Date: Tue, 12 Jul 88 03:27:40 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8807121027.AA12353@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #270

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 270

Today's Topics:
		 Re: comments/reply for SPACE_DIGEST
     Lithium Batteries (was Re: comments/reply for SPACE_DIGEST)
		      Re: satellite oceanography
		      Re: What's going on here?
		      Re: satellite oceanography
		       First start of ARIANE 4
			Re: Book Review wanted
		Re: A New Holiday? (awkward question)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 88 15:13:12 GMT
From: thumper!karn@faline.bellcore.com  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: comments/reply for SPACE_DIGEST

> >So, just what are Lithium batteries, and why would they be prohibited on
> >a space flight, when I am allowed to take one in my watch and mingle
> >around thousands of people in public places? Are they radioactive?  What
> >about a leak?
> 
> I'm no battery expert, but I have a feeling that for powering a satellite there
> might be a size or weight issue at stake here...

Yes, there is a size/weight issue, but it strongly favors lithium
batteries. That's why everybody wants to use them. The cell voltage is
about 3 volts (twice that of most primary batteries) and they put out
considerably more watt-hours/kilogram. This is inherent in lithium's
high electronegativity (i.e., it likes to release electrons) and its
small atomic number (which means you waste relatively little mass
carrying protons and neutrons, in contrast to other battery anodes like
zinc, cadmium and especially lead.)  Lithium batteries also have an
unusually long shelf life, which would be especially useful given the
long delays and slips a typical Shuttle payload encounters.

The reason NASA bans them from the shuttle is because they have been
known to explode when shorted.  They can usually tolerate a short
lasting a few seconds (typically 5), which is how they can be
wave-soldered to PC boards.  No, they are not radioactive.

Phil

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

Date: 9 Jun 88 21:15:59 GMT
From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Subject: Lithium Batteries (was Re: comments/reply for SPACE_DIGEST)

In article <1139@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R.
Karn) writes:
>Yes, there is a size/weight issue, but it strongly favors lithium
>batteries. That's why everybody wants to use them. The cell voltage is
>about 3 volts (twice that of most primary batteries) and they put out
>considerably more watt-hours/kilogram. This is inherent in lithium's
>high electronegativity (i.e., it likes to release electrons) [. . .]
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	You are correct in stating that lithium likes to release electrons,
but the term you want for this is "electropositivity" (it likes to acquire a
positive charge -- electronegativity refers to a tendency to acquire a
negative charge, and this occurs by *attracting* electrons, usually away from
other atoms).

>The reason NASA bans them from the shuttle is because they have been
>known to explode when shorted.  [. . .]

	Wouldn't it make more sense for NASA to just require that the lithium
batteries be kept inside a housing that will contain explosion fragments, and
that they not be kept in areas in which a breathable atmosphere must be
maintained?  Seems that if a battery exploded in the payload bay but the
fragments were contained within the housing of the thing holding the battery,
it shouldn't be able to do any harm.  Also, it seems to me that if any battery
was shorted for long enough it would explode or do something else nasty.  I
once made the mistake of carrying a battery in the same pocket with a bunch of
change and keys, and it shorted on this stuff.  Even though this battery was
only a battery to power a smoke detector and was nearly dead, it got quite
hot. . .

	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
	   lucius@tardis.harvard.edu	(in case the first one doesn't work)
	"Gunpowder hasn't been invented yet."
	"It hasn't?!?!?"
		. . .
	********!!!!!!!!!!BBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!********
	"Well, I could be wrong, you know. . . ."

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

Date: 7 Jun 88 18:51:04 GMT
From: aplcen!aplcomm!news@mimsy.umd.edu  (news)
Subject: Re: satellite oceanography

}
}Added note to the comment of the person who noted my sarcastic comment:
}NO, these types of radar systems are vastly different.  Go learn about radar.
From: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt)
Path: stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm

Allow me to clarify:  I am specifically interested with the altimeter radar
and ITS applications toward dynamic oceanography.

}There are numerous other technical reports which I do not recommend
}requesting that the net bug researchers unless they are grad students (or profs)
}interested in projects (like this fellow?).  It's really expensive to
}make copies of these

Yep.  Quit being a grad student a number of years ago.
Maybe again later....

}There are other useful instruments like the altimeter (or "How
}I know orbits are bumpy (not smooth) things."):

And other nice things to do with it!

}I have tons more, but it gives you the flavor what a space mission is about.

I have an idea as of the taste.  The geosat is run from here.

}I don't know all the reasons why Jim is trying to defend his not revealing
}sources.  I guess others are asking him for sources, too.  Good for YOU guys!
}I asked him for sources early on, he said no, and I left it at that.

What the hell are you talking about?  I have gotten nothing from anyone.
This is the first thing I have seen.  At the beginning of this message you
say :

}This machine (apl) is not accessible to me for some reason.  This is
}otherwise should be mail since it is not of general net interest.

Since you say you cannot get to me, I have the deep impression that
you are lying, for reasons unknown.  If someone wants sources,
Jack Calman is the head of a team evaluting real-time geosat altimeter
data applied to dynamic oceanography.  Larry Manzi & I are doing the
software & processing.  Harvard is incorporating the data into their
Ocean Model.  The US Navy is using it. Give us a call at APL.  If this is
an indication of JPL, you would be wasting you time to call there.
(301) 953-5000.  My extension is 4580.

}Note: at the time I had a direct audience with the Inspector General of
}NASA and can drop a very heavy hammer at the word GO.  I will still
}leave it at that.  If the man doesn't want to give specifics for fear of
}reprisal, then he does not have to tell us.  I have more important
}work to do.

Golly gee.  I'm really scared.  Woopie shit.
Feel better?

}I honestly wish a few of you guys would use a library.
}This guy (remember oceanography? like Alice) had a legit question.

Huh?

}If you want a copy of the above reports, and think you really deserve one,
}before you mail to JPL (don't bother mailing me), what significance
}is the year 1964 to space radar oceanography, what happened?  If you can answer
}this pass GO, and collect $200.

What makes you think:
1. I give a shit?
2. I really care what you think?

}Another gross generalization from
"Gross" is an excellent choice of terms.

}
}--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
What the HELL are you talking about?????


Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5  (James W. Meritt)

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

Date: 9 Jun 88 05:52:21 GMT
From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: Re: What's going on here?

Okay, I'll be straight for once.

In article <8806080443.AA29904@jade.berkeley.edu> FHD@TAMCBA.BITNET (H. Alan Montgomery) writes:
>Somewhere along here I have lost track of what we are trying to do. I
>thought maybe if I displayed my train of logic someone could show me
>where the flaw in my thinking is.

Don't worry, we don't know where we are going either ;-).

>First off, I am a task oriented person who is not very socially adept.

This is also a problem is NASA (the task oriented criticism): great for
one shot missions, not great for long-term research.  It's an
engineering approach, not a research approach.  NASA is also socially inept.
 ;-)

>I have noticed in this list and in the SIG on CompuServe and in
>the various space publications that there is alot of hopelessness out
>there. The dream of easy access to space in our lifetime seems to be
>drifting slowly but surely out of our reach. The response to this

CompuServe is not representative.
The hopelessness is largely found in computer jockeys who don't do much.
People in the aeronautics community can't be held back for instance.
To a degree you should ignore what the net says (take with a grain of salt,
including me [resident cynic]).

Note what is part of the problem can be thought about by considering the
volumes of energy it takes to orbit a human and his(her) supplies.  It's
like an expedition, to get a team high, you need intermediate camps
or caches, to place these takes more supplies (quadratic, not linear).
The types of energy we are talking (launching rockets) are usually
not placed in the hands of individuals (instanteous).  We are talking
lots of power.

>Right now the majority of America's corporations are owned by
>institutions (mutual funds, pension plans, insurance companies, etc.) who
>are risk averse. The money which could come from large corporations is
>just not there. Looking for Boeing or GM or Rockwell to move into space
>without government support is just wishful thinking. Any manager in
>today's economic environment who suggested a program which did not pay
>off in six months is looking to be unemployed.

The thing you need to realize is that these corporations are people.
People don't want to risk their money.  My father (died in Feb.)
couldn't see any reason for going into space.  Fortunately, this
generation is dying off.  There are world governments who only see
economic future in space, our's isn't quite one, this will chance,
you only have to be patient (computers, too fast response time).
The end users of satellite data: oceanographers, geologists, physicists,
etc. all understand it some times takes decades to build ships,
telescopes, accelerators, so shuttles aren't any different for them.

>deny us access to space on purpose. I doubt it though. I would believe
>in stupidity, short sightedness, and just plain ignorance before I
>would believe malice.

Ah! Good a realist! 8-)

>So what does all this mean. To me it means that the bickering and witch
>hunting have got to stop. It means that we have got to start looking to

Oh, very good!

>lower the capital risk to getting to space. It means that we cannot
>depend on THEM (whoever they are) to get us to space. Something has to
>done to make each step into space profitable. Not twenty years in the

Well, I can't vouch for profitability, yet.  6 months is too short
We have to start thinking of long term research goals, otherwise the
Japanese and others will pass us.  This is part of our (US == United
States) problem.

>future, but six months in the future. It means that we need to keep NASA
>plugging ahead, so that at least some door is open, some option
>available.
>
>As long as space has a greater than six month payoff, no non-astronaut
>is going to visit there. If you truely want to go to space, stop bitching
>about the people who are working toward the same goal you are, no matter
>how flawed you think they are, because they at least agree with you in
>principle.

Ditto above.

When I say, "Jump!"  Do you say "How high?"  It's a funny progressive
thing.  We need a lot of little launches.  Hans Mark has admitted space
was a "calculated gamble."  You probably would not have invest in the
Hudson Bay Company or Jamestown, but this is not a criticsm, the world
takes all kinds.  You were unlucky, I caught your note, next time I
will use the comand to "catch up reading news" and ignore more articles.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  just a mail man, . . . sent by post masters, . . . to deliver a bill.
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

Another dated refer BTW:

%A Atul Jain
%T Broad Perspectives in Radar for Ocean Measurements
%R TR 78-4
%I JPL, CIT
%C Pasadena, CA
%D Feb. 1978
%X Very old, note pre-Seasat.

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

Date: 10 Jun 88 00:13:21 GMT
From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: Re: satellite oceanography

Oh, James, so sorry!

I was summarizing 3 articles in that note after returning from vacation.
The "Jim" is Jim Bowery in San Diego who has been flaming of
recent, not you.  Wish mail would work.  I said mail is better in this
case.  My apologies.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

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

Date: 9 Jun 88 13:02:07 GMT
From: mcvax!esatst!neil@uunet.uu.net  (Neil Dixon)
Subject: First start of ARIANE 4

The first launch of ESA'a ARIANE 4 is now scheduled for 15 June. The launch
windows are:

	11:13 - 12:09 GMT
	13:32 - 14:46 GMT

For this first flight three payloads are carried:  ESA's meteorological
satellite METEOSAT P2, the radio amateur satellite AMSAT 111C, and the US
built satellite Pan American Satellite 1 (PAS 1).

The ARIANE 4 family will consist of 6 different types of launchers with
payload capacity ranging from 1.9 tons to 4.2 tons.
-- 
Neil Dixon <neil@yc.estec.nl> UUCP:...!mcvax!esatst!neil, BITNET: NDIXON@ESTEC
Thermal Control & Life Support Division (YC) 
European Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC),
Noordwijk, The Netherlands.

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

Date: 8 Jun 88 22:21:15 GMT
From: pacbell!att!mtunx!mtune!petsd!cjh@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Chris Henrich)
Subject: Re: Book Review wanted

In article <3057@polyslo.UUCP> jsalter@polyslo.UUCP (The Ag Major) writes:
>Has anyone read Stephen Hawking's new book?  I just saw it in our campus
>store (at a price a bit above my current available funds) and I am wondering
>about it's contents.  Specifically if it is written for the layman, the
>intelligent layman, or the intellectual.

Jeremy Bernstein reviews it in this week's New Yorker.  His review is
favorable - the book is written for the intelligent layman, and is
interesting to the specialist as well.  

Regards,
Chris
Full-Name:  Christopher J. Henrich

UUCP:       ...!rutgers!petsd!cjh            Phone:      (201) 758-7288
US Mail:    MS 322; Concurrent Computer Corporation;
            106 Apple St; Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
Concurrent Computer Corporation is a Perkin-Elmer company.

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

Date: 9 Jun 88 01:45:28 GMT
From: phoenix!amlovell@princeton.edu  (Anthony M Lovell)
Subject: Re: A New Holiday? (awkward question)

In article <3606@okstate.UUCP>, richard@a.cs.okstate.edu (Richard Brown) writes:
> postponed until the crew had rested, &c.  The "...giant leap for
> mankind" occurred after midnight.  I remember vividly that this

Actually, Armstrong botched his line (as he'd prepared it).
He MEANT to say
	"That's one small step for a man..
	One giant leap for a midget or small child!"


-- 
amlovell@phoenix.princeton.edu     ...since 1963.

disclaimer:
These are MY opinions.  You only WISH they were yours.

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

End of SPACE Digest V8 #270
*******************