Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Thu, 15 Nov 1990 02:02:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 15 Nov 1990 02:01:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #553 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 553 Today's Topics: Magellan Update - 11/13/90 Re: CRAF/Cassini Update - 11/09/90 Re: The great light bulb debate Re: A philosophical question Successful Titan IV launch! Re: CRAF/Cassini Update - 11/09/90 Re: Galileo Update - 11/02/90 Early Soviet Venus (VENERA) Missions Re: The great light bulb debate RE: SPACE Digest V12 #517 Re: sci.space or talk.origins? (was Re: Creationists and Moon Dust) Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 13 Nov 90 19:12:06 GMT From: julius.cs.uiuc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@apple.com (Ron Baalke) Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA. Subject: Magellan Update - 11/13/90 Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT November 13, 1990 The Magellan spacecraft is now in its 17th mapping orbit since radar mapping was resumed on the morning of November 10. All systems are nominal and six of the seven STARCALS (star calibrations) in the past 24 hours were fully successful. Late today, a software patch to control the solar panel positions with ephemeris tables will be sent to the spacecraft. Analysis of radar data from tape recorder track A4 indicates that it is about the same as before Superior Conjunction. That is, it does not show the progressive deterioration that was seen on track 2, but the rate of errors was not improved by eliminating the solar panel vibrations. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 13 Nov 90 11:03:44 GMT From: eru!hagbard!sunic!news.funet.fi!ra!abo.fi!mlindroos@bloom-beacon.mit.edu Organization: Abo Akademi University, Finland Subject: Re: CRAF/Cassini Update - 11/09/90 References: <1990Nov11.001924.10302@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article <1990Nov11.001924.10302@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: > > CRAF/Cassini Status Report > November 9, 1990 > ...take the Huygens probe about 3 hours to parachute all the way down to the > surface of Titan; if the probe survives the landing, valuable data will > continue to be transmitted back for about 30 more minutes. No more data will > be returned to the Cassini orbiter from Huygens on any subsequent orbits, as > the battery onboard Huygens will have rundown by then. > 30 minutes! Why can't we send an advanced long-life, Viking-style probe to Titan instead?! The Viking lander was "only" about twice as heavy as the Huygens probe will be so the lack of a powerful-enough launcher surely cannot be the reason? Is this just because of financial considerations again, or...? MARCU$ ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 13 Nov 90 03:58:15 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Subject: Re: The great light bulb debate References: <9011092213.AA05755@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article <9011092213.AA05755@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes: >The "inert" gas usually cited in the literature is nitrogen. Why would >krypton be better than argon? Nitrogen is not really inert when temperatures get high. For example, if you burn titanium in air -- 80% nitrogen, 20% oxygen, roughly -- the ash is about 80% titanium nitride and 20% titanium oxide. For applications involving incandescent metals, you want something that is really inert. (If you're being really picky, the noble gases [the preferred modern term] are not really inert either, but under these conditions they qualify.) Krypton is better than argon for the same reason that argon is better than vacuum: the denser gas slows the evaporation of the tungsten filament. -- "I don't *want* to be normal!" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Not to worry." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 12 Nov 90 18:45:03 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!samsung!umich!umeecs!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!sialis!orbit!pnet51!schaper@ucsd.edu (S Schaper) Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN. Subject: Re: A philosophical question Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu Because it might produce success. You can fish or cut bait. You can eat all your seed during the hard winter and starve the next, or you can tighten your belt and save seed for next year's crop. Human Beings are creative in nature, and it is part of our mandate to use such creativity to make a better world/universe. "It is the glory of God to hide a matter, it is the Glory of Kings to search it out" Prbs 16. We could all still be living on the Anatolain plateau, but our distant ancestors took a risk and moved out to settle new, unknown lands. (Anatolian, that is). Zeitgeist Busters! UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!schaper ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!schaper@nosc.mil INET: schaper@pnet51.cts.com ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 13 Nov 90 15:14:10 GMT From: serre@boulder.colorado.edu (SERRE GLENN) Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Subject: Successful Titan IV launch! Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu Titan IV now has a demostrated surge capability of 2 per year :-) --Glenn Serre serre@tramp.colorado.edu ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 12 Nov 90 20:09:51 GMT From: rti!dg-rtp!dg-rtp.dg.com!rice@mcnc.org (Brian Rice) Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC Subject: Re: CRAF/Cassini Update - 11/09/90 References: <1990Nov11.001924.10302@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, <0093F8EE.D9E16A40@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article <0093F8EE.D9E16A40@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU>, sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: |> In article <1990Nov11.001924.10302@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, |> baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: |> > |> > On the way to to Comet Kopff, CRAF will flyby the asteroid |> > Hamburga. JPL is currently in negotiations with the McDonald's |> > hamburger franchise to arrange some kind of advertising deal |> > (this is no joke). |> |> Does this mean that Ron Baalke will be replaced by Ronald McDonald |> for our news postings ? :-) JPL: "Junkfood Promotion Lab." Seriously, I think Ron just threw this in to see whether or not people were really reading his articles. Either that or NASA really wants to have CRAF do a gravity-assist flyby someplace, and they're counting on the added mass of the Happy Meal to justify it. -- Brian Rice rice@dg-rtp.dg.com +1 919 248-6328 DG/UX Product Assurance Engineering Data General Corp., Research Triangle Park, N.C. ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 12 Nov 90 11:43:25 GMT From: mcsun!unido!mpirbn!p515dfi@uunet.uu.net (Daniel Fischer) Organization: Max-Planck-Institut fuer Radioastronomie, Bonn, W-Germany Subject: Re: Galileo Update - 11/02/90 References: <1990Nov2.225442.8608@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, <4680@cvl.umd.edu> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu <1990Nov6.162730.6424@zoo.toronto.edu> <1990Nov7.163527.1466@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> Reply-To: p515dfi@mpirbn.UUCP (Daniel Fischer) Organization: Max-Planck-Institut fuer Radioastronomie, Bonn In article <1990Nov7.163527.1466@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@mars.UUCP (Ron Baalke) writes: >In article <1990Nov6.162730.6424@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >> [...] Ulysses is a European project with minor NASA participation. >Here is NASA's contributions to the Ulysses mission: [ list deleted ] >NASA's participation with Ulysses is much more than minor. And even more notable: this contribution is exactly what the ESA/NASA Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in 1979 had called for. Although these MoUs do not have the legal status of a contract, at least this one has survived all the earthquakes of the project! I wonder whether the MoU regarding the Space Station will have the same fate in the end... ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 13 Nov 90 15:34:20 GMT From: bacchus.pa.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com!advax.enet.dec.com!klaes@decwrl.dec.com (Larry Klaes) Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Subject: Early Soviet Venus (VENERA) Missions Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu Henry Thomas (hthomas@irisa.fr) writes: >> A similar(?) problem occurred on Venus, where the probes Venera >> 11-14 lasted only a few hours. The first ones didn't reached the >> ground because theirs parachutes where destroyed by the acid >> atmosphere. Not really. The first Soviet attempts to land on Venus failed either because of prior mechanical difficulties or due to being crushed by the high atmospheric pressure towards the surface. The landers of the VENERA 4, 5, and 6 missions (1967-1969) were designed to withstand only twenty Earth atmospheres (20 bars), the best esti- mate of air pressure on Venus' surface at the time. Even the temper- atures were thought to be several hundred degrees cooler than now known. Yes, MARINER 2 did indicate an overall surface temperature of 425 degrees Celsius (797 degrees Fahrenheit) back in 1962, but the Soviets were still holding out for a relatively cool and low air pressure Venus even in the late 1960s. For example, the VENERA 4 lander was designed to float in case it came down in a Venerean ocean! In addition, the sulfuric acid which pervades Venus' thick atmosphere was unknown at the time of the early VENERA missions. Its existence was postulated in 1973 and generally confirmed by the Soviet and American Venus missions of 1978. While not designed against acid, the descent parachutes on the early VENERA landers were very tough, plus the drop through Venus' air lasted no more than one hour. It was the intense air pressure which destroyed these vehicles. Not until the successful landing of VENERA 7 in December of 1970 was it finally confirmed that Venus has a surface pressure equivalent to being 990 meters (3,300 feet) beneath an Earth ocean, followed by temperatures one hundred degrees hotter than recorded by MARINER 2. Larry Klaes klaes@advax.enet.dec.com or ...!decwrl!advax.enet.dec.com!klaes or klaes%advax.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com or klaes%advax.enet.dec.com@uunet.uu.net "All the Universe, or nothing!" - H. G. Wells ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 13 Nov 90 21:21:27 GMT From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!wrgate!mtdoom!dant@uunet.uu.net (Dan Tilque) Organization: Upper Left Coast Liberation Army Subject: Re: The great light bulb debate References: <1990Nov13.035815.10203@zoo.toronto.edu> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >Krypton is better than argon for the same reason that argon is better than >vacuum: the denser gas slows the evaporation of the tungsten filament. Obviously we need to take this to it's logical extension. It's time to start recycling all that radon that everyone has in their houses. And I want no namby-pamby whining about radon being radioactive. In a lightbulb, that's not a bug, it's a feature. --- Dan Tilque -- dant@mtdoom.WR.TEK.COM ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: Tue, 13 Nov 1990 9:44:06 EST From: KLUDGE@AGCB1.LARC.NASA.GOV Subject: RE: SPACE Digest V12 #517 To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"space+@andrew.cmu.edu" Nobody has yet pointed out that, although light bulbs have an inert gas in them at atmospheric pressure (to make them easier to manufacture, so that their envelopes may be thinner, and to prevent outgassing of the filament), vacuum tubes have no such things. Vacuum tubes have somewhat thicker envelopes and are fairly safe as long as you keep your fingers off that B+ wire. --scott (who thinks making 6L6's in space would be a good idea) ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 13 Nov 90 16:59:49 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!lwall@ucsd.edu (Larry Wall) Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA Subject: Re: sci.space or talk.origins? (was Re: Creationists and Moon Dust) References: , <1990Nov9.223440.5571@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, <1519@ke4zv.UUCP> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article <1519@ke4zv.UUCP> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: : : In article <1990Nov9.223440.5571@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> lvron@earth.lerc.nasa.gov writes: : >This is coming from the point of view of a "creationist" who doesn't : >care how old the world is, or the mechanism by which it was made: only : >who started the mechanism. Some folks do believe that. Be careful not : >to assume all folks are the same. And if you want to flame me, kindly : >do it e-mail. The flames don't belong here either. : : I've got to ask what a creationist with this unscientific attitude is doing : in a sci group or for that matter receiving my tax dollars at a public : scientific institution. Don't you belong in a Monastary sir? I've : got no quarrel with someone who might say God created the big bang, now : let's work out the science from there. But someone who says God created : the Universe and then declares that that is all that counts and disavows any : interest in working out the science can't claim to be a scientist or be : trusted to do scientific work. Hmmm... Could it perhaps be that you've misread Gary's article? I read the "doesn't care" as an assertion of open-mindedness on the means, not lack of interest. As such, there is nothing there inconsistent with a scientific attitude, apart from any emotional baggage you wish to attach to the word "creationist", which, after all, he did put into quotes to tell you it wasn't being used in the ordinary sense. While we're on the subject of being in touch with reality, you shouldn't assume that everyone who works at a scientific institution is a scientist, either. (I think there are more secretaries than scientists at JPL. Which is not to say that the rest of us aren't keenly interested in science...) Using such an assumption as the basis of a quasi-diatribe is not in the best interests of net harmony. Larry Wall lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 13 Nov 90 20:43:16 GMT From: sun-barr!newstop!exodus!norge.Eng.Sun.COM!jmck@apple.com (John McKernan) Subject: Re: LNLL Inflatable Stations References: <7154@hub.ucsb.edu>, <9011122154.AA02573@iti.org> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes: >An inflatable station could be made smaller for 0G however if they are >to maintain artificial gravity, it is about as small as they can get. It's >not clear which has more life cycle cost. Crew can be left on a spinning >station for a year with no problems. >+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ >|Allen W. Sherzer| I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation | Soviet crews have stayed in orbit for over a year. They have demonstrated that with advanced exercise machinery and lots of exercise it is possbile to return to the Earth after a year in a 0g environment and completely recover. John L. McKernan. jmck@sun.com Disclaimer: These are my opinions but, shockingly enough, not necessarily Sun's ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #553 *******************