Space Digest Thu, 29 Jul 93 Volume 16 : Issue 941 Today's Topics: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist) DC-X Prophets and associated problems Did our CCD catch a high orbiting satellite or a near-Earth asteroid? Driving Rover Vehicles from Home - tests on July 27, 1993 FTL communication? Galileo's HGA, did it test even partly usable? Good news on Delta Clipper confirmed Iapetus - eclipse seen/EPHEMVGA bug! In article 876@access.digex.net, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here! (3 msgs) Making Orbit proceedings Super Gun for Satellite Launch! 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: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 21:46:54 CDT From: U16072@uicvm.uic.edu Subject: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space In article <1993Jul28.123338.21058@bsu-ucs>, 01jlwile@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu says: > >True, traditional QM measurements do say just that, but, listening >to Pons at his Indiana University talk shortly after his press >sonference and also reading the Conressional Committee's report, all >CF people aren;t claiming a fundamentally new process, they are >mereyl saying that the chemical activity present in such a cell >can be though of as pressure which pushes the two nuclei closer >together than their normal equilibrium distances. QM tells you >that the fusion rate is dramatically dependent on distance, so Not that dramtically. That is untill you reach the point where the nucei overlap. Then the rate goes sky high. This is what happens in muon catalysed fusion. But I seem to remember calculations that in a D2O cell the distancews actually increase. -------------------------------------------------- Thaddeus Olczyk, University of Illinois at Chicago ------------------------------ From: Gary Coffman Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems Newsgroups: sci.space Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 22:51:56 GMT Lines: 53 Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In article <1993Jul28.172857.508@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article <23623dINN8du@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes: > >Now at the same time, a NASA study (The Economist, June, 26, 1993) states >that NASA spends, on the average, six times what the private sector does >for development projects. So assuming HST is a typical program then a >commercially procured HST would cost less than $300M (using Wales's figures). >With a quanity buy, HST's can be had for even less, but we'll use the >$300M figure. BTW, another article (The Economist, July 17, 1993) mentiones >a BMDO project which could make a similar telescope for $300M which tends >to confirm my number. The private sector doesn't buy unique one of a kind space telescopes, they buy cookie cutter comsats from an established supplier. There's no reason to believe that a factor of 6 applies in this case. Granted buying several at a time *should* save money per each, but who's to say they wouldn't all have the same defects. >So we take our $300M HST, and send it up on a Titan III (with a kick >stage to boost to a higher orbit) or a Titan IV. Either vehicle can >be had commercially for less than $200M. What kind of track record does Titan IV offer? What are it's vibration limits? Shock loads? How much redesign would be necessary to put a Hubble replacement on a Titan IV? How many years? What cost? >You might do well to look closer at the experience on DC. It went from >being an unknown small effort to gaining wide acceptance in a very short >time. In Congress, the House supports it and the Senate opposes it. The >House has been briefed by insiders and activists (many of whom are on the >net) and believes it to be a change from the buisness as usual you advocate. >The Senate, on the other hand, hasn't been as extensively briefed and thinks >SSRT is just another launcher project to fund the production of view >graphs and opposes it for that reason. > >This shows that Congress will support a cost effective program but is >loosing patience with the waste we have seen to date. More likely it shows that House members have been reassured it won't hurt their pork projects while the Senate hasn't yet been clued in that it's not a threat. The House is willing to throw it a small bone just to shut the activists up. Once all the risks are explained to them, the Senators from Lockheed and Rockwell won't see it as a credible threat either. Just tell them about 200 flights a year. They'll laugh all the way to the conference committee. 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 | | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 00:32:13 GMT From: Leigh Palmer Subject: Did our CCD catch a high orbiting satellite or a near-Earth asteroid? Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space In article Claia O Bryja-2, bryj0001@student.tc.umn.edu writes: >While observing (or, rather, trying to observe-- there were some clouds) with >a 30-inch telescope and a CCD just east of Minneapolis/St. Paul, our camera >snapped the motion trail of something interesting. The exposure time was 15 >seconds, and the trail extended about 100 arcsec. Going at that rate, if it >were a satellite in a circular orbit, it would have a period of about 50 or >60 hours. This seems a bit long. How many satellites orbit that far out? >The direction of the streak was close to north-south, and we were pointing >fairly close to zenith, so this satellite would have to be in a polar orbit >also (our latitude is 45 N). We were wondering to ourselves if it might be >a near-Earth asteroid instead-- passing us beyond the Moon's distance. >Can anyone comment on how likely this might be? I would naively think that >the north-south orientation would be unusual for an asteroid. If anyone >happens to be interested in the details (time, position, magnitude, etc.), >please e-mail. Once while observing at Kitt Peak on a long December night I caught a glimpse of such an object visually in the finder. I wasted almost an hour and a half on it thinking I had a near earth asteroid. It was a geosynchronous satellite, and I suspect that's what your object is, too. Leigh ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 1993 08:18:32 GMT From: Diaspar Virtual Reality Network Subject: Driving Rover Vehicles from Home - tests on July 27, 1993 Newsgroups: sci.space Driving Rover Vehicles from Home - Tests Conducted on July 27, 1993 Today marked an important milestone in the steady progress towards new ways to operate vehicles remotely, a process called Tele-Operations. The first in a series of upcoming tests was successfully performed. McDonnell Douglas, NASA Ames Research Center, Comcast Corporation and the Diaspar Virtual Reality Network conducted a series of tests which culminated in the operation of the NASA Ames Rover vehicle remotely using a personal computer. During the tests, various communications linkups were implemented. The end result was operation of the vehicle using a home personal computer while observing the actual live television images transmitted from the vehicle as if one were actually driving it. The complete test configuration involved Tele-Operations software running on a personal computer which was connected via modem to the Diaspar Virtual Reality Network. Control information was then passed via modem link to a UNIX platform (in this case a Silicon Graphics machine) that functioned as a gateway to a local Ethernet that connected to the rover operating system. Television cameras watching the vehicle, as well as television cameras mounted on the vehicle, provided live video which was sent using the NASA Select channel via satellite to Comcast Corporation. Comcast Corporation received the video images and displayed them to users taking turns on a personal computer, completing the loop. The net result was that users could operate the rover vehicle while watching its activities via live video or actually see a driver's point-of-view. The vehicle was also operated from home to test the driver selection capability and experiment with vehicle override procedures. Further tests are planned including broadcast of the live images on unused local cable channels - allowing for educational, home and commercial test operation of the rover vehicle by anyone with a home computer involved with the test. The tests performed today indicated this concept will work so sites are being selected for the next series of tests. Anyone with access to NASA Select video via satelite, a home personal computer and modem can be a pot- entail user with this kind of system layout. McDonnell Douglas Corporation has been investigating the potential of such remote operations for a variety of possible robotic planetary exploration missions. These include both lunar and martian rovers. MDC is working closely with several Russian space organizations that are currently preparing a "Marsokhod" rover for their upcoming Mars '96 project, as well as NASA Ames and several other government labs. NASA Ames Research Center provided both the prototype rover testbed, as well as control software based on virtual reality concepts, a field in which Ames has been a major pioneer. These same capabilities have been used to operate the prototype Russian Marsokhod both at a testbed in Ames and also while the rover was located in Moscow. A future application will involve a submersible remotely operated vehicle that will explore the ocean beneath the Antarctica ice shelf later this fall. The expanding telecommunications field was represented by Comcast Corp., one of the largest cable television system operators in the world. Comcast is actively investigating new programming opportunities that will be created as cable distribution grows to 500 or more interactive channels per system. Besides providing access to the cable distribution, the company is also able to supply insights on how to package and present the information generated by the rover in a fashion that is best suited for a broad consumer audience. The Diaspar Virtual Reality Network is conducting experiments aimed at low cost home Tele-Operations for EduTainment purposes. Diaspar is sponsoring the Lunar Tele-Operations Model 1 (LTM1) project which is building a mini- ature lunar colony with Tele-Operated vehicles that can be operated by home computers, including receiving slow scan video images directly on the user's computer monitor screen. This educational project is open to individuals, students and teachers worldwide. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 1993 05:42:02 GMT From: Josh Hopkins Subject: FTL communication? Newsgroups: sci.space WCHAYWARD@CHEMISTRY.watstar.uwaterloo.ca (Colby Hayward) writes: > What if you had an ideal rod (ie. massless, uncompressable, >unbendable) that was one lightyear long, suspended in space. You have two >observers, one at each end (A and B). So we have: > A ---------------------------------------- B > So, what happens when the observer at A grabs the rod and pulls it >towards him/her? Wouldn't the end at B move also? At the same time? >If no, why not? If you really do have a perfectly rigid rod, it will indeed transmit information at the speed of light. Similarly, if you have a sample of an ideal gas at absolute zero it will take up no space. However, since both of these materials and situations are totally impossible, the Universe doesn't bother to have a consistant policy for them. -- Josh Hopkins jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu "Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." -R. Feynman ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 04:44:47 GMT From: Robert Casey Subject: Galileo's HGA, did it test even partly usable? Newsgroups: sci.space In various previous "Galileo updates", there was mention that JPL was doing some tests on the jammed HGA. To see if any signal would get through. Was wondering if the tests are finished, and if it was found if the HGA has any functionality now. Even if you can only get the equivalent of 10bps, that's still 10 more than without. Every little bit of bandwidth helps (assuming it's not on the same "channel" as the LGA.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 22:31:41 +1200 (NZST) From: Bruce Hoult Subject: Good news on Delta Clipper confirmed Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: > +----------------------90 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ I really really hope that's a glitch in your program... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 05:26:01 GMT From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie Subject: Iapetus - eclipse seen/EPHEMVGA bug! Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space The eclipse of Iapetus on July 20-21 has not been mentioned here to my knowledge. Anyone know how it went? In a related topic, I had been searching for a programme to predict the locations of Saturn's moons and found EPHEMVGA did so. EPHEMVGA is a version of Elwood Downey's (e_downey@hwking.cca.cr.rockwell.com) EPHEM modified by Doug McDonald to include Saturn's moons). EPHEM is a superb package overall. I especially like the ability to search for the solution to functions fed to the program. However, I think I have found a bug in the Saturns moons mods made by Doug McDonald. I don't have VGA display but I have been looking at the table produced by menu item "Saturn Aux". I noticed the position of Iapetus didn't seem to match those given in the diagrams in the British Astronomical Association's Handbook for 1993. Even more graphically illustrating a bug is the diagram on page 72 of Sky & Tel magazine for July 1993. I enter U.T. 12h on 1993 July 21 when the S&T diagram shows Iapetus 1.5 Saturn radii from Saturn's centre yet ephemvga gives: Saturn Radii X (+E) Y (+S) Z (+towards) Magnitude Iapetus 0.279 -11.014 -59.354 11.2 The Y value of -11.014 must be way out whether it refers to South on the sky, South wrt Iapetus' orbital plane, or wrt to the planet's equator and rings. The orbits of Enceladus, Tethys, Dione and Rhea seem in excellent agreement with the S&T diagram. This *is* a bug isn't it? Anyone else noticed it before? Anyone know for sure if Doug McDonald (mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu) on holiday? -Tony Ryan, ASTRONOMY & SPACE magazine published by: Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland. (ONE OF WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - email re any larger! 0.039%) Tel: 0 8 9 1 - 8 8 - 1 9 - 5 0 for U.K. Hotline (new message Mondays) (dial 1550-111-442 in Republic of Ireland) ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 93 02:32:47 GMT From: Henry A Worth Subject: In article 876@access.digex.net, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: Newsgroups: sci.space > > Michael Jensen again shows his lack of Knowledge.... > > > For what it's worth, The DC-3 was very high Risk for it's > time and considered very experimental.. > > a 2 Engine Plane for Oceanic Flight?????? > The single-engine performance issue for the DC-3 and its predecessors was not trans-Oceanic, it was trans-Rockies. Demonstrating a crossing with a single-engine shut-down was an important milestone in getting CAA certification for mountain operations and the Airlines were reluctant to order until it had that certification (if memory serves, the demo was Phoenix to Denver in a DC-2, and required a portion of the climb to be made single-engine). Prior to the DC-2/3, trans-Rockies scheduled passenger flights required tri-motors and were often substituted for by rail links. The DC-3 did not have the range for trans-Oceanic operations (island hopping doesn't count), that had to wait for the DC-6 (I think even the DC-4 required favorable winds and payload for even the shortest non-stop trans-Alantic routes, and was used on such routes primarily as a VIP and critical-freight hauler during WWII, and even then diversions to Greenland or Iceland were common, if not the norm). The DC-2 and DC-3 differ primarily in a larger cabin cross-section for the DC-3. They were similar enough that during WWII, DC-2's were often canabalized to repair DC-3's, and on at least one occasion a DC-2 wing was mated to a DC-3 resulting in the rather well known DC-2 1/2 (there were slight differences in the wing). --- Henry Worth No, I don't speak for Amdahl... I'm not even sure I speak for myself. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 23:12:13 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here! Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jul28.175458.9978@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: > >It should be clear that some optimum cost vs. performance point must >exist for launch vehicle hardware. What evidence is there that we are >on the low-performance side of that point? Analysts in the 60s >concluded that, in fact, we were on the high side, and should make >less sophisticated, less complex vehicles, whose poorer mass ratio was >more than offset by much lower per pound construction cost. We make >cars out < $1/lb sheet steel, not $1,000/lb exotic composites. It is >not clear why rockets should be any different. Autos are produced by the millions, rockets by the tens. Hand built Ferraris use $1,000/lb exotic composites too. Even Peterbilt is going to carbon fiber, fiberglass, and aluminum for over the road trucks. If GM can save $.01 a car, they make $5,000,000 additional profit per year. But that doesn't apply in small production runs. There, a few dollars one way or the other doesn't make much difference. Most of the cost of building a rocket is in the hand labor, and launch preparation, and launch operations, not the materials. For a really big rocket, Sea Dragon comes to mind, shipyard materials and shipyard techniques make sense. But for the run of the mill small rockets we use, and the small numbers we launch, we can use the best materials so we can get the most from each launch. The cost of launcher materials is one of the smaller costs in the total picture of getting a payload into orbit and operating it there. 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 | | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 03:25:59 GMT From: Paul Dietz Subject: Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here! Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jul28.231213.9082@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: > Autos are produced by the millions, rockets by the tens. Hand built > Ferraris use $1,000/lb exotic composites too. Hardly that expensive! The composites used in low volume auto manufacturing are mostly fiberglass, which is more expensive than steel, but not enormously more expensive. Commercial E-glass costs only a few dollars per pound. Note, however, that the fiberglass is used in places where very high strength is not important. > Even Peterbilt is going > to carbon fiber, fiberglass, and aluminum for over the road trucks. If > GM can save $.01 a car, they make $5,000,000 additional profit per year. > But that doesn't apply in small production runs. There, a few dollars > one way or the other doesn't make much difference. Most of the cost of > building a rocket is in the hand labor, and launch preparation, and > launch operations, not the materials. The materials you list for Peterbilt are still nowhere near the expense of aerospace composites. Moreover, I would be surprised if Peterbilt is putting them into places where strength is crucial, like the major loadbearing members. The fact that things are built by hand does not necessarily make expensive materials better. Consider the experience with the prototype steel tanks manufactured (by hand) by Boeing for the cost optimized booster project in the late 60s. They found reduction in the per-pound cost of fabricated, tested steel tanks of an order of magnitude over then-standard aluminum alloy tanks. The reduction in cost was due to a more forgiving, if lower performance, material, and wider margins. I shudder to think what those tanks would have cost if made of aerospace grade graphite-epoxy. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 03:01:40 GMT From: "Alex C. Anderson" Subject: Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here! Newsgroups: sci.space The thread on low-cost spaceflight touches on one subject that doesn't seem to be covered very well when people discuss spaceflight, and that is the actual cost for really putting something into say LEO, or even just a spounding rocket flight. I'm not talking about the "cost" we are given for a shuttle launch; that can be argued back and forth for all eternity with people wantiong to include this or that cost. I heard from someone at Wallops that when they helped with a small commercial launch a few years ago (I think it was a Conestoga?) that the rocket cost was allegedly a few hundred thousand, but with the attendant launch ops the real figure was over a million. If anyone out there has actual exp[erience or good information about costing for these things, I would be interested in hearing about it in detail - with an idea of where the numbers come from, too. I've seen so many figur them is, I find it hard to believe anyone's cost estimate for a hammer, let alone an entire small rocket launch. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Alex C. Anderson | andersan@ecn.purdue.edu | | P.O. Box 2204, W. Lafayette, IN 47906 | voicemail:317-538-1157 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 1993 00:09:23 -0500 From: hvanderbilt@BIX.com Subject: Making Orbit proceedings Newsgroups: sci.space >From: JDAVIS@GAES.GRIFFIN.PEACHNET.EDU (Jerry Davis) > >Subject: Making Orbit proceedings >Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 17:25:53 GMT > >Hi all. Has anyone received the proceedings from the Making Orbit >Conference? I didn't attend, but ordered them from someone on the net >who offered to send extra copies for a nominal fee. Alas, I haven't >heard anything since. I have lost the ordering information so can't >contact them directly. Anyone know what's up? > >Thanks. > >Jerry Bill Nicholls (billn@bix.com) is doing the Making Orbit '93 Proceedings. It's completely his project; he initiated it, has collected the money, and is putting together the product. Last I talked to him (in early June) he said it might be ready in August, likely with 12-18 papers and 300-400 pages, very professionally finished. Space Access Society may at some point put together a quick and dirty "Collected Papers" from Making Orbit '93. We were 50% cosponsors and entirely responsible for the space programming, and we have a half-dozen papers on file related to talks that were given at MO '93. If we go ahead and do this, it'd be a simple photocopy of existing originals, stapled together, nothing fancy. We're going to wait on Bill a bit longer first though. Henry Vanderbilt "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere Executive Director, in the Solar System." Space Access Society - Robert A. Heinlein hvanderbilt@bix.com "You can't get there from here." 602 431-9283 voice/fax - Anonymous ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jul 93 07:58:02 GMT From: Andrew Higgins Subject: Super Gun for Satellite Launch! Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Jul28.033520.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: | |> Space Gun/Super Gun: If I rememebr correctly the Iraqi "super gun" was based on |> a design to put small satellites into orbit.. |> |> Any work being done to use it for its "original purpose", namely put small |> satellites into orbit? Check out the new (September) issue of Smithsonian's "Air&Space." It has a nice article about the status of several similar efforts. Andrew Higgins higgins@aa.washington.edu ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 941 ------------------------------