Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_4/V13_405.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 18KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.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/4c1yh2K00WBwEIGk42>;
          Sun, 14 Apr 91 01:40:18 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 91 01:40:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #405

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 405

Today's Topics:
            Re: Launch Technology
                  Re: flares
         Re: Dan Quayle on Mars (was: "Face" on Mars)
      Re: spacesuits (Was: Re: HST in-orbit Maintenance)
                Vacuum
        Re: Underground Nuclear Test in Nevada
       Re: Why does every SAR have another resolution?
      Re: spacesuits (Was: Re: HST in-orbit Maintenance)
               Re:  Launch Technology:
                  Re: Mars?
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #362
               Space Camp in Huntsville
       Tourism: Time and $$ (was Re: Fred on the Moon)

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: 14 Apr 91 00:35:59 GMT
From: usc!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Launch Technology

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Harm Munk) writes:
>Well, I don't know about the design of Ariane 4 engines, but for the
>boosters for Ariane 5 they certainly did a 'go-for-the-best-you-can-get'
>type of research...

And they got segmented solids?  Ick.  "This must be some new meaning of
`best' that I have not encountered before." :-)
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 10 Apr 91 14:00:27 GMT
From: agate!pasteur!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss![e-mail]  (Paul Blase)
Subject: Re: flares

to: [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)

 HS> Soviet cosmonauts have been aloft during all the major flares
 HS> of the last few years, and at least one shuttle mission
 HS> happened to be up at the time of one too.  They did get more
 HS> radiation than usual, but I don't believe there is major risk,
 HS> unless perhaps we got the great-granddaddy of all flares.

Don't forget that they all were below the Van Allen belts.  A Mars mission
would obviously be outside of them.  BTW does any one know of any
research that has been done on magnetically shielding space probes, a
sort of synthetic Van Allen belt?

--- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR]
--
Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Apr 91 18:21:17 GMT
From: mips!ptimtc!rdmei!icspub!astemgw!kuis!rins![e-mail]  (will)
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle on Mars (was: "Face" on Mars)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jose Pina Coelho) writes:
>>
>>        However, I must admit he has done a pretty good job running
>>   the Space Council. For the first time in 20 years we are are seeing goals
>>   for the space program and effective policy to back them up.
>
>Probably someone else is making all the decisions and forcing him to
>sign ?


    Yea, the Japanese.... Must be why our 2Trillion deficit went to 3Trill
    last week...or was it those management skills of his...  Just joking....


                                        William Dee Rieken
                                        Researcher, Computer Visualization
                                        Faculty of Science and Technology
                                        Ryukoku University
                                        Seta, Otsu 520-21,
                                        Japan

                                        Tel: [phone](direct)
                                        Fax: [phone]
                                        [e-mail]

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

Date: 14 Apr 91 01:14:04 GMT
From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: spacesuits (Was: Re: HST in-orbit Maintenance)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>... Unfortunately (*sigh*) I don't have the reference
>any more and I doubt I could find it in my available time.  Henry?

The only one I know is the one I gave in my posting:  NASA CR-1892.
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 14 Apr 91 03:34:15 GMT
From: att!linac!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu![e-mail]  (Eric Behr)
Subject: Vacuum

I'm sure it's been dicussed (what hasn't?) and I apologize for a rather
gory topic.

A discussion provoked in part by a scene in 2001 is raging in another
newsgroup; namely, how long can a human being live following a rapid
decompression like that? I've seen opinions ranging from "he'd burst like a
baloon at once", to "several minutes". Somehow I think that truth lies
somewhere in between...  Comments? Facts? Guesses?    Thanks!

--
Eric Behr, Illinois State University, Mathematics Department
Internet: [e-mail]    Bitnet: ebehr@ilstu

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

Date: 10 Apr 91 14:12:31 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss![e-mail]  (Paul Blase)
Subject: Re: Underground Nuclear Test in Nevada

to: [e-mail] (MURTY  Hema Sandhyarani)


 M >         Yesterday there was another underground nuclear test in
 M >         Nevada.  Why are we allowing this to continue?

Where would you rather that we test them?  Unless you've figured out
a reasonable worldwide nuclear disarmament program (to include the
Isreali's, China, India, and everyone else that can make the things)
we've got to test what we deploy.  I should point out that one reason
for the testing is to verify new technologies that actually make the
things safer (less likely to go off in the case of an accident).

--- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR]
--
Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 10 Apr 91 13:55:22 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss![e-mail]  (Paul Blase)
Subject: Re: Why does every SAR have another resolution?

to: [e-mail] (Daniel Fischer)

 DF> From NASA NEWS RELEASE 91-34 of February 27, 1991 on the
 DF> RADARSAT spacecraft: > The satellite's synthetic aperture radar
 DF> (SAR) will be ... scanning the > Earth in swaths varying from
 DF> 50 to 500 km. The SAR will produce high-resolu= > tion (10 to
 DF> 100 meters pixel size) images of the Earth's surface...

 DF> Now we all know that the Magellan in its orbit around Venus
 DF> produces swaths some 25km wide, with a resolution of approx.
 DF> 120 meters. Why can the resolution of RADARSAT's SAR be so much
 DF> better, about a factor of 10? This can't be due to a lower
 DF> orbit alone, I presume. Also, why can RADARSAT have many more
 DF> pixels across the swath's width (according to this article
 DF> 5000) compared to Magellan (200)? Does that depend on their
 DF> antennas or on the data processing?

 DF> Furthermore, there are rumors that the Lacrosse satellite's SAR
 DF> can resolve features down to 1 meter in size (how official is
 DF> that?).

If I recall right, Magellan has an antenna on the order of 2m wide, the
Lacrosse's antenna is several 10's of meters wide.  Antenna width has
everything to do with it, although transmitter power is a critical
item too.

--- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR]
--
Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 14 Apr 91 00:48:39 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!euclid.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter Scott)
Subject: Re: spacesuits (Was: Re: HST in-orbit Maintenance)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

> >The sort of suit Pournelle was alluding to -- the "Space Activity Suit" --
> >doesn't retain pressure at all.  The suit provides mechanical support only;
> ... most of message deleted
> >overgarment.  (In fact, it is important that it not be airtight, since
> >SAS cooling is by sweating into vacuum.)
>
> I don't know what kind of testing these suits have undergone, of for what
> lengths of time, but I would think that dehydration would be a serious
> problem if cooling is by evaporation into the vacume, as has been
> suggested. When I lived out West, I found that it was necessary to make a
> point to drink fluids whenever I was out hiking in the open sun. Even in
> the desert, there's moisture in the air, but in the vacume, one would
> expect a much higher rate of evaporation. I question whether suits like
> this are practical for anything other than short (<1hr.) EVA.

They've been tested in vacuum chambers with live subjects, which is pretty
convincing.  Don't know how long for, but I seem to remember periods of
>1hr.  This was discussed at length on this group a couple of years ago
and someone took the novel step of posting a reference, so I went and looked
it up on the fiche here.  Unfortunately (*sigh*) I don't have the reference
any more and I doubt I could find it in my available time.  Henry?

--
This is news.  This is your       |    Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech
brain on news.  Any questions?    |    ([e-mail])

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

Date: 14 Apr 91 03:47:45 GMT
From: usc!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re:  Launch Technology:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>The most amusing part, actually, is the juxtaposition of Nick's "I know
>>what has potential and what doesn't, and chemical rockets don't, so no
>>further work should be done on them" [with my J. Paul Getty quote]
>
>Good grief.  Do you really need to see the world in such black and white?

When it looks black and white, Nick, I don't call it pastel.

>Look, here is a summary: given a suite of launch R&D choices, we
>need to choose those with the largest potential improvements.  The potential
>improvement of chem rockets ranks well below that of several other...

How do you know?

Let's try a somewhat longer quote from Getty:

    Throughout Oklahoma, it was virtually an article of faith that no
    oil could exist in the so-called red-beds area.  Without exception,
    geologists, major-oil-company experts and wildcatting operators
    agreed that the region was bone-dry.  I wasn't so sure.  In fact,
    I had a strong hunch that the unanimous opinion was based on nothing
    more than superstition and guesswork.  The hunch was bolstered by
    the information that only the most haphazard and desultory exploration
    had been carried out in the red beds...  I obtained a lease in the
    region, began drilling and opened up a new producing area.  Thenceforth,
    to put it mildly, I no longer needed to eat at the boardinghouse...

                "How To Be A Successful Executive"
                J. Paul Getty

"Haphazard and desultory exploration" sums it up quite nicely, as does
"superstition and guesswork".
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 13 Apr 91 18:49:00 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!ptimtc!rdmei!icspub!astemgw!kuis!rins![e-mail]  (will)
Subject: Re: Mars?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Charles Meyer) writes:
>Just wondering when the human race gonna stop this self-killing and
>reach the planet Mars?


    When the last man and/or women is dead....


                                        William Dee Rieken
                                        Researcher, Computer Visualization
                                        Faculty of Science and Technology
                                        Ryukoku University
                                        Seta, Otsu 520-21,
                                        Japan

                                        Tel: [phone](direct)
                                        Fax: [phone]
                                        [e-mail]

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

Date: 10 Apr 91 06:22:42 GMT
From: unisoft!fai!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #362

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>[I write] $tens of billions down the tubes for
>>chemical rocket research, money that could have been much better spent on
>>the basic science behind superconductors, gas guns, lasers, et. al.  Well,
>>that's all water under the bridge, but the future lies ahead -- let's
>>do it right this time!
>
>1)  The basic science IS being done.

At a very slow, vastly underfunded rate.  The budget for a _single_
chem rocket, the Shuttle, is higher than the entire NSF budget.
This is outrageous and unacceptable for a society that wants to go
into space.


>Maaybe the science will come through for us.

Science is based on work and resources, not hopes.


>Point:  It has not been *proven* that chems can't lower lauch costs.

The economic arguments I presented are pretty straightforward, and
the real-world evidence of rocket operations to date is overwhelming.
No, you can't 100% prove anything in this life, not even tommorrow's
sunrise.  But the cost of working with such large amounts of fuel
tied to such puny payloads is fairly certain.


>Point:  No other system HAS PROVEN capable of the basic goal:

I again remind you this is technology we are talking about, not a point
of law.  No technology should ever work, by this reasoning, because
every technology that ever worked has had to grow from being "unproven"
to "proven".  New R&D is supposed to work on the unproven, to give us
new technological capabilities, not just rehash the same old ones and
call it "progress".


>Point:  R&D IS BEING DONE on this stuff.

The R&D funding for alternative launchers, _all_ of them, is less than
1/10 the R&D for the single technology of chemical rockets.  The system
is totally out of whack, nearly totally concentrated on pseudo-improvments
and megaprojects with a single technology rather than searching to find
the best technologies.  We have a vast problem in misallocation of R&D
funds here that needs to be addressed.  One grad student at JPL working
on MHD rockets during the summer, three engineers at Boeing working on
magsails in their spare time, this is not even close to being sufficient
funding.  Let's get our priorities straight or we can forget about going
into space.



--
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: 13 Apr 91 02:34:37 GMT
From: oravax![e-mail]  (Douglas Harper)
Subject: Space Camp in Huntsville

Has anyone here gone or sent someone to summer camp at the U.S. Space
Camp in Huntsville Alabama?  I'd like to know whether it's worth the
money.  Nothing can match an intensive, guided week-long experience,
I'm sure, but I understand that many of the attractions the camp
advertises are open to the general public free of charge.

Any information would be appreciated.

--
Douglas Harper    [e-mail]
        oravax![e-mail]

Are there any David N. White, SFS or KCA alumni reading this?

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

Date: 13 Apr 91 17:22:41 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!sol![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Tourism: Time and $$ (was Re: Fred on the Moon)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jose
Pina Coelho) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (Tom McWilliams) writes:

>>Tourism?  I'd like to go.  I'm sure someone that could afford it would, too.
>You'd like to go ? I'd kill to go.
>People that can afford it, can't afford the time for tourism.

On the other hand -- Malcom Forbes had time for hot-air ballooning and
motorcycling -- and the president/CEO of Virgin Records/Airways is
taking the time to fly around the world in a balloon.

I'm still waiting for the first billionaire (or hectamillionaire) to
take the Soviets up on their offer of a $10 million ride to Mir...
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi                University of Rochester
[e-mail]        Department of Computer Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #405
*******************