Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Fri, 19 Aug 88 04:07:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 19 Aug 88 04:05:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Fri, 19 Aug 88 04:05:04 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05395; Fri, 19 Aug 88 01:05:17 PDT id AA05395; Fri, 19 Aug 88 01:05:17 PDT Date: Fri, 19 Aug 88 01:05:17 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8808190805.AA05395@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #330 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 330 Today's Topics: Re: Skintight suit reference Re: Satellites Series E stamps Re: skintight suits Re: Satellites Exploitation/Exploration of Seabed, Space ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Aug 88 05:32:06 GMT From: umigw!umbio!pglask@handies.ucar.edu (Peter Glaskowsky) Subject: Re: Skintight suit reference in article , kr0u+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Kevin William Ryan) says: > > I posted this once before, but in brief: > > NASA Report CR-1892, "Development of a Space Activity Suit", by James > Annis and Paul Webb. > [...] > Ask your nearby congresscritter to send it to you - that's how I got mine. Any indication how they handled the tender parts? If the suit is porous, I'd expect that areas too complex for actual skin contact would probably have to be covered with something air-tight (plastic briefs, socks, ?) in order to protect them from exposure to vacuum. That doesn't sound too comfortable. > The preceeding reference comes courtesy of J. E. Pournelle, from the > Summer 1980 (Vol. 2, No. 3) _Destinies_, now a defunct publication. Pity... "Far Frontiers" followed "Destinies" into defunctitude, but "New Destinies", which came along within the past year, seems to be doing well. . png | Sysop, the John Galt Line TBBS. 305-235-1645. | pglask%umbio.miami.edu@umigw.miami.edu ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 88 13:15:37 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: Satellites From article <62689@sun.uucp>, by fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix): [ satellite list amended to add other ones I can remember...] AMS "Luna" 1/2/59 USSR Solar orbit, missed moon, called Luna-1 now. : Pioneer 4 3/3/59 US solar orbit : Pioneer 5 3/11/60 US " " : Venera 1 2/12/61 USSR : Ranger 3 1/26/62 US (missed moon...) : Ranger 5 10/18/62 US (missed moon...) Mariner 2 Late 62, US, flew past Venus : Mars 1 11/1/62 USSR (lost earth lock 65.9M miles) Luna-4 4/63 USSR (missed moon, perturbed into solar orbit) Zond-1 Early 64,USSR failed Venus probe : Mariner 3 11/5/64 US (Mars flyby failed) : Mariner 4 11/28/64 US (mars flyby) : Zond 2 11/30/64 USSR (Mars probe) : Luna 6 6/8/65 USSR (Lunar soft lander missed moon) Zond-3 7/65 USSR lunar flyby/deep space system test,solar orb. : Venera 2 11/12/65 USSR (passed Venus, no data) Venera-3 11/65 USSR (hit Venus, no data) : Pioneer 6 12/16/65 US (still returning good data) : Pioneer 7 8/16/66 US (still active) Mariner 5 7?/67, US, Venus flyby Venera-4 ?/67 USSR, Venus atmosphere probe : Pioneer 8 12/13/67 US (died 1983?) Pioneer 9 ?/68 US (Solar orbit, flare monitoring) Venera-5, 1/69, USSR, Venus atmosphere probe Venera-6, 1/69, USSR, Venus atmosphere probe Mariner 6 2/69, US, Mars flyby Mariner 7 3/69, US, Mars flyby Venera-7, 8/70, USSR, Venus landing, survived 23 min Mars-2 5/71 USSR Mars orbit, lander hit surface Mars-3 5/71 USSR Mars orbit, lander survived 20 sec? Mariner 9 5/30/71, US, Mars orbital mapper (M-8 at bottom of Atlantic) Pioneer 10 3/72, US, Jupiter flyby, en route the heliopause Venera-8 ?/72, USSR, Venus landing Pioneer-Saturn 4?/73 US. Jupiter/Saturn, en route the stars.... (formerly Pioneer 11) : Mars 4 7/21/73 USSR (missed Mars orbit) : Mars 5 7/25/73 USSR (orbiting Mars) Mars 6 8/5/73 USSR (Mars lander crashed, bus in solar orbit) : Mars 7 7/21/73 USSR (Mars lander failed) Helios 1 12/74 FRG/US Solar approach to 0.3 AU : Venera 9 6/8/75 USSR (orbiting Venus) : Venera 10 6/14/75 USSR (orbiting Venus) Viking Orbiter1 8/20/75 US (orbiting Mars ) Mutch Memorial Station 8/20/75 US (Chryse Planitia, Mars) (was Viking Lander 1 ,renamed) : Viking Orbiter 2 10/9/75 US ( Mars orbit) Viking Lander 2 10/9/75 US Utopia Planitia, Mars : Helios 2 1/15/76 US [No, FRG(=West Germany)/US... solar approach to 0.29 AU) : Voyager 2 8/20/77 US (solar system escape, en route Neptune) : Voyager 1 9/5/77 US (likely solar system escapee) [Likely? What's going to stop it.. the famous Great Galactic Ghoul?] Pioneer Venus Orbiter 5/20/78 US (orbiting Venus, still active) Pioneer Venus Mulitprobe 8/8/78 US "(5 payloads hit Venus, rest solar)" No, bus hit Venus too, burnt up. : Venera 11 9/9/78 USSR (all but lander in solar orbit) : Venera 12 9/14/78 USSR ( ditto ) International Cometary Explorer 11/78 US; Was ISEE 3 in Earth-Sun L1 halo orbit; renamed 12/83 after lunar flyby, Comet Giacobini-Zinner flyby 9/85, now in solar orbit : Venera 13 10/30/81 USSR ( ditto ) : Venera 14 11/4/81 USSR ( ditto ) Venera 15 6/2/83 USSR Venus orbiter, radar mapper Venera 16 6/7/83 USSR Venus orbiter, radar mapper : Vega 1 12/15/84 USSR (Venus/Halley mission) : Vega 2 12/21/84 USSR ( " ) : Sakigake 1/7/85 Japan ( Halley mission) : Giotto 2/7/85 ESA ( " ) : Suisei 9/18/85 Japan ( " ) Fobos-1 7/88 USSR en route Mars/Phobos Fobos-2 7/88 USSR en route Mars/Phobos Sundry Saturn final stages from the Apollo program, and also the spaceship Snoopy (Apollo 10 LM ascent stage) were discarded after use into solar orbit. Other very distant Earth-orbiting satellites have likely been gravitationally perturbed by the Moon and Sun into solar orbit; such satellites are too distant to be tracked after their transmitters fail. - Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Subject: Series E stamps Date: Wed, 10 Aug 88 13:07:46 EDT From: Sheri L Smith _ALL_ series E stamps (and there have been many) are printed with no price on them (i.e. 25 or $1.00 etc.) and for that reason (according to my local postal agent) are limited to domestic usage only...not even APO or FPO. They are used during the interim periods when postal rates increase, and there are insufficient stocks of the new stamps available. Non-denominational stamps are printed up well in advance, and they merely assign a price to them at the time they are made available to the public in lieu of the "new" stamps of higher prices. (I suppose they could also be used in the event of a postal rate DECREASE, but view it unlikely...) Sheri ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Aug 88 18:42:09 EDT From: John Roberts Subject: Re: skintight suits It seems to me that while there has been much discussion of the concept of the skintight spacesuit, several items of information have been left out that could be very important to the ultimate usefulness of the design. * Kevin Ryan summarizes an article by Jerry Pournelle, based on NASA Report CR-1892, describing tests of the suit. It is stated that the pressure is maintained at 170mm Hg for the central part of the body (matching the pressure of the breathing air), dropping to 100-120mm at the extremities, the difference being maintained by a gasket. This could be interpreted to mean that gas is normally present between the extremities and the fabric of the suit at this pressure, but I interpret it to mean that this is the pressure exerted by the fabric against the skin, with vacuum outside the skin. There is a considerable difference between the implications of these two interpretations. The fabric can support the skin overall, but not on a microscopic basis. At the microscopic level, the skin, rather than being a continuous sheet of dead tissue, is full of pores, and the pores contain important living, wet cells exposed to the outside pressure. At body temperature, the partial pressure of water is ~50mm, meaning that if the ambient pressure falls below this point, rapid boiling of water at and for a short distance below the surface will begin. It seems highly unlikely that these living cells could be directly exposed to vacuum without a considerable number being killed. * Henry Spencer states that the suit has been tested and it works. The problem lies in the interpretation of the word "works". The loosest interpretation is that "the test subject, exposed to these conditions for an unspecified period of time, did not split open and gush blood, and survived the experiment without any observed permanent damage". I would like to know about the results of long-term exposure, which I suspect would at least cause the skin to become dry and brittle, and might kill the hair follicles, oil and sweat glands. It would be very inconvenient to use the suit six hours a day for three weeks and then have your skin fall off. * Paul Deitz describes gloves designed with holes to expose the skin to vacuum. However, the gloves were tested only in a *partial* vacuum, which for the reasons stated above I do not feel to be a valid test of performance in absolute vacuum. The overall structural integrity and pressure differential effects may be the same, but the small-scale effects of water loss and damage from boiling and evaporative cooling will be different. Was the skintight suit tested in full or partial vacuum? * Dale Amon speculates that the inhabitants of a space station might want to wear skintight suits all the time as a safety precaution. However, when the suit is worn with ambient atmospheric pressure, the ambient pressure and the elastic pressure of the suit are *added*. Assuming something can be done to alleviate breathing difficulties, the problem remains that the the pressure exerted on the extremities is comparable to the systolic blood pressure. Since this is the technique used in a blood pressure test to cut off the flow of blood to a limb entirely, I consider it very likely that the suit worn indoors would significantly interfere with the normal functioning of the circulatory system. This might or might not be a problem for a person "suiting up" to go outside, but I doubt that it would be a good idea for these suits to be worn all the time indoors. (What is the "tightness" of the Soviet indoor suits?) If any of these arguments are invalid, I would particularly apreciate a reply from someone who has had access to the original documents. (Note: I may have misunderstood the description of the skintight suit, or the description may have been overgeneralized.) John Roberts roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 88 19:44:01 GMT From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com (Steve Hix) Subject: Re: Satellites In article <1049@cfa237.cfa250.harvard.edu>, mcdowell@cfa250.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes: > From article <62689@sun.uucp>, by fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix): > [ satellite list amended to add other ones I can remember...] > > : Voyager 1 9/5/77 US (likely solar system escapee) > [Likely? What's going to stop it.. the famous Great Galactic Ghoul?] Maybe it'll run into a rock? Something similar happened to at least one deepspace probe a while ago. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Aug 88 18:54:37 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov (MacLeod) Subject: Exploitation/Exploration of Seabed, Space fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV (Fred Baube) writes: :There's not really anything fundamentally wrong or evil about the :economic development/exploitation regime established by the Law :of the Sea Treaty ("UNCLOS 3"). And because the legal statuses :of the Antarctic and outer space are much less well-defined, :similar criticism about either is premature. Presumably rational men can disagree about this. I think it sets a poisonous precedent. :UNCLOS 3 does not tell private interests they are forbidden to :exploit the seabed. It's mainly the legalistic aspects of UNCLOS :3 as a treaty instrument that have kept the US from ratifying it; :among other things, it seems to leave signatories vulnerable to :an open-ended amendment process. This hasn't stopped the US from :taking advantage of transit rights codified by the treaty, but it :*has* inhibited private parties from leaping into the legal limbo :of seabed development. It's not a big problem for the US and the :OECD, because placer deposits and crusts that fall within the US :EEZ are turning out to be much better economic bets than seabed :nodules, and the Soviet Union and South Africa have not (yet) :moved to exploit OECD import vulnerability in manganese, cobalt, :or any other metal found in marine deposits. Check OTA reports :for details. I don't doubt that the US government is pursuing some kind of cynical, expedient course of action. :Roughly speaking, an entity (such as a US company) wishing to :develop a seabed tract is to give its survey results, and a list :of pairs of tracts, to the "International Seabed Authority" :(ISA), which gets its choice of the better of each pair of :tracts, and use on its tract (the ISA's) of the same technology :available to the company on its (the company's) tract. The :notion is REJECTED that a monopoly on economical technology shall :imply a monopoly on exploitation of the "common heritage". How :*else* can the ISA be expected to exploit a plot and develop a :distributable surplus value ? Why must those who develope the technology share it with others? How else indeed? Like any other "mixed economy" proposition, the developed countries gain nothing from the situation, except a fragile guarantee that the third-world savages won't club them to death for mining the sea. :The US objects to the treaty's :tech transfer provisions, but they are objections to the specific :implementation set forth in the treaty, and not to the principle :involved. To the USA's shame, if true. :UNCLOS 3's seabed provisions are not absolute prohibitions on :development or developers, they're novel (and as yet untried) :mechanisms Try "protection racket". :to try to ensure that everyone (in the UN) gets a :piece of the pie. A company is not denied the fruits of its :developmental abilities, it is denied absolute property rights. You can say that again. :Property rights and developmental rights are a creature of gov- :ernment, and there's no government in the seabed, or Antarctica, :or space, neeneennR (.a.a.vede, disa disa be a95@d d/E3/63 iug 88 itsucidatm Suhase th fhe phe ph/1/1/rep51515han /1//1//AU/78 ficnlr VUAt o,ultspaceituRecet f Fo,) : V) : V))a>a>a20/7ed abpipippigw/9/gy here ith nth nttReries gV8V8V, andt vt vthn st+q0SR Vpspsposemans on and cEDT y'y'yspeciut ts07(PPPsssdisig4s//afse666{G6i44gggrigss 1 1 ed eʳs)٧arrrrr0CY(->(CY(zXXzssfff f999k+)fGGGdGi4<<<d<.eeeUUUUZVkkk-[[[^^^:::GG995 8 * JJJGG95^^^Cu^٧9kk(zs8 8Z 5Cж333 3a rrrugrόό2.eώR)f֩9uguGG9ώ 9ВZ95[ [>zzz^^ rIR)444sWuguugu338 u>yyyTTTTWugu[u[[O|||777 ge s)sg""" FFFDDD33DDD9111)R>>>>>>>>es>FreugFLD'L9DI@ܝ L9DI555ٵ) 0. ^-v))9 I))FrF444 4L''''''C^999hR?|@@@Ru333eeebl@@@@@ҲƄCF Ld sIIIesdi99)F s4OL LD55Lyy}FF (|8FF} Ύ]jYc (ҒD'4)RS} }}9)FƂ4F} j} j?|ƂƂ@@@)R44447 Pڬ87id 395 PD3I زȷIIT ƄIies@@@gov@88|859)C⯝gba3.g44΅u333sk3O+99Is:sksskssFFel@@@@@9)o@agsdYOF>222ag2 Eau3, itesu#Ŭ8)44}4T99ep} } wI@e (Ғ------҆9)8-} 44 }''3955iT)R0)R0)l|s|s|ite|395iI<<i} QFs. I4eI@su@} j44ȷ9)Exps䤨䤨D'