Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V08/V8_251.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 16KB

From ota Mon Jun 13 08:19:09 1988
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA16771; Mon, 13 Jun 88 08:18:53 PDT
    id AA16771; Mon, 13 Jun 88 08:18:53 PDT
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 88 08:18:53 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #251

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 251

Today's Topics:
               Re:  Space Station Names
            Re: Expanding cicrle of ______
           Re: "What if" on Shuttle External Tanks
                Re: Robertson
               Re: SPACE Digest V8 #221
     Roman-Greek Mythology (Was:Re: Space Station Names)
      Re: Re Soviet Shuttle launch soon (May 18th) - not likely
               Re: Space Station Names
          Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST
               Soviet's shuttle
          Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST
             Re: Sun-Earth Orbit
            Antimatter weaponry reference
            Re: Naming the space station.
               Sun-Earth Orbit
         Re: Antimatter propulsion questions
            Re: Naming the space station.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 20 May 88 10:27:49 EDT
From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  Space Station Names


   How about "Space Station I" or the "John Ludd Station" :-) .

Dennis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARPA:    [e-mail]    UUCP:      ...!uunet!ardec-ac4.arpa!drears
AT&T:    201-724-6639        Snailmail:    Box 210, Wharton, NJ 07885
Flames:    /dev/null        Reincarnation: newton!babbage!patton!drears
Work:    SMCAR-FSS-E, Dennis Rears, Bldg 94, Picatinny Ars, NJ 07806
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 May 1988 15:13-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Expanding cicrle of ______


Keep in mind that the US craft do not dump solid wastes overboard, only
liquid ones.  The soviets do not return their garbage to the surface,
but they don't just dump it either. They fill a Progress with garbage
after unloading the cargo and let it burn up on re-entry.

Water this close sunwards is rapidly ionized (no difference from
cometary ices particles), as should be any bacteria thus contained. If
they were released on particulate matter, some would undoubtedly
survive in an encysted form, as was found on Surveyor lander.

I'm also fairly sure that the water and ice would not escape the
Earth's gravity. I won't go in to a long explanation, but I would
compare it to shuttle exhaust gases, and you can read:

"Spacelab-2 Plasma Depletion Experiments for Ionospheric and Radio
Astronomical Studies", Mendillo, Baumgardner, et al, Science, p1260
27-Nov-87.

Remember that at the altitude an speed of the shuttle, there are still
ionospheric plasmas, and any subliming gases will interact with them.
Small particles released with the liquids will suffer the same fate as
Delta rocket paint flecks: fly around Earth for a few years and then
either reenter or make craters in spacecraft windshields.

And as soon as the water ionizes, it will then interact with the
earth's magnetic field. The dissociated H+ may well escape. I don't
know.

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 88 23:30:07 GMT
From: thumper![e-mail]  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: "What if" on Shuttle External Tanks

This perennial discussion on storing Shuttle external tanks in orbit
keeps missing one thing -- the typical shuttle orbit is very low in
altitude (296 km) and an empty external tank has an enormous coefficient
of drag (i.e., it's very big and very light). It wouldn't stay up very
long without being kicked into a much higher orbit than the shuttle
itself would be willing to spend the fuel to go.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 88 15:35:01 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Eric William Tilenius)
Subject: Re: Robertson

>Pat Robertson finally answered my question about his views
>on Space. It's a little too late but I'll post them here
>anyway:

[Stuff about Robertson supporting Reagan's space "inititive" deleted...]

Funny, but I recall Robertson being firmly against the Space Station, and
against human exploration of Mars.   Did G~  tell him otherwise, now?
Last I heard he still wanted to stay here and bash commies.

- ERIC -
*----------------------===>  SPACE IS THE PLACE... <===-----------------------*
*        [e-mail]  //  [e-mail]                *
*      rutgers!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni  //  princeton!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni       *
* ColorVenture - Microcomputer Software - "Because Life isn't Black and White"*
*--------------------===> Another proud CoCo 3 owner <===---------------------*

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 88 16:53:50 GMT
From: thumper![e-mail]  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V8 #221

> NASA is to spaceflight as the Post Office is to mail.

I only wish this were so. For $0.25 I can send an ordinary letter across
the country, and from recent experience it'll get there in about 3 days,
weekends included. And they go everywhere, too.

Now if NASA could put something into an orbit of my choosing with a
3-day lead time and the same price per ounce, I'd agree with your
comparison. I know it's an American pastime to bash the postal service,
but I think that in recent years they've done an awfully good job given
that their service involves physical transportation.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 88 11:46:53 GMT
From: mcvax!enea!kth!draken![e-mail]  (Kai-Mikael J{{-Aro)
Subject: Roman-Greek Mythology (Was:Re: Space Station Names)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Adrian Hurt) writes:
>I thought Minerva was the Roman name for the Greek goddess Athene, the goddess
>of wisdom.
>Maybe the Romans, being more militaristic, put her in charge of both, but I
>thought that war was the speciality of Mars (Ares in Greek).

Well, coupled with her wisdom gig, Athena was the goddess of
thought-out war (strategy and tactics) as opposed to Ares, who was the
god of bravery and head-long rushes.

--
[e-mail]    OR    {mcvax,uunet}!nada.kth.se!d85-kai

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 88 11:26:19 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b![e-mail]  (ERCF08 Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Re Soviet Shuttle launch soon (May 18th) - not likely

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Glenn Chapman) writes:
>Also note that there has been strong statements from the head of the
>cosmonaut corps that the first few shuttle launches will not be manned.
>There have been over 50 atmospheric test flights to date (all manned).
>This contradicts other statements that I have seen from Non-Soviet
>sources about the launch version being manned.

The original talk of the soviet shuttle was that it was to be launched
unmanned. In a documentery on the soviet space programme shown here
recently, it was mentioned that the first flight would carry two
cosmanauts. The speculation is that the Soviets are having problems with
the software controlling the approach and landing, and that to launch
their shuttle before the US shuttle (or before the Moscow summit, pick
your rumor) the first flight would now be manned. The cosmanauts were
also said to have been exerting great pressure to have the first flight
manned.
    Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 88 16:26:20 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b![e-mail]  (ERCF08 Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Space Station Names

In article <667@nyser> [e-mail] (Christopher A. Welty) writes:
>    I'd like to see a name that reflects the distant outpost kind
>of idea, and as an `Arthurian' (one who loves the legends of King
>Arthur) I think `Tintagil' would be a good name.

While I wouldn't count a space station in low earth orbit as
"distant", the rest of the name seems quite accurate judging
by the comments about NASA on the net recently.

A mythical residence(1) resembling a place which exists today(2),
and which is part of a very elaborate publicity stunt(3)
based on reality which bears very little resemblance to the legend(4).

i.e. 1. The castle in the legend.
     2. The real castle, which hadn't been built at the time of the legend.
     3. The Legend of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round table.
     4. The actual chieftan from the 4th(?) century the legend is based on.


What did you think I was referring to? :->

>this is the INTERNATIONAL space station, the British could count this
>as their contribution - it don't cost much.

That is more than the present government is willing to spend
if it doesn't show a quick profit on the investment.
    Bob.

------------------------------

Path: ucbvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!texsun!texsun.central.sun.com!convex!authorplaceholder
From: convex![e-mail]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST
Date: 15 May 88 00:35:00 GMT
Lines: 22
Nf-Id: #R:<1988May9:4935:convex:62300005:000:992
Nf-From: convex.UUCP!matulka    May 14 19:35:00 1988
Apparently-To: [e-mail]


>    I think that in the SR-71, that the entire cockpit ejects (I could be
> wrong however).  The problem with ejection seats on the Shuttle is that
> one would need at least 7 or so, since it would be bad form to allow just the
> flight crew to eject.

Not to mention that there is no way to fit 7 ejection seats on the flight deck
of the shuttle.  Maximum occupancy of the flight deck during launch is four
with standard seats.

Then there's the issue of the weight of seven ejection seats, even if you could
fit them in.  There are always design tradeoffs.  At this point in the shuttle
program you have to make the rest of the systems as reliable as possible and
accept the risk.  A major redesign of the shuttle to make all forms of
catastrophe during launch survivable is not an option.  Considering an
ejectable crew cockpit is something to consider for the next generation
of space vehicle, not the shuttle.

jerry matulka

Convex Computer Corporation
{ihnp4,sun,uiucdcs}!convex!matulka

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 88 22:48:15 GMT
From: mcvax!cernvax![e-mail]  (emanuel)
Subject: Soviet's shuttle

Hi!

I didn't see television today, and there's nothing on the radio.
Did the Russian's Space Shuttle actully fly?

thanks
Emanuel

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 88 08:55:20 GMT
From: mcvax!enea!kth!sics![e-mail]  (Per Danielsson)
Subject: Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST

In article <74700088@uiucdcsp> [e-mail] writes:
>     ... ...     The problem with ejection seats on the Shuttle is that
>one would need at least 7 or so, since it would be bad form to allow just the
>flight crew to eject.  (Not to mention that no military pilot would be likely
>to punch out if it meant sentencing the rest of the crew to death.)

One of the British V-bombers (possibly the Vulcan) did have ejection
seats for the pilot and copilot, but none for the rest of the three
crew. I believe the ejection seats were even used once. Does anyone
remember this better than me?

Per Danielsson        UUCP: [e-mail] (or {mcvax,decvax}!enea!sics!pd)
Swedish Institute of Computer Science
PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
"No wife, no horse, no moustache."

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 88 04:43:32 GMT
From: n3dmc![e-mail]  (John Limpert)
Subject: Re: Sun-Earth Orbit

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (mark felton) writes:
>In response to the recent querry on placing objects in an orbit
>balanced between the sun and earth. There was a program called
>ISIS that was done by NOAA for measuring flares from the sun
>in which an orbit similar to the one described was used.

I believe you are referring to the ISEE program.  There were three
ISEE satellites, ISEE-A, ISEE-B and ISEE-C.  ISEE-C was placed in
a halo orbit between the sun and the earth.  ISEE-C, if I remember
correctly, was renamed to ICE (International Comet Explorer?) and
put into a new location to study Halley's comet.  This was after
some other programs had been cancelled due to lack of funding.
The ISEE program studied bow shock, solar wind/magnetosphere and
other obscure (to me) subjects.  I used to work at a NASA tracking
station that supported ISEE.  We collected huge amounts of ISEE data.
I never heard about the results of the program, just shipped bits
back to the experimenters.  It was a NASA (not NOAA) project.

--
John A. Limpert
UUCP:    [e-mail]    uunet!n3dmc!johnl
PACKET:    [e-mail]    n3dmc@wa3pxx

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 88 02:24:17 GMT
From: agate!garnet![e-mail]  (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Subject: Antimatter weaponry reference

About two months ago I mentioned the possibility of antimatter
weaponry, but was vague on my reference.  I've gotten some re-
quests to find it.  Here it is--a brief letter--with pointers
to more detailed questions/answers:

NATURE, v325, p754. (1987).

See also the "rebuttal" in v329, p758 (1987).  It was pathetic.

ucbvax!garnet!weemba    Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 88 00:10:10 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Naming the space station.


How about "Fred"?

Yeah.

Fred the Space Station.

I like that.

            --Net.Rabbit

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 88 20:43:29 GMT
From: mtunx!mtuxo!mtgzz!drutx![e-mail]  (mark felton)
Subject: Sun-Earth Orbit

In response to the recent querry on placing objects in an orbit
balanced between the sun and earth. There was a program called
ISIS that was done by NOAA for measuring flares from the sun
in which an orbit similar to the one described was used. The
orbit was called a HALO orbit. The main ISIS satellite was placed
in this balanced orbit - balancing the gravitation of the earth
and sun. The satellite was made to move back and forth across
the suns face, since radio transmission is useless directly into
the sun. Measurements were made of the sun then transmitted when
outside the radio interference edge of the sun. The satellite was
later moved into another orbit and given a new name. I believe it
was used to measure a comet.
                drutx!markf

------------------------------

Path: ucbvax!pasteur!ames!lll-tis!lll-winken!uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry
From: utzoo![e-mail] (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Antimatter propulsion questions
Date: 22 May 88 01:08:23 GMT
Lines: 8
Apparently-To: [e-mail]

> What is actually proposed as a fuel?  Anti-hydrogen?

Right.  Antiprotons we can and do make, positrons are not that hard, and
combining the two is easy.  Making complex nuclei is orders of magnitude
harder; it has been done (anti-deuterons have been observed), but barring
some fundamental breakthrough in production technology, anti-hydrogen is
so expensive to make that anything more complex is out of the question.
Pity.  It would be nice not to need cryogenic temperatures, especially
since the latent heat of freezing is a real problem.

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 88 15:45:44 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Naming the space station.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I second  motion to name a Space Station after the late and
>sincerely lamented Robert A. Heinlein.

If the space-station was named the "Robert A. Heinlein", would it
be called "Bob" for short??

By the way, the list of names I posted is the working list by the
naming committee. They are not accepting any new names as of last week.

"Roger Houston, Space Station Bob 1, copies. . . ."



--
               *** mike (Cyberpunk in training) smithwick ***
"Use an Atari, go to jail!"
[disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V8 #251
*******************