Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V10_1/V10_130.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 19KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.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/AZANX3W00VcJ8NtU5:>;
          Tue, 10 Oct 89 03:22:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 89 03:22:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #130

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 130

Today's Topics:
        Re: X-30, Space Station Strangles NASP
         Re: Titius Series / Quantum orbits?
         Re: American Rocket Co. launch date and time
            Re: More whining about Galileo
         Re: American Rocket Co. launch wake
         Re: American Rocket Co. launch date and time
            Re: More whining about Galileo
         Re: Titius Series / Quantum orbits?
         Re: Titius Series / Quantum orbits?
      Ozone ( was Re: NASA Headline News for 09/29/89 )
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Oct 89 16:08:42 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: X-30, Space Station Strangles NASP

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Spencer Garrett) writes:
>Now for the questions!  Is "coming feet dry" the same as extending
>the landing gear?  I'm pretty sure I remember seeing the gear pop
>out *after* the flare, and I can't imagine having to design gear
>(much less gear doors) that could handle Mach 7!
>And what's the "E" in KEAS?  Surely Edwards doesn't have its own
>standard of measurement! :-}

'Feet Dry' is (US)Naval Avation (I wanted to say Navyese) talk for crossing the
coast from sea to land, 'Feet Wet' is crossing the coast in the other direction.
-----
Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASNET; 2567 BH;LA CA 90024; (213)-825-8614
UUCP: ...!{ibmsupt,hao!cepu}!ollie}!scw ARPA:scw@{Ollie.,}SEAS.UCLA.EDU

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

Date: 6 Oct 89 19:31:56 GMT
From: psivax![e-mail]  (Torkil Hammer)
Subject: Re: Titius Series / Quantum orbits?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Vincent Cate) writes:
#
#I was amazed when I read that the moons of Uranus, Saturn, and Jupiter
#showed patterns similar to the Titius series for the planets.  I looked
#
#It seems clear to me that this is not due to chance.  There are sort of
#two theories to explain it.  The first is that they were created this way
#and never changed over the last 4 billion years.  The second is that it is
#the result of the interactions between the planets.  I favor the second
#one.  What do people think?

Is the name really Titius?  I thought it was some other guy but I remember
the numerology.

The theory bandied around 25 years ago favored creation on the spot.
The buzzword was accretion lobes.  Planets need to sweep up equatorial
dust to form, and interactions during the formation process should
cause the numeric pattern you mention.

The math involved was in formal analogy to quantum mechanics but I will
hurry up and state that the planet theory was not depending on large
scale QM effects, it just happened to have the same equations and
hence the same solutions.

It was considered controversial.  Only the planet orbits and those of
Jupiter's Galilean moons were known with sufficient accuracy and some
people said that the pattern was created to fit the only facts known.
Another problem was that the observed planed masses were different from
what the accretion lobe theory wanted.

The new moons found by Voyager support the theory.

Against the second theory you mention speaks that the planet orbits
are very stable, and while 'random' pertubations make it impossible
to say at which exact point in orbit a given planet was more than
a few million years ago, the orbit itself was still there.

Los Angeles Times 'Science' column a few weeks ago was by Asimov who
pointed out that 500 million years ago the year had 35 days more than
today, as evident through diurnal and annual patterns in sediments.
Asimov pointed out that tides slow down the earth diurnal rotation at a
predictable average rate (but with unpredictable pertubations due to
snow caps and moving land masses), and the average rate explained the
extra days to a nicety.

The theoretical rate is so that every 100 years we must increase the
annual allowance of leapseconds by an average of .60 to keep up with
the lengthening of the day.

Historical records of the last 2000 years of where and when solar
eclipses were observed also support that rate.

Accurate measurements during the last 50 years or so show an average of
about 70 percent of that value, which is close enough, because
the measurements also show variations of the same order of magnitude.

Which means that 500 million years ago, the duration of one year was well
within 1% of the same as today, when measured on an invariant time scale.
It is well known (Kepler's law) that the duration of the year decides
the size of the semimajor axis of the orbit.

The age of our planet is about 5 billion years, which does not allow
for much change in orbit size.

In case you wonder: Our satellites and rockets contribute next to nothing.

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

Date: 7 Oct 89 22:24:39 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: American Rocket Co. launch date and time

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Becker) writes:
>What sort of success rate did Von Braun an Co. have?  Have that many
>lessons been forgotten or is Amroc using an innovative design?

The VfR (German Rocket Society, of which von Braun was a junior member)
blew up quite a few.  Even when he got into it as a pro, there were a lot
of explosions.

Amroc is using a somewhat innovative design:  a hybrid rocket, with solid
fuel and liquid oxidizer.  It's not (as some have incorrectly stated) the
first operational hybrid engine, but I'm pretty sure it's the biggest.

And developing any new rocket engine, innovative or not, is a hit-or-miss
process.  A lot of rocket technology is still somewhat of a black art, so
considerable debugging is generally needed, and surprises are frequent.
--
Nature is blind; Man is merely |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
shortsighted (and improving).  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Oct 89 21:09:13 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: More whining about Galileo

[e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) says:

> Institute was trying to kill Galileo.  If they were really worried
> about protecting people from plutonium contamination, it would make a
> lot more sense (by several orders of magnitude) for them to be
> concentrating on DOE weapons-grade plutonium facilities (like the one
> in Fernald, Ohio).
>
> On the other hand, if you look at the situation from the perspective
> of organizational interests, it makes perfect sense.  If the Christics
> were to protest weapons plants, or the Exxon Valdez spill, or the

Exactly right.  Look for an orphan issue with a high emotion content.
Recall the recent scare created by the here-to-fore unknown Natural
Resources Defence Council (NRDC) over ALAR IN APPLES, AND APPLE JUICE
FED TO BABIES !!!  BABIES ARE AT HIGHEST RISK  !!!  THE SKY IS FALLING !!!

Sounds stupid or maybe even evil, but it rakes in the big buckkks!  And
that's what counts in the Big City!

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

Date: 7 Oct 89 12:12:47 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: American Rocket Co. launch wake

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thomas F. Smith) writes:

>AMROC was launching the FIRST* hybrid engine vehicle.  It uses
>Liquid Oxygen and a solid "rubber" fuel.  Very innovative.
...
>* I know that someone out there can point out an exception.  Please
>educate all of us.

 I believe there are some hybrid military practice drones.  I think
they use some kind of storable oxidizer, maybe nitric acid?  Sutton's
Rocket Propulsion Elements mentions RFNA + polybutadiene/
polymethylmethacrylate.  Other hybrid rocket engines have been tested,
with tests going back at least to the fifties.

 There was a discussion of hybrid rockets in space-tech a few weeks
back.  I think it would be possible for a motivated and competent
group of amateurs to develop a small one (not going to orbit, of
course).  It would be a bit safer than home-built solid fuel rocket
engines (not to be confused with model rockets), which are notoriously
dangerous.

 One thing you can do in a hybrid rocket to increase Isp that is hard
to do in a liquid or solid rocket is add light metals or metal hydrides
to the fuel.  You can add aluminum to solid rockets, but in hybrids
you can use more reactive and lighter fuels like lithium or lithium
hydride.  Is AMROC planning on adding light metals to its rubber?

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Oct 89 17:11:47 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: American Rocket Co. launch date and time

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Becker) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thomas F. Smith) writes:
>>The AMROC launch of the "Koopman Express"
>>is currently scheduled for 5 OCT 89,
>
>Well, as you have all heard, it just sat and burned.  Ah for the good old
>days when men were men and engineers blew up rockets.  Not much of a
>memorial for Koopman however :-(
>
>What sort of success rate did Von Braun an Co. have?  Have that many
>lessons been forgotten or is Amroc using an innovative design?

Amroc IS using an innovative design.  It is a solid/liquid hybrid.
Solid fuel/liquid oxygen.  This has the advantages of solid fuel
with the controllability of liquid fuel.

Unfortunately, either a pump broke or a valve stuck.

        David Palmer
        [e-mail]
        ...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer
    "Direct quotes don't have to be exact, or even accurate.  Truth is as
    irrelevant to a newspaper as it is to a court of law"
    - Judge Alarcon, 9th circuit court of appeals (paraphrased)

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

Date: 6 Oct 89 21:28:11 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: More whining about Galileo

[e-mail] (Joseph  Brenner) says:

> This is not my world, these people are not my people.  We have
> things in common, but the way I think is not at all the way
> they do, and the things I care about most strike them as trivial
> and tedious.
>
> The only way I can see to go from this realization is to get
> away from the mundanes as much as I can.  Work private, keep
> things small, and maybe we can dance around them, if not

Exactly right.  You understand that only you and a few hundreds of thousands
of people like you (mostly centered around universities and industrial
R&D departments) give a fig about Jupiter.  "Oh yeah, Jupiter.  That's in
Europe between Germany and France, right?"

Now who are you to presume to tell the other 220 million people how we should
spend the money from all of us?  Why should we spend so much money just for you
guys?  And if you're taking genuine risks with something we hold near and
dear to our hearts, for example Plutonium contaminating the wheat fields
which means a half-year's harvest gotta be thrown away which means the
price of Wonder bread and cheeseburgers goes up, who do you f***ing think
you are?

If you wanna get the rest of the human race (i.e. about 99.9% of it) to support
your hobby, you gotta get some interest in it.  Start a rumor!  Invent a meme!
"Hey, bud.  Did you know Galileo will help us predict the planting time for
the winter wheat crop down to 30 seconds of accuracy?  Last year it was
double-size because of that!  Look it up in Old Farmers' Almanack if you
don't believe me!"

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

Date: 6 Oct 89 05:37:20 GMT
From: munnari.oz.au!csc!ccadfa!usage!basser!cluster![e-mail]  (James Ashton)
Subject: Re: Titius Series / Quantum orbits?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Vincent Cate) writes:
>The general equation is:
>   R = R0 * b^N
>R0 is the radius of the orbit of the first planet or moon in the system.
>N is the planet/moon number.  b is a funny number that makes things work
>(I don't understand it).
>
>For the solar system b=1.73 and N=0 is Mercury.  When I was first told of
>the Titius series I was told that it did not fit very well.  When I plot
>it its looks like a rather amazing fit.
>
>For Uranus all 5 moons fit very well to a b=1.46.
>
>For Saturn the first 6 moons fit a b=1.27.  The outer 4 moons do not seem
>to fit.
>
>For Jupiter I get b=1.79 for the first 5 moons.  Then there seem to be two
>missing moons (6 and 7 not really found yet?).  Then there are 3 moons
>were moon 8 should be.  Then there are 4 moons where moon 9 should be.
>So, this does not really fit the equation but it does seem very
>interesting.  In my book there are two moons listed that do not have
>distances.  Also, it seems I heard that Voyager found another moon of
>Jupiter.  I would like to get current data and plot that.
>
>It seems clear to me that this is not due to chance.  There are sort of
>two theories to explain it.  The first is that they were created this way
>and never changed over the last 4 billion years.  The second is that it is
>the result of the interactions between the planets.  I favor the second
>one.  What do people think?

When you say the data looks like an amazing fit, have you investigated
a measure of amazing, i.e. what is the probability that for any given
set of orbits there is some b which fits as well or better than your
values.  Take into account the fact that fairly basic orbital mechanics
constrain satellites to be spaced at reasonable distances from each
other.  Also remember that in some cases you have allowed there to
other than one moon for a given value of N, just as the original theory
does between Mars and Jupiter.

Are you aware of the resonant relationship between three of the Galilean
moons?  I'm reasonably sure that similar relationships exist in other
systems.  There was a posting recently mentioning one between Pluto and
Neptune.  The relationships simply involve the orbital periods of
several satellites differing from each other by the factor of a simple
ratio.  Given that orbital periods are related to semi-major axes by
a square-cube law, this could explain the some of the difficulties in
your results, particularly with Jupiter.

Since the moons whose orbital parameters you are missing are very small
and most probably captured (as evidenced by their orbits being retrogade
in many cases), it seems unlikely that they will reinforce your results.
The best current theories explaining the phenomena involve the mechanism
for the initial formation of systems from rotating disks of matter.
Participation by captured moons would create difficulties for these
theories.

My feeling is that some of the corelations you have found are evidence
of real effects but that to attempt to find such results universally,
i.e. to extend it to every body or to every satellite system, is
pushing too hard.

                        James Ashton.

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

Date: 7 Oct 89 15:04:39 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Beckman)
Subject: Re: Titius Series / Quantum orbits?

>Is the name really Titius?  I thought it was some other guy but I remember
>the numerology.

     The usual name is Titius-Bode series. However, since Bode did nothing
except popularize it, and even then without giving its discoverer credit,
I proposed in my book (Einstein Plus Two) to call it the Titius series only,
and that is what I did.
     My knowledge of astronomy outside a bit of celestial mechanics is very
slight and I cannot answer your other questions. I used the series to show
that like electron orbits, planetary orbits are stable -- they will return
to stable orbits if slightly displaced from them. This is, of course,
the theory expounded in my book (Golem Press, Box 1342, Boulder, CO 80306),
not the orthodox position.
     Petr Beckmann
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

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

Date: 7 Oct 89 23:07:04 GMT
From: ogccse!blake!unicorn![e-mail]  (Iain Davidson)
Subject: Ozone ( was Re: NASA Headline News for 09/29/89 )

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark R. Schoeberl) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Gray) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) quotes:
>>>This is NASA Headline News for Friday, September 29....
>>

[.........  Lots of quoting from each other about whether or not the
   hole in the sky is shrinking.... :]

>
>- Mark Schoeberl
>NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center

While I was in Maui, Hawaii over the Summer (studying Coral reefs)
  a Marine Biology Professor told me his views on the shrinking/expanding
  hole in the sky.

He told me , beleive it or not, that the ozone/world would "fix/correct"
  itself over time.  This is due to the supply of Algae in the world's
  ocean-- The supply will increase if the hole grows bigger, and increase
  production of what's needed for repairing the hole.  Vise versa, the
  supply/production will decrease/die if the hole shrinks.

I.e.  You could almost measure the size of the hole by measuring the
   amount of Algae in the World.  This is the World's way of self-repairing.

( If I remember correctly, Algea will use C02 and produce 02 (I might
  have that backwards).  But the more it uses, the more Algae is produced,
  and the more Corals are built up [oh, another side effect] )

Please correct me if I'm work or confused.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Iain Davidson,{IAIN,BITS,DAVIDSON,8735053}|"You are crazy to want to stay,
U: uw-beaver!wwu.edu!nessie!IAIN  n(i i)n | and we let only crazy people leave--
Other:  [e-mail]     a    | -- but you are sane, if you
INTERNET:  [e-mail]     \___/  | ask to leave."      --- Catch-22
------------------------------------- U ---------------------------------------
I had a really funny quote to put here, but I forgot it.  :-P

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #130
*******************