Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.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, 7 Mar 91 01:39:16 -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, 7 Mar 91 01:39:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #239 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 239 Today's Topics: [Something that got lost in the SPACE digest] Lockheed Bid on Commercial Launcher...? Re: liquid SCUBA -- possible? Re: Confusion regarding "Firm Fred Decisions" space news from Jan 21 AW&ST Floppy Almanac shuttle computer upgrade Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Mar 91 19:16:52 GMT From: emanon.cs.jhu.edu!arromdee@umd5.umd.edu (Kenneth Arromdee) Subject: [Something that got lost in the SPACE digest] >... I've >never actually FOUND a defenition of life. Biology doesn't seem to feel it's >all that important, I guess. I'd love to get any reference anyone can offer. Never mind life, define "chair". "A chair is something you sit in." (Well, I sit on couches. Are they chairs?) "OK, a chair is something one person sits on." (I've sat on stools, are they chairs?) "OK, a chair is something with a back that one person sits on." (Is a beanbag chair not a chair?) "Change that. A chair is something used as a seat for a person, and either has a back or permits a seating position that uses a part of the thing similarly to a back". (Oh good, a set of steps is a chair?) "Change that too. A chair is something used as a seat for a person, either has a back or permits a seating position that uses a part of the thing similarly to a back, and was primarily intended for such use." (Well, I've seen "sample chairs" on display in stores, with instructions never to sit on them. They are still chairs.) "Hmm. A chair is something used as a seat for a person, either has a back or permits a seating position that uses a part of the thing similarly to a back, and either was primarily intended for such use or is a member of a class of things most of which were intended for such use.", etc.... I hope you get the idea. The same applies to life, and Gaia. And to automobiles, for that matter. The term "life" (or "chair") is well-defined enough to apply to certain things, but not to unusual cases, which can really be handled only by explicitly including or excluding them. You can always define life such that Gaia fits it, but then I can always define life such that automobiles fit it too. >>you also seem to suggest that sterile humans are not alive, since they cannot >>reproduce. (Of course, other humans reproduce, but then other machines build >>cars....) >I'm assuming that by attaching an adjective "sterile" to "humans" you are im- >plicitly acknowledging a state of abnormality. ... If humans are alive, then it follows that sterile humans are alive, and thus it follows that ability to reproduce cannot be an essential requirement to be alive. This is elementary logic. You can fix it up by saying that life has to "almost" be able to reproduce (almost meaning either it reproduces or other similar things reproduce) but as I said other machines build cars.... >>>I.e. you are what you eat. Cars do not >>>make spare parts out of gas and oil (food?)... >>Sure they do. Cars have many parts: doors, steering wheel, engine, gas tank, >>battery, gas tank contents, stored energy within battery. They cannot easily >>replace the first five without the aid of symbiotic humans, but by consuming >>gasoline they can replace the last two parts using material from their food >>source. >No, "They" don't. "WE" do. In no defenition of symbiote will one organism do >the other organism's growing. ... Human beings cannot make food via photosynthesis either. But once the plant has produced the food, they can then take it into their bodies and later use it to replace parts. Similarly, cars cannot hook themselves up to gas tanks, but once a human has hooked up and turned on the gas pump, the car can take the gas into its body and later use it to replace parts (counting stored energy within the battery as a "part"). The types of parts which automobiles can replace on their own are more limited than the types of parts that people can replace on their own, but that does not mean that the automobile cannot replace parts at all. -- "This theory of yours -- that painful memories can be surgically removed..." "I can't share details... one of my colleagues might steal my idea." --Brenda Starr, 12/25/90 Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm; INTERNET: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu) ------------------------------ Date: 6 Mar 91 04:27:41 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Wales.Larrison@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Wales Larrison) Subject: Lockheed Bid on Commercial Launcher...? Glenn, you asked this answer be posted in the general area . Hi Glenn, You asked in reference to: >Reference new Korean comsats: >> Launch services competitors include Arianespace, McDonnell >>Douglas, General Dynamics, Martin Marietta, and surprisingly, >>Lockheed. > >Do you know how Lockheed is going to do this? I didn't know they >built any boosters. > I compiled the article from a variety of industry sources, so I don't have specific information on the Lockheed position (any Lockheed folks out there in net-land?). As I noted, this was somewhat surprizing, since (as you also noted) Lockheed is not known as a launch vehicle manufacturer. Two possible explanations quickly come into mind. First, that they were misidentified as a launcher bidder, rather than a satellite manufacturer bidder. A couple of messages ago in this series I talked about Lockheed's new entry into the low-cost satellite market, called "F-Sat" or "Frugal-Sat". However, that satellite venture is not targeted at communications satellites, for which there is some differences in technology and operational practise, rather than the DoD and LEO scientific satellite market that venture was primarily targeted at. So I would tend to rule out this possibility. Secondly, Lockheed does have a very active program under way to develop a small, all-solid ELV. They won a USAF "Small ELV" contract, and have been actively pursuing this area. Recently, they have been embroiled with the US government and some other Small ELV manufacturers over their planned use of surplus Posiden and Polaris solid rocket motors for their launch vehicle (remember that Lockheed's Space and Missile Company has developed and built all of the solid-fuel submarine-launched ICBMs. The "discussion" between the different parties is whether Lockheed's use of such motors is essentially government subsidization of a single competitor in this highly competitive market, or just disposal of surplus government assets. OSC, for one, is very strongly against this...) My guess would be that a Lockheed rep showed up at the bidder's conference to investigate to see if they could enter the launch market with their small ELV (since the Korean comsat was rumored to be smaller than normal). . ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wales Larrison Space Technology Investor -- Wales Larrison Internet: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org Compuserve: >internet:Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 6 Mar 91 16:13:34 GMT From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!sarah!bingnews!kym@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (R. Kym Horsell) Subject: Re: liquid SCUBA -- possible? In article <6900@idunno.Princeton.EDU> winnie@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jon Edelson) writes: >In article <1991Mar5.021836.17377@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> kym@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (R. Kym Horsell) writes: >>I have read of at least one operation on a human patient where, for >>reasons that do not _exactly_ remember, their lung (sic) was filled with >>sterile, oxygenated water (I presume saline to cut down on osmotics)& \\\ >There is a procedure where they `wash' a single lung at a time. I >presume that the patient is under general anesthesia with a breathing >mixture pumped into the free lung. Thus the problem of the diaphram >getting tired would not be evident. I don't think that a person would >be very comfortable awake with the proper breathing/lavage tube in them. I don't think the case(s) I read about was `lung washing'. From what I remember the problem in the case I read about was the patient only _had_ one lung. How do you remove, e.g. a cyst, from someone's lung when they only got the one? I guess a heart/lung bypass was ruled out for some reason. From my recollection of the article having the lung `inflated' with fluid also helped whatever procedure was carried out. I'm also not sure whether the patient was under general anastheasia either. It's probably no picnic being (even partly) awake, your breathing supressed (I presume) with drugs and a lung full of warm water. But then again, the `minor' discomfort of, e.g. a laryngosopic (sp?) exam is not to be taken lightly either, and that's pretty common (and, boy, you _are_ awake for that)!. -kym ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 91 01:49:25 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Paul Blase) Subject: Re: Confusion regarding "Firm Fred Decisions" CF> + However, you focus at length on the problems of cutting CF> +openings, not of putting airlocks in them. Anywhere you can CF> +bolt a hatch you can bolt an airlock instead, without any CF> +fundamental difficulties. CF> - CF> ?? Really.... Would not hold pressure very long ! Airlocks CF> involve complex redundant labyrinth seals. A bolted interface CF> is no good. Only on the doors themselves. For a bolted interface, an O ring would work quite nicely, or some caulk. How are the access hatches sealed now? CF> + As I may have mentioned before, the people working on the CF> +Gamma-Ray Imaging Telescope concept have already sorted out CF> +the details of opening one of the hydrogen-tank manholes and CF> +getting both men and equipment in through CF> + it. No major problems, last I heard. CF> - CF> Interesting. Please tell us how they plan to install an CF> airlock. Windows would be nice too. Which of them volunteered CF> to be the first one to go through the airlock without a suit on CF> ? You install the airlock first, then pressurize it, then test it, THEN remove your suit. The airlock is big enough to traverse with a suit on. --- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR] -- Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104 UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase INTERNET: Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ Date: 6 Mar 91 05:48:13 GMT From: mintaka!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: space news from Jan 21 AW&ST [A slightly light week, because AW&ST is preoccupied with other things; it shouldn't be hard to guess what. :-)] Igor Volk selected as commander of first manned Buran mission, still quite some distance in the future due to funding shortages. Ulysses's nutation [a wobble in its spin] has been stopped. It is thought to have been caused by uneven heating of the 7.5m axial boom, since it started after boom deployment and was successfully eliminated after the boom went completely into shadow. Otherwise Ulysses is doing fine. [Famous last words... but communications problems appear to have been solved after some tense moments.] The Vulcain oxyhydrogen engine for Ariane 5's first stage successfully completed its first test series in December, including brief intervals at full thrust. Full-duration full-power runs planned later this year. NASA decides that its own restructuring plans for the space station do not go far enough, and a more drastic study -- like that recommended by the Augustine commission -- is in order. NASA will form a "special task force" with DoD to examine possibilities for near-term heavy-lift booster development. Iraq is still getting data from US weather satellites, despite this being of some military use, both for weather planning and as a very crude form of satellite reconnaissance. NOAA has not been asked to do anything about this yet, partly because shutting the satellites down during their passes over the region would also deny weather images to friendly nations. Soviets reveal details of their "Regatta" satellite project, intended for near-Earth solar and magnetospheric science and using solar-sail technology for attitude control and stabilization. Basically it's a fairly ordinary satellite with a very large skirt sticking out nearly at right angles from the spaceward end, and several little rectangular "solar rudders" mounted on the rim of the skirt for control. The intent is to provide an unusually clean environment for experiments by avoiding attitude thruster firings. IKI [the Space Research Institute], the developers, are also offering it to the NOAA/electrical-utilities consortium that wants a solar-storm warning satellite. USAF missile-warning satellites are providing about 90s notice to Israel and Saudi Arabia of incoming Scud missiles. At least two of the satellites have been maneuvered into position scanning the Gulf. Generally accurate impact-zone predictions can be made, although precision is limited by the Scuds' short flight time. The warning satellites were not designed for use against short-range missiles; they were designed around the brighter exhaust plumes and longer flight times of strategic missiles. Earlier experience with monitoring of the Iran/Iraq war and superpower missile tests suggested a useful capability against tactical missiles, and the 90s warning is considered useful despite being undesirably short. About 12s after launch, both satellites will have seen the plume and stereo imaging for impact prediction is available. Controllers at the USAF station in Alice Springs are alerted by an automatic alarm and confirm that the launch is real. Meanwhile, the data goes by satellite to Cheyenne Mountain. Both Alice Springs and Cheyenne Mountain compare the data against known Scud properties and predict the impact zone. The satellites get several more looks at the plume as the missile climbs, permitting some refinement of impact predictions. Reasonably good impact location predictions are available about 120s after launch, but it takes another 3 minutes or so to get the information to the targets. This leaves 90-120s of warning time, enough to get people under cover [and alert Patriot batteries, although this is not being mentioned yet]. The USAF had planned to cancel an Advanced Warning System satellite project to save money, but that decision is likely to change. CIA and USAF are maneuvering strategic-reconnaissance satellites to give better battle-damage assessment coverage. Small mobile ground terminals are starting to give field commanders rapid access to spysat data, the first time this has been done on the battlefield. Extensive solar flare activity in December, producing some doubts about the guess that the current solar cycle passed its peak a while ago. If this keeps up, significant communications disruption is possible. USAF Communications Command says the possible effects on military communications are "too sensitive for comment". -- "But this *is* the simplified version | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology for the general public." -S. Harris | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 6 Mar 91 04:01:20 GMT From: bywater!scifi!paladin!nick@uunet.uu.net (Carmine Nicoletta) Subject: Floppy Almanac Does anyone know the phone to the US Naval Observatory? The one I had 1 202 653 1079, does not seem to work. I'm trying to get information on 1991 floppy almanac. Does anyone have a copy the can email? Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Mar 91 00:34:20 GMT From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Paul Blase) Subject: shuttle computer upgrade Item of misc. interest: (from EE Times, Feb 25, 1991, p1) NASA is finally upgrading the computers on the space shuttle, the new computers will be introduced with the next launch of the Discovery. The new AP101S computers use static RAM instead of magnetic core, and offer a 3x speed increase. Computer Memory Mips Size MTBF (hours) AP101S 256k 1.2 10x9x18 20,000 (new) x 32 bit 64 lbs 1 box AP101B 104k 0.4 10x9x19 5,20 (old) x 32 bit 120 lbs 2 boxes A side column points out: "NASA's style assumes that old technology is cheaper than new, that reliability is expensive, that quality can be 'tested into' parts and that redundant components are a reasonable strategy for overcoming the residual unreliability of components with 'tested in quality'....So I believe the most important part of the Augustine Report [which suggests NASA goals into the 21st century] is the funding of a major revitalized technology program." (Dr. Lewis Branscom, who directed IBM's NASA computer-supply program in the 1980's, speaking). Personal note: if NASA were to use commercial launch vehicles, the manufactures would, via the profit incentive, probably use more state-of-the-art technology - thus reducing costs and increasing reliability. --- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR] -- Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104 UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase INTERNET: Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #239 *******************