Message-ID: <sY89I2y00UkZ03Tk4I@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 89 00:17:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #296

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 296

Today's Topics:
			 Soviet space program
		  Re: 1992 moon base - Teleoperation
			  CDSF Serendipity!
		  Re: E'Prime Aerospace Corporation
		  Re: E'Prime Aerospace Corporation
		    Re: Fusion ---  a Second Look
		    Re: Fusion ---  a Second Look
				Sanger
		     orbital dynamics & plotting
		 Re: Space station & stone-age units
		       Re: Black hole trolling
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 89 23:34:05 GMT
From: tramp!khaytsus@boulder.colorado.edu  (Max Khaytsus)
Subject: Soviet space program


 I am currently doing a project for one of my classes and would appreciate
getting some badly needed info.  (I assume this is the best place to post,
since there is no sci.ussr.space  :-)

 My project is on the history of Russian spaceflight and I have with plenty
of success researched the local libraries and goverment publications
offices and gathered information up through March 1986, but this leaves me
with a three year gap of information.

 Here's the information that I need:

 1) Soviet manned flights since Soyuz T-15a/MIR 1/Salyut-7 on 3/13/86.
    Names and significant acheivements would be nice too.

 2) Information on MIR 1 and whatever orbiting labs put up since then.

 3) Information of Salyut-7.  What happened to it?  At last note it was
    still a functional lab.  Were there more Salyut space stations later?

 4) Anything available on the statistics for the Soviet Shuttle, including
    a possible operation date.

 5) Any other big Soviet developments in space.

 I am unable to make my way to this group often, so a mailed responce would
be much better, but I will do my best to drop by here.  any help offered will
be greatly appreciated.  Thanks in advance.

                       Max

------------------------------------------
khaytsus@tramp.UUCP
khaytsus@tramp.Colorado.EDU
..!{ncar|nbires}!boulder!{tramp!}khaytsus

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

Date: 13 Mar 89 08:49:57 GMT
From: shelby!Portia!hanauma!joe@decwrl.dec.com  (Joe Dellinger)
Subject: Re: 1992 moon base - Teleoperation


	I remember reading an article describing how they train pilots
of Oil Tankers. They sit them in a very small very slow motor boat in
a small pond, and put HUGE delays on all the controls, like 30 seconds.
The article said that for a while the pilots would crash the boat against
the walls, etc, etc, but with a little practice they would learn to pilot
it exactly where they wanted to go without thinking.

	Your body gets by with the "huge" delays in our bizarre
electrical - chemical circuitry because the feedback loops can be
cut short in certain critical cases. If you start to burn your hand,
it jumps away from the heat literally before you have time to think
about it. You can, on the other hand, also override such reflexes by
conscious effort. Other more complicated things, like learning to shut
your eye when you hear a certain tone, can be "hardwired" into your lower
brain with a little practice. (Really!) Etc.

	Mammalian nerves carry signals faster than "more primitive"
life's did, and yet 100 foot long dinosaurs whose nervous system probably
took half a second to carry a signal from their hind feet to their
head and back evidently walked around on irregular terrain at respectable
speeds without tripping over their own feet.

	It seems to me that telepresence shouldn't be ruled out. We
just need to train people to get used to it, and learn enough robotics
to have some "reflexes" handled locally.
\    /\    /\    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________
 \  /  \  /  \  /Dept of Geophysics, Stanford University \/\/\.-.-....___
  \/    \/    \/Joe Dellinger joe@hanauma.stanford.edu  apple!hanauma!joe\/\.-._

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

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 89 07:51:21 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: CDSF Serendipity!

We've had unexpected success!

The House Armed Services Committee is willing to introduce a bill
allowing the Air Force to support a Commercially Developed Space 
Facility to allow research in microgravity materials processing of
the next generation of semiconductor materials.

Please send expressions of your support to the Hon. Mr. Dellums and the
Hon. Mr. Bates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

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

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 89 17:40:10 PST
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: E'Prime Aerospace Corporation

textbell!merch!cpe!hal6000!trsvax!reyn@bellcore.com writes:
>Just out of curiousity, how does a commercial firm get EXCLUSIVE rights to
>a technology developed for the U.S. Air Force?

That's the question I've been asking of quite a few people and I have
yet to get a clear answer.  If anyone knows how E'Prime Aerospace managed
to get exclusive rights to MX booster technology, please leave a message
on the net or to me in email.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: 619/295-8868
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

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

Date: 13 Mar 89 20:05:06 GMT
From: osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu!ryan-s@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (stephen)
Subject: Re: E'Prime Aerospace Corporation


  Does anybody have any opinions about which of the small launch companies
(E'Prime, OSC/Hercules, Space Services, Amroc, etc.) have any chance of 
commercial success?  In talking to their broker, it seems E'Prime is having
some difficulties (although I'm not sure what they are), while we have been
hearing some good things about OSC/Hercules and Space Services (i.e. that
they have some customers lineds up).  Any thoughts?

.Steve

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

Date: 13 Mar 89 20:08:13 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: Fusion ---  a Second Look

In article <15453@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
>Lawrence C Foard says:
>The big stumbling block in fusion energy has been instabilities in plasma
>confinement.  You try to compress a plasma in a magnetic bottle, and the
>plasma leaks through like it was made of cheesecloth.

Topology has a lot to do with plasma instability, for example,
Stellarators are very touchy, tokamaks less so and Spheromaks are
even ideally MHD STABLE!  Confinement suffers if the plasma energy
is increased (i.e. heated --as by absorbing power from particle
beams, RF, etc ) without also correspondingly increasing the energy
density (pressure) of the confining magnetic field.  The latter is
accomplished in adiabatic toroidal compression.

>This is the main problem with achieving pure fusion energy.  The pressures
>and densities which are required are so high, they are beyond technology
>for the foreseeable future (some people involved in the effort would
>dispute this).

This said "main problem" is machine dependent, and is true of 
devices --magnetic fusion devices-- that utilize externally applied 
pressure (usually magnetic coils) very inefficiently to generate 
thermonuclear plasma pressure.  In the CIT tokamak, for example, 
pressure of nearly one kilo atmosphere of peak magnetic pressure
produced by the toroidal field coils near the inner wall is necessary 
to stably confine a plasma of less than five atmospheres pressure.  
In the Spheromak the situation is somewhat reversed since the maximum 
pressure on the external conducting shell can be exceeded by plasma 
pressure on the minor toroidal axis by a factor of three or so.

We have proposed an advanced form of the Spheromak, the PLASMAK 
plasmoid, which contains all energetic (relativistic) currents with 
a plasma conducting spherical shell or Mantle which is located at outer
surface of the vacuum field - and impinging inner surface of a high
pressure gas blanket.  During a powerful formation EMP, the dense 
plasma Mantle is formed along with the central doughnut like Kernel
toroidal plasma.  The thermonuclear Kernel plasma is centrally 
suspended by its surrounding vacuum magnetic field and in turn
that vacuum field is trapped like a pupae in a cocoon by the
highly conducting energetic inner surface currents of the Mantle.

Within the Kernel energetic currents impart stability against
resistive modes as well as long magnetic lifetimes and excellent 
particle confinement times.  The Mantle makes it fluid (mechanically) 
compressible, and consequently pressures great enough to burn deuterium +
helium-3 or hydrogen + boron-11 appear feasible.  Power densities
could exceed multimegawatt per cubic centimeter, thus making this
concept the most compact of all power sources.  That means that 
operating "aneutronically" (no radiation), efficiently, and with 
both compact size and mass each of many other very useful 
applications would avail themselves to a commercial solution.   

Efficiencies, other properties such as ADSACH and comparison to other
devices are discussed in a special issue of "FUSION TECHNOLOGY"  for 
this month of March.  Article name is 'PLASMAK(tm) Star Power for
Energy Intensive Space Applications'.

The pessimistic prediction of a rather stodgy, tainted fusion future
beginning after 2050 is not so completely secure. IF PLASMAK(tm) 
technology proves out, aneutronic fusion can happen in as soon as ten
years, and it would then open space to an extension of the biosphere,
with a much cleaner earth resulting from economical replacement of
today's more polluting energy forms.  

		Sweepingly innovative ideas are never planned for
                      and therefore, can not be funded. 

+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        |  this  |
| mimsy!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP               | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+

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

Date: 14 Mar 89 02:55:25 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@apple.com  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Fusion ---  a Second Look

In article <1114@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes:
>We have proposed an advanced form of the Spheromak, the PLASMAK 
>plasmoid, ...
> ... consequently pressures great enough to burn deuterium +
>helium-3 or hydrogen + boron-11 appear feasible.  ... That means that 
>operating "aneutronically" (no radiation), efficiently, and with 
>both compact size and mass each of many other very useful 
>applications would avail themselves to a commercial solution.   
 ...
>IF PLASMAK(tm) 
>technology proves out, aneutronic fusion can happen in as soon as ten
>years, and it would then open space to an extension of the biosphere,
>with a much cleaner earth resulting from economical replacement of
>today's more polluting energy forms.  

Fascinating... Do you have any more information?  I'd like to take
a look at it.

Fusion power has been "Real Soon Now" ((TM) Jerry Pournelle) for as
long as I can remember.  Lots of tantalizing hints of breakthroughs
come and go (whatever happened to Migma?) but nothing ever seems to
come of it.  I'd really like to see fusion work!

I think, though, that pushing "no radiation" in an attempt to placate
those who run screaming in horror at the word "radiation" is futile.
The core group of these people is implacable.  Even though radiation is
going to be less of a problem with fusion than with fission, the
"problem" is not going to go away.  (If you're doing D-T fusion, you're
going to have a hard time avoiding some T-T fusion, too.) That's not to
say it isn't a problem that can be dealt with.  But then, the
radioactivity of fission plants can be dealt with, too, as the French
are so ably demonstrating.

Besides, I'm convinced that what's really behind a lot of the "No
Nooks" crowd is an agenda which does not include any sources of
electricity.  As Amory Lovins said, "It would be nothing short of
disastrous if we were to discover a source of cheap, clean, abundant
energy."  These people are going to be chaining themselves to the gates
of your construction sites no matter how safe and clean your plant is,
as soon as they perceive a risk that you might be sucessful.

As the whole fission flap shows, facts don't matter.  Public perception
does.  If we don't figure out some way to ignore the technophobes, in 
the same way that the Flat Earth Society is ignored, we're on a fast
track back to the 12'th century no matter how sucessful PLASMAK is.
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
Video 7                                   No whimper, no blast.
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp                 His life's goal accomplished,
                                          Zero risk at last.

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

Date: 14 Mar 89 22:22:37 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Sanger

Science reports that the West German government has decided to fund
initial work on Sanger.  A concept which has been kicking around for a
few years, Sanger would use turboramjet engines to propel a winged
first stage to Mach 5, at which point a LOX/LH2 propelled second stage
 -- either an unmanned expendable cargo rocket (like Pegasus) or a
reusable winged manned vehicle -- would be released to ascend to
orbit.

This seems like a better idea than HOTOL or NASP: no need to take the
entire vehicle to orbit or to make the first stage capable of flight
at extreme hypersonic speeds.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

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

Date: 14 Mar 89 17:11:47 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!me!ecf!apollo@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Vince Pugliese)
Subject: orbital dynamics & plotting

Our research group is interested in obtaining
a package, or packages (PD preferable), that
marries both orbital dynamics and the plotting 
of such orbits. Any and all information would
be appreciated.
                 Thanks in advance,
                 Vince Pugliese
                 apollo@ecf.toronto.edu
                 apollo@ecf.utoronto.ca

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

Date: 15 Mar 89 01:35:32 GMT
From: oliveb!amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (MacLeod)
Subject: Re: Space station & stone-age units

In article <266@v7fs1.UUCP> mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes:

>According to a contact at NASA, the space station as it is currently
>planned is going to have a mix of English and Metric parts.  This
>means that they have to have two sets of tools, and other such 
>nonsense.

This passes understanding.  However, it does bring up an interesting issue.
A month or so ago I made the heretical statement that the USA ask for
technical specs for Soviet docking and fastening interfaces and adopt them 
as an international standard.   Nobody commented on this.  On second
thought, though, there a third set of standards, those used by the ESA.

It seems pointless to establish three separate sets of standards for 
simple matters that will become very important to clients building 
commercial space packages - different types of onboard power, different
docking hardware, oddball connections, materials with dissimilar ratings
and physical characteristics.  Is there any move now to standardize
such user-interface criteria, so that it's possible to build one probe
and (in theory) fly it on whatever carrier has the best deal/time frame/
service?  

Michael Sloan MacLeod  (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

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

Date: 13 Mar 89 15:44:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Black hole trolling


/* Written  4:30 pm  Mar  6, 1989 by kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU in s.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */
	Easy.  The forces that hold a macroscopic object together are
electromagnetic.  They require the exchange of virtual photons between
the particles to be held together.  When the object extends across the
event horizon, the photons can no longer go from the atoms inside the
black hole to the atoms outside.  Thus the tether is neatly sliced.
/* - - */
Wouldn't that imply that anything going across the horizon would be reduced
to fundamental particles? The nucleons wouldn't be able to exchange strong
force particles (pions?), and the quarks wouldn't be able to exchange gluons,
etc.

But I've always thought that this is all moot, anyway. Given the prior existence
of a black hole (without worrying about where it came from), my understanding
is that due to time dilation effects, it would take an infinite amount of time
for anything to fall from (mostly) flat space across the horizon*. So, nothing's
fallen in yet into any black hole (assuming a finitely old universe). One might
also ask how fast an infalling object is going when it crosses the horizon,
assuming it fell from flat space.
-------------------
* `infinite time' for an observer in flat space, finite for the object itself


Alan M. Carroll          "And then you say,
carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu     We have the Moon, so now the Stars..."  - YES
CS Grad / U of Ill @ Urbana    ...{ucbvax,pur-ee,convex}!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #296
*******************