Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V08/V8_304.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 15KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/po5.andrew.cmu.edu.2243.0.0>;
          Sat, 30 Jul 88 04:09:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q000/QF.andrew.cmu.edu.22f18378.881c7>;
          Sat, 30 Jul 88 04:06:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA00450> for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sat, 30 Jul 88 04:05:46 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06405; Sat, 30 Jul 88 01:05:25 PDT
    id AA06405; Sat, 30 Jul 88 01:05:25 PDT
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 88 01:05:25 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #304

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 304

Today's Topics:
             Annother British space first
             Re: Ramscoop engine
                Spy satellites
                flames
         Space Station Alternatives Required
        Re: Unethical National Space Society election
             Re: Von Braun quote
               Re: Space Suits
      Delta launch complex transferred to Air Force (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 88 16:57:46 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive![e-mail]  (B Gray)
Subject: Annother British space first

Continuing a long line of similar scientific firsts for
this and previous Governments, the British Government yesterday
announced they were ending funding for research on HOTOL.

This makes them the first Government to scrap all research on
spaceplane type launch vehicles, an area which other
countries are showing increasing interest in.

After having spent the magnificent sum of one and a half
million pounds supporting research by British Aerospace and
Rolls Royce, the Government decided that it was too costly,
and that there were no prospects of any immediate profits.

BAe and RR, it suggested, should find international partners
to help fund any further research. They now face the
prospect of trying to sell the idea to other countries which
have already been offended by the attitude expressed by the
Minister for science and technology at the ESA meeting at
the end of last year. (No manned spaceflight, no new
rockets, no more research, no more money: no profits).
The problem is further complicated by the research being
classified under the official secrets act. This present
Government is paranoid about breaches of the Official secrets
act. (They have already spent over 3 million pounds, by one
estimate, trying to stop publication of "Spycatcher").

Would you put money into an idea which the British
Government won't give ANY sort of backing to, and which you
can't find out anything about? Oh, sorry, not quite true.
They will back it to the extent that they say they would like
it to be developed by private companies.

Notice also, the announcement was made at the same time as a
major surprise re-organisation of the department responsible
for more than half of Government spending. This will help to
keep any debate to a minimum.

In its desire to re-introduce "Victorian Values" to Britain,
the Government first seems to be trying to bring back
Victorian Technology.
    Bob.

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

Date: 15 Jul 88 18:13:10 GMT
From: pyrnj!dasys1![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Ramscoop engine

(Re: ramscooping at 1G clear to Andromeda in 25 years shiptime)

Several people have pointed out that you would accelerate most of the
way to "c" while you were still inside this galaxy... so that lots of
intergalactic gas for continued acceleration would be unnecessary.
There are two problems with this objection.

First, one of the "neat" aspects of the 1G acceleration was that you
would get normal "gravity" on ship for the whole trip.  If you stop
accelerating at 1G past the galactic boundary, what do you do for
gravity?  You certainly lose the luxury of building a non-spin ship.

Second, 'most of the way to c' isn't good enough for time dilatation
purposes.  You need ALL of that 12-13 ship years' acceleration in order
to avpurposes.  You need ALL of that 12-13 ship years acceleration in
order to get there quickly.  If you try to coast between galaxies you
are going to be at it for a LONG time  from the ship's standpoint.

I did receive some encouraging numbers about intergalactic density
though, which I'll pass along in a summary next week.
--
Tom Neff            UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
    "None of your toys    CIS: 76556,2536           MCI: TNEFF
     will function..."    GEnie: TOMNEFF           BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

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

Date: 16 Jul 88 02:50:13 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Richard the Nerd)
Subject: Spy satellites

Ralph Marshall ([e-mail]) writes (a few articles back):

>      I don't know whether or not the orbits are really considered
>classified, and I seriously doubt that the Russians don't know where
>they are, but if in fact the orbits _ARE_ classified the fact that you
>discovered them on your own still does not give you permission to
>distribute the information.  It is still classified.

Oh, I am pretty sure the Soviets are following it.  It is a little
difficult not to notice a thing as bright as Sirius crossing the sky!
That's why I can't really understand why NORAD keeps them
classified...which at least to my best knowledge they do.

>I'm merely commenting on the fact that guys from the NSA with
>absolutely NO sense of humor might not view it with quite the same
>liberal viewpoint, making your venture costly in terms of the
>harassment you could get.

Well, thanks for the warning.  To tell you the truth, I had no idea
that such a relatively idle thing had the potential for causing so much
commotion.  I dunno...among amateur satellite observers the orbits
of most US spy satellites are pretty common knowledge, and no one
has bothered us yet...

-Rich

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

Date: Fri, 15 Jul 88 11:30:29 MDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: flames


Any comments that you wish a reply to will be have to sent directly to
me as well as to the newsgroup, as I don't see the digest until it is
almost a month out of date.  Oh, the magic of electronic mail as it
trickles through the networks....

This is in reference to the editorial placed several days ago.


David Birnbaum                           [e-mail]
Programmer, Small Systems                [e-mail]
New Mexico State University         <--  they pay my bills, but they don't
Las Cruces, New Mexico  USA              write my opinions....

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

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!trout.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 88 19:55:59 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim Bowery)
To: crash![e-mail]
Subject: Space Station Alternatives Required

In recent talks with a very pro-space congressman the local chapter
of the National Space Society has voiced its concern that if the
space station is cancelled there won't be any U. S. space facilities
available.  This congressman, who has supported full funding for
the space station every time it came up, is certain that, for political
reasons, the space station WILL BE CANCELLED.  He shares our concern.

We ask the help of all pro-space people in ensuring that there are
alternatives to the space station just in case.

Jim Bowery                  PHONE: [phone]
PO Box 1981
La Jolla, CA 92038

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Jul 88 22:49:28 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!orchid![e-mail]  (Michael Walma)
Subject: Re: Unethical National Space Society election

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil R. Karn) writes:
>Am I the only one who is getting increasingly weary of NSS airing its
>dirty laundry on the net?
>
>Phil

No.

Michael Walma
[e-mail]

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

Date: 16 Jul 88 08:00:06 GMT
From: voder!apple![e-mail]  (Patty Winter)
Subject: Re: Von Braun quote

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (SEDS-UNM) writes:
>
>Hmmmm.  I wonder if that Phil is really a computer...  Phil <-> Hal ???

I'll vouch for Phil. He is definitely human. Not a computer. Not even
an android. (I don't care *what* Tasha said about Data. Besides, that
was hundreds of years from now; androids aren't nearly that good yet.)

Trust me.  :-)  :-)


Patty
-------
              Patty Winter N6BIS  [44.4.0.44]
DOMAIN: [e-mail]              UUCP: {decwrl,nsc,sun,dual}!apple!winter

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

Date: 13 Jul 88 21:21:33 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!db.toronto.edu![e-mail]  (John Hogg)
Subject: Re: Space Suits

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce D. Wright) writes:
>The important issue here may be that it takes about 3 psi (160 mm Hg)
>oxygen partial pressure to maintain about 100 mm Hg oxygen partial
>pressure in the alveoli of the lungs.  Below this partial pressure the
>blood does not saturate with oxygen while passing through the lungs.
>Trying to hold 3 psi pressure in your lungs relative to the pressure
>outside of your body would probably cause an embolism to occur, not to
>mention that breathing extreme positive pressures like this would be
>REALLY exhausting.
>
>Also, breathing pure oxygen at such low total pressure causes
>atelectasis to occur.  This is alveoli collapse caused by the oxygen in
>the alveoli being absorbed into the blood.  The carbon dioxide
>remaining in the alveoli doesn't have enough pressure to withstand the
>blood pressure outside of the alveoli, thus, they collapse.  Coughing
>can reinflate them, but this seems like a really stressing environment,
>not to mention the constant worry about the vacuum causing boils to
>raise in your skin in all those hard to cover places and the hassle
>(and health risks) of necessary decompression for every EVA.  Adding
>good old inert nitrogen will alleviate these health risks, although it
>adds its own problems.

These are certainly problems that have to be addressed in an SAS design,
but they also crop up in traditional ``airtight bag'' designs.  Current
suits are run at about 4 psi, and the pressures for an SAS would be
similar.  Thus, the problems with atelectasis would be no greater than
at present.

With respect to embolisms, remember that there *is* a pressure vessel in
the system: it's the user's skin, backed up by the fabric.  Inside the
skin the pressure stays at a comfy .25 atm.

The SAS system doesn't involve positive pressure breathing.  The crudest
design involves the chest being squeezed by fabric in the same way as
the rest of the body.  This means that neither inhalation nor exhalation
intrinsically involve working against a pressure differential, although
various departures from the ideal mean that this won't be true in
practice.  The developed SASs had a ``breathing bag'' wrapped around the
chest within a non-elastic Nomex torso portion of the suit.  When the
user breathed in, the bag collapsed just as much as the chest expanded,
and the reverse occurred on exhalation.  Thus, no work had to be done
against the material.  (I oversimplify a bit, but not much.)

>There is always a measure of trade-offs in any engineering design.
Loss of >mobility is a drag, but maybe the health risks are worse in a
'skin suit'.  If >it was me up there, I would want a full pressure suit
that was engineered for >whatever mobility was possible, then make up
the difference with good tools.

If somebody told me, ``You have two weeks to build a suit which you will
then wear in vacuum'', I would go for a bag myself.  However, given a
bit more time and a small (five-figure) budget, I would give an SAS a
*very* close look.  Mind you, I wouldn't destroy the tooling for today's
garments while I was doing so...

John Hogg               | [e-mail].{edu,cdn}
Computer Systems Research Institute| uunet!csri.toronto.edu!hogg
University of Toronto           | [e-mail] (arpa)
                   | [e-mail] (bitnet)

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

Date: 16 Jul 88 18:40:08 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Delta launch complex transferred to Air Force (Forwarded)

Jim Cast
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      July 15, 1988

George Diller
Kennedy Space Center, Fla.

Captain Marty Hauser
U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C.

RELEASE:  88-99

DELTA LAUNCH COMPLEX TRANSFERRED TO AIR FORCE

     After 143 Florida launches of the Delta expendable launch
vehicle, NASA has officially transferred custody of Launch
Complex 17 and East Coast Delta launch operations to the U.S. Air
Force.

     Under an agreement signed by NASA Administrator Dr. James C.
Fletcher and Air Force Secretary Edward C. Aldridge, Jr., formal
handover of the two-pad complex, located at Cape Canaveral Air
Force Station, Fla., was effective July 1.  Accountability of
Delta production tooling and mission checkout equipment also was
transferred under the agreement.

     The first successful NASA Delta launch from Complex 17 took
place 28-years ago in August 1960.  Its payload, Echo-I, was a
100-foot-diameter, reflective communications balloon which became
a familiar orbital sight to a world-wide audience of nighttime
sky watchers.

     NASA's final Delta launch from Complex 17 occurred earlier
this year, on February 8, when a Strategic Defense Initiative
Organization payload was successfully placed into orbit.

     Under Air Force stewardship, Complex 17 will continue to be
used to launch Delta medium class vehicles.  The Air Force has
procured 20 new Delta IIs for DOD payloads.  The first launch is
scheduled for later this year.

     In addition, at least eight commercial Delta IIs will be
launched by McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company, Huntington,
Beach, Calif., from Complex 17 between 1989 and 1992.

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

End of SPACE Digest V8 #304
*******************