflective dust?

>>Also, dust is an efficient converter of UV/optical to IR radiation,
>>so that effect could be quite high.  Plus, with dust in orbit, the venus-dust
>>system will have a higher cross-section, catching more light than ever.

>Perhaps what you say makes sense, but are you sure that putting dust
>in orbit would not cool the planet? Once again, I want you to think
>of the "nuclear winter" effect. If dust in our upper atmosphere would
>cool our planet, why would not dust in orbit around Venus do the same
>thing? Why isn't dust around Venus analagous to dust around earth?
>I suspect that the clouds of Venus do significantly cool the planet
>but the greenhouse effect is so strong that the surface temperature
>will melt lead. I believe that dust would indeed cool Venus, even
>black dust much as would be thrown up by a nuclear weapon or a
>volcanoe (mount Pinatubo) on Earth.

>Gregson Vaux

The way I understand it, climatological models are not all that cut & dry,
ie, we can't say for sure if 'nuclear winter' would acutally occur, and
since no one wants to experiment...  My point was just that there would
be competing trends in the basic idea.  Dust blocks sunlight, but also
would absorb more, so maybe one would dominate, maybe the other.

The whole nuclear winter / greenhouse effect / global warming theories
are all in question, at least in detail, if not in their hearts, so,
no, I don't know that dust wouldn't cool Venus.  But I can think of
mechanisms by which it could heat Venus, too.

Hell, why not try it?  It's not my planet!  :-)

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\     Inhale to the Chief!
[e-mail]  | 336-9591 (hm)\\  Zonker Harris in 1996!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sun, 28 Mar 93 19:20:53 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: gov agents and ethics

D Mohoney sez;
>>>Wingo has the right to say what he wants as a citizen of his country.

I respond;
>>You are ignoring a conflict of interest, though.  Since Wingo works for the
>>people that collect my money, his voice will carry further than mine.

>Have you any proof of this statement?  I've worked in the private
>sector, for government as a goverment employee and as a contractor.
>It's been my perception that independent citizens have just as much,
>if not more, say in government policy as do low level employees and
>contractors.

Proof of my relative lack of influence?  Or proof that Dennis is engaging
in an ethically shaky situation?  Or proof that Dennis is more influential?

My point was that it's an ethically shaky, though perfectly legal, situation.
You'll have to take my word on my lack or influence, and you'll have to
ask Dennis about his.  But, regardless of the amount of influence, there
is a conflict of interests, since he is essentailly arguing, as a private
citizen, for more personal power, as a gov agent.  If he wants more power,
let him state his real motivation, rather than claiming "Hey, I'm just a
regular dude, like you."  He's not, or I could refuse to support the tax-
funded parts of the space program that I don't like, which he supports.

>>Since
>>it's my money, I should have a greater say.  Since Dennis usually advocates
>>greater powers for the taxing authorities, he is also abusing his position,
>>since he is an agent for the taxing authorities.

>How do you figure this?  It seems to me you are using the term "agent"
>too broadly.

Let's see, he gets paid by central authorities, for working on centrally-
authorized projects, and he supports more projects being done by
centralized authorities.  Did you have a different idea about what gov
agents do?   I'm not aware of a dress code or anyhting like that :-)

>>He has a right to say what he wants, as a citizen.  He does not have a
>>right to say what he wants, as a gov agent.

>And just when is he doing these different things?  What criteria are
>you using?

He's a gov agent, supporting things that would be good for his 'business'.
It's legal, but immoral, since his 'business' depends on 'collecting'
taxes from citizen, who, BTW, might not support the things done with
the money they earned.  If he was advocating, say, better nutritional
standards for public schools, there wouldn't be a conflict, since he
doesn't get a benefit from better standards that we are denied.  Also,
we could express opinions on the same subject, knowing we had the
same impact.  In this case, he would be speaking as a citizen, not as
someone that would guarantee a paycheck with my taxes and support.

A conflict of interests doesn't exist unless there is a personal interest
in question, like, for instance, Dennis' work for gov.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\     Inhale to the Chief!
[e-mail]  | 336-9591 (hm)\\  Zonker Harris in 1996!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1993 20:18:04 GMT
From: "Eric H. Taylor" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gravity waves, was: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Van Flandern) writes:
>[e-mail] (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>> [e-mail] (Bruce Scott) writes:
>>> "Existence" is undefined unless it is synonymous with "observable" in
>>> physics.
>> [crb] Dong ....  Dong ....  Dong ....  Do I hear the death-knell of
>> string theory?
>
>     I agree.  You can add "dark matter" and quarks and a lot of other
>unobservable, purely theoretical constructs in physics to that list,
>including the omni-present "black holes."
>
>     Will Bruce argue that their existence can be inferred from theory
>alone?  Then what about my original criticism, when I said "Curvature
>can only exist relative to something non-curved"?  Bruce replied:
>"'Existence' is undefined unless it is synonymous with 'observable' in
>physics.  We cannot observe more than the four dimensions we know about."
>At the moment I don't see a way to defend that statement and the
>existence of these unobservable phenomena simultaneously.  -|Tom|-

"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have
no properties."
"Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the
space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved,
is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I,
for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view." - Nikola Tesla

----
 ET  "Tesla was 100 years ahead of his time. Perhaps now his time comes."
----

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

Date: 28 Mar 93 19:53:09 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Luddites in space
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

[e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>Have you ever seen me (or anyone else here, for that matter, no matter
>how 'pro-man in space' they are) do anything like "insist that the
>vast bulk of NASA funds should be devoted to [my] products while
                        ^^^^^^^^^
My original quote said "astronaut projects" here -- and I was
specifically referring to STS and SSF.

>Halley flyby, CRAF, etc. are cancelled and other planetary projects
>are gorssly misdesigned to fit on astronaut carrying launchers or are
>delayed"?

I've seen that be NASA's policy for the last 18 years, with plenty
of people cheering them on.  NASA still devotes twenty times as
much of its budget to astronaut programs as it does planetary science:
about $6 billion : $300 million not counting ground infrastructure,
overhead, etc. for each.  Do you object to turning that around?  Spending
$6 billion per year on planetary science and $300 million a year on
astronauts?  If so, why?  As usual, Luddites don't care about the
costs; they just blindly lobby for their own bizarrely expensive
astronaut projects at the expense of everybody else, including in
the long term the astronauts and their own hopes for travelling
into space.

>Have you ever seen me (or anyone else here, for that matter, no matter
>how 'pro-man in space' they are) do anything like "rail against the
>'failures of AI'"?

Herman Rubin et. al. have just given us splendid examples of this -- all
sorts of bashing about how "machines can't be intelligent" without
any discussion of economics or specific technological problems, and
totally ignoring the fact that every single cost-effective commercial
and military application in space is 100% automated.

So your flames, and those of Rubin et. al, have illustrated better
than I ever could what I am talking about: who are the Luddites,
where they are coming from and what they are all about, what a
destructive effect they have had and continue to have on NASA, and
its ability to foster U.S. industrial competiveness in aerospace and
in general.  You've helped me demonstrate it in spades; I very much
wish it could be otherwise.


--
Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 28 Mar 93 19:07:57 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Manned vs. Unmanned

Fred sez, responding to Nick Szabo;
>Has it *EVER* occurred to you to try to justify the things you think
>are good ideas without trying to trash everything else in the process?
>That just shows how intellectually bankrupt you yourself must think
>your position is, since you obviously don't think it can compete for
>funds based on its own merits.

But don't you see, Fred, the thing that's stopping space exploration is
not NASA incompetence, or arguments over manned vs. unmanned, or
why some qualities get funding while others don't.  The problem is the
situation as it exists now, with the majority of space exploration
being entrusted to gov agents, who have to 'compete for funds' rather
than tecnicians and accountants who must 'compete for customers', also
known as 'earning funds.'   Blaming someone for being a part of the
process, who BTW, is as much a part as you, won't solve the fundamental
lack that you and I see.

When you say 'compete for funds', that begs the question "Who decides?"
Whoever it is, they have shown a marked lack of ability at sticking to
criteria that boil down to 'what furthers space exploaration' or 'whats
good for people that want to explore space', criteria that the market
would impose, since the people in the market would want those things.

If anyhting, arguing about the details of the current situation only helps
others ignore the primary problem to be solved, making you as much a part
of the problem as you percieve Nick to be, since you are acting the smoke
screen.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\     Inhale to the Chief!
[e-mail]  | 336-9591 (hm)\\  Zonker Harris in 1996!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sun, 28 Mar 93 20:31:28 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nasa's budget, was what happened to CRAF?

>|>JPL had kept their end of the bargain, Congress did not.  But I don't really
>|>blame Congress for all this.  I blame the budgetary process.  I does not

>|OK, so the bottom line is, congress caused CRAF/Cassini's budget to go up,
>|after which, congress decided it was too expensive.  Typical, I'd agree,
>|but is there any way to change this situation in the context of a gov agency?

>The way NASA can lock in government funding is to  go for secure
>multi-year procurements.   But that means that NASA has to do a
>better job defining requirements and controlling contractors.
>THis weeks AW&ST  talks about  Goldin's new plan to retract incentive bonuses
>if the project goes south.  Also the COngress held hearings on
>Why NASA programs run way off budget.  Sure congress hits them
>in the kisser,  but NASA mis-management puts them on their knees
>first.   Witness Shuttle Toilet,  the Advanced Turbo-pump program,
>MO,  HST.....

To beat a dead horse... maybe the technical difficulties exist because
the people doing the design aren't held accountable.  Not in the "I won't
see flak for misdesigns" sense, but in the "Good enough for gov work" sense,
or, more specifically, "These guys only have one supplier, so we won't
lose the job of running shuttle and building freedom because of it."

And isn't the justification for NASA's (mis)management the fact that they
are accountable to Congress?  If so, it seems that Congress' problems with
the effects of management and managements problems with the influence of
Congress are intractable.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\     Inhale to the Chief!
[e-mail]  | 336-9591 (hm)\\  Zonker Harris in 1996!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1993 21:17:31 GMT
From: "Robert J. Niland" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Omnimax
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

[e-mail] writes:

: Anyone know exact Internet address of Imax? Have tried [e-mail].

imax.imax.com

One the employees there is a regular reader of rec.video.

Regards,                                            1001-A East Harmony Road
Bob Niland                                          Suite 503
Internet:  [e-mail]                              Fort Collins CO 80525
CompuServe: 71044,2124                              [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 28 Mar 93 21:07:51 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: People in space

Nick sez;
>>I'm not very impressed by the old so-called "prospecting" work from
>>LPI, it has almost all been geared towards industrially silly processes on
>>the moon as an excuse to put astronauts there.   [...]

Fred replies;
>Translation:  It doesn't support the Nick Szabo Vision of the Future
>to Which You MUST Subscribe.  It wants to do silly things like put
>*people* in space, and on the moon yet, of all places.  And most
>importantly to Nick, it seems, it doesn't give work to JPL.

Fred, we're all supporting what each of us thinks should be done, to some
degree.  If you have a problem with what Nick thinks should be done,
address it, instead of just complaining about his doing so.  Not only
do you do the same thing on the net (honestly reporting your ideas
on matters of policy and projects in space), but your response was just
baiting, not even part of a debate.

I'm not convinced that people are necessary in all parts of every space-
based process, and your response doesn't tell me a thing about the
reasons why you think they should be, except to impune the motives of
the person with a divergent opinion.

If you have a problem with Nick's delivery, address that.  The way you
bait, you're perpetuating the lack of discourse that you complain of.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\     Inhale to the Chief!
[e-mail]  | 336-9591 (hm)\\  Zonker Harris in 1996!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 27 Mar 93 20:40:26 MST
From: Andrew Folkins <cuenews!andrew>
Subject: Pioneer Venus Last Findings
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>
>EVIDENCE POINTS TO OCEANS, LIGHTNING ON EARLY VENUS
>
>25 and 75 feet deep (762 and 2286 centimeters).
>
>80 miles (129 kilometers) above Venus' surface, it found evidence for
>
>The data also show that at Pioneer's lowest altitude 80 miles (129 kilometers)
>
>In its final orbits, Pioneer penetrated 7 miles (11 kilometers)
>
>time - at 87 miles (139 kilometers).
>85 miles (136 kilometers),
>structures (1-60 miles in size (1.6-96 kilometers).
>
>Pioneer provided data from 80 to 210 miles (129 to 336 kilometers)
>(transition from oxygen to carbon dioxide) at 80 miles (129 kilometers).  Below
>85 miles (136 kilometers), it identified various waves and a 4-day oscillation
>of Venus' atmosphere top.  The neutral atmosphere above 185 miles (296
>kilometers) was more than 10 times denser and 2120 F (1,000 degrees Celsius)
>hotter than thought.

Maybe we should send the PR crew back to Introductory Physics and teach them
about significant digits, or at least take their calculators away...

--
  Andrew Folkins  [e-mail]
  ...!cs.ualberta.ca!adec23!ve6mgs!cuenews!andrew

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

Date: 28 Mar 93 19:59:30 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Plans, absence therof
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Charles J. Divine) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes:
>>You are ignoring a conflict of interest, though.  Since Wingo works for the
>>people that collect my money, his voice will carry further than mine.

>Have you any proof of this statement?

Charles Divine, _you_ are proof of his statement.  You've used your
position and resources at NASA for at least the last two years to
lobby for SSF et. al. via "NSS alerts". A clear conflict of interest,
but you are far too deeply buried in a corrupt system to even recognize
it.


--
Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 28 Mar 93 21:56:31 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Robots, intelligence, and luddites :-)

H. Rubin said;
>>>Robots can be used for operations requiring little intelligence;

I said
>>This is circular.  The definition of intelligence has historically
>>been upgraded to mean "whatever computers can't do." ...

Shari Brooks responds;
>In this context, intelligence is the ability to analyse an unfamiliar
>situation and make a decision...

Sounds like a decent working defenition, but still not a reason to discount
the use of robots in space.  If the situation is that unfamiliar, then
robot probes are a good, safe, cost-effective way to get familiar with
it.  Once we are familiar with it, then robots can be programmed for
some basic responses, increasing their usefullness in said situation.
So I still think robots are the way to do what we currently want to do,
and shouldn't be judged outright as incapable of doing what we expect
to do in the future.

>>>AI is highly overrated, and the so-called "intelligent" programs
>>>just carry out a massive number of pre-programmed operations so
>>>as to get results by brute force.

>>That sounds darn similar to the way most humans behave.  Brute force
>>or not, what do you want besides a correct answer in reasonable time?

>In space, if we want "intelligent computers" they will have to deal
>with unanticipated situations and make decisions without human input
>that will enable them to minimize spacecraft damage and still achieve
>their mission goals.  Hopefully as time passes the mission goals will
>be more than the obtaining of information.

Ah, but that's the rub.  Right now, the mission goals are all about
obtaining information, and little else.  How can one speak of the current
limitations of AI, in the context of using it for missions that won't occur
for decades or so?  Seems a little premature.

>It is unreasonable to assume that we can predict all situations and
>program a robot accordingly.  We couldn't even get Dante to do it
>without leaving the Earth's surface.  I am always amazed that Viking
>didn't encounter more problems.

Likewise, it would be unreasonable to entrust a hugely expensive project
and/or craft to human control, without some kind of knowledge of the
situation.  Once we have some knowledge, the question is risk/benefit
of using robots, not whether they have any value at all.  Some situations
will have no need for robots, but you seem to be saying that no
situations will.

>I didn't quote the rest of the post...but I am mostly talking about
>using robot in dynamic situations such as asteroid mining, which has
>been discussed extensively in the past.

Yeah, me too, but there are several things we need before asteroid mining
is a serious idea, not least of which is finding out what they are
made of, or how easy it is to land on one.  Robots excel at these tasks,
as Voyager, Viking, et. al. show.  Also, by the time we learn these
preliminary things, who knows what AI will be cabable of?  The way things
are progressing, the timescale is one of decades or more.  For asteroid
mining, and AI.

It is for these reasons that I take issue with the 'luddite' discounting
of the current or future value of robots in space.

Herman had said (paraphrasing)  "Unless we are simply gathering info"  So,
to be fair, he didn't discount their value, but understated it.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\     Inhale to the Chief!
[e-mail]  | 336-9591 (hm)\\  Zonker Harris in 1996!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 26 Mar 93 18:21:16 GMT
From: Ralph Buttigieg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Station Freedom Redesign
Newsgroups: sci.space

Original to: [e-mail]
Hello [e-mail]!

23 Mar 01 21:28, [e-mail] wrote to All:

 kue> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida), via Kralizec 3:713/602


 kue> So, why don't we just make SSF in the shape and design for an
 kue> interplanetary spacecraft.  I mean why do we need to make one design
for
 kue> LEO and another for long-duration flight to Mars?  Why can't we just
make
 kue> the space station into something which could be mated to a propulsion


I have had similar thoughts for some time. Put two of Zurbin's Mars Direct
habitats into LEO. Connect with a cable, spin them. This should give you the
neccessary life science research for a Mars Mission.

ta

Ralph

--- GoldED 2.41
 * Origin: VULCAN'S WORLD - Sydney Australia [phone]  3:713/6
(3:713/635)

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

Date: 28 Mar 93 20:34:36 GMT
From: Tom A Baker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Speculation: the extension of TCP/IP and DNS into large light lag enviroments
Newsgroups: alt.internet.services,sci.space

In article <1p44gc$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Robinson) writes:
>Tom A Baker ([e-mail]) wrote:
>
>: 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.

I wrote the above knowing it looks wierd.  I apologize.

But consider some recent papers I read and included in a paper on
satellite communications.  (I dug out the paper, but the reference I
collected got cut from the thing, damn.  The likeliest one is at the end
of this.)

The reason why a cable (guided transmittion) is better than a beam (unguided
transmission) is the efficiency you get, once the medium is in place.
Not only does this allow lower power, but if you use the same power, you
get higher rates.

Did you know that satellites pass traffic between each other?  These
"Inter-satellite links" (ISLs) can prevent an extra downlink-uplink when
passing a message halfway around the world.

Did you know that lasers are being studied as the media for future ISLs?
You probably did, considering the preceding discussions.

Okay, then it is proposed in a paper or two I used that some of the satellites
in GEO be linked with optical fibers.  Instead of beamed data, it could
be cabled.

  (Wait! you scream, far too expensive!  Well, it doesn't take a futurist
   to notice that prices on fiber are going down, prices on GEO bandwidth
   are up and up, and our ability to engineer in space is always waxing.)

Some months back, there was a thread on the science fiction "Ring Around
the World" in the Clarke Orbit that was possible.  This is opne of the
rationales for it.

---

So finally, if you get used to the idea of linking comsats with optical
fiber, maybe you'll see advantages to cables crossing interplanetary
gaps.  If it all looks too wierd, just say this is a "maybe" for the
year 4000, and forget about it.


Reference to try (this might be the abstract I perused);
 Franz, J. "Optical Communication in space." NTZ (German), June, 1991.

tombaker

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

Date: 28 Mar 1993 17:02:31 -0500
From: Daniel Drucker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Speculation: the extension of TCP/IP and DNS into large light lag enviroments
Newsgroups: alt.internet.services,sci.space

I'm not sure that is true in a vacuum. And if it is,
i'm sure that the power consumption is a much easier
matter to deal with than the prospect of stringing fibers
across millions of miles, between objects moving at thousands
of kilometers per hour, and with the danger of foreign objects.

Not to mention if two interconnected nodes were opposite each
other or near opposite, bringing the fiber into the sun...
distances change, you know.


--
Daniel Drucker   N2SXX          | [e-mail]
Forever, forever, my Coda.      | [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 00:49:21 GMT
From: Greg Nikolic <[e-mail]>
Subject: Speculation: the extension of TCP/IP and DNS into large light lag enviroments
Newsgroups: alt.internet.services,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (M. Sean Bennett) writes:
>The Moon, Mars, etc. are "claimed for all mankind".

     They probably said that about the New World, too.
--
     "Please allow me to introduce myself.               SYMPATHY
      I'm a man of wealth and taste.                   FOR THE DEVIL
      I've been around for long, long years.            the Laibach
      Stolen many a man's soul, and faith."               remixes

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

Date: 29 Mar 1993 01:10:55 GMT
From: Paul Eric Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Status of U.S./Soviet Cooperation
Newsgroups: sci.space

I have a question that has been on my mind lately. With all the
concern about the Soviets losing their brightest and best to possible
third-world nuclear powers and with everyone bitching about NASA, it
seems beyond belief that we have not undertaken a greater form of
cooperation with the former Soviets to exploit the peaceful uses of
space. What gives? Are there still holdovers of the Reagan golden age
who believe that any form of cooperation is to be discouraged? If so,
it is so ridiculous that this is holding us back now. Does anyone on
the net know of FAQ's and other sources that might explain this
situation? As a so called taxpaying citizen, I would like to know
who some of the major footdraggers are and pen off a few letters.

It is my impression that it is absolutely criminal that we are not
taking advantage of the obvious economic advantages to the U.S. of
contracting out many of our space services to the former Soviets, and
that we are blowing a major chance to establish a permanent infra-
structure for peaceful, manned exploration of space. Again, I am not
an expert at all, but would definately like to know who some of the
key players are in congress who determine these issues.

I am blowing off steam, I know, but this is really puzzling!

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


          id aa27929; 28 Mar 93 15:55:30 EST
To: [e-mail]
Xref: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:59600 sci.astro:33696 sci.physics:50441
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!munnari.oz.au!newsroom.utas.edu.au!news
From: "Kym M. Hill" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Want info on professional CCD's
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: ccd
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Tasmania
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1993 16:25:51 GMT
Lines: 18
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

I would be interested in any information on professional CCD systems.  We are
looking to purchase one for our 1m telescope.  general characteristics would
be ~12mmx12mm or larger in size,  Q.E of ~50% or larger, operating temp of
-50 deg. C or cooler.
Has anyone used the Cryocam (T5 in particular) or SpectraSource HPC-1 systems
as we are thinking of getting one of these systems.  Are there any other
systems that we should consider that cost <$18,000.

Thanks in advance
Kym Hill
E-mail [e-mail]


--
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Kym M. Hill               |                                |  _--_|\  |
|  Department of Mathematics |--------------------------------| /      \ |
|  University of Tasmania    |            E-Mail:             | \_.--._/ |

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 382
------------------------------