Space Digest Fri, 6 Aug 93 Volume 16 : Issue 987 Today's Topics: Current Sub AIP, and can it be used in space to? Ghost Wheels & HenrySpancer_Zoo (2 msgs) GPS: Is there a Russin equibvalent? Info on the upcomming Perseid shower anyone? Mars Observer Update - 08/02/93 Recent Soviet Footage shown on BBC (And in Australia) Titan IV Failure (2 msgs) Titan IV failure. Info? (2 msgs) What is ZHR? 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: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 12:11:51 GMT From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu Subject: Current Sub AIP, and can it be used in space to? Newsgroups: sci.space Saw whis on sci.military, and much of it I think can be used in space.. Since submariens and space ships share much in common.. So I appologize to anyone who disagrees, but, such is huan independence.. In article , wildwesl@picard.cs.wisc.edu (Christopher Stoner) writes: > > From wildwesl@picard.cs.wisc.edu (Christopher Stoner) > > > Alot of discussion has been posted recently regarding AIP (Air Indepen- > dant Propulsion) for subs. Four approaches are currently being explored for > air independant power production: Fuel Cells, the Stirling Cycle Engine, > Closed Cycle Diesel and Closed Cycle Turbine. Most of these AIP systems > can be retrofitted to existing SSKs by cracking the hull, adding the new > propulsion section and then resealing (as done on the German Type 205 sub U1 > and the Sweedish sub Nacken). These systems all incorporate the on-board > storage of oxygen (usually in LOX form) as a combustor, which is stored in > tanks stored outside the pressure hull. > Fuel Cell propulsion for submarine application is being pioneered by > Thyssen Nordseewerke for use in the new German Type 212 subs. LOX and hydro- > gen are mixed with a catalyst creating electrical current which can then be > transferred to storage batteries or to the electric motor driving the > propulsion gearing. This process is very efficient in terms of oxygen con- > sumption (2 times that of a diesel or otto cycle). The greatest advantages > of Fuel Cells over the other forms of AIP is that electricity is converted > directly to electrical power (thus it is virtually noiseless) and that it is > a low temperature system. > The Stirling cycle engine is a high-pressure piston system which uses > a diesel oil/LOX fuel which drives an electric generator. Since the system > is so high pressure the exhaust can be vented to the surrounding sea water > in a traceless manner (the products are soluable and no pump is needed). Heat > produced by the engine is captured by an economizer and utilized as well. > The system is used for low-speed operations and complements the diesel/battery > propulsion by conserving their power for higher speed maneuvering. > The Closed Cycle Diesel, also being developed by Theyssen Nordseewerke > as well as MarItalia, uses a conventional diesel engine (supplied with LOX > as a combustor) which then scrubs the resulting carbon dioxide into the > surrounding sea water. The MarItalia system reenriches the exhaust with oxygen > after purifying it in a totally closed system. The capture carbon dioxide is > then stored and used to blow the ballast tanks. > A Closed Cycle Turbine is being developed for French use by Bertin and > is called MESMA. It uses a heating system of an undisclosed type coupled with > a Rankine cycle steam turbine for power production. > > The advantage of these systems is clear: the extension of a sub's > submerged endurance. The less time spent in the vulnerable practice of > snorkelling the more survivable the sub. Some AIP's also provide extremely > silent methods of power production (fuel cells and the Stirling cycle) which > also lend themselves to survivability. > The disadvantage, to me, is the dependancy on LOX as a combustor > (it's presence would put an additional urgency for effective damage > control! :-) ), which would make underway replentishment tricky and could also > become scarce in wartime. The need for cryogenic storage is also a concern > when it comes to complexity, accessibility (most tanks are stored outside of > the pressure hull) and overall weight. > If anyone has any additions or clarifications please feel free to post > them (I want to know if I got this stuff right! :-) ). > > [ Primary Source: Navy International ] > > - chris (wildwesl@picard.cs.wisc.edu) > Have fun, and enjoy.. === Ghost Wheel - nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 20:38:00 +1200 (NZST) From: Bruce Hoult Subject: Ghost Wheels & HenrySpancer_Zoo Newsgroups: sci.space In article <52926@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, hshen@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (S.H.) writes: > >=== > >Ghost Wheel - nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu > > What is your backgroud? Ghost. Are you part of Ghost_Green? > Who do you speak for ? > > What do you do besides writing posters ? ...and in article <52928@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> writes: > >-- > >Altruism is a fine motive, but if you | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > >want results, greed works much better. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > what messages do you try to sale ? > > What is your background ? > What does Zoology has to do with space ? > > What do you do besides writing posters ? Welcome to the kill file. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 93 09:52:46 GMT From: "S.H." Subject: Ghost Wheels & HenrySpancer_Zoo Newsgroups: sci.space In article <2827427880@hoult.actrix.gen.nz> Bruce@hoult.actrix.gen.nz (Bruce Hoult) writes: > >Welcome to the kill file. Really ? What else are you going to Kill ? Socrates was killed too. I still read about him. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 11:17:06 GMT From: Dave Michelson Subject: GPS: Is there a Russin equibvalent? Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >>I'm pretty sure I remember reading that the USSR (back then....) was >>putting a system similar to the US GPS into orbit. Could anyone advise if >>this has actually been done, and if so, are there any receivers available >>for it? > >That's the Glonass system. It's in the same pre-operational state that >GPS was in a few years ago: useful but limited. It's not clear that it >will ever be completed, given the economic woes of its backers. > >People have looked at building Glonass receivers, and also at building >receivers that could receive both Glonass and GPS. So far there's nothing >commercially available, as far as I know. Part of the problem with Glonass has been the extremely poor reliability and limited lifetimes of the satellites already on orbit. However, the Russians can launch three of them at one time so it won't take long to fill out the constellation once these problems are resolved and the decision to proceed with full deployment is taken. I'm under the impression that development of integrated Glonass/GPS receivers was motivated largely by an ICAO position that plain GPS was inherently unreliable and that a receiver with built in redundancy was required if radionavigation satellite systems were to be used aboard aircraft. I gather that ICAO has softened their position in recent years, though. Magnavox made a big deal about their work in this area at IEEE PLANS 90. If anyone has such an integrated receiver available, I would expect that it would be them. -- Dave Michelson -- davem@ee.ubc.ca -- University of British Columbia ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 09:18:50 GMT From: Jostein Lodve Trones Subject: Info on the upcomming Perseid shower anyone? Newsgroups: sci.space The last info I have on this meteor shower is that it will start around 0100 GMT on 12 August. Any new info out there? Thanks and cheers, Jostein ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 07:28:52 GMT From: Dave Michelson Subject: Mars Observer Update - 08/02/93 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary In article <1993Aug4.214250.175@leland.Stanford.EDU> stefan@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stefan Michalowski) writes: > >Question: why does Mars Observer have such an unattractive/unconventional >name? With some exceptions (Lunar Orbiter - yawn) our probes seem to >get nice names like Galileo and Viking. What's the story? The transition from sterile name to colourful moniker often occurs when the project is formally approved. The Jupiter Orbiter with Probe was renamed Galileo in January 1978 after it was approved by Congress (the first time). I don't know when the Venus Radar Mapper was renamed Magellan but it was almost certainly after VRM was approved as a scaled down version of VOIR... I gather that Cassini was named before it was approved, although the name Mariner Mark II floats around when CRAF and Cassini are mentioned. (Of course, Voyager was called Mariner Jupiter/Saturn until 1975 -- three years after it was approved by Congress.) I suppose Mars Observer could have been named after an astronomer who had made important early observations but I don't think that names like "Schroter" or "Schiaparelli" would capture the public's imagination. Anyone have any bright ideas for an appropriate name? Maybe it's not too late.... :-) -- Dave Michelson -- davem@ee.ubc.ca -- University of British Columbia ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 21:56:38 GMT From: Luke Plaizier Subject: Recent Soviet Footage shown on BBC (And in Australia) Newsgroups: sci.space SORRY about the following email header, but I thought to include it since I am just forwarding this message. >From mag Wed Aug 4 18:40:53 1993 remote from jb.man.ac.uk Received: by scorch.apana.org.au (smail2.5) id AA09091; 4 Aug 93 18:40:53 est (Wed) Received: from muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au by werple.apana.org.au with SMTP id AA26221 (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for ); Tue, 3 Aug 1993 20:36:32 +1000 Received: from nessie.mcc.ac.uk by muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (PMDF V4.2-11 #4399) id <01H1BLIFB49S0047P0@muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>; Tue, 3 Aug 1993 20:35:07 +1000 Received: from jb.man.ac.uk by mailhost.mcc.ac.uk with SMTP (PP) id <00819-0@mailhost.mcc.ac.uk>; Tue, 3 Aug 1993 11:34:48 +0100 Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1993 11:26:37 +0100 (BST) From: "Mike Garrett (VLBI friend)" Subject: Soviet film To: lukpla@scorch.apana.org.au Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Status: RO Hi, I can read but not post to USENET. Here's some info on the film you referred to. A few days ago the BBC breakfast news showed archive footage of Soviet Space disasters. The film was obtained from the magazine "Flight International". I don't know how they got their hands on it. The clips showed: 1) A very clean escape system abort of a Soyuz capsule (1974/75?). The film showed the carrier rocket igniting but no lift off! Seconds later as flames licked up the side of the rocket the escape system fired lifting off the soyuz spacecraft. It was very impressive. 2) Film of medics trying to resucitate the Soyuz 11 cosmonauts. The capsule is nearby and looks in good condition i.e. the automatic re-entry obviously worked OK. 3) Film of the Soyuz 1 capsule after crash landing. Not much of it (or Komarov) left I'm afraid. The upper ring hatch is clearly visible however. 4) Film of a rocket explosion on the pad. This was the famous incident in which a team of engineers were ordered to inspect a fully fueled rocket whose engines had failed to ignite. The rocket exploded with many people on the pad and nearby. You could clearly see people on fire and several fire-fighting teams. There were also shots of armoured vehicles. The scene was reminiscent of the Zeppilin disasters early in this century. Hope this is of some use. Post it if you like. cheers, Mike. _______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Garrett | mag@jb.man.ac.uk (Internet) University of Manchester | +44 (0)477-71321 x245 (Phone) Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories | +44 (0)477-71618 (FAX) Jodrell Bank | 36149 JODREL G (Telex) Macclesfield | Cheshire SK11 9DL | U.K. | _______________________________________________________________________________ Gravitational Lenses provide a theorists heaven & an observers hell. --- P.J.E. Peebles. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 4 Aug 93 18:02:33 GMT From: Bruce Watson Subject: Titan IV Failure Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Aug3.162122.25198@cs.rochester.edu| dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: |said that while the cause of the accident is not known, the solid |rocket boosters appeared to separate prematurely just before the |explosion. | The video looked very much like the Challenger accident -- the stack coming apart and the boosters flying ahead. -- Bruce Watson (wats@scicom.alphai.org) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 93 11:06:04 GMT From: Dean Adams Subject: Titan IV Failure Newsgroups: sci.space In article <23q6u3$ota@sleepy.cc.utexas.edu> signer@sleepy.cc.utexas.edu writes: > >What is the power source for the payload? SNAP or similar units or >solar arrays? I can't believe the press hasn't reported on the >possibilty that fissionable materials could have been sent >into the pacific. Plutonium anyone? > No... The reason they havn't "reported" is because there is no such possibility. The press can be pretty misinformed about these matters, but if any of them really started crying "plutonium" i'd be awfully PO'd. Neither the NOSS cluster or Lacrosse need nuclear power to perform their mission. Solar power works quite nicely. The ONLY space nuke power used by a US spacecraft in a very long time has been infinitely safe RTGs on space probes. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 93 01:37:25 GMT From: Bruce Watson Subject: Titan IV failure. Info? Newsgroups: sci.space In article Subject: Titan IV failure. Info? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Aug4.153344.13627@draper.com> mrf4276@egbsun10.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Matthew R. Feulner) writes: > > When hearing this, I gotta wonder what exactly they did after it > exploded. Doesn't seem much sense in sending a signal to an > exploded rocket, but I guess rules are rules and possibly something > was left. The Titan is equipped with a "Inadvertant Separation Destruct System" that commands all the destruct h/w to detonate. This is exactly the reason they have that system. Should 1 component become unattached the whole rocket blows up. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Love rlove@raptor.rmnug.org (NeXT Mail OK) BIX: rlove ----------------------------------------------------------------- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Love rlove@raptor.rmnug.org (NeXT Mail OK) BIX: rlove ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 09:29:58 GMT From: Jostein Lodve Trones Subject: What is ZHR? Newsgroups: sci.space Regarding my last posting about the Perseid Meteor shower: I've seen the term Zenithal Hourly Rate (ZHR) used to classify meteor showers. Anyone with a more or less precise definition on this? Thanks and cheers, Jostein ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 987 ------------------------------