Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_0/V13_026.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 17KB

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/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/8bWLeYW00VcJIBVE5a>;
          Tue,  8 Jan 1991 02:54:13 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue,  8 Jan 1991 02:53:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #026

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 13 : Issue 26

Today's Topics:
               Re: solar cells
          Re: Could weather sat snap umbra 11-7-91?
    Re: Information sources for frequent space questions (1 of n)
               Upcoming lecture
       December 20th "TRUD" article on MIR Sweepstakes

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Jan 91 02:33:50 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (Charles K Hughes)
Subject: Re: solar cells

>
>    The issue of chemical vs. nuclear poisons was brought up yet
>again. I feel that this anti-nuclear allergy that too many people have
>will someday be remembered as one of the irrational phenomena of our
>time. But I doubt that it is worse that the turn-of-the-century
>enthusiasm for patent medicines made from radium and other radioactive
>materials.

  I don't think the "allergy" is irrational given 3-mile island,
Chernobyl, lists of missing nuclear fuel, 55 gallon drums of nuclear waste
carelessly spewn across the ocean floor (& associated tales of using rifles
to shoot holes in drums that wouldn't sink), etc.
  Radioactive materials are dangerous to complex organisms, and the more
RM that is around, the more dangerous it is (the probability of an
accident increases).

>
>    As to chemical poisons being decomposable, that depends on
>what kind of chemical poison. Heavy metals cannot be chemically
>decomposed. And some chemical poisons are difficult to decompose, such

  Heavy metals don't need to be decomposed - they can be refined and reused.

>as chlorinated hydrocarbons. The persistence of certain pesticides
>like DDT should be well known. True, DDT and other such
>non-biodegradable substances can be burned at high temperature, but
>burning at high temperature is just that.

  What we can make, we can unmake.  I don't think the environment should be
responsible for decomposing the unnatural chemical compounds that we
introduce into it.
  The cost of "unmaking" is very high, mainly because it is cheaper in the
short run to just discard the waste byproducts.  In the long run, these
byproducts will come back to haunt us - cf. Lovecanal, DDT, etc.

>
>    I remember some years back that the EPA was hoping to burn
>some toxic wastes in a ship at sea, but some environmentalists didn't
>like that idea very much.

  I can't imagine why.

>
>    I keep on being amazed by the anti-RTG movement. They complain

  What is RTG?

>that those who send up RTG's on spacecraft have not done comprehensive

  A nuclear power plant?

>studies of possible alternatives. Yet I wonder if the anti-RTG people
>have done anything similar. Consider the difficulties of doing
>maintenance on a spacecraft, which usually cannot be brought back to
>its designers. Millions of dollars and months of work go into
>designing some spacecraft, so it is important that they be likely to
>keep on working. One should try to use components that need as little
>maintenance as possible, and RTG's fit the bill very well. They are
>continuously "on" and have no moving parts. Solar cells are one common
> [solar cells degrade]
> [focused sunlight systems require lots of moving parts]
>    Chemical reactions are out of the question. Buth fuel and
>[good reasons deleted]
>moving). Batteries have a minimum of moving parts, but they usually
>have a very low available power to mass ratio (ask any designer of a
>battery-powered car). Fuel cells are relatively efficient, but even
>they have moving-part problems, and they require liquid hydrogen and
>oxygen, which must be kept away from heat. Systems using combustion
>can use fuels and oxidizers that are liquid at room temperature, but
>they also suffer from problems with moving parts -- consider typical
>turbines and piston engines.
>
>    So either solar cells or RTG's are the way to go for
>spacecraft. I presume that this is the standard argument.

  Hmmm...why not ground or space power generation for those satellites
that orbit the earth & moon?  Deep space satellites are of little concern
here because once they leave, they're gone for good.

  RTGs (assuming they are small nuclear plants) are dangerous in any orbit
that decays before the nuclear fuel becomes non-radioactive.

>
>    In fairness to opponents of nuclear energy, I think that there

  This is war buddy....you know the saying... :)

>
>    And on the issue of safety, one should ask what kinds of
>critical tests are possible. It is much easier to perform really tough
>tests on an RTG than on a nuclear reactor, so one may feel more
>confidence in their safety.

  I still don't like the idea of a blob of nuclear goop falling from the
sky into my living room. :)

>
>    And another possible difficulty with solar cells -- how much
>energy does it take to make them? They would not be too good if the
>amount of energy needed to make them was only equal to their output
>for several years of running. Has that question ever been addressed?

  If the energy is free, who cares how much it took to make them?

>
>
>$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster: [e-mail]
>
>Since this nodename is not widely known, you may have to try:
>
>[e-mail]

  The real question (as I see it) is the *TRUE* cost.  Burning fossil fuels
is cheaper than solar, nuclear is cheaper then solar, almost everything
is cheaper than solar if only the current fuel costs are looked at.  If the
total cost of burning fossil fuels, using nuclear energy, etc is
totalled, solar will come out the clear winner.

[e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Jan 91 02:02:11 GMT
From: uvaarpa!murdoch![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Could weather sat snap umbra 11-7-91?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Cortesi) writes:
>>There are these fine weather satellites looking down on the west
>>coast and pacific.  Would it be possible for one of them to take
>>pictures of the umbra, a 300 kilometer oval of shadow, as it
>>sweeps over Baja or Mexico on that day?
>
>I suspect that the answer is no.  The trouble is that the Clarke-orbit
>metsats typically spend about half an hour doing a raster scan of the
>Earth for each image.  They're not built for stop-motion photography,
>even motion as slow as this.

Actually it was first done on March 7 1970 during the total eclipse
that swept across Mexico and the southeastern U.S.  See the August
1970 National Geographic for a nice color shot taken (I believe)
from an ATS geosat showing the umbra passing off the east coast.

The current GOES sats take about 23 minutes for a full earth scan,
but only a fraction of that time to scan across the rather small
umbra, which is moving about 50 miles/minute.  Some minor elongation
of the umbra will occur in the image.  If you get cable, I suggest
watching the Weather Channel, which frequently shows time-lapse
movie loops of the earth.  They might cover the eclipse.

the moon's shadow occurs in the image,
=====================================================
Cole Smith (lcs1h@virginia)
Physics Dept. University of Virginia  Charlottesville
=====================================================

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

Date: 3 Jan 91 19:54:47 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Information sources for frequent space questions (1 of n)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eugene N. Miya) writes:
>
>Many space activies center around large Government or International
>Bureaucracies.

Yes, this is too bad.


>In this country that means NASA.

This is what NASA would like us to believe.  In fact, the Department of
Defense has a space program similar in scale to NASA's.  There are
also many interesting projects at DOE labs, universities, and non-profit
groups such as Space Studies Institute in Princeton, NJ.  For example:
all electronic catapult and inflatable space station; most microsatellite,
space nuclear power, and electronic propulsion work in the U.S. gets done
outside of NASA.

Furthermore, much of the work on DoD and NASA projects gets done by
industry contractors.  Industry also builds and launches communications
satellites that are not government funded.

Luckily, NASA is *not* the space program, and there are many alternatives
to NASA for those seeking employment, information, etc. regarding space
activities in the U.S.  It is too bad NASA (dis-)information monopolizes
the net.


>...
>Not a NASA Center, but close enough:
>Jet Propulsion Laboratory [JPL/CIT]
>California Institute of Technology
>4800 Oak Grove Dr.
>Pasadena, CA 91109

A bit of explanation is in order.  Many of the buildings etc. at
JPL are owned by NASA, and many of JPL's projects are funded by NASA.
However, JPL is run by the California Institute of Technology, a private
university.  JPL employees work for Caltech or its contractors (except for
a few visiting NASA personel).



--
Nick Szabo            [e-mail]
"If you want oil, drill lots of wells" -- J. Paul Getty
The above opinions are my own and not related to those of any
organization I may be affiliated with.

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

Date: Fri, 4 Jan 91 12:21:02 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Upcoming lecture


[This is not an official notice. I just saw a bulletin on the wall, and
thought there might be some interest - JWR]

NIST Colloquium Series
         Sponsored Jointly by the NIST Colloquium Committee and the
         Society of Sigma Xi

"Rethinking the Role of Science in Space Programs"

Dr. Roald Z. Sagdeev
January 11, 1991, 10:30 a.m.
Green Auditorium, Administration Building
[NIST, Gaithersburg, MD]

What is wrong with the science in the Soviet and American space programs?
Dr. Sagdeev from the Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College
Park, Md., will present a comparative analysis of the two programs as well
as suggestions for the future. Dr. Sagdeev was the director of the Space
Research Institute of the U.S.S.R. (the Soviet Union's equivalent of NASA)
for 15 years and has long been an advocate of glasnost in space. He is an
advisor to General Secretary Mikhail S. Gorbachev on science and strategic
defense and is a member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences and a Foreign
Associate of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 4 Jan 91 08:36:17 GMT
From: csus.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!jetson.uh.edu![e-mail]  (Alvin Carley)
Organization: University of Houston
Subject: December 20th "TRUD" article on MIR Sweepstakes
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

The following is an article given to me by one my friends (Howard Stringer) in
Space Travel Services. It is an english translation of an article
that appeared in a soviet labor newspaper called "Trud", which I
think I was told means "Labor".   It was published on December 20th, three
days after the MIR sweepstakes went public.

The name of the author was not on the translation. The first paragraph looks
like a quote in the russian text (also provided to me), it spans across the
top of both of the columns that the rest of the text is in, and appears to
be in a smaller cursive font style. The owner of the quote is not identified
in the translation, and I cannot read Cyrillic characters.

You will note that the author did not have the straight story about how the
"competition" is supposed to work. The concept of how a sweepstakes works
may be totally unknown in the Soviet Union.  I also thought the idea of free
trips to the North Pole was rather funny.

                             Ad Astra,    Ad MIR,

                                 Alvin Carley


P.S.: The guys have promised me more actual documents that I can send up, but
      they have been very busy with company operations, visiting the DA (mostly
      handled, but you know politicians), doing interviews with every radio
      network in the world (2 in New Zealand in one day) even though only U.S.
      residents are eligible, negotiating new deals that may lead to all kinds
      of products or endorsements, even discussing movie rights to the story
      of the sweepstakes, etc...   When I get the stuff, you will see it here.


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


             AMERICAN WILL FLY TO THE SOVIET STATION "MIR"

                          SENSATIONAL PROJECT

     Yesterday American television station reported that Soviet Space Firm
NPO "Energia" agreed to send American citizen to space. Later the same day
contradictory information was reported that Soviet firm in the USSR did not
know about such project. We pose a question? Could Russians be reliable
partners? First, they agreed to a partnership and the next day they refused
to participate.


     This sensational news was reported at the beginning of the world news
programs. To clarify situation I got in touch with the manager of the
NPO "Energia" research center Mr. V. P. Nikitsky and asked him to comment on
these reports.  Mr. V. P. Nikitsky said that on November 22 General Designer
of NPO "Energia" U. P. Semenov signed an agreement with Spacve Commerce
Corporation to send American citizen to the Soviet Station "Mir" at the end
of 1992. That American citizen will be a winner of certain competition
similar to those regularly conducted in USA in which winner receives a free
trip to Hawaii or North Pole, etc...  Organizers of this competition thought
of a possibility to send one of the winners to the space station "Mir" and
started to market this idea. One has to pay to participate in such sort of
activities. It is also a commercial advertisement. It does not present any
problem to collect money to finance such project.

     Americans contacted us with this idea. We liked it. This is why General
Designer of NPO "Energia" signed this proposed contract. This agreement
points out that the flight will be commercial and that NPO "Energia" will be
able to collect considerably more money for such flight than for a regular
flight with an astronaut. It is unfortunate that Soviet citizens had to learn
about such agreement from a foreign source. My next question was: Why did
information surface that you refused to participate?

     Mr. Semenov said that since Soviet reporters wanted to provide more
information on this subject to Soviet citizens they started to contact
different orgizations. Glavkosmos rightly responded to them that they do not
have anything to do with this information. Representatives of NPO Energia were
very preoccupied with preparation of rush reports and were unable to provide
detailed information. As a result the American press reported about our
partner's confusion in their press. In connection with this I would like to
make a statement that in our (Soviet) press there has never been any doubts
regarding signed agreement. We would like to confirm once more our readiness
for partnership. Yesterday, December 19, our General Designer sent a telefax
to USA to confirm our agreement. I am confident that this project will be
completed and will symbolize spirit of international cooperation and will
assist in bringing our people together.

     Mr. V. P. Nikitsky explained confusion. However, there is still one
question left unanswered. I think that management of NPO Energia is partially
responsible for his incident. If they shared information with the Soviet
press and the Soviet public, there would not be any confusion. As a whole we
welcome such project Soviet-American cooperation in space program started in
1975 with joint flight will receive an unexpected and interesting
continuation. This project will not only be a commercial enterprise but also
of humanitarian importance because it serves as a booster for international
progress.

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #026
*******************