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 ; Mon, 22 May 89 00:20:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0YRsdzu00UkZ0-q05M@andrew.cmu.edu> Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Mon, 22 May 89 00:20:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #450 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 450 Today's Topics: Re: Private funding of space science Re: spaceplane propulsion Re: sci.astro Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility Space food sticks Re: ultimate ASAT weapon?? Re: _Analog_ article Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs (was Re: asteroid almost hits earth) Re: Sun Exploding (?) Re: asteroid almost hits earth RE: citizens in space -- risk silliness ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov Date: Thu, 18 May 89 02:52:26 PDT From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: hplabs!hpcea!hp-sdd!crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Re: Private funding of space science Dr. Dereference (John L. McKernan) writes: >In article <8905120536.AA01379@crash.cts.com> mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov writes: >>The government is the best source of support for research NOT development > >In order to do a lot of R&D hardware needs to be developed ... Dereferencing "R&D" we have: "In order to do a lot of research and development, hardware needs to be developed ..." Aside from being circular, this illustrates the very muddled thinking about research vs development that I was pointing out. Try saying "research" when you mean research and "development" when you mean development. The phrase "R&D", is a source of confusion. > ....While the governemnt >certainly should not do the development itself, it still needs to fund the >development of hardware for R&D that will not be done privately. As for >government involvment in operations, the best people to operate the hardware >built for R&D are usually the scientists doing the R&D, who are usually >government employees (ie JPL). The government needs to fund AND ENGAGE IN many kinds of development and operations that cannot or should not be done privately. In my original message these exceptions are covered in the proposed extension of the Hatch Act which would prohibit political action by civil servants, contractors and nonentitlement welfare recipients. PS: By the way, JPL is not under civil service. JPL scientists are not "usually government employees" --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: 18 May 89 14:16:32 GMT From: mcdchg!illusion!marcus@rutgers.edu (Marcus Hall) Subject: Re: spaceplane propulsion In article <1989May11.202131.1056@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >>...(Don't the Russkies use kerosene in liquid rocket motors?) > >Yes, as does the US (Atlas and Delta, not to mention older hardware like >the Saturns). Shouldn't this read: "Atlas and Delta, not to mention NEWER hardware like the Saturns"? Some of the Atlas boosters recently launched (and I guess most of the Titan IIs currently being re-furbished for launcher use) were older than the Saturn program. There are still new boosters being designed using the RL-10. OK, so we've thrown away the F-1 production, but we've also thrown away J-4 production. It seems that the J-4 would have been very attractive for use in smaller boosters. The S-IV stage (from the Saturn I) used 6 RL-10 engines. Its counterpart for the Saturn IB, the S-IVB, used a single J-4. The Centaur (upper stage for Atlas, as well as other potential uses) has 2 RL-10 engines. marcus hall ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 89 23:49:37 GMT From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) Subject: Re: sci.astro In article <1568@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> wyatt@cfatst.HARVARD.EDU (Bill Wyatt) writes: >I had to comment on the following exchange. I find Ed's response to be >uninformative (and even snide) despite being mostly factually correct. I think we are all getting a little tired of the circular topics, the cross posting, etc. I know that there are times I get pretty fed up. The different interfaces don't help either. If I had to read space or astro on a mail system, forget it. There's no way, and I know people who read this on IBM and VMS systems (and God knows what else) without news software. We have to do something about this. I mean both Bill and Ed are among the more respected posters to astro. I've all but given up on sci.space (but cron helps here, and others read for me). We are entering the 6th (by my count) discussion on personal optics (binocs this time, not telescopes). I've given up on volunteers from the human race, there are few who have the time. I have way too much with comp.graphics projects and real work [if you only knew how many times I get ask this about myself, or Henry, or others...] I think we only need the kin to a grad or undergrad student volunteer (we can teach him or her about cron). We just have to assemble the information. I mean look at you two. Two of the net's finest. Is this a gross generalization or what? --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene Live free or die. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 May 89 21:27:56 EDT From: Lee Brotzman Subject: Re: Long Duration Exposure Facility mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <2020@blake.acs.washington.edu> sealion@blake.acs.washington.edu > (sealion) writes: >>With the current backlog in payloads for the shuttle system, are >>there plans to recover the Long Duration Exposure Facility? > >Yes. NASA is terrified of the public-relations impact of another Skylab, >and considers it quite urgent that LDEF not be allowed to reenter. If NASA is so "terrified" of allowing a light-weight, sure-to-burn, satellite like LDEF to reenter, then why is the Solar Maximum Mission (SMM) being allowed to reenter? Although public relations may be part of it, I think that the main reason to get LDEF is simply that it is useful to do so. The materials that were placed on it are pretty much useless now since they have had a *really* long exposure (maybe not). That doesn't mean the thing shouldn't be brought back, looked over and possibly loaded up and re-launched. I know you dislike NASA, Henry, but that's no reason to assign evil or petty motivations to every operation. -- Lee Brotzman (FIGI-L Moderator) -- BITNET: ZMLEB@SCFVM SPAN: CHAMP::BROTZMAN -- Internet: zmleb@scfvm.gsfc.nasa.gov GEnie: L.BROTZMAN -- The government and my company don't know what I'm saying... -- Let's keep it that way. -- Isn't Cold Fusion how Eskimos are made? ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 89 02:29:01 GMT From: vax5!myk@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu Subject: Space food sticks Well, I've been reading this group for more than two years (for many more reasons than this), but I never saw this question go by -- perhaps I wasn't looking closely enough. IS there a recipe out there for 'space food sticks'? I know NASA doesn't have one (because I wrote to them!). Being young and naive way back then, in the latter part of the 1960's (now I'm older, at least) when these were sold in stores, I was under the impression that Pillsbury (?) developed them under NASA contract, in which case the formulation would be in the public domain. Barring that, did someone save an empty box for lo these many years, and does it say anything about being developed for NASA, and could you send me the list of ingredients? Seems to me a PlayDoh Fun Factory could do the job of extruding, if you had the mix at just the right temperature range... P.S You have my permission to laugh, if you wish, but I'm quite serious. ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 89 03:20:28 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: ultimate ASAT weapon?? In article <8905190002.AA23369@ti.com> pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (Who remembers 8USER.PAR?) writes: >The proposal involved some un-named (at least here) bad guys sending a lunar >probe to collect samples. At some future date, it could return home and >enter a counter-orbit. From somewhere above Clarke orbit, it would start >dumping it's payload of gravel and sand, and rapidly descend, scattering >some (in this article) 2 tons of goodies for everything in orbit to hit. >At high delta v! Yup, somebody in the US discovered this possibility -- entering a retrograde orbit via a lunar flyby and using it to wreak havoc -- some years ago and quite a fuss was made over it. Especially since there was some evidence, looking at research topics in orbital mechanics and such, that the Soviets might have been aware of the idea earlier. > polar orbits will "get it" sooner or later, but should have a longer > life span Getting a complete shrapnel disk around Earth, enough to get low orbits and polar orbits, would probably take prohibitive payload masses. Just wiping out Clarke orbit, on the other hand, is dead easy, since it is *one* well-defined orbit. With a lot of militarily valuable stuff in it too. It may not be a coincidence that the US's next-generation strategic-forces comsat system, Milstar, will not use Clarke orbit. (Or so I recall -- it's going to be in still higher orbits, well dispersed.) > whomever does this has decided to live without satellites Not necessary. Just make the payload ice cubes instead of gravel, so it won't hang around. -- Subversion, n: a superset | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology of a subset. --J.J. Horning | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 17 May 89 05:34:38 GMT From: dalsqnt!usl!usl-pc!jpdres10@uunet.uu.net (Green Eric Lee) Subject: Re: _Analog_ article In message <8905141827.AA29450@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, pjs@ARISTOTLE-GW.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) says: >There's an interesting article on the economics of space settlement in the >May _Analog_. There's a *naive* article on the economics of space settlement in the May _Analog_. (yes, I read it. Yes, I couldn't keep from chuckling over how pie-eyed these folks are about the prospects of going space-walkin'). If any company today announced that it would invest ten billion dollars over the next ten years to build a space manufacturing facility, the corporate raiders would own it the next day -- to the stockholder's relief. Building a new 5 billion dollar airliner is much less risky -- you know you're going to sell SOME of them, eventually, even if it takes more years than you'd like to recoup your investment. -- | // Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509 | | // {uunet!dalsqnt,killer}!usl!elg (318)989-9849 | | \X/ >> In Hell you need 4Mb to Multitask << | ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 89 03:18:20 GMT From: bbn.com!ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) Subject: Re: Asteroids and Dinosaurs (was Re: asteroid almost hits earth) In article <1216@irisa.UUCP> saouter@irisa.UUCP (saouter yannick) writes: >In article <13111@ut-emx.UUCP>, ethan@ut-emx.UUCP (Ethan Tecumseh Vishniac) writes: >> It is also true that this is not the most dramatic mass extinction in the >> fossil record. > >Such collisions occurs about every 50 000 000 years and I've heard that others >species have disappeared as suddenly as the dinosaurs did, so earlier >collisions might be the cause for that, too. > >Does anyone knows others example of strange disappearance ? I don't remember the numbers (in species/yr) offhand, but I've read arguements (e.g. by S J Gould) that claim that we are *now* in the midst of the one of greatest (if not in fact _the_ greatest) of mass extinctions of all time. If I recall right, the numbers work out to ~1 species/100,000 increase in human population. ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 89 03:30:56 GMT From: sun-barr!texsun!pollux!ti-csl!m2!gateley@decwrl.dec.com (John Gateley) Subject: Re: Sun Exploding (?) In article <1255@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> arrom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee (600.429)) writes: [The sun can't explode]. Asimov makes a similar mistake in _The Gods <>Themselves._) this occurs corresponds roughly to the K-T boundary. They estimate the meteor >to have been about 6 miles across which would produce the equivilent of >10,000 times all the world's nuclear explosives. > ---{john hayes} Old Dominion University; Norfolk, Virginia USA /* End of text from m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space */ Would this not create the greatest of all earthquakes? I have read peoples comments on meteor hits in the past, but have not seen any reference to this aspect of it. You could be on the opposite side of the planet from the hit, and when the shock wave traveled the distance through the planet, the ground below you would suddenly jump many feet up and down. Monster waves would also occur on the oceans I would think. The entire planet would reverberate. I wonder how long it would take to settle down. Al Irwin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 May 89 15:30:19 CDT From: pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com (Who remembers 8USER.PAR?) Subject: RE: citizens in space -- risk silliness Risk management is very much a part of "big business" in this country. I just took a 1 day "class" in Risk Management - The Guaranteed Success. Basically, Americans have become so complacent that we, as a whole, are unwilling to take even slight risks. Why else are CDs so popular, even though I make twice as much with mutual funds and 100% returns on junk bonds? Because the later involve some measure of risk. In the case of the Challenger, the crew knew there was some measure of risk, and choose to take it. Because they did not know all the risks does not negate the fact that they knew there were risks. The families needed to know that there were risks to be taken. The lawsuits were, IMHO, improperly aimed. By concealing the flaws, M-T and NASA were quilty not of killing anyone, but of preventing them from making a rational, informed decision. This country was built on risk takers (my ancestors came over in the first Jamestown boat), but now we are just a bunch of potatoes. I know Shakespear had the right idea. Oh yeah, ordinary civilians have no right being in space, but when does an "ordinary" civilian become astronaut material? I'm a VAX/VMS internals jock, but I am comfortable in an organic lab. Do I have "the right stuff"? :-) (I'm from Texas, do I have "the Wright stuff" to get on?) Dillon Pyron | The opinions are mine, the facts TI/DSEG Lewisville Computer Services | probably belong to the company. pyron@lvvax1.csc.ti.com | (214)462-5449 | We try, we learn, sometimes we die. | We sit on our butts, learn nothing, | and we still die. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #450 *******************