[CONTACT]

[ABOUT]

[POLICY]

[ADVERTISE]

Aucbvax.fa.spaceutzoo!decvax!

Found at: gopher.quux.org:70/Archives/usenet-a-news/FA.space/81.10.10_ucbvax.4349_fa.space.txt

Aucbvax.4349
fa.space
utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!space
Sat Oct 10 04:16:05 1981
SPACE Digest V2 #10
>From OTA@SU-AI Sat Oct 10 04:06:23 1981
SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 10
Today's Topics:
		      Vague wording of Lunar treaty
			 Costs of SPS vs. fusion
			      Budget cutting
			   Soviet space effort
				Catch-22 
			       Energy & SPS
			      Finite energy
			  SPS vs. Nuclear Power
			       comet => sun
			       Energy & SPS
			Bussard ramjet speed limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 9 October 1981 11:20-EDT
From: Stephen C. Hill <STEVEH MIT-MC AT>
Subject:  Vague wording of Lunar treaty
To: decvax!duke!unc!smb at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE-LOVERS at MIT-MC, POURNE at MIT-MC, ZEMON at MIT-MC
I have to deal with lawyers every day.  One of the things that
I have learned is that the more vague a contract (law, treaty,
etc.) is written, there is a direct correlation with the
difficulty in servicing it.  (God, what horrible
construction!!)  Vague is only good in policy statements, NOT
in contracts, etc.
                             Steve
------------------------------
Date:  9 Oct 1981 1034-CDT
From: Clyde Hoover <CC.CLYDE AT UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Costs of SPS vs. fusion
To: space at MIT-MC
	An SPS would be VERY expensive, but don't fool yourself about
fusion (if/when achieved) being cheap.  It is not unrealistic to expect
the early fusion power systems to be on a par of cost-effectiveness
and complexity of the early fission power reactors, at a much higher
capitialzation cost than equivilant fission power.
	Eventually, fusion may well become cheap, but for a long-term
investment, an SPS should more effective. (For one thing, the raw
material for an SPS is continually provided without cost of money
or delta-vee to get it into space).
-------
------------------------------
Date: 09 Oct 1981 0955-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW SU-AI AT>
Subject: Budget cutting
To:   space at MIT-MC  
I hear from some of the local L-5 people that Ronnie has seen fit to
subject NASA to the following plan of budget amputation:
FY82:  6% additional cut (as opposed to the 12% cut that was scheduled)
FY83:  a $1 billion dollar cut
FY84:  *another* $1 billion dollar cut
leaving NASA with an FY84 budget of about $3.5 billion.  This implies
cancellation of Galileo and dropping the option on the fourth orbiter.
It may even imply turning off Voyager 2 and missing the Uranus flyby.
Another interesting fact that appeared on a local PBS show a few days
ago (I don't remember the name but it was on KQED and had Ben Bova,
Eric Burgess, and Charles Petit (science writer for one of the local
San Francisco papers, and who made the following comments)).  Apparently
the NASA folk have taken to displaying pictures of the planned four
Shuttle orbiters with the middle two (Challenger and Atlantis, I think)
painted with Air Force insignia.  And remember, we stand an all too
good chance of losing the fourth (the other NASA) orbiter.
I am not reflexively opposed to the military presense in space, but
I am not particularly happy about it, either.  But a PURELY military
presense in space is intolerable.  And they are the only ones that
Ronnie isn't cutting.
------------------------------
Date: 9 Oct 1981 1141-PDT
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: Soviet space effort
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: space at MIT-AI
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3] 9-OCT-81 11:41:31.WMARTIN>
I have just finished a rather interesting history of the Russian
man-in-space effort by James Oberg, RED STAR IN ORBIT.  Recent
Space discussions mentioning Soviet efforts lead me to think that
this subject is topical and this book is a worthwhile source of
information.  I recommend it.
Will Martin
------------------------------
Date: 09 Oct 1981 1611-PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW SU-AI AT>
Subject: Catch-22 
To:   space at MIT-MC  
a062  0522  09 Oct 81
PM-Space Pavilion,420
Proxmire Says Space Agency Acted Improperly
By JAMES H. RUBIN
Associated Press Writer
    WASHINGTON (AP) - The space agency improperly solicited $5 million
from aerospace companies to set up a pavilion at the 1982 World's Fair
in Knoxville, Tenn., Sen. William Proxmire charged today.
    Proxmire said James Beggs, head of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, ''overstepped his mandate'' in seeking to
''promote industry participation in a commercial venture.''
    He said Beggs' actions appear to be ''a serious breach of the
arms-length relations which should exist between the federal
government and the firms with which it does business.''
    In a letter to Proxmire, D-Wis., Beggs replied that NASA was acting
as ''a neutral broker'' in plans for the space pavilion.
    Beggs acknowledged that he hosted two meetings for the aerospace
industry, inviting 40 major companies to his office last month to
discuss their sponsorship of the pavilion. But he denied that he
solicited any money.
    ''It was very clearly stated that while NASA supported the
(pavilion) concept in principle, it would take no part in solicitation
of support by individual companies or in suggesting the level of
support,'' Beggs said.
    Aerospace Daily, which disclosed Beggs' role in its Oct. 1 issue,
reported that the companies were urged to contribute specific amounts
to the pavilion. It was recommended, for example, that Rockwell
International pay $1 million, IBM $750,000 and Grumman Aerospace Corp.
$400,000, the magazine said.
    The trade publication quoted company officials anonymously as saying
they felt the government's role was coercive and ill-advised.
    A spokesman for Rockwell said he would not comment because the
officials familiar with the pavilion plans were not available.
    A spokeswoman for IBM, who requested her name not be used, said the
company did not feel any undue pressure but has not decided if it
will take part in the fair.
    Bob Harwood, a spokesman for Grumman, said ''we don't feel there was
undue pressure from the government. We have been contacted frequently
by the fair.'' He said that Grumman may contribute to the pavilion
but ''nowhere near'' the figure the fair managers suggested.
    Beggs said that, ''At no time was NASA consulted about the amount
nor are we aware today of the amount proposed to each company.''
    The telegram inviting the companies to the meeting in Beggs' office
said the firms should take part in the fair because it ''offers us an
unusually good and very timely opportunity to tell the American
public a positive story about the potential of space.''
    In response to a question from Proxmire, Beggs said that the only
cost to taxpayers from the meetings was $512 for the telegrams
inviting the companies.
    
ap-ny-10-09 0810EDT
***************
------------------------------
Date: 9 October 1981 19:43-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM MIT-MC AT>
Subject: Energy & SPS
To: DIETZ at USC-ECL
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC
Getting rid of heat in space manufacturing?  No problem.
We assume you're mining various raw materials from the moon and
other places and using them to make useful materials.
The moon has a lot of oxygen.  Probably a great surplus for
most manufacturing operations.  So you simply pump oxygen
around the place you want to cool and then dump the hot oxygen
into space. Of course, for things that don't want to be exposed
to oxygen, you use the same trick that nuclear power plants (which
don't want to be exposed to ocean saltwater) use, you use the oxygen
(a la seawater) to cool some working fluid that is in closed cycle,
and use this working fluid to cool your actual workstuff.
Discarding oxygen into space is probably cheaper than building
giant cooling fins and recirculating the oxygen thru the fins.
(Needed, an engineer to validate or refute my claim.)
------------------------------
Date: 9 October 1981 20:01-EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM MIT-MC AT>
Subject:  Finite energy
To: E.jeffc at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC
You apparently don't understand how SPS works.
We build giant solar colectors miles across, either to reflect
solar energy to a central boiler or other conversion unit,
or to collect and convert in situ such as by solar cells.
In either case, all this energy is channeled to a single location,
where it is beamed to where it is needed.  It's irrelevant that
the original radiant energy is disperse.  After SPS collects it,
it's concentrated and can be used for all sorts of energy-intensive
tasks, providing these tasks sit in space without moving a lot
relative to the SPS.  For things that move, such as spaceships,
we have to add another step, converting the raw materials and
the SPS energy into some type of fuel.
Why doesn't this same idea work on Earth? Because the Earth is
very small.  An object 10 miles wide and 10 miles long sitting
on the Earth collecting sunlight, isn't environmentally
acceptable.  If you put it in the saraha desert, you have to
protect it against sandblasting, and also figure out a way to
deliver the energy to the USA or other industrial places, you
can't beam it by microwave because it isn't line-of-sight.
But in space, where it's 225,000 miles to the moon
and 93,000,000 miles to the sun, there's immense empty space
in which to station these solar-collecting stations without
getting in anybody's way.  Also the liquid fuel you make for shapeships
doesn't have to be lifted up from Earth before it can be used,
because it's already in space if you make it there.
(Also the atmosphere blocks most of
solar energy, so SPS in space is more efficient. But that's
only a factor of about 2 so I saved that argument for last.
We're talking about a factor of 3 thousand million even if
we ignore that factor of 2.)
------------------------------
Date: 10 Oct 1981 00:21:25-PDT
From: menlo70!hao!woods at Berkeley
To: menlo70!ucbvax!space@Berkeley
Subject: SPS vs. Nuclear Power
   There are 2 problems with those people who think that nuclear power can
solve our energy needs (well, 3 actually). They are:
1) They label their opponents "radicals" or "lunatics", instead of what we are,
which is just ordinary people whose philosophy happens to be different. We
have what we consider just and valid reasons for opposing nuclear power, just
as you have what you consider valid reasons for supporting it.
2) They forget that nuclear power depends on uranium and other nuclear fuels,
which have the same problem as petroleum, i.e. they are a finite resource. 
What are we going to do when we run out of uranium in 200 years? Nuclear 
power can at best, postpone the finite resource problem a few years, but will
NOT solve it. We MUST develop renewable energy resources like solar power, and
extend our supply of finite resources through programs like space research for
energy development.
3) There still is not an acceptable solution to the waste problem, and it has
not been shown (at least not to my satisfaction) that there won't be a 
catastrophic accident someday. Look what almost happened at 3-mile island.
I suppose there will have to be a major accident before those who have invested
heavily in nuclear power (including the US government) will recognize the 
danger.
------------------------------
Date: 10 Oct 1981 0102-PDT
From: Stuart McLure Cracraft <MCLURE AT SRI-AI>
Subject: comet => sun
To: space at MIT-MC
!a016  2352  09 Oct 81
PM-Sun-Comet Collision,250
Comet Reported to Have Collided with Sun
    WASHINGTON (AP) - A comet collided violently with the sun two years
ago, spraying debris over millions of miles of the solar system, the
Naval Research Laboratory reports.
    The event, recorded by satellite instruments, is the first positive
evidence of a celestial body colliding with the sun, Dr. Donald J.
Michels, an NRL scientist, disclosed Friday. It also marks the first
time a comet has been discovered by a satellite.
    Michels said the collision, which occurred Aug. 30, 1979, was
recorded in a Naval Research Laboratory experiment SOLWIND, operating
aboard a Defense Department payload. Because of delays in release of
spacecraft data for analysis, the event was not discovered until
recently.
    Michels said the comet passed through SOLWIND's field of vision as
it streaked toward the sun and quickly disintegrated as it encountered
the blazing solar heat.
    ''We estimate that when the comet hit the sun, the energy released
was about one thousand times the energy used in the U.S. during an
entire year,'' Michels said.
    He said NRL researchers believe the comet may have come from a group
of comets dubbed ''sun-grazers'' whose orbital paths skim close to
the sun. He said about eight sun-grazers have been spotted by ground
observatories in the last 300 years, but that many more may have
escaped detection because of the difficulty of spotting them against
the bright solar background.
    ''For example, the comet detected by SOLWIND was not sighted from
the ground, even though its tail was brighter than Venus,'' Michels
said.
    
ap-ny-10-10 0236EDT
**********
-------
------------------------------
Date: 10 October 1981 05:59-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE MIT-MC AT>
Subject: Energy & SPS
To: DIETZ at USC-ECL
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC
Sigh.  (1) ) Military systems are not necessarily intended to be
useful after a war starts.  Detection and warning are useful
functions. ANYTHING in space is vulnerable to a sophisticated
attack. So is anything on the ground.
(2) In space you have only radiation, but you have an infinite
radiation reservoir that is effectively VERY cold. It takes
clever design to make use of it, but it can be done.
(3) OF COURSE SPS is risky, and few that I know advocate a full
program to build it.  However, SPS remains  a refutation to the
doomsters; it may be expensive, but it pretty well has to work;
and what's expensive?  It would cost considerably less than is
spent on booze.  If the alternative is the collapse of
civilization as claimed by MIT's Forester models and the Meadows
reports based on those models, then SPS is a fairly low-risk
low-cost system (given the alternative).
	But in fact SPS advocates want about $30 million
(million, not billion_) to study the concept and develp needed
technologies;  most sps technologies will be useful in just
about all phases of space activity.
	(4) Arthur Clarke called me today from Sri Lanka. To the
point is his dictum of a long time ago.  "If mankind is to
survive, then, except for a very brief moment in our history,
the word 'ship' will mean  'space ship.'"
------------------------------
Date: 10 October 1981 06:29-EDT
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE MIT-MC AT>
Subject: Bussard ramjet speed limit
To: decvax!utzoo!henry at UCB-C70
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC
Quite a number of things turn out to be less simple and a bit
harder than we thought.  Still, we have to try.
------------------------------
End of SPACE Digest
*******************
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
 of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/
This Usenet Oldnews Archive
article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:
1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.
2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:
The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996 
 Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.

NEW PAGES:

[ODDNUGGET]

[GOPHER]