The latest selections from the SPACE.com mailbag…

Daniel Sorid's article "When Cows Fly: The Artist's Vision" milked this question from a reader.

To the Editor:

Andrew Bridges' article "To Seed the Heavens with Life: Panspermia In Reverse" sprouted this response.

To the Editor:

I was greatly concerned about the "space seed" article you ran [on May 8]. The article addressed the idea of sending freeze-dried organisms to young developing planets in nearby solar systems in an effort to perpetuate life from our planet.

While I think the likelihood of this happening is small, the idea is irresponsible. As you are aware ecosystems are very fragile. Indeed, we have (both accidentally and intentionally) introduced foreign life forms to segregated environments with disastrous effects to the native wildlife. As an example, the Great Lakes were introduced to parasitic eels that came in on oceangoing ships and have severely limited the native fish population.

Seeding a young planet with "harmless, single-cell organisms" could have a parasitic effect on the early native life forms & destroy the natural course of life development on these new planets.

Additionally, I think it's important to note that I am not an "environmental extremist." My opinion is that if we want our children to have a safe, clean environment tomorrow, we need to be good stewards of the land (and space) today.

Tony Galluzzo
Beaverton, Oregon

Tim Brown's opinion piece "What We Learned Over Area 51" discussed recent satellite imagery of the secret military base. A reader comments.

To the Editor:

A few years ago one of the mass-media science publications gave us good images of Area 51, the nonexistent military base. They didn't take the photos nor did they procure them from within the U.S. establishment. The images were taken by a U.S.S.R. spy satellite and released for U.S. publication.

It is an insult to the American public to have information released to us by our political adversaries and begs the question, "Why aren't we informed about what we pay for?" at least when it becomes open knowledge in the rest of the world.

Richard L. Skinner

Alonzo Fyfe's opinion piece "Space Property Claims Risk Backlash" sparked new debate over space property rights. A reader in Belgium adds a comment.

To the Editor:

I feel like making a comment on the article concerning the appropriation of outer-space territories (even though the word 'territories' is not appropriate in the given context). I find problems understanding the rationale of discussions concerning the appropriation of outer-space territories as the international legislation (Outer Space Treaty) is clear concerning such claims by any states and/or private entities.

Outer space is not (it is our governments that have decided so) open to appropriation. Furthermore, there would be no international court able to decide upon any conflicting issues.

It reminds me of the anecdote of the person that bought a territory on the moon...such transaction appeared to be as smart as paying a PI to investigate upon the existence of the Red Smurf.

Dimitri Nicolaides
Belgium

A reader weighs in on Mars.

To the Editor:

I think it is our duty to our own curiosity, technological glory and for humanity as a whole that we explore and eventually establish some form of permanent habitation on Mars. Mars, at the moment, is the most applicable and worthwhile place to establish such a habitation. We would need to bring few materials to sustain ourselves on Mars if we took advantage of the abundant resources already available on the planet. We should not allow budgetary debate and useless quibbling to prevent such ventures. Whenever someone tells me otherwise, I respond saying that the Europeans never needed to settle America, they could have survived and gotten along just fine, but they took a risk and a chance, and look where we are now.

Andrew Barisser

Michael Paine's article "Saturn 5 Blueprints Safely In Storage" brought this response.

To the Editor:

It's good to see the same productive thinking that brought the space program to its current sad state on full display once more in your piece, "Saturn 5 Documents Safely In Storage" (13 March 2000).

Even though the Saturn blueprints still exist, both a NASA and a Rotary Rocket Co. official warn that, because so many parts used to build the Saturn 5 are no longer produced, it would be easier to start over "with a clean slate" than re-create the giant booster.

What errant nonsense.

I doubt anyone would want to rebuild a Saturn 5 exactly identical to the grand originals, except as a museum re-creation; and we don't need any of those, since NASA kindly provided a number of once-flight-ready specimens for display as lawn ornaments many years ago.

But by using modern parts and processes where appropriate, and incorporating them into a revised version of the existing design, it seems to me enhanced versions of the Saturn 5 could be fairly readily constructed. Sure, lots of new pieces of hardware would have to be manufactured. Big deal! Lots of new hardware, right down to the nut-and-bolt level, is manufactured all the time, whenever big, new engineering projects with special requirements are contemplated. For that matter, lots of hardware had to be specially manufactured the first time around, when the Saturn 5 was originally built.

As for problems in converting the VAB [Vehicle Assembly Building] and the Complex 39 pads -- well, originally they were converted from being designed for the Saturn to shuttle use. It's hard to believe retrofitting would be that tough. And because the shuttle never came within a country mile of the original plans for a flight a week -- which would have required both pads in full operation -- I'm sure it could get by with one pad, not two.

In fact, with Saturn 5s available to put big payloads like ISS [International Space Station] components into orbit in 100-ton lots, we'd probably need even fewer shuttle launches than the current rather anemic launch schedule. And since per-pound-payload costs are cheaper for the Saturn 5 than the shuttle, we'd save money.

To summarize: By starting with the Saturn blueprints, at least we'd know the goal we want to reach. Starting with a clean slate, as the officials you quote suggest, what we're going to end up with is years -- maybe decades -- of engineering studies, all of them extremely lucrative to the NASA and industry consultants involved, and of very little use in putting 100 tons of payload into earth orbit. We've been down this road before with the ISS.

The real question is what is the desired end result -- LEO [low Earth orbit] access or pork barrel? Personally, I'd chose the former.

David Stover
Oakville, Ontario, Canada