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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.