Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 05:25:23 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #101 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sun, 31 Jan 93 Volume 16 : Issue 101 Today's Topics: ** INTERSTELLAR HYDROGEN ** 1986, "PC" Atlantis... Beanstalk?+ Catch-22: (was Using off-the-shelf components)+ Earth's rotation rate may be due to early collisions [Release 93-12] (Forwarded) Hewlett Packard conin space Mir/SSF(Fred) Combo Mission.. Orbital Mechanics--Careers? Precursors to Fred Reason for SSTO/DCX and Market (2 msgs) Riding Comets Solar Sail/Parachute/Brake Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger (7 msgs) 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: Fri, 29 Jan 93 18:25:34 PST From: Jason Cooper Subject: ** INTERSTELLAR HYDROGEN ** Newsgroups: sci.space Does anybody here know what the state of interstellar hydrogen is? IE, is it molecular or atomic? Jason Cooper ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Jan 93 17:26:11 EST From: John Roberts Subject: 1986, "PC" -From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) -Subject: Re: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger -Date: 28 Jan 93 13:57:54 GMT -> I can't believe they wouldn't let you discuss on of the most tragic -> events in recent history. -I can. Public schools are notorious for the collection of politically -correct liberals infesting them. They probably thought that the money -would have been better spent on welfare and that NASA and the -Challenger Seven deserved what they got. -God, I hate PC Libs! Especially when they are in positions to -indoctrinate our future. Don't equate "PC" and "liberal" - extreme "PC" has little to do with the views of most liberals. I don't know about grade schools, but colleges have a reputation for containing large numbers of PC people. If you can think of a reasonable way to reduce the influence of extreme PC, you're welcome to propose it. :-) Most of the people who have posted their experiences to sci.space and were in grade school reported that they *were* allowed to talk about it. Perhaps some school administrators thought that talking about it would upset the students - it would appear that in fact the ones who weren't allowed to talk about it were *more* upset as a result of that policy. In fact, it might not have been a case of PC after all - I would think the truly dedicated PC people would have been anxious to tell the students that the Shuttle had been deliberately designed to be defective by white males, so that they could lure aboard women and minorities, who would then be killed by the explosion. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 93 19:42:11 GMT From: jhan@debra.dgbt.doc.ca Subject: Atlantis... Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle One question here- Where is the shuttle Atlantis at the moment? (Most of the schedules and such I've seen talk of Discovery, Columbia and Endeavour.) Is Atlantis in refit at the moment? Thank you. -- Jerry Han-CRC-DOC-Div. of Behavioural Research-"jhan@debra.dgbt.doc.ca" /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// / The opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect the opinions / / of the DOC or any branch of the Federal Government. / ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 93 13:09:18 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Beanstalk?+ Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan29.003427.6927@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: > In article <1993Jan27.192526.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes: >>Does anyone know anythng about how to build a beanstalk? > > First you get some magic beans..... > > Gary > > -- > Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary > Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary > 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary > Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | Real funnt, eh Gary.. I mean the one that is teethered in space (geo orbit) and wher a cable is sent into the atmosphere and teathered to the earth.. You then use the cable to send cargo up and down from space.. Basically a elevetor on a cable.. Does anyone know more and if we are anywhere nearer the Tech for it than we were a few years ago.. Anyoen think it might be possible? Michael Adams Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel nsmca@acad2.alaska.edu ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 93 13:03:23 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Catch-22: (was Using off-the-shelf components)+ Newsgroups: sci.space In article , steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: > In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: > > Funny, I've never had an airline ask me if my equipment was > "air-qualified," much less subject it to vibration, outgassing, > or ECM tests. That's the difference between a transportation > system and an expendable artillery shell. > > Yes, you have, you were probably just too oblivious to notice. > Next time you fly on commercial air, look for the little list > of electronic equipment you cannot operate on an airliner, > or just walk into the cabin carrying a medium sized radio > with battery pack and tell them you want to call a ham > friend from 30,000 ft. > (or try carrying a propane tank into the passenger cabin, > or a lead-acid battery, or a detonator...) > > Airlines restrict equipment allowed onboard according > to outgassing, EM emission and vibrational stability, > never mind what you can operate. > > | Steinn Sigurdsson |I saw two shooting stars last night | > | Lick Observatory |I wished on them but they were only satellites | > | steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? | > | "standard disclaimer" |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983 | > > I think the main problem with a propane bottle is not outgassing and such, but because of the effects of pressurization. But a propane bottle also makes a good projectile if properly used.. Liek aoxygen bottle.. Michael Adams Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel nsmca@acad2.alaska.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Jan 93 22:00:45 GMT From: Joe Cain Subject: Earth's rotation rate may be due to early collisions [Release 93-12] (Forwarded) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology,alt.sci.planetary In article <1993Jan26.202535.23678@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >In <1993Jan20.204654.11054@netlabs.com> lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall) writes: > >>In article <33529@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes: >>: In article <1993Jan18.210842.12714@hpcvca.cv.hp.com| rayd@hpcvcas.cv.hp.com (Ray Davis) writes: >>: || "A popular theory holds that the collision of a Mars-sized planetary >>: || body with the Earth threw considerable debris into orbit, which then came >>: || together to form the moon," Dones said. "Thus, the same impact which gave >>: || Earth its spin, could also have formed the moon." >>: | >Isn't there geological evidence that shows that Earth and Moon formed >(were not molten, which I would expect accretion of a body the size of >the moon to result in -- gravitational energy) at the same time? >Theat seems to me to be a death blow to any such theories of >catastrophic formation of the moon The age of meteorites are nearly all 4.45-4.5 Ga, whereas Lunar maria are 3.2-3.9 Ga and lunar highlands up to 4.2 Ga. The oldest dated Earth rock is like 3.8 Ga from continental shield rocks. Geologists usually qualify this by saying that there were likely older rocks before that. The Earth and Moon being about the same age on such time scales does little to limit the big impact theory of formation of the Moon unless you can argue that if there were such an event say about 4.4 Ga it would take much longer than a couple hundred million years for the lunar debris to reacreate. (I suppose you could consider that the Earth accreated earlier). Paul Spudis, writing in The New Solar System (Sky Publishing) gives each theory a grade and the giant impact only gets I (for incomplete) on the questions of the relative mass of the Moon, and the lack of lunar iron. The other three theories he considers were given D's or F's in other considerations. I would be interested in whether there have been significant new developments on these theories since this publication (1990). Hartmann writes (3rd edition p. 151) that the giant impact theory predicts "distinctive chemical traces in the mantle minerology. For example, ...transient high temperatures ..that would never have existed without the impact." Have any such traces been found? Joseph Cain cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu cain@fsu.bitnet scri::cain (904) 644-4014 FAX (904) 644-4214 or -0098 ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 1993 22:38:20 -0500 From: Pat Subject: Hewlett Packard conin space Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space In article <1jp4agINNlim@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes: |In article <1993Jan21.184138.22352@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes: |> |>Before you ask, the SPOC software is NOT available to the general |>public. It includes a world map showing day/night and the current |>position of the Orbiter, updated in real time. | |Like, bogus. Do you realize how much money NASA could make by selling it off to |Space Junkies at $50 a pop? :) | It seems to me, that given our tax dollars paid for the software, that it has to be available as FOIA info if nothing else. pat ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 93 13:27:16 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Mir/SSF(Fred) Combo Mission.. Newsgroups: sci.space I think one good reason for Space to go commerical is the Congression mind changing, party politics and special interest groups.. We the US are pricing and legeslating ourselves not only out of the "space race" but also the economic race, we are alreadt becomeing a "second world" power... Japana and the EC are the new superpowers, were just being crazy.. Senility can be fun.. I think that the shuttle should be flown to Mir, dock with it and then unload its cargo and begin to build SSF next door to Mir... Teh Astronauts must have someplace to live, why not "Mir" or maybe build a combined space station.. Why must the US have its own pet progect space station.. Why not have a combined one, maybe under a loose UN aspicies... United Fed here we come.. Why not schedule Soyuz and Shuttle mission so that both US and Russian and other Astronauts go up on different birds. Maybe have a revolving crew? How dificult would it be to just build onto Mir or dsign a new center and connect Mir to it.. Do some mining of waste space debris.. After all ther emust be alot of junk in space that is just there for the taking and using.. Why must we spend more money to send materials into space when the materials have already been sent into space.. Michael Adams Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel nsmca@acad2.alaska.edu ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 1993 08:00:22 GMT From: Jim Haynes Subject: Orbital Mechanics--Careers? Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.research.careers,sci.space,soc.college.grad Which subject reminded of an item that came over the wire service news immediately after Sputnik went up. Said something like scientists are feverishly working to calculate the orbit of the new satellite. People who do this kind of work are called celestial mechanics. -- haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@cats.bitnet "Ya can talk all ya wanna, but it's dif'rent than it was!" "No it aint! But ya gotta know the territory!" Meredith Willson: "The Music Man" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 20:21:31 PST From: Brian Stuart Thorn Subject: Precursors to Fred Newsgroups: sci.space >I would suggest that NASA fly a whole lot more flights where EVA and >construction methods are experimented with. They should also spend >money providing better integration testing of the station. Better >mining Russian Mir experience and more LDEF like flights wouldn't >hurt either. > >That way you have a lot more confidence that the station can actually >be build. When it is in orbit then you have lots and lots of time to >make the experiemnts work at far less cost. > >A space station which doesn't work isn't a good experimental platform. > > Allen That all sounds like a very good idea, and I hope NASA expands its current pre-Station shuttle tests. I certainly hope that the 1995 Atlantis/Mir rendezvous is the first of several missions to the Russian space station in prelude to Freedom. Perhaps NASA could negotiate a follow-up mission where the Shuttle takes up a major Mir module or other element, thereby proving the Station assembly concept in orbit. More spacewalks are already on the schedule, with three still to come this year, on top of the STS-61B and STS-49 EVA construction tests (neither of which produced potential show-stoppers.) Much was made of the Intelsat troubles last May, but I don't think Freedom assembly will have much in common with a free-drifting, RMS-incompatible satellite. The Hubble repair in December will be the real test of Freedom EVA plans. If they have trouble with that, NASA can easily add spacewalks to the 1994 and 1995 Shuttle missions to clear up the problems. I'm not sure what a follow-up LDEF type mission could contribute to Freedom at this late-stage of development, but one should be launched for its own sake. -Brian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian S. Thorn "If ignorance is bliss, BrianT@cup.portal.com this must be heaven." -Diane Chambers, "Cheers" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 93 18:48:22 GMT From: Josh Hopkins Subject: Reason for SSTO/DCX and Market Newsgroups: sci.space labmas@stein.u.washington.edu (Lab Master) writes: >In article <1993Jan28.135651.18692@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >>The ticket will cost (round trip) $100,000 to $200,000 (assuming you pack >>them in like sardiens for a very uncomfortable trip). That's roughly a >>years pay for a typical corporate senior executive. >> >>This is not a very big market. >> >A few weeks ago, on "Beyond 2000", they had a clip about the SSTO/DCX. >They claimed that a round trip would cost approximately the same as a >current round-the-world trip would cost (2000-3000 US$). I saw that too. This is a good example of how useful it is to be able to tell what a statisic really means, not just what it sounds like it means. A few thousand dollars would be the cost of moving your mass. If you're willing to be stacked in like logs with 130 other people then they could charge you that price. If you wish to travel with some semblance of dignity however, it's not your mass but the volume of you and your personal space that will be the dominant factor in passenger load. Personally, I think that if you can show that intercontinental travel might be reasonable then you can take it as a fait accompli that orbital tourism would be a bigger and more successful market. People will pay much more to boldly go where no tourist has gone before and they'll accept more discomfort to do it. -- Josh Hopkins jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu Q: How do you tell a novice from an expert. A: A novice hesitates before doing something stupid. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1993 02:46:45 GMT From: Larry Wall Subject: Reason for SSTO/DCX and Market Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: : On the other hand, suppose your son needs a critical operation, : and the only doctor who can perform it is on the other side of : the world. Would you pay an extra $27,000 then? Now THAT'S what I call skyrocketing medical bills... Larry Wall lwall@netlabs.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Jan 93 15:51:21 EST From: aa429@freenet.carleton.ca (Terry Ford) Subject: Riding Comets What is the possibility of creating a craft that could land on either a near earth asteroid, or a comet, and hitch a ride? From what I have heard, comets and the likes travel at impressive speeds, which would be a great way to conserve energy on a deep space mission. Landing on a comet that is passing through the solar sytem, on its way into deep space would be a great way to get out, without having to use all the energy for propulsion. Another idea would be to place a spacecraft on Halleys comet, or somethign else that flies by the earth frequently. That way, on its voyage out, it could take many many observations, without warrying about propulsion, OR sending data back to earth. Once the comet comes close to the earth, optical communications could take place, and all data collected could be transmitted to earth, AND any power the probe/spacecraft had lost could be transmitted to the probe. ..getting to the comet/asteroid is another problem.. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Terry Ford [aa429@freenet.carleton.ca] | "Macbeth hath murdered sleep!" Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | "Macbeth shalt sleep no more!" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 93 02:23:57 GMT From: David Goldschmidt Subject: Solar Sail/Parachute/Brake Newsgroups: sci.space If you made a very light sail, (far beyond anything we can make today), and make it reflective one side only, it will accelerate even in interstellar space (the reflected light gives twice the pressure of the absorbed light). It will continue to accelerate towards a "terminal velocity" of c/3, where red and blue shifting of the light will compensate for the reflected/absorbed effect. Maybe we should be looking for objects moving about c/3. (What would a one-sided solar sail look like? btw, there was a previous posting about solar sails having trouble slowing down upon reaching their destination. This isn't much of a problem; the sail can continuously adjust its orbit without doing any clear "accelerate" or "decelerate " part of the trajectory. Sails can move into lower orbits just as easily as into higher ones, by slowing themselves down and letting the sun pull them in. Dave Patterson, guest on this account ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 93 19:36:37 GMT From: jhan@debra.dgbt.doc.ca Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle A little late with the reminisicing- I've been catching up with the news. Where was I? I was in Grade 7, in my elementary school. Somebody told me during lunch time that the shuttle had exploded. I thought at the time it was one of the most stupidest jokes I had heard in my life. Unfortunately, it wasn't a joke. I don't think it sank in until I watched the replay on the news for about the fifteenth time. -- Jerry Han-CRC-DOC-Div. of Behavioural Research-"jhan@debra.dgbt.doc.ca" /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// / The opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect the opinions / / of the DOC or any branch of the Federal Government. / ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jan 93 07:54:22 GMT From: "John A. Weeks III" Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle In <1k8rr2INN13q@bigboote.WPI.EDU> gandalf@wpi.WPI.EDU (James Michael Sambrook): > Where was I when the Challenger accident occurred? > To this day, I still get chills when I see the explosion. Let's ALL > hope that it never happens again... Lets also keep in mind that zero risk means zero progress. In order to make progress, we are going to have more accidents. Each day dozens of people get cancer from smoking and we pour tons of smoke in the air producing electricty, yet the entire planet comes to halt when we have a space related accident. I would not be surprised to hear that hundreds of people on planet Earth died of starvation on the day of the Challenger accident, or that 7 children were beaten to death by their parents. When put in perspective, the Challenger accident was a minor problem compared to the problems we face every day in life. We can never be perfect and we can never control all of the variables. The seven people who perished in the Challenger accident should be, above all else, our inspiration to keep flying. -john- -- ============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org Newave Communications, Ltd. ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jan 93 20:22:12 PST From: Brian Stuart Thorn Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle January 28, 1986 I was working at the Patrick AFB Commissary, about 30 miles south of Kennedy Space Center. After a morning of delays, we heard on the radio that the launch was finally about to go. Most of the crew went out onto the loading ramp to watch the launch (as usual). After half a minute, Challenger rose high enough to be seen over the next-door Base Exchange. Since it was very cold that morning (for Florida) most people went back in after getting a good enough look to see that it was on its way. The radio (WMEL) had already gone back to regular programming when an unusual puff appeared in the Shuttle's contrail. I, for one, had seen almost all of the launches (except one or two on cloudy days) and knew that something had gone terribly wrong. I was hoping for an RTLS, and moved closer to hear the radio better. WMEL interupted programming with its Civil Defense disaster tone (something which made the event much more frightening). The Commissary was notified to have all customers clear the parking lot. (The Commissary is also next door to the Patrick hospital, which had been placed on alert, and our parking lot was to be cleared for incoming rescue helicopters, which of course, never came.) By the time this task was finished, it was clear that the Challenger crew was gone. I'd always heard my parents describe the day Kennedy was assassinated, and my Mom clearly remembers hearing about Pearl Harbor on the radio. After January 28, 1986, I knew how those events must have felt. Brian S. Thorn Sergeant, USAF ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 93 05:59:32 GMT From: FRANK NEY Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle Where was I? Working for a government contractor that had a contract with the Navy, so I was working in a pest-filled office building at the DC Navy Yard. I brought my 2 meter that day, so I was listening to the air-to-ground relay via Goddard SFC (through WA3NAN, Coddard ARC). Work came to a dead stop for about an hour after the disaster. Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-A LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E" Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia Send e-mail for an application and more information ---------------------------------------------------------------- "...I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of individuals...I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty, subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating in their purpose." - Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet" -- The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C. 703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 20:35:42 GMT From: Jeff Bytof Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger Newsgroups: sci.space In article nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes: >Oh, give me a break. Seven trained people, flying a brand-new, >more-or-less untested vehicle? They knew the risks. How is this even >comparable to massive tragedies like the famines in the Horn of >Africa, or the Azerbaijan earthquake, or even to the Lockerbie >bombing? To any airliner crash? There are even highway pileups which >kill more. Ya, but it was kindof sad so many kids had to see a teacher die that way. It was a massive tragedy, given the point that mission was trying to make: that space travel was safe enough for a non-astronaut. The day before the tragedy, I heard about the clumsy stuff that was taking place on the pad with tools and dead batteries, etc., and started to get a real bad feeling. The next day I want into the university library to do some research for a project I was doing on Mars balloons filled with hydrogen, and when I got in the truck to get back to the lab, I heard the sad news about Challenger. -Jeff Bytof ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1993 10:35:06 GMT From: "Simon E. Booth" Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger Newsgroups: sci.space In article masticol@cadenza.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) writes: >sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes: > > >>Just a reminder- 7 years ago today- 11:38am EST.... >>So, where were you when the Challenger disaster took place? > >I was at the RCA Advanced Technology Laboratories in Moorestown, NJ, >trying to probe a GaAs gate array. Work was going slow. Then the news >hit. We had a TV in the room, and somebody connected it to an antenna >and we saw the whole thing, over and over, intercut with an interview >of Christine McAuliffe. A stark contrast; her beautiful aliveness, and >her hard, violent end. > >Some asshole Reaganite kid was braying about how the Russians had >blown up the shuttle. I told him to shut up. Pardon me a second, but I also was saying things about how the Soviets sabotaged the shuttle. And I even went as far as to advocate 'blasting their cities into slag heaps'. I was younger then, and the Challenger accident affected me quite a bit. I even denounced people telling jokes or trying to silence pro-space talk as 'cowards, Communists, and traitors of the worst possible sort'. People will say strange things when they are angry. What I never figured out was that even the teachers at my high school weren't doing anything, and it was one of their own who was among the crew. Simon ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1993 11:26:21 GMT From: Dave Michelson Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jan30.103506.5532@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes: > >Pardon me a second, but I also was saying things about how the Soviets >sabotaged the shuttle. And I even went as far as to advocate 'blasting >their cities into slag heaps'. > [...] > >I even denounced people telling jokes or trying to silence pro-space >talk as 'cowards, Communists, and traitors of the worst possible sort'. > >People will say strange things when they are angry. No kidding. --- Dave Michelson University of British Columbia davem@ee.ubc.ca Antenna Laboratory ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 101 ------------------------------