Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from holmes.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, 7 Apr 89 06:18:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 7 Apr 89 06:17:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #346 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 346 Today's Topics: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update) Bored public Re: Soviet Launch Sites (was Re: space news from Jan 16 AW&ST) Re: Primordial Hydrocarbons Re: SPACE Digest V9 #332 Reactions described in the Pons seminar summary Re: Reactions described in the Pons seminar summary Re: Cold Fusion ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Apr 89 17:45:29 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update) In article <3015@eos.UUCP> steve@eos.UUCP (Steve Philipson) writes: >> ... Airlines got started back when airflight was also risky and uncommon. > > True, but aircraft could be bought in quantity by single companies with >the express intent of making a profit. Space flight has taken considerably >larger investment to get going, with a large percentage of it coming from >public funds... Aircraft capable of carrying useful passenger loads were more expensive than you think, especially compared to the purchasing power of the fledgling airlines. The fact is, airlines which tried to make money carrying passengers and ordinary freight consistently went broke in the early years. The US airline industry, and its aircraft suppliers, were kept alive by lucrative government air-mail contracts. No equivalent for spaceflight has yet appeared. >Perhaps we haven't let private companies jump into space, >but the government hasn't been overwhelmed with requests from companies >desiring to build AND FINANCE entire launch systems (including launch pads >and recovery facilities) on their own. There has been ample interest, but a distinct lack of cooperation from the government. Remember the proposals for privately-financed shuttle orbiters? NASA basically "considered" them until they died. Amroc *wanted* to set up their own launch facility, as I recall, but ran into so many government obstacles that they gave up and are building a launch pad at Vandenberg instead, under the government's thumb (precisely where the government wants them, of course). >> ... NASA, which prefers professional astronauts (who are *not*, >> repeat *not*, scientists -- ask a scientist). > > Tell *that* to Taylor Wang at JPL. If he's not a professional scientist, >who is? ... I'm not familiar with Wang's status -- is he a mission specialist, or just a payload specialist? (The latter will fly damn seldom under NASA's post- Challenger policies: only when NASA can't find any excuse to avoid it.) If he's a career astronaut (mission specialist or pilot), he will probably find it impossible to maintain an active scientific career -- that's been the experience of others. >... "Seafaring" as a noun is defined "a mariner's calling". "Spacefaring" >could thus be defined as an astronaut's calling. The US has career >astronauts, we have been sending them into space for some two and a half >decades, and we continue to do so. Perhaps we don't do it at the rate >that the Soviets do, but does that mean it isn't happening? ... One did not call a nation "seafaring" because it occasionally sent out a small ship on a brief voyage. That term was applied only when the nation was persistently active on a considerable scale, so that the nation and its people had routine access to the seas for any purpose that appeared worthwhile. The US does not have routine access to space (the shuttle program specifically promised it, and failed to deliver). It has occasional, brief, extremely expensive access to space for a few people. Take a look at the backlog of payloads if you doubt this -- and those were the payloads that had already fought their way through the enormous bureaucracy that surrounds the shuttle. Then talk to the US microgravity experimenters who are booking payload space on Soyuz flights to Mir because they can't get it on the shuttle. > [re: the last flight of Challenger and the Teacher In Space program] > >> Really? I detected no signs of such great excitement at the time. >> "Another shuttle flight? Yawn. Oh, the teacher is going up on this >> one? Must be thrilling for her students. Yawn." > > If you had read the papers at the time, or watched TV news, you might >have noticed that her students were cheering wildly at launch... I'd probably be cheering at the launch too, if my sister were going up. So what? I was talking about general public interest, not that of a handful of people with indirect personal involvement. > Citizens in this country can, and do, work to get more support for >space activities, but we work within the constraints of our system. You >seem to be upset with us for not doing enough. So what are YOU doing to >promote space exploration? For one thing, I keep trying to prod people into looking at the situation in the US and realizing just how bad it really is. Never mind the really optimistic predictions; merely looking at the predictions made early in the current shuttle program is enough to make you cry. The dream may be alive, but not at NASA headquarters. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Apr 89 20:58 CST From: Scott Hess Subject: Bored public Original_To: BITNET%"space@andrew.cmu.edu" To you who wonder if its really the public bored with things, or if its the execs at NBC (fill in your favorite station here), where've you been! The main thrust of the masses today is away from knowledge of technology, and towards use of it. Else, why was everyone so freaked about Three Mile Island? There was such a small chance of explosion there that it was almost unworthy of talking about. Since nuclear is associated with bomb, tho, we have to live with it. I'm an undergrad right now, and I see it all the time (tendency away from technology). Most of my friends are in the sciences, but I'd be willing to say that those not in the sciences aren't too interested in them, in general. This is not to say things are black and white. Anything having to do with physics, computers, or math is viewed with distaste by many, many people. The fear of math is going to kill us. People think its great that we have birds flying, but they don't understand what is happening. I'd bet that most people couldn't name Newton's laws. They don't think its 'magic', but it is close enough that there is no difference. I'll admit, I don't understand biology, but I can follow the basics. Same with most other subjects. But most poly sci majors probably wouldn't get far in physics ... same with much of the social sciences. I guess mayhaps most of this doesn;t belong here, but I hope everybody reading thinks about how things are out there. One cannot really judge what everybody thinks of his area of work by listening to those he hangs around with the most. The people you hang with are those who have similar interests, and they will only enforce your own biases. Anyway, Scott Hess ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 89 15:27:25 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Soviet Launch Sites (was Re: space news from Jan 16 AW&ST) In article <2500@ndsuvax.UUCP> ncoverby@plains.nodak.edu (Glen Overby) writes: >If I recall correctly what was said in James Oberg's _Red Star in Orbit_, >the city of Baikonur doesn't even exist! It was a cover-up... > >Now my question: where is the true place that the Soviet shuttle (and other >space shots) is launched from? The Baikonur Cosmodrome. That is its official name. The name is indeed a relic of a deception attempt, since the town of Baikonur -- which does exist -- is far away and has nothing to do with the Cosmodrome. >I seem to recall hearing one time about two locations. The other major Soviet launch site is Plesetsk; the traffic is split about 50-50. Plesetsk is primarily military and has been very highly secret until quite recently. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 89 18:36:56 GMT From: mcvax!kth!draken!chalmers!tekno.chalmers.se!f86_lerner@uunet.uu.net (Mikael Lerner) Subject: Re: Primordial Hydrocarbons In article <291@v7fs1.UUCP>, mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) writes: > > As luck would have it, last night's NOVA episode was on exactly > this topic. The outfit in Sweden found methane, but not enough > to make the well viable at this time. They said that the gas > had been verified as being of non-biological origin, but they > didn't explain how they had verified this. Please, notice the word 'digging'! The drill hasn't stopped yet! Almost a kilometer of drilling remains. The goal is 7500 m, where the large amounts of gas is thought to be found. Anyway, the methane concentration has increased steadily with increasing depth. And the latest news I have read, says that the bottom of the hole is filled with oil, and preliminary analysis shows that this oil is of the same type found in small amounts on other places in the neighbor- hood. So ... We keep our fingers crossed. Mikael Lerner "This is the way the world ends, F86_Lerner@tekno.chalmers.se not with a bang, but a whimper." Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden T.S. Eliot ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1989 17:58-EDT From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #332 > I would be interested in clarification here. Do you mean that Boeing, or some > other aerospace company, wanted to 'take over' our manned space flight > program? I'm not sure that any company, or consortium of companies, has any Where have you been the last decade? There have been at least two efforts to commercialize the shuttle that had sufficient financial backing to do it. NASA filibustered them both because NASA had no INTENTION of letting go. The first venture was with William Sword and FEDEX. The second was Astrotech with Willard Rockwell. I am an acquaintance of the former president of Astrotech (he was my "big name" co-chair for the 1987 SDC) and was at one point told by him that the shuttle launch costs would drop by half on the day they took over. Unfortuneately they never got the chance to try. I suspect that the death blow to their effort was the fact that Jim Fletcher went back to NASA. He had been on their board of directors here in Pittsburgh and it would not have looked good... > nobody there. That's why I called the idea impractical. Only governments can > afford to fund this kind of scientific research right now. Bullshit. ON ANOTHER FRONT: > Just saw an Associated Press story claiming that James Fletcher > will be returning to the University of Utah to Head the states > efforts to I had not heard, but not surprising. My old address book listing for him says: OLDREF: University of Pittsburgh (Whitehead Professor Of Energy Research and Technology (84-3/86)) So why not? ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 89 14:58:34 GMT From: beta!mwj@lanl.gov (William Johnson) Subject: Reactions described in the Pons seminar summary In article <3604@silver.bacs.indiana.edu>, chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes: > In article <1495@wasatch.UUCP> ch-tkr@wasatch.UUCP (Timothy K Reynolds) writes: > > No 2.45Mev neutrons were detected. He speculated that these > > neutrons may be consumed by reaction with Li: [...] > Neither of these equations is balanced --[...] Apparently the posting you cite was garbled, because you are obviously right. However, I would like to point out that the most mystifying thing about the Fleischmann-Pons experiment -- and many things about it are mystifying -- is that *none* of the nuclear physics makes sense. I say this not implying that F&P don't know what they are talking about, but rather that many things about the experiment -- notably the enormous dearth of neutrons observed relative to the energy allegedly released -- fly in the face of what we *think* we know about (d,d) reactions. Until we have a better idea of just what is happening in this experiment, I would take any and all postings dealing with reaction mechanisms with a large grain of salt. > My other question is: these people used a cell with palladium and > platinum electrodes and heavy water. Where would the lithium come from? I > didn't hear any mention of lithium in the electrodes or in the solution > before this article that I am replying to. This one is a lot easier. The lithium was added (as deuterated lithium hydroxide, 0.1 molar solution) before the start of the experiment, probably to make sure that the solution was a nice, highly-conductive electrolyte. (Distilled water, remember, isn't very good at carrying a current.) Whether the lithium participates from a nuclear point of view -- i.e., is required for the cell to work -- is completely unclear to us kibitzers; it would be interesting to hear the F&P viewpoint on this. -- "One thing they don't tell you about doing | Bill Johnson experimental physics is that sometimes you | Los Alamos Nat'l Laboratory must work under adverse conditions ... like | {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj} a state of sheer terror." (W. K. Hartmann) | (mwj@lanl.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 3 Apr 89 19:29:49 GMT From: rochester!dietz@bbn.com (Paul Dietz) Subject: Re: Reactions described in the Pons seminar summary In article <24015@beta.lanl.gov> mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes: >However, I would like to point out that the most mystifying thing about the >Fleischmann-Pons experiment -- and many things about it are mystifying -- is >that *none* of the nuclear physics makes sense. I say this not implying that >F&P don't know what they are talking about, but rather that many things about >the experiment -- notably the enormous dearth of neutrons observed relative to >the energy allegedly released -- fly in the face of what we *think* we know >about (d,d) reactions. Everyone has been assuming that the neutrons are coming from catalyzed dd reactions. If, instead, some exotic fusion reaction was occuring -- say, Li6 + d -- we'd expect some neutrons anyway. First, a fast charged fusion product would occasionally break up a deuteron before stopping. Second, deuterons would occasionally be scattered and fuse with another deuteron. Some proposed experiments: (1) Measure the ratio of neutron rate/power density as the density of d atoms increases. It should increase if this model is true. (2) Measure the neutron spectrum -- it should differ considerably from that of cold dd fusion. (3) Try to detect energetic fusion product nuclei by mixing the Pd with beryllium and observing the neutron flux. (4) Try to observe fusion products directly by using a low energy deuterium ion beam to saturate a very thin target of Pd. Turn off the beam and observe any charged particles emitted. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1989 17:34-EDT From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: Re: Cold Fusion A quick look at E. Brit. came up with two methods of D2/H2 separation. There earliest one is electrolysis. H2O splits easier than D20 so electrolysis gradually enriches the solution. This was the earliest technique used. A slightly later technique uses liquid hydrogen/deuterium and relies on a slight difference in boiling points. It was mentioned that there were more modern cost effective methods, but no other details were given. I also applaud the way in which F&P made their announcement. If this technique is for real, there are trillions of dollars at stake, massive international redistributions of wealth and power... By giving out the essential details to the entire world in a surprise press conference, they prevented any attempts at applying the "Born secret" farce that is applied to things nuclear (in what I consider a gross violation of the first amendment). They may also have done it to insure their safety. There is real money involved here. Not to mention the potential collapse of OPEC, some of whose members are not known for their 20th century civilization. ------ IF ------- this is for real. I keep expecting to wake up. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #346 *******************