Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
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 </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/4YElDwy00UkZ8QWU52>;
          Wed, 12 Apr 89 05:16:45 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <kYElDpy00UkZ8QUk52@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 89 05:16:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #361

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 361

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Soviet Mars probes - ZOND 2.
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
	    Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)
			   Power vs Energy
		  Possible Life on Venus: A Question
		Re: Possible Life on Venus: A Question
			 Questions and Henry
	    Eggs in space (was NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89)
		     Re: Asteroids and Pd fusion
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
		   Re: space news from Feb 13 AW&ST
		     Re: Asteroids and Pd fusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 89 18:42:01 GMT
From: prism!ccoprmd@gatech.edu  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Soviet Mars probes - ZOND 2.

In article <8904101356.AA02908@decwrl.dec.com> klaes@mtwain.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) writes:
>
>	In regards to Steve Roseman's reply about the 1964 Soviet Mars
>probe ZOND 2...

I always thought that the Zond series was a potential lunar capsule, to      
compete with Apollo, and when Apollo 11 landed, the series was allowed to
'die'.  What's the real story?

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Certainty is the lot of those who
ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu      :           do not question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 10 Apr 89 06:50:52 GMT
From: ucsdhub!sdsu!frost@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Richard Frost)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <16627@electron.mips.COM>, jimiii@mips.COM (Jim Warford) writes:
> In article <3634@sdsu.UUCP> frost@sdsu.UUCP (Richard Frost) writes:
> >
> >Although utility companies are required to by any excess power you generate
> >YOU are responsible for purchasing a synchonous interface to the grid ( a
> >synchronous inverter if you're generating DC) plus a new meter and pay for
> >periodic calibration inspections by the utility company.
> >
> I believe you also have to provide 1 million dollars in liability insurance
> just in case your equipment malfunctions and wreaks havoc on the electric
> companies equipment.
> --jimiii@mips.com

In my experience with such projects, no liability insurance was required by
the homeowner.  Such sites were in rural areas of Northern California
(San Francisco is in the middle of the state!!)   --------
and the electric power being generated was only a few kilowatts.

On a different note, several folks have mentioned that cheap fusion powered
generators won't affect auto's too much.   Think again.  Electric autos are
becoming a reality -- witness the Solar Max.  Not that I would recommend
a solar or a fusion source IN a commuter car.  How about we just charge 'em
off the grid, or at home?  However, I agree that the overhead to convert
your auto or for GM to tool up for electric autos is staggering.  But really
people, we need to slow down our exhaust emmisions while we've still got a
healthy atmosphere.

sdsu!frost@ucsd.edu

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

Date: 11 Apr 89 00:09:34 GMT
From: ames.arc.nasa.gov!mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)

In article <1726@wpi.wpi.edu> tmurphy@wpi.wpi.edu (Tom [Chris] Murphy) writes:
<In article <16680@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
<>A few years ago, someone mentioned some Apollo hardware was in the ocean
<>(I think it was the LEM from Apollo-13).
<
<There's no way a LEM could survive re-entry.  The thing is EXTREMELY flimsy,
<I once heard (in a book by Michael Collins I think) that a technician once
<dropped a wrench through the hull.
<

The LM was called "the Tissue Paper Spacecraft", and was little more than
a mylar balloon. I heard the story that during a ground test, the Apollo 12
astronauts, Al Bean and Pete Conrad poked a hole in the thing.


          *** mike (cerbral GURU, insert M&Ms to restart) smithwick***
"Oh, I'm just a NOP in the instruction set of life, oh, ohhhh, hmmmmm"

[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

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

Date: 10 Apr 89 12:35:30 GMT
From: uflorida!haven!aplcen!aplcomm!aplvax.jhuapl.edu!jwm@g.ms.uky.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Power vs Energy


Concur that power is an issue in general in space flight, but it should
not be near the issue that ENERGY is. 

The space shuttle can do 5 g.  That is power.  Note that we have been able to
do moderate accelerations for a long time.  However, we have no way to let it
out of LEO not due to power constraints, but due to energy constraints.

Ref terawatts.  We have had a hand-portable device capable of putting out
appox 3000 terawatts for a REAL brief period and have had it for a couple of
decades.  But it doesn't do it very long (appox .1 microseconds - 99.9% in
the last .07 microseconds of operation) so again an energy constraint, not
a power constraint. 

The "we need power to push the ship" comes from all the mass on-board to
supply energy (power for an extended period).  The limiting factor is
energy available, not power.  The momentum change required for motion
is gives energy requirements, not power.

(as a btw, I heard on the radio this morning that the University of Texas has
duplicated the University of Utah's "fusion in a jar"!)



Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

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

Date: 9 Apr 89 17:30:26 GMT
From: jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu  (Jean-Marc Debaud)
Subject: Possible Life on Venus: A Question


There is a question that has been distrubing me lately,

We discover not a long ago living "parasites" that are
very close to paramecia organism very deep in the
Atlantique Ocean. What is surprising is the capacity of
those organism to live and reproduce in very hot water
located near permanent volcanic activities.

According to common knowledge (I am a logician not
a biologist) I thougth that proteins as well as DNA chains
could not be replicated and therefore not formed under high
temperature.

Does anybody knows what is going on there ?

Furthermore, my understanding was that the reasons above
(temperature, pressure) were the motive why scientist could
not beleive of forms of life on Venus. So do we have to scrap
this belief and restart again ?

Or am I missing anything here ?

Jean-Marc Debaud
Carnegie-Mellon U.
jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu
jd3l@mri.contrast.cs.cmu.edu

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

Date: 10 Apr 89 16:26:50 GMT
From: silver!chiaravi@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu  (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Subject: Re: Possible Life on Venus: A Question

In article <kYDtAmy00Xoe43iElp@andrew.cmu.edu> jd3l+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Jean-Marc Debaud) writes:
>There is a question that has been distrubing me lately,
>
>We discover not a long ago living "parasites" that are
>very close to paramecia organism very deep in the
>Atlantique Ocean. What is surprising is the capacity of
>those organism to live and reproduce in very hot water
>located near permanent volcanic activities.

	Are you sure that these organisms are similar to paramecia?  I have
heard of archaebacteria living in very hot water, but no eukaryotes.  At any
rate, if they are free-living, they are not parasites.

>According to common knowledge (I am a logician not
>a biologist) I thougth that proteins as well as DNA chains
>could not be replicated and therefore not formed under high
>temperature.

	Certain proteins are stable at quite high temperatures (80`C is not
uncommon), and using various measures an organism can stabilize its proteins
and DNA.  Such measures include maintaining very high internal salt
concentrations and other means of ensuring that the ratio of water to
everything else is small (but nonzero).

>Furthermore, my understanding was that the reasons above
>(temperature, pressure) were the motive why scientist could
>not beleive of forms of life on Venus. So do we have to scrap
>this belief and restart again ?
>
>Or am I missing anything here ?

	One requirement of terrestrial life is that the water within it be
liquid, whatever the temperature and pressure.  Things have been found that
can grow at 135`C, and certain archaebacteria have successfully been cultured
in the laboratory at 112`C.  However, all of these organisms must be kept
under enough pressure to keep them from boiling when they are grown at those
temperatures.  Such pressures are found at the bottom of our oceans.  However,
at temperatures over the critical point of water, such as those found on
Venus, no amount of pressure will keep the water liquid.  Therefore, life with
a terrestrial biochemistry will not be able to exist on Venus.  Of course,
this does not rule out some form of life with a totally different kind of
biochemistry.

-- 
|  Lucius Chiaraviglio   |  ARPA:  chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
BITNET:  chiaravi@IUBACS.BITNET (IUBACS hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RET ADDR)
ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:      chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@vm.cc.purdue.edu
Alt ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:  chiaravi%IUBACS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu

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

Date: 10 Apr 89 18:41:55 GMT
From: rochester!rocksanne!bozo!kirby@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Mike Kirby (co-op))
Subject: Questions and Henry

Two Questions:

1)  Henry, do you have anything positive to say about the U.S. space program?
    I mean do we do anything right anymore?

2)  What is the pegasus?

Michael Kirby
mpk9172@ritvax.bitnet
mpk9172%ritcv@rit.cs.edu

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

Date: 10 Apr 89 17:15:34 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@uunet.uu.net  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Eggs in space (was NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89)

Someone missed a great oportunity:

CapCom:  Columbia, Houston here, good morning.

Columbia: Theres no one here but us chickens, cluck, cluck...
-- 
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or
Roseville MN 55113                    johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

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

Date: 10 Apr 89 21:10:17 GMT
From: pacbell!pbhya!whh@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Asteroids and Pd fusion

In article <1989Apr8.212905.131@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <10346@nsc.nsc.com> andrew@nsc.nsc.com (andrew) writes:
> >... The existence of a heatsink at 3 degK should be a great help for
> >the engine design...
> 
> Not as much as you think.  Getting the heat out to that heatsink is
> *not* a trivial problem.  The shuttle uses the entire inner surface of
> its payload-bay doors as a heat radiator.  If you look at pictures of
> the space station, you'll see two sets of big flat panels sticking
> out -- solar panels, and radiators.  Fusion rockets are likely to have
> quite serious cooling problems, at least in high-performance versions.
> (Chemical rockets dump heat into their fuel, but a high-performance
> fusion rocket doesn't use fuel quickly enough for that approach to work.)

As I recall--and I'm sure I'll get some fairly hot replies if I'm wrong--
that the rate of radiation of energy varies as the 4th power of the 
absolute temperature.  Since the Shuttle is working a rather low temperatures,
it's no surprise that it needs a large surface.  It is also short on
total energy supplies.  For a fusion rocket, why not use a small, very hot,
radiator to take advantage of increased radiator effectiveness?  (This
*ought* to work for the Shuttle, too, and I don't know why it wasn't done.
Possibly because of limitations in working fluids?)

   --Hal

=========================================================================
  Hal Heydt                             | In the old days, we had wooden
  Analyst, Pacific*Bell                 | ships sailed by iron men.  Now
  415-645-7708                          | we have steel ships and block-
  whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM                 | heads running them. --Capt. D. Seymour

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

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1989 11:17-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

> And of course, this will play >hell< with those who promote a
> return to the Gold Standard!  ;^)

Only those who are religious about the particular monetary standard.
Most gold standard supporters just want money to be a competitive
market like anything else.  There can be government script, private
bank notes, gold, silver, hog bellies, rights to energy output units,
whatever. It really doesn't matter so long as the money supply is not
in monopolistic hands.  And doesn't it seem rather foolish to have the
"one and only official" money printed by the same people who have the
power to tax and spend? There seems to be a tiny conflict of interest
here...

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

Date: 10 Apr 89 15:19:34 GMT
From: thorin!zeta!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: space news from Feb 13 AW&ST

In article <1989Apr10.025652.28387@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Phobos 2 enters Mars orbit Jan 29.  [I'll skip the details, since we
>all know that Phobos 2 is now dead.  They really should have launched
>three of them.]

    Perhaps the effort would better be spent putting more reliable
hardware on board the spacecraft, and better trained personnel on the
ground. Of what use would *three* failed Mars probes be? :-)

    Unrelated topic: anyone interested in sharing a hotel room at
the Chicago Space Development Conference? Respond by email, please.
--
    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)    __@/
    ``God is more interested in your future and your relationships
      than you are.'' - Billy Graham

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

Date: 10 Apr 89 21:25:22 GMT
From: cbmvax!jesup@uunet.uu.net  (Randell Jesup)
Subject: Re: Asteroids and Pd fusion

In article <1989Apr8.212905.131@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <10346@nsc.nsc.com> andrew@nsc.nsc.com (andrew) writes:
>>... The existence of a heatsink at 3 degK should be a great help for
>>the engine design...
>
>Not as much as you think.  Getting the heat out to that heatsink is
>*not* a trivial problem.  The shuttle uses the entire inner surface of
>its payload-bay doors as a heat radiator.  If you look at pictures of
>the space station, you'll see two sets of big flat panels sticking
>out -- solar panels, and radiators.  Fusion rockets are likely to have
>quite serious cooling problems, at least in high-performance versions.
>(Chemical rockets dump heat into their fuel, but a high-performance
>fusion rocket doesn't use fuel quickly enough for that approach to work.)

	There's a bit of confusion here (especially in the original
message).

	First, the fuel (for energy) is deuterium.  Second, the fuel (in
terms of reaction mass) is fairly arbitrary.  Hydrogen isn't bad, but it's
pretty light.  Mercury (as in ion engines) is nice and heavy, makes for
good specific impulse for an electric engine.  In addition, given minimal
mining ability, mass from the asteroid can be used if need be.

	Second, while not 3 deg K, the asteroids mass might make a nice,
convenient heat sink.  Also, its surface makes a nice place to put radiators.

	Third, so long as you don't care how fast the asteroid get to you,
you can use an arbitrarily small amount of palladium for the fusion reactor.
Remember, the fuel is the deuterium.  So what if it takes a few centuries? :-)
The real question is to figure out how many watts can be produced/cc (F&P
results may not be indicative of what is possible, especially with D-T or
T-T fusion, but they get 26w/cc); and then figure out the efficiency of your
heat engine and specific impulse of your fuel, etc; and then figure out how
long it takes to produce the delta-v.

	Of course, I'm no rocket scientist.  :-)

-- 
Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #361
*******************