Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 05:03:40 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #384 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Fri, 6 Nov 92 Volume 15 : Issue 384 Today's Topics: "average" underground nuclear explosion (was : moving comets) Comet Collision Hubble's mirror Light sails again NASA Coverup (6 msgs) Need Specific NASA Image U.N. Moon Treaty X-15 pictures Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Nov 92 16:44:29 GMT From: Russ Brown Subject: "average" underground nuclear explosion (was : moving comets) Newsgroups: sci.space In article pgf@srl05.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering") writes: > > >>I read once that the average underground nuclear explosion created spaces >>in rock half a mile across. (Anyone confirm this?) >>Andy. > >Average underground nuclear explosion? This implies that they're >naturally occuring or something... > >I think it's a lot less than this, otherwise the underground testing >ranges in Nevada would be running out of rock... > The larger ones go about 400 ft high by 1200 deep. Lots of smaller ones were done. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 15:08:51 GMT From: Dave Jones Subject: Comet Collision Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary Wayne Harvey (wharvey@gucis.cit.gu.edu.au) wrote: > > >In black@breeze.rsre.mod.uk (John Black) writes: > > >>Maybe a near comet approach could be a good thing. I did a rough calculation > >>and estimated that there must be something of the order of 10 to the power 11 > >>metric tonnes of water. Maybe in 130 years time somewhere on the Earth could > >>do with some water, > > Here's something that people seem to be missing, that has been bandied about > by SF writers for a long time: 10^11 tonnes of water (and associated other > shit), if we could capture it and place it in Earth orbit, would provide > us with an awful lot of fuel for rockets. Perhaps we could even have fusion > rockets when the comet comes back in 130 years, and that would make for > some pretty inexpensive colonisation fuels. > This one's not a great bet. For a 50 km/s velocity change, about what it would take to get the comet into Earth orbit under ideal conditions, you have a mass ratio of about 1/163 if you assume some fairly optimistic numbers for rocket efficiency. In other words, take 1.63 x 10^13 tonnes of your own reaction mass to the comet (requiring 163 times that to match velocities) or take your energy source there and use it to throw away 162/163 of the comet as reaction mass. Actually, the delta V is even worse because there's Earth's orbital velocity to take into account. The mass ratio could be 2-4 times worse. The same technology can put icebergs in orbit for much less cost... Incidentally, re Asimov's "Martian Way", I estimated Saturn orbit to Mars orbit as dV= 5.5 km/s, with another 3.5 km/s for landing on Mars. You could fly a Saturn ring fragment to Mars using about 3/4 of it for reaction mass (Isp = 1000 or so) but I'm afraid Ike was way off. He had about 2% used for reaction mass, along with out-of-plane orbits, continous boost trajectories, you name it. Give the guy a break, he was a biochemist.....he also wasn't to know that ring fragments aren't big enough for the scheme (his was 1 cu. mile). > Has anybody read Arthur C. Clarkes' 2051: Oddessey 3? > Well, yes. They visited Comet Halley (that's 2061, BTW). What else? Oh, they used Sakharov's Cold Fusion (mu meson catalysis) for energy. Anything else? -- ||Halloween Candy: the office snack | ||from Nov. 1st onwards............... |Puff the Magic Dragon ||-------------------------------------|Lived by the sea ||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Who knows what's in the autumn mists ||Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY |In the mind of Yadallee? ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 92 15:55:21 GMT From: "William H. Jefferys" Subject: Hubble's mirror Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space In article <1992Nov3.213906.886@mrdog.msl.com> dhl@mrdog.msl.com (Donald H. Locker) writes: #Now that I know a little about mirror-making, I'd like to hear again #how the Hubble mirror contractor messed up the figure of the main #mirror. I understand it has spherical aberration, but wonder how #[Rockwell?] managed to do that. The Hartford Courant had a Pulitzer Prize winning series of reports that go into gory detail on this. They may still have copies available. It's entitled "Hubble error: Time, money and millionths of an inch." Write the Hartford Courant, 285 Broad St., Hartford CT, or call Corporate Affairs Manager Sylvia Levy at (203) 241-6431. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:58:25 GMT From: Nick Haines Subject: Light sails again Newsgroups: sci.space In article ida@atomic (David Goldschmidt) writes: [about light-sails] force force | / \ / |/ or \/________> light path /_____> /| /| / | / | Subject: NASA Coverup Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,alt.conspiracy In article <1992Nov4.203722.6838@engage.pko.dec.com> moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes: >In article <4586@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us>, snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes... >> >> >> Well , it sounds like the willingness to cling to some kind of la-la >> land belief that our government wouldn't lie to us about the moon >> landings won't just melt in the face of straightforward ,elementary >> mathematics ,and piles of circumstantial evidence. I guess I'll just have >> to use even bigger piles of circumstantial evidence and MORE math. Here >> goes: > >Well, since if the Moon's gravity were 0.64G rather than around 0.16G, this >would mean the Moon is 4 times as massive than it allegedly is as we know >its diameter. But if this were the case, the Earth-Moon mass ratio would be >quite different, thus the barycenter would move, tides would be quite >different, the motion of the Earth-Moon system around the sun would be >different, and so forth, none of which correspond to observed information. > > Not if they have lied about the mass of the earth, the sun, the density of water, and perhaps even the gravitational constant (not to mention where they were when they said they were going to be working late!) :^) ;^) :^) . ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 92 17:53:07 GMT From: Mike McCants Subject: NASA Coverup Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy In article snarfy writes: > >In message Dennis comments: > >>Also the pertubations of Lunar orbits by the Earth and Sun become >>significant at altitudes above 800 km and dominate above 22,000. You should also say that satellites in Earth orbits that go to high altitudes are very significantly affected by lunar and solar perturbations. >Where did you read this? Was this a paper based on theory or the actual >flight trajectories of real spacecraft? If it's true, I'll be the first >to admit that it shoots my theory ...but I'd like to see for myself. > >snarfy The Goddard publication, Satellite Situation Report, gives some of the orbital parameters for thousands of objects in Earth orbit. These values are taken from current NORAD orbital elements. Needless to say, the orbital parameters do change in a way that is quite consistent with the known values of mass, distance, and gravity. The 1966 object, ATS 1, now has an inclination of 14 degrees. The original geosynchronous inclination was 0 degrees. The Soviet payload, Astron, in a 5 day orbit, was launched in 1983 into an orbit with an inclination of 51 degrees. The current inclination is 32 degrees. A year ago it was 24. The large changes over the last 19 years are very well explained by proper computations. It's not very bright at 20000 miles, but I've seen it and I believe it. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 92 18:24:25 GMT From: "Peter J. Scott" Subject: NASA Coverup Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Nov5.011919.18158@leland.Stanford.EDU>, iburrell@leland.Stanford.EDU (Ian Matthew Burrell) writes: > This post will attempt to completely destroy the allegation that the > government is hiding some undefined fact about the Moon's mass or density. > For, if what a you say is true, the Moon must have much different mass > than accepted. > > First some numbers: > Mass of the Earth: 5.98 x 10^24 kg > Radius of Earth: 6.37 x 10^6 m or 6370 km > Mass of Moon: 7.34 x 10^22 kg > Radius of Moon: 1.74 x 10^6 m or 1740 km > Distance from Moon to Earth: 3.84 x 10^8 m or 384,000 km > > Using the equation from Newton's Law of Gravitation, a = (G*M)/R^2, the > acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface is 9.8 m/s^2 (1G) which > is a undeniable physical fact. Ah, but have you personally verified Newton's Law of Gravitation? After all, who do you think started this whole conspiracy? Can any of us say that we really knew Isaac Newton? Einstein started to cotton on to the whole thing but by that time the conspirators were too well established and managed to divert his attention into the bottomless quagmire of quantum mechanics. Oh, and you should see the pictures the Mars Observer boys are cooking up for encounter; marvelous stuff. The Galileo image fabrication lab had a little problem getting Renderman working on their Apple II+s, hence the HGA cover story. If they get enough pictures ready in time, that "hammering" maneuver will save the day. Great idea, almost as good as the VEEGA concept... -- This is news. This is your | Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech brain on news. Any questions? | (pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 15:47:26 GMT From: Dave Jones Subject: NASA Coverup Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us wrote: > In message-ID: <3NOV199209041648@judy.uh.edu> Dennis, University of > Alabama in Huntsville comments : > > > Henry can probably provide the numbers. > > Who's Henry? > Nothing could more clearly demonstrate Attention Deficit Syndrome. Try reading something other than your own postings for a while. -- ||Halloween Candy: the office snack | ||from Nov. 1st onwards............... |Puff the Magic Dragon ||-------------------------------------|Lived by the sea ||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Who knows what's in the autumn mists ||Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY |In the mind of Yadallee? ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 1992 18:48:30 GMT From: David Gutierrez Subject: NASA COVERUP Newsgroups: sci.space I think the mass of the moon HAS changed, due to the HEAVY BOOTS the astronauts left behind. BTW, that's also why they couldn't do backflips - their boots were too HEAVY. (Is that enough CAPS? :-) David Gutierrez drg@biomath.mda.uth.tmc.edu "Only fools are positive." - Moe Howard ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 92 19:58:22 GMT From: "Michael V. Kent" Subject: NASA Coverup Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy In article <1992Nov5.154726.21410@pixel.kodak.com> dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes: >snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us wrote: >> >> Who's Henry? >> >Nothing could more clearly demonstrate Attention Deficit Syndrome. >Try reading something other than your own postings for a while. Don't be so quick to flame. This thread is cross-posted to sci.space and alt.conspiracy. Although we on sci.space may know Henry on a first name basis, the rest of the net probably does not. For those on alt.conspiracy: Henry is an artificial intelligence (AI) project at the University of Toronto whose job is to keep the signal to noise ratio of sci.space from getting too low. :) Mike -- Michael Kent kentm@rpi.edu McDonnell Douglas Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Tute Screwed Aero Class of '92 Apple II Forever !! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:41:18 GMT From: Gerry Roston Subject: Need Specific NASA Image Newsgroups: sci.space Would some please - Send me - Send me a pointer to an online copy of this image: Lunar Orbiter 5, Frame M-191. The image format is not particularly important as I'll convert it to what we need. Thank you. -- Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu) | Because experience witnesseth that eccle- Field Robotics Center, | siastical establishments, instead of main- Carnegie Mellon University | taining the purity and efficacy of Religion, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213 | have had a contrary operation. During almost (412) 268-3856 | fifteen centuries has the legal establishment | of Christianity been on trial. What have been The opinions expressed are mine | its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and do not reflect the official | and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and position of CMU, FRC, RedZone, | servility in the laity, in both, superstition, or any other organization. | bigotry and persecution. James Madison ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 15:23:32 GMT From: Dave Jones Subject: U.N. Moon Treaty Newsgroups: sci.space carlis_jc@cs1.lamar.edu wrote: > There is susposed to be something in international law about any country > over which the Moon passes directly (plumb) has some kind of claim but I'm > having a hard time tracking the particulars. > That's from Heinlein's "The Man Who Sold The Moon". If you're having a hard time finding the particulars its probably because they don't exist, though you should be able to locate oodles of declarations that the Moon belongs to all humankind. -- ||Halloween Candy: the office snack | ||from Nov. 1st onwards............... |Puff the Magic Dragon ||-------------------------------------|Lived by the sea ||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Who knows what's in the autumn mists ||Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY |In the mind of Yadallee? ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 92 09:58:54 EST From: Chris Jones Subject: X-15 pictures Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1d64b8INN7fv@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, claudio@nmsb (Claudio Egalon) writes: >I would like to know where I could get hold of X-15 pictures for >possible publication. I am also interested, specifically, in a picture of >one of the first flights of the X-15 that was flown by Scott Crossfield in >which the (space)craft crashed and was broken in its very middle >(Crossfield survived). I have never seen a picture of the X-15 after this >accident and I am curious how it looked like. I don't have any pointers to stills, but the show "The Rocket Pilots" (I think that's the title), originally aired on NBC and occasionally rerun on A&E, has film footage of this accident. It's exaggerating to call it a crash: the engine caught on fire and was shut down. There wasn't enough time to dump the whole fuel load before landing, so the craft was too heavy for the loads it underwent on landing. Crossfield did put it down nicely, and the fuselage broke. He received a trophy from the Southern California Soaring Society (a streamlined brick mounted on mahogany) for the shortest time from 38000 feet to the ground in a glider. The flight took place on 5 November 1959, and was the fourth flight of the program, and the third of the number two X-15. -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 384 ------------------------------