Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 05:02:29 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #128 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 20 Aug 92 Volume 15 : Issue 128 Today's Topics: Early Warning of missiles and meteors (2 msgs) Home made rockets (2 msgs) Inflatable Space Stations - Why Not ? Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space Saturn dreams space industry SPS feasibility and other space development superstrings & supralight (was SPS feasibility and other (2 msgs) The Federation is still here What about Saturn?/Future not Past Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Aug 92 15:59:35 GMT From: Stick Subject: Early Warning of missiles and meteors Newsgroups: sci.space In turner@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (George Wm Turner) writes: >nit-picks : SAC no longer exists. it too has gone the way of cold war. >it has been replaced by some command that combined sac, tac & maybe >mac. The new commands are Air Combat Command (missles, bombers, fighters, etc.) and Air Material Command (cargo, tankers). >SAC's job was to provide the offensive nuclear threat. SAC's mission was never characterized as offensive except by our old opponents, the Warsaw Pact. All planning was geared towards retaliation, not initiation. The airborne comand post was a perfect example. Called "Looking Glass", it was a mirror image of our executive branch, and was prepared to take over in the even the President and other high government officials were eliminated. > george wm turner turner@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu > if you want i.u.'s opinion, ask them, not me. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 92 01:20:39 GMT From: Gerald Cecil Subject: Early Warning of missiles and meteors Newsgroups: sci.space In article stick@clmqt.marquette.MI.US (Stick) writes: > SAC's mission was never characterized as offensive except by our old >opponents, the Warsaw Pact. All planning was geared towards retaliation, >not initiation. General George LeMay's original SIOP for SAC called for a massive preemptive strike with hundreds of aircraft at a time when the Soviet Union had less than a dozen nuclear weapons. That sounds ``offensive'' to me. This belongs in talk.politics... -- Gerald Cecil cecil@wrath.physics.unc.edu 919-962-7169 Physics & Astronomy, U North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA -- Intelligence is believing only half of what you read; brilliance is knowing which half. ** Be terse: each line cost the Net $10 ** ------------------------------ Date: 18 Aug 92 23:19:00 GMT From: George Gassaway Subject: Home made rockets Newsgroups: sci.space If "Estes" rocekts are not enough for you folk, try some of the commercially made larger rocket motors. Notably, Aerotech, who makes engines for consumers in the that go to E and F power. FAR more snesible than making your own. I've been into this hobby for 22 years and know better than to try to make up my own. Eventually, somebody gets injured of killed making up their own stuff. Just not worth it!!! ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 92 04:41:01 GMT From: hathaway@stsci.edu Subject: Home made rockets Newsgroups: sci.space In article <5969.409.uupcb@matrix.sbs.com>, george.gassaway@matrix.sbs.com (George Gassaway) writes: > If "Estes" rocekts are not enough for you folk, try some of the > commercially made larger rocket motors. Notably, Aerotech, who makes > engines for consumers in the that go to E and F power. FAR more snesible > than making your own. I've been into this hobby for 22 years and know > better than to try to make up my own. Eventually, somebody gets injured > of killed making up their own stuff. Just not worth it!!! > Not only do some people make their own stuff, some actually put the powder into little brass containers, stick lead plugs in the ends for projectiles and SELL the stuff to all sorts of people to use in things called "guns". "(according to the U.S. General Accounting Office) 138,490 Americans have been killed or wounded over the last 10 years by gun-wielding _children_ under _six_ years of age." Definitely Just Not Worth It. :) :-) :--) [cute - ironic - meant to be silly - I DO NOT want to take anyway anyone's ManHood ... please ... don't anyone shoot me for this ... I KNOW how insecure slug-abusers and lead pushers are ... GAAAHHHHHH] --- please No Flames --- end of message --- WHH -------- ------------------------------ Date: 19 Aug 92 23:34:03 GMT From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Subject: Inflatable Space Stations - Why Not ? Newsgroups: sci.space Whatever became of the idea of inflatable space habitats/workstations ? The savings on initial cost and on launch weight should be very great. Add to that the large size and configurational possibilities and you have an incredibly good deal. Modern materials, esp tri-weave carbon fiber, could strengthen an envelope and protect against ripping or bursting. All you need is a docking hatch and a few hard points to attach odds and ends to. The rest is just hot air. Internal partitions and compartments would be easy to build into such a structure ... or glue in later on. The large internal free volume of air would also add safety against explosive decompression. Self-sealing layers could deal with micrometeorites. If desired, thin interlocking plates of metal could be attached to the envelope to armor the whole thing. What's the problem ? Is this perhaps a TOO CHEAP solution - meaning that the contractors couldn't steal enough money during development ? If we want nice BIG space stations, with loads of internal room, with easy expandability ... inflatable spheres sound like the economical solution. Any feedback on this ? -- Jim Mason ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 92 01:20:00 GMT From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug19.174427.9782@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes... >In article <18AUG199220444595@judy.uh.edu> >wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: > >> There >> is a demonstrated need for larger lift capability. > >Sure, I believe you. I'm curious to know: what is the demonstrated >need? How is it demonstrated? It is simple. Look at the growth in size of geosync communications satellites. Ariannispace has and that is the basline for the growth into the Arianne 5. Also look at the Titan IV and planned V configurations. Both of these are in the 35,000-45,000 to LEO class. The baby Saturn BEGINS at the high end of this range for a lower price. Why lower price? Only one engine in the First stage for (F1A) the initial boost. Cuts labor costs way down and that is the driver of ALL of the launch vehicles today. Also a cut in cost due to using only one 14 million dollar engine. The growth can then proceed from there with that as a profitable viable baseline. Questions Questions Questions. Dennis Wingo, University of Alabama in Huntsville ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:50:00 GMT From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: Saturn dreams Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug19.214444.13730@u.washington.edu>, brettvs@u.washington.edu writes... >One more possibility for expanding the market for such a vehicle--is it >possible to use the first stage of the single engine version as an LRB? >Vague memory tells me that you can re-design the Shuttle ET to accept 3 >boosters without inordinate costs. However you feel about the Shuttle, >it may be a way of getting more money. I would suppose that these boosters >would then be useful on other designs, even on a future Saturn class booster, >let alone on a Titan system. > --Brett Van Steenwyk Alas Brett the Saturn S1-C stage originally WAS the Shuttle first stage and the ET was the Second stage tank. The LRB concept would work with the Two F1A engined vehicle. A good thing about this is that the lift would go from 5.5 million lbs thrust from the SRB's to 7 million pounds with only minor modifications needed at the KSC pads. I did not think about this till I saw your post. Heck there is another good reason for the F1A's and the baby Saturns! Probably would cost less and would for sure pollute less than the SRB's Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 92 02:33:52 GMT From: Greg Moore Subject: space industry Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug19.135709.17016@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article <1469100011@igc.apc.org> Mark Goodman writes: >>There are really no private space launch providers >>outside the United States -- Arianespace is the closest thing. > ^^^^^^^ >So what are Atlas, Delta, and Titan, chopped liver? > Ah, No Allen, they are INSIDE the US. :-) > Allen >-- >+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ >| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they | >| aws@iti.org | put a man on the Moon?" | >+----------------------247 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ -- <-------------------------------------------------------------------------> Greg d. Moore | Strider@acm.rpi.edu Green Mountain Software | "All that is gold does not glitter." Carpe Diem | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:42:00 GMT From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: SPS feasibility and other space development Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Aug19.172512.8712@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes... >In article <18AUG199220444595@judy.uh.edu> >wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: > >> As for quasi-religious; why are you so hung up on that phrase? Does it >> have some special meaning for you? My religion or lack thereof does not >> enter in to this discussion. > >Yes - it means faith prevailing over reason. Faith is an essential part of life. You must have faith that you will make it to work in the morning without being killed in order to function in society Ask a Croat how much faith that requires. You have to have faith to get out of bed in the morning. If you did not have confidence based on belief and justified by confirmation in action (which is the meaning of faith in the greek frame of the first century (pistis is the word)) you could not get out of bed for fearing that gravity might fail. Faith in the realm of engineering covers things like Chris Kraft & Von Braun's decision to allow the Saturn V first mission to proceed when enough mission rules had been violated that autodestruct would have been the prudent action. Faith allowed Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to ignore both computer problems and fuel near exaustion to pilot the Lunar Module to the surface of the moon. Faith says that you can go home to your wife with a reasonable chance she is not getting in on with your best friend. Reason is limited. It takes faith to move a civilization forward. It takes action based upon a premise that we will find the answers out there even if we do not have conclusive evidence for it. Upon that definition of faith I claim guilt. Heck so does Allen Sherzier and his HL Delta Dreams. It is faith until it is a done deal. Religon is simply another aspect of faith, so don't go all ga ga with accusing me of bringing religion into this. All other discussion along this line is not appropriate for sci.space Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 92 03:53:27 GMT From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" Subject: superstrings & supralight (was SPS feasibility and other Newsgroups: sci.space In article amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes: > > P.S. There's a preprint running around by Richard Gott (that may or may > > not yet have come out in Physical Review D) that actually takes > > faster-than-light travel seriously, basically as a consequence of what > > two superstrings passing each other do to spacetime. Thorne and others > > are trying their hardest to find what's wrong with it, as it severely > > strains the notion of causality... > > > > Now all we have to do is find a pair of superstrings. Details, > details.... :-) > Well, what do you think those two big tube-things on the Enterprise are for? > PS: when it comes out I'd love the citation so I can go dig it out. To my chagrin, I find it's been out for some time, and not in Physical Review D. It's Gott, J. R. 1991, Physical Review Letters, v. 66, p. 1126 but he shouldn't go out and spend all his money in anticipation of the Nobel foundation giving him one of their large checks, as the thrashing-out process is still in progress; see: Caroll, S. M., Farhi, E., and Guth, A. H. 1992, Physical Review Letters, v. 68, p. 263 (this paper has a VERY surprising title for a refereed journal article, check it out), and Deser, S., Jackiw, R., and t'Hooft, G. 1992, Physical Review Letters, v. 68, p. 267. The buzzphrase here is "Closed Timelike Curve," the distortion of spacetime that the parallel, moving cosmic strings cause. Every now and then, interest in this kind of thing flares up; in the late '60s there was a flurry of experiments to search for tachyons, as quantum field theory at the time suggested they might be looking for (in some solutions, a tachyon is the same as a magnetic monopole). I think I'll lay off this here, though, as this discussion is getting perilously close to sci.physics territory! By the way, there's no need to shy away from math any more, as programs like Mathematica are doing to math in general what calculators did to arithmetic. I learned Mathematica's essentials over a weekend; it's easy to use, although you need a pretty good computer to run it. That Sunday afternoon, I re-did ALL the math I'd ever taken in high school, college, and grad school, in about four hours! It was like standing at the edge of the Grand Canyon, looking at untold wonders spread out before me. (No, I'm not getting any money from Stephen Wolfram to endorse Mathematica; perhaps I ought to.) ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 92 05:38:11 GMT From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" Subject: superstrings & supralight (was SPS feasibility and other Newsgroups: sci.space In article amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes: > > P.S. There's a preprint running around by Richard Gott (that may or may > > not yet have come out in Physical Review D) that actually takes > > faster-than-light travel seriously, basically as a consequence of what > > two superstrings passing each other do to spacetime. Thorne and others > > are trying their hardest to find what's wrong with it, as it severely > > strains the notion of causality... > > > > Now all we have to do is find a pair of superstrings. Details, > details.... :-) > Well, what do you think those two big tube-things on the Enterprise are for? > PS: when it comes out I'd love the citation so I can go dig it out. To my chagrin, I find it's been out for some time, and not in Physical Review D. It's Gott, J. R. 1991, Physical Review Letters, v. 66, p. 1126 but he shouldn't go out and spend all his money in anticipation of the Nobel foundation giving him one of their large checks, as the thrashing-out process is still in progress; see: Caroll, S. M., Farhi, E., and Guth, A. H. 1992, Physical Review Letters, v. 68, p. 263 (this paper has a VERY surprising title for a refereed journal article, check it out), and Deser, S., Jackiw, R., and t'Hooft, G. 1992, Physical Review Letters, v. 68, p. 267. The buzzphrase here is "Closed Timelike Curve," the distortion of spacetime that the parallel, moving cosmic strings cause. Every now and then, interest in this kind of thing flares up; in the late '60s there was a flurry of experiments to search for tachyons, as quantum field theory at the time suggested they might be worth looking for (in some solutions, a tachyon is the same as a magnetic monopole). I think I'll lay off this here, though, as this discussion is getting perilously close to sci.physics territory! By the way, there's no need to shy away from math any more, as programs like Mathematica are doing to math in general what calculators did to arithmetic. I learned Mathematica's essentials over a weekend; it's easy to use, although you need a pretty good computer to run it. That Sunday afternoon, I re-did ALL the math I'd ever taken in high school, college, and grad school, in about four hours! It was like standing at the edge of the Grand Canyon, looking at untold wonders spread out before me. (No, I'm not getting any money from Stephen Wolfram to endorse Mathematica; perhaps I ought to.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:13:38 GMT From: Willie Smith Subject: The Federation is still here Newsgroups: sci.space Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In article <1992Aug13.150311.22585@mksol.dseg.ti.com> pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com writes: [...] >THIS IS A VERY FAST WAY FOR YOUR MACHINE TO GET SICK!!! This sounds like a >joke, but you have no idea where your floppy has been or what is on it. And >you don't even know who had it! > >We don't know who this "Lady Rhavyn" is. He/She could be earnest in this >effort, could be a dellusional fantisizer, or ... You won't get any respect or >support from me as long as you are ashamed of who you are. Well, now, don't pick on the Federation folks, they aren't (near as I can tell) living in the same universe as the rest of us. Write and ask for their 'position' papers, but be ready for some really hard slogging. After about the 5th instance of "Hmm, Ok, that's logical, [...] WHAT?" I gave up. They want to push human exploration of space using a crystalline engine which no-one understands the operation of... Their funding comes from (will come from?) an incredibly complicated scheme of publishing SF(?) and they've got a (paper) conglomerate set up where everything owns everything else and the folks on top hold _all_ the power and control _all_ the money. Not that there's any money. Their first major purchase will be a mainframe computer on which they'll set up a BBS-like thang. Imho, a lot of it sounds like the kinds of things 10 year olds talk about. They seem to know all the buzzwords for any given technology, but clearly have no idea what any of them mean. Mostly harmless. :+} Willie Smith wpns@pictel.com ------------------------------ Date: 20 Aug 92 07:42:56 GMT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: What about Saturn?/Future not Past Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1549@hsvaic.boeing.com>, eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) writes: > Dr. Robert Bussard is working under contract to DARPA to develop an > 'electric fusion' machine. The way it would work is to set up > a chamber bounded by current-carrying wires, [...description of trapping mechanism and energy conversion deleted] > Electrons are much lighter than ions, and > thus are easier to control with magnetic fields - rather than > trying to contain a plasma directly with magnetic fields as the > Tokamak tries to do. Sounds neat, but my physics intuition tells me that there may be lots of subtle effects to make this harder than it looks. Where can we read up on the details of Bussard's scheme? > You dump megavolt electron beams into a chamber (this is a souped > up TV tube, which uses 20 kilovolt electron beam to illuminate the > phosphors). The beam energy is absorbed in a few tens of cm by > your propellant, getting it very hot, then it goes out a nozzle. Great! A rocket exhaust that also shows NASA Select during launch! > This system is close to the 'Mr Fusion' we saw in 'Back to the > Future', and allows building real spacecraft, ones that don't > fall apart (stage) in flight. But can it run on banana peels and stale beer? > This may seem futuristic to some, but no more so than cryogenic > rocket engines would have seemed in the 40's, and they were > actually built for the first time in the 50's. This may seem futuristic to some, but no more so than magnetic confinment fusion devices would have seemed in the 40's, and they were actually built for the first time in the 50's. O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/ - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap! / \ (_) (_) / | \ | | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory \ / Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET - - Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV ~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 128 ------------------------------