Re: Carl Sagan, we need your help [Off topic]
Greetings all, Last night I read Dwayne Day's article and felt saddened. I wrote a piece as a counter argument. I have submitted it to The Space Review and time will tell if it gets published. I have included it below for those who may be interested. While it is not a scientific critique in any way, it is a reflection of what, in my opinion, is the true legacy of Sagan. Comments, critiques, etc. may now be leveled. Joe L. --- Never Gone So Long As We Remember Carl Sagan was a great scientist and philosopher. He will be remembered for bringing science to the masses and explaining in simple terms those things which seemed so complex. But the lamenting for days gone by is to ignore the gift that we were given by this man of wisdom. We do not need Carl Sagan now for he is still with us - he is with those who are willing to listen. What made Carl so great is that he did not speak to our minds, he touched our hearts. He gave each of us a beautiful and dreamlike picture of a universe. A universe so vast and complex that it dwarfs our thinking. Our minds are easily overwhelmed by its riches. But, our hearts can hold many things: Love, fear, joy, sorrow and many other 'feelings' that the mind cannot on its own comprehend. Carl spoke in what best described as 'sonnets of science', but what he did was touch us in a way that transcended the mind. It is in this that he was a great man. What is shameful is how we waste the gift he gave us - how we talk in statistics and big words. When we talk to the public we get the nod 'yes' when we ask if they understand, but their faces have the distinct look of 'what?' written upon them. They surrender to the complexities of the issues because the have not had their hearts spoken to. What IS the big deal about water on Mars? We don't talk about the significance, only the fact. There is no 'what if' for the imagination to grab hold of. We dont tell a story or inspire them to dream. We fail them and ourselves in this undertaking. The sad part for all of us in the science community is that we were given a gift and we choose to ignore it. If instead of spouting statistics, we took a moment and felt around for that little voice, that piece of Carl that rattles around inside us, and then slowly and carefully spoke with the objective of touching someone, we could inspire the public with the tales of wonderment and creation that is our interstellar home. Carl Sagan is right where he needs to be. He lives on inside each of us as a voice that speaks volumes to the void of space. He planted a seed, but it is us who must nurture it and grow it so that it can place seeds within the imagination of others and continue to flourish. Carl doesn't need to come back to us - he never left. Dwayne Day writes: I also have a somewhat wistful article on how the space community could really use another Carl Sagan: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/192/1 Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio? I have written a response to this one. Here's a first draft for review. http://www.idiom.com/~turner/thenextdoctorstarstuff.html Not sure where I'll take this - maybe nowhere. Comments appreciated. -michael turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
The tether thing (for the first time?) (was Re: The gun thing again [Off Topic])
I've wondered if you couldn't cancel a lot of a Europa penetrator's acceleration by making it a counterweight to a rotating tether orbiting very close to Europa. A probe could orbit very close - Europa's atmosphere is mostly oxygen that (by one estimate) collides with other oxygen molecules only about 3 times on average before escaping. With atmospheres like this, who needs vacuum? For the sake of simplicity, consider what might be involved in dropping a probe straight down from a low altitude. Europa surface acceleration due to gravity: 1.3 m/s^2 Counteracting centripetal acceleration achieved at 1.57e+06 m from Europa center of gravity (= Europa radius plus a few km) would be at orbital velocity given by the equation a = v^2/r solving for v: v = sqrt (ra) = sqrt (1.3 m/s^2 * 1.57e+06 m) or let's about 1.5 km/s orbital speed, winging just barely above Europa's surface features. So the question is: could a tether hold, with a tip speed of 1.5 km/s? Well, flywheel tip speeds are currently in the neighborhood of 1 km/s, and that's without fullerene weaves. If they crack the fullerene fiber problem, another order of magnitude of tensile strength might emerge. One problem with this approach: the tether, having released the penetrator probe, will go flying wildly off somewhere. If, however, a counterweight incorporates an ion drive powered by flying through Jupiter's magnetic field, maybe it could retrieve itself and be reused somehow. -michael turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Gary McMurtry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 1:30 PM Subject: RE: The gun thing again [Off Topic] A EUROPA penetrator probe will have to survive 20,000 G on impact. Most Mars and Moon probes need only to survive about 2000 G, because there they can use rockets to brake the fall (larger payloads). We've tested a mass spectrometer to 1200 G. They tell me the electronics is not a problem at 2000 G. I think 20,000 G is more of a challenge, but then, I don't know if it is or not. There are folks doing 20,000 G experiments. Maybe you've seen some results on TV over the past year. Gary Greetings Sir, Some comments on your post At 02:28 PM 4/8/04 -0500, you wrote: One of the problems I encountered was how do you build circuitry to survive the launch. The forces involved will destroy most electronics as they are now built. Solids state is not very solid after 15x gravitational forces. Actually, this is probably not a major problem. Gerald Bull put electronics in shells he launched back in the 1960's. Just packed them with sand in his shells. JPL sent two penetrator probes into Mars. The probes did not work, but evidence suggests that it was problems with the battery supply (i.e. the battery couldn't survive the long cold and still function) and not the electronics. Also, combat UAV's can pull (I believe) more that 15g's and they survive just fine. Crash Black boxes in Indy cars routinely survive probably 50-100 G's in crashs (for extremely short periods of time). So the electronics will survive. Comments? Joe L. Thanx, Gordon == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Recall: The gun thing again [Off Topic]
Reeve, Jack W. would like to recall the message, The gun thing again [Off Topic]. == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
RE: The gun thing again [Off Topic]
Gentle fellow proto-technophiles and sundry sophisticated simians, There are a lot of y'all who know a lot more about flight path manipulation, orbital physics and whatnot than do I. However, I do know more than a little about drilling holes in the earth. So let's look at a few things. To drill a fairly large diameter hole and line it with a fairly stout steel barrel is neither cheap nor expensive. The costs increase exponentially with depth, but not wildly. I think that a barrel ID of about 750 mm would fit well into current drilling technologies, based upon drilling a 915 mm hole, running a liner with a wall thickness of about 45 mm, then cementing it in place with a high density cement sheath. Query #1: To what depth should the gun hole be drilled? To drill a 1000 m hole is easy; 2000 m also easily doable. 3000 + starts getting tricky and tricky means a sudden jump in money. Would a 1000 m gun be optimal? 2000 m? Y'all tell me. Following a bit of reading, I think that conventional explosive propellants won't work, but that sequenced hydrogen/oxygen ignition will. You lower a tool into the gun barrel. Its function is to mill a row of holes into the side of the barrel. I envision that these holes would be about 150 mm in diameter and about 350 mm deep. The machine would then chamfer the hole and cut threads in the metal part of the hole. Into each of these holes would be threaded a steel cylinder, a receptacle, closed on the outer end, open on the end toward the gun barrel. They are fuel ports. They each hold an ampoule of hydrogen /or oxygen. It is likely that the spacing and number of these fuel ports would be designed to optimize acceleration, so I sort of see them as progressively closer together as you near the surface/muzzle. So, you lower your projectile with its own little explosive initiator beneath it down into the bottom of the gun. Then you lower the fuelling machine and fill each of the fuel ports above the projectile, all the way up to the top. Note that as the fuelling machine is pulled up the gun on its fuelling mission, it is also leaving a vacuum beneath it through sealing itself on the inner bore with a series of simple external O-rings. Upon removal of the fuelling machine, a diaphragm is placed over the muzzle to preserve the vacuum and the count-down begins. A radio signal starts and confirms the initiator charge firing sequence. Upon firing the initiator, the projectile is on its way, camming the fuel ampoules back into their receptacles and rupturing them, sending high pressure hydrogen/oxygen into the barrel as the projectile passes. Since the muzzle is at 14000 ft altitude on an equatorial mountain, around a 1/4 of the atmosphere's interfering molecules won't contribute to heating or drag. Query #2: Some portion of the projectiles cargo would be fuel for orbital correction into a GS orbit. How much? Y'all tell me. I'm thinking that even 40% of the volume of a 6 m long projectile is still nearly 0.9 m3, or about 30 ft3. That's a lot of stuff. Some people were asking about costs. Again I can only address things drilling related, so guesses on the fuel port milling tool is a bit of a wild card. That said I have seen what the oilfield drilling industry has developed and I do have a bit of a handle on those costs. My guesses: Drilling 2000 m of 915 mm hole with very tight deviation control $ 50,000,000 840 mm OD, 45 mm wall thickness, high strength steel liner 9,000,000 Cementing operations and materials 3,000,000 Road access, drilling ops base 5,000,000 Fuel port milling device 20,000,000 Fuel port milling ops 20,000,000 Fuel port loading machine 20,000,000 Surface facilities, hoists, equipment (no launch control center) 100,000,000 40% error 90,000,000 Total Empty Gun, Ready to Load, Privately Contracted 317,000,000 Total Empty Gun, Ready to Load, Gov Built 2,000,000,000 By the way, the one thing I love most about this idea is its heritage. It's a muzzle loader. I think you could put a big inflatable space station up, with food, fuel and water, with 50 shots. Hope y'all don't mind, but I'm actually from Canada; I just live in Texas and like saying y'all. Jack W. Reeve -Original Message- From: Gary McMurtry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday 16 April 2004 23:30 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: The gun thing again [Off Topic] A EUROPA penetrator probe will have to survive 20,000 G on impact. Most Mars and Moon probes need only to survive about 2000 G, because there they can use rockets to brake the fall (larger payloads). We've tested a mass spectrometer to 1200 G. They tell me the electronics is not a problem at 2000 G. I think 20,000 G is more of a challenge, but then, I don't know if it is or not. There are folks doing 20,000 G experiments. Maybe you've seen some results on TV over the past year. Gary Greetings Sir
RE: The gun thing again [Off Topic]
Greetings Sir, Some comments on your post At 02:28 PM 4/8/04 -0500, you wrote: One of the problems I encountered was how do you build circuitry to survive the launch. The forces involved will destroy most electronics as they are now built. Solids state is not very solid after 15x gravitational forces. Actually, this is probably not a major problem. Gerald Bull put electronics in shells he launched back in the 1960's. Just packed them with sand in his shells. JPL sent two penetrator probes into Mars. The probes did not work, but evidence suggests that it was problems with the battery supply (i.e. the battery couldn't survive the long cold and still function) and not the electronics. Also, combat UAV's can pull (I believe) more that 15g's and they survive just fine. Crash Black boxes in Indy cars routinely survive probably 50-100 G's in crashs (for extremely short periods of time). So the electronics will survive. Comments? Joe L. Thanx, Gordon == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
RE: The gun thing again [Off Topic]
One of the problems I encountered was how do you build circuitry to survive the launch. The forces involved will destroy most electronics as they are now built. Solids state is not very solid after 15x gravitational forces. I probably sound negative, but the only way to prove it is to build one (even a small one) and see what happens. Pulling this back to the topic (sort of), would building a gun of this type on the moon facilitate the launching of deep space probes? We would eliminate the atmospheric issues and most of the acceleration issues too. Comments? Joe L. Most August Simians, Interestingly, (from a standpoint of trying to avoid the waste of fuel-eating trajectory corrections) GS orbits need not be circular. Even with a circular orbit, it still appears doable via a Hohmann transfer. Equatorial mountain candidates for drilling the gun boreholes include Chimborazo in Ecuador at 20,700, Kenya's Mt Kenya at 17000 + and another in Sumatra at 12400 +. An example of the non-linear thinking which can be easily applied to the gun method is that with many cargoes, the entire projectile could be deep frozen (Say in liquid N or He) prior to launch, thereby extending the heat tolerance. I was of course backward with the orientation - the bore hole would actually be pointed a little eastward. GS (circular) orbital velocity is about 3440 mph, eastward, so there is a little delta V (about 1400 mph) to make up. Some portion of this would come from the vectored rocket firing in the Hohmann transfer maneuver. Jack -Original Message- From: Michael Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday 08 April 2004 11:48 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The gun thing again Joe Latrell writes: Having done some experiments in gun launching (nothing to orbit mind you) there are a lot of factors involved that make it very unattractive. Heat is a really big issue. I've read papers that suggest a dead-mass burden of about 15% for ablative shielding. I.e., in the same ballpark as reentry capsules. No showstopper, at least for the optimist. Launching from higher altitudes definitely helps, since even 14,000 feet gets you above over 25% of the atmosphere. However, the geosync inflatable station is a great idea. Using a transhab type design, you can launch a really big space station with only a few launches, assemble it (self assembly?) and then get to work building probes to wherever you want to send them. Engineering inflatables for gun launch is an interesting idea. There may be some kinks in it (as it were), but it seems ideal for solving many construction problems. If you perfected rendezvous, one approach that I think would be kinda cool is: 1. launch an inflatable 2. inflate it 3. launch another 4. rendezvous at some orifice 5. inflate the new one *inside* the current one (vent residual gas to a pressure tank, and reuse the gas for future inflation) 6. repeat from 3 until you have enough layers for whatever purpose desired. This is nice because it means you can build structures of considerable mass within small payload limitations, and because it's fault tolerant -- blow a launch or miss a rendezvous, and the relative cheapness of gun launch (amortized over many launches, anyway) means just planning for a few more launches than the absolute minimum. To Jack's questions: Sundry clever primates around the world Having met me recently, Jack, you know just how ridged a brow and prognathous a jaw you're dealing with, in talking to me. (Thanks for the back-shaving tips, by the way. ;-) OK, OK, I know. The gun thing won't work for orbital delivery of stuff to build Europan probes because one can't shave the big bump off of the resultant wobbling orbit ... or +- something like that. The big bump? If you mean that it starts out very elliptical, shaving the big bumps (which I'm better at now; my back isn't as red and sore as it used to be) amounts to circularizing the orbit. If you launch enough fuel into the same orbit as the original projectile, you can use it to circularize the orbit at perigee pretty efficiently, or even just head right on out of Earth orbit, I would think. (Joe? You're the guy who most recently did the orbital dynamics stuff, right?) However if one were to cant the trajectory of an equatorial gun back a little to the west, a projectile could be delivered which would die into a geosynchronous orbit. Granted, you'd only get one shot per gun per day, but at say a ton per shot ... Um. Hm. I did some rough calculations a while back, looking at shooting straight up and using the Earth's rotation as free vector, and I remember coming up with an orbit out past the moon. But you're proposing something else, I realize. Still, I don't think you can get GEO without a burn, no matter what. Everything I've looked at suggests that you
RE: The gun thing again [Off Topic]
One or our firm's product sets is electronic sensing tools for oil well drilling. These tools must tolerate tremendous heat, pressure and rather high acceleration loads. They are continually making headway. To withstand the rigors of a gun launch (remember too that my version of the gun is 4 kilometers in length so g's are maybe not quite as high as in whatever model you are quoting), my simple answer is to embed all electrics in some sort of liquid-turned-solid epoxy material. If encased in a rigid solid, they have nowhere to go. Also, my thinking on the gun has it delivering stuff that is not so delicate - liquids, gasses, structural materials, connectors, inflatables, solid fuels, rolled sheet metals, etc. Really delicate components could be sent by STS or rockets. Re the lunar gun, a very interesting idea. I have spoken a little to oil industry people about drilling the boreholes for the guns and the steel casing to line it. They generally see it as completely feasible in the here and now - just a question of $. Jack -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday 08 April 2004 14:29 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: The gun thing again [Off Topic] One of the problems I encountered was how do you build circuitry to survive the launch. The forces involved will destroy most electronics as they are now built. Solids state is not very solid after 15x gravitational forces. I probably sound negative, but the only way to prove it is to build one (even a small one) and see what happens. Pulling this back to the topic (sort of), would building a gun of this type on the moon facilitate the launching of deep space probes? We would eliminate the atmospheric issues and most of the acceleration issues too. Comments? Joe L. Most August Simians, Interestingly, (from a standpoint of trying to avoid the waste of fuel-eating trajectory corrections) GS orbits need not be circular. Even with a circular orbit, it still appears doable via a Hohmann transfer. Equatorial mountain candidates for drilling the gun boreholes include Chimborazo in Ecuador at 20,700, Kenya's Mt Kenya at 17000 + and another in Sumatra at 12400 +. An example of the non-linear thinking which can be easily applied to the gun method is that with many cargoes, the entire projectile could be deep frozen (Say in liquid N or He) prior to launch, thereby extending the heat tolerance. I was of course backward with the orientation - the bore hole would actually be pointed a little eastward. GS (circular) orbital velocity is about 3440 mph, eastward, so there is a little delta V (about 1400 mph) to make up. Some portion of this would come from the vectored rocket firing in the Hohmann transfer maneuver. Jack -Original Message- From: Michael Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday 08 April 2004 11:48 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The gun thing again Joe Latrell writes: Having done some experiments in gun launching (nothing to orbit mind you) there are a lot of factors involved that make it very unattractive. Heat is a really big issue. I've read papers that suggest a dead-mass burden of about 15% for ablative shielding. I.e., in the same ballpark as reentry capsules. No showstopper, at least for the optimist. Launching from higher altitudes definitely helps, since even 14,000 feet gets you above over 25% of the atmosphere. However, the geosync inflatable station is a great idea. Using a transhab type design, you can launch a really big space station with only a few launches, assemble it (self assembly?) and then get to work building probes to wherever you want to send them. Engineering inflatables for gun launch is an interesting idea. There may be some kinks in it (as it were), but it seems ideal for solving many construction problems. If you perfected rendezvous, one approach that I think would be kinda cool is: 1. launch an inflatable 2. inflate it 3. launch another 4. rendezvous at some orifice 5. inflate the new one *inside* the current one (vent residual gas to a pressure tank, and reuse the gas for future inflation) 6. repeat from 3 until you have enough layers for whatever purpose desired. This is nice because it means you can build structures of considerable mass within small payload limitations, and because it's fault tolerant -- blow a launch or miss a rendezvous, and the relative cheapness of gun launch (amortized over many launches, anyway) means just planning for a few more launches than the absolute minimum. To Jack's questions: Sundry clever primates around the world Having met me recently, Jack, you know just how ridged a brow and prognathous a jaw you're dealing with, in talking to me. (Thanks for the back-shaving tips, by the way. ;-) OK, OK, I know. The gun thing won't work for orbital
RE: The gun thing again [Off Topic]
Jack, Do you have a paper on this proposal and a guess as to how much it will cost? Joe L. One or our firm's product sets is electronic sensing tools for oil well drilling. These tools must tolerate tremendous heat, pressure and rather high acceleration loads. They are continually making headway. To withstand the rigors of a gun launch (remember too that my version of the gun is 4 kilometers in length so g's are maybe not quite as high as in whatever model you are quoting), my simple answer is to embed all electrics in some sort of liquid-turned-solid epoxy material. If encased in a rigid solid, they have nowhere to go. Also, my thinking on the gun has it delivering stuff that is not so delicate - liquids, gasses, structural materials, connectors, inflatables, solid fuels, rolled sheet metals, etc. Really delicate components could be sent by STS or rockets. Re the lunar gun, a very interesting idea. I have spoken a little to oil industry people about drilling the boreholes for the guns and the steel casing to line it. They generally see it as completely feasible in the here and now - just a question of $. Jack -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday 08 April 2004 14:29 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: The gun thing again [Off Topic] One of the problems I encountered was how do you build circuitry to survive the launch. The forces involved will destroy most electronics as they are now built. Solids state is not very solid after 15x gravitational forces. I probably sound negative, but the only way to prove it is to build one (even a small one) and see what happens. Pulling this back to the topic (sort of), would building a gun of this type on the moon facilitate the launching of deep space probes? We would eliminate the atmospheric issues and most of the acceleration issues too. Comments? Joe L. Most August Simians, Interestingly, (from a standpoint of trying to avoid the waste of fuel-eating trajectory corrections) GS orbits need not be circular. Even with a circular orbit, it still appears doable via a Hohmann transfer. Equatorial mountain candidates for drilling the gun boreholes include Chimborazo in Ecuador at 20,700, Kenya's Mt Kenya at 17000 + and another in Sumatra at 12400 +. An example of the non-linear thinking which can be easily applied to the gun method is that with many cargoes, the entire projectile could be deep frozen (Say in liquid N or He) prior to launch, thereby extending the heat tolerance. I was of course backward with the orientation - the bore hole would actually be pointed a little eastward. GS (circular) orbital velocity is about 3440 mph, eastward, so there is a little delta V (about 1400 mph) to make up. Some portion of this would come from the vectored rocket firing in the Hohmann transfer maneuver. Jack -Original Message- From: Michael Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday 08 April 2004 11:48 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The gun thing again Joe Latrell writes: Having done some experiments in gun launching (nothing to orbit mind you) there are a lot of factors involved that make it very unattractive. Heat is a really big issue. I've read papers that suggest a dead-mass burden of about 15% for ablative shielding. I.e., in the same ballpark as reentry capsules. No showstopper, at least for the optimist. Launching from higher altitudes definitely helps, since even 14,000 feet gets you above over 25% of the atmosphere. However, the geosync inflatable station is a great idea. Using a transhab type design, you can launch a really big space station with only a few launches, assemble it (self assembly?) and then get to work building probes to wherever you want to send them. Engineering inflatables for gun launch is an interesting idea. There may be some kinks in it (as it were), but it seems ideal for solving many construction problems. If you perfected rendezvous, one approach that I think would be kinda cool is: 1. launch an inflatable 2. inflate it 3. launch another 4. rendezvous at some orifice 5. inflate the new one *inside* the current one (vent residual gas to a pressure tank, and reuse the gas for future inflation) 6. repeat from 3 until you have enough layers for whatever purpose desired. This is nice because it means you can build structures of considerable mass within small payload limitations, and because it's fault tolerant -- blow a launch or miss a rendezvous, and the relative cheapness of gun launch (amortized over many launches, anyway) means just planning for a few more launches than the absolute minimum. To Jack's questions: Sundry clever primates around the world Having met me recently, Jack, you know just how ridged a brow and prognathous a jaw you're dealing with, in talking to me. (Thanks
Re: The gun thing again [Off Topic]
One of the problems I encountered was how do you build circuitry to survive the launch. The forces involved will destroy most electronics as they are now built. Solids state is not very solid after 15x gravitational forces. As they are now built - for what? They've built nuclear explosives into artillery shells, and those devices require carefully-timed electronics. Artillery shells often have proximity fuzes. There's a lot you can do, and people have been doing it, for a long time. I probably sound negative, but the only way to prove it is to build one (even a small one) and see what happens. They have been built, and they have seen what happens. You can build things to take far more than 15g. Drop your watch onto a concrete floor. Keeps on ticking. Compute the likely acceleration it experienced on impact. You'll be amazed. (You probably don't have to compute it - it's probably written on the box it came in.) Gerald Bull found that wooden sabots work just fine. He also found that immersing a liquid fuel rocket in water inside the cancels almost all of the forces that you'd think would crush it. Intuitively, gun launch to space fails the intuition test. So much the worse for intuition. Do the math. Pulling this back to the topic (sort of), would building a gun of this type on the moon facilitate the launching of deep space probes? We would eliminate the atmospheric issues and most of the acceleration issues too. Anything that reduces launch cost dramatically facilitates almost anything you might want to do in space. Once you can get a lot of stuff up there cheaply, many problems go away. Launching living things is the one payload category that seems off the boards, though I wouldn't be surprised if you could launch frozen ova, seeds, spores, and microbiology that ecosystems depend on, with little trouble. Ditto for food ingredients. -michael turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: What's Next -- Off topic
Yes, thank you. The american government owns the shuttles under the direction of NASA. A large chunk of Shuttle opperations is run by United Space Alliance (USA) that is a joint project of Lockheed and Boeing. Does this help? Joe Latrell On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 21:37, Sandy Shutey wrote: Please tell me that people have some hope in private enterprise taking the reins and running with a manned space effort. Could you please tell me who actually owns the shuttles? I was under the impression that NASA sold them to a private enterprise several years ago. Thanks, == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: On/Off Topic
Here's a proposition to get you all thinking: What are the technical problems inherent in sending a zeppelin probe to Europa? Here's the proposition: The probe that eventually goes to Europa will have a significant fuel limit, and a nearly limitless amount of terrain to explore prior to choosing a site for dropping a submersible, if any. Why not send a small probe which uses a nuclear isotope to kick-start a process, wherein water ice is electrolyzed into constituent elements of hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen provides fuel, and the hydrogen is shunted into a gas bag of sufficient size to make the probe a zeppelin style survey probe. This creates a dual use craft. One, it would be able to land, and refuel. Two, it would potentially be able to shuttle between an actual orbital craft and the surface. Of course, it would also be able to relay transmissions well, and the reflective surface of the gas bag itself would make it easy to bounce signals off of, and be a large surface for receiving them as well (in essence, the entire surface of the bag is the antenna). What are the problems inherent in such a scheme? Well, someone will likely suggest that a zeppelin won't work, for one reason or another. Sure, it's vulnerable to flying micro-asteroids and the like. Explosions? Not in the nearly airless atmosphere of Europa. This ain't the Hindenburg. With a compartmentalized bag, and the capacity to simply pop another bag out, a zeppelin style probe could last for years, certainly long enough to do the work necessary. Of course, the bag could also be deflated during 'down periods', and reinflated at a later date. Oh, and did I mention that despite the lack of sexy glamour that everyone attributes to rockets, a zeppelin concept is CHEAP? Okay, gang, get back to your drawing boards. -- John Harlow Byrne (still crazy after all these years) == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
On/Off Topic
Since we seem to have so much trouble reining in those who have something to say about space exploration, how about this? Suppose we either just change the name of the group, or keep the name for its intended purpose and just stop worrying about what is discussed? A. This is a wonderfully diverse group with a sincere desire to foster efforts in getting off the planet, and B. There is actually very little to discuss productively about Europa, at least for the foreseeable future. I'd like to see the group continue because it's such a rich resource, and current events discussion could help keep the interest of the members up in the doldrum periods of Europa interest. Please be assured this is in no way a criticism of our site administrator--his is a thankless job at best, and we should all give him a big "Well Done!" for putting up with us for as long as he has. What thinkest thou? Gail Leatherwood
RE: On/Off Topic
There IS stuff going on regarding Europa (i.e., this new Prometheus Project), but people are so into flaming about Columbia that, unfortunately, no one seems interested in talking about Europa. (Ive tried.) One of the difficult things Ive had to learn about life is that people have different points of view. This doesnt necessarily mean they are ignorant, or evil, or even - wrong. Intelligent, well-informed, well-intentioned people can be presented with the same facts as me, and come to totally different conclusions. Whats worse, rarely will my arguments however well-reasoned convince them that I am right and they are wrong, nor are they likely to convince me. So Ive given up trying; I still enjoy the satisfaction of knowing, deep down inside, that I AM right! Having said that, I still believe that the shuttle was the best we could come up with at the time given the constraints of technology and budget, that the ISS (or something like it) is a necessary stepping stone to a permanent human presence in space, and the more wonderful unmanned exploration of the solar system gets, the more it whets my appetite for going there in person. I cant imagine anything as exciting as the thought of living in a spacefaring civilization. Maybe someday John Sheff Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Cambridge, MA 02138 Voice: 617-495-4671 Fax: 617-496-0193 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/
Re: On/Off Topic
I didn't mean to imply that the shuttle/station wasn't the best that could be done at the time, although some evidence to the contrary has been produced during this past week. We know that many decisions about the whole program, from the earliest responses to Sputnik to actual construction of the ISS and its mission definitions, were political, not technical or scientific. We HAVE learned a lot, but my thesis is becoming that we've "been there, done that, let's move on to the next stage." Let's not put any more resources into something that is aged and unproductive; something that is preventing other avenues of exploration. Gail - Original Message - From: John Sheff To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 8:43 PM Subject: RE: On/Off Topic There IS stuff going on regarding Europa (i.e., this new Prometheus Project), but people are so into flaming about Columbia that, unfortunately, no one seems interested in talking about Europa. (Ive tried.) One of the difficult things Ive had to learn about life is that people have different points of view. This doesnt necessarily mean they are ignorant, or evil, or even - wrong. Intelligent, well-informed, well-intentioned people can be presented with the same facts as me, and come to totally different conclusions. Whats worse, rarely will my arguments however well-reasoned convince them that I am right and they are wrong, nor are they likely to convince me. So Ive given up trying; I still enjoy the satisfaction of knowing, deep down inside, that I AM right! Having said that, I still believe that the shuttle was the best we could come up with at the time given the constraints of technology and budget, that the ISS (or something like it) is a necessary stepping stone to a permanent human presence in space, and the more wonderful unmanned exploration of the solar system gets, the more it whets my appetite for going there in person. I cant imagine anything as exciting as the thought of living in a spacefaring civilization. Maybe someday John Sheff Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Cambridge, MA 02138 Voice: 617-495-4671 Fax: 617-496-0193 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/
