Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_5/V13_507.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/kc9u0aG00WBwI5xE4P>;
          Wed,  8 May 91 02:52:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed,  8 May 91 02:52:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #507

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 507

Today's Topics:
        United Space Federation, Inc.UPDATE 2
              Re: Galileo works?
         Re: What about ozone as an oxidant?
  Re: Saturn V and Design Reuse: Saturn VI? (RBB: Real Big Booster)
         Re: "Bussard Ramjets" AKA duct space drives
  Re: Saturn V and Design Reuse: Saturn VI? (RBB: Real Big Booster)
                 Re: Tethers
               Re: Gas Guns and Tethers
              Re: Lunar Origins
        Re: Alexander Abian wants to blow up 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: 3 May 91 01:39:43 GMT
From: vax5.cit.cornell.edu![e-mail]
Subject: United Space Federation, Inc.UPDATE 2



Dear News Net Members our letter to the US Congress and Senate

    We are endeavoring to establish an International Civil Space
Agency by 1993.  With the cold war over between the USSR and the USA
many key industries, around the world, are now in a state of financial
trouble of epidemic proportions.  During the cold war, Billions of
dollars on both sides of the iron curtain were expended on defense
related production and research for ships, planes, tanks, missiles, ect,
ect. and ect., and were the mainstay and base from which industrial,
scientific, and technology related economies, either directly or
indirectly, depended on for their existence.
    In the United States of America, for example, I would dare to say
that probably 50 to 60 percent of the National Scientific, technological,
and industrial advances, production, and economic stability was based on
or supported directly, or indirectly, by defense related activities or
projects.  What will fill this post cold war vacuum?  How will these key
industries survive in the post cold war world with out work for their
employees and contracts to fulfill?
    Most importantly!, how can the nations of the world community
truly stay at peace if their economies built up by the cold war begin to
crumble leaving them no other opportunity but to create imaginary threats
to re-justify the expenditures on unnecessary military equipment or
defense related activities in order to revitalize their devastated
economies.  World peace is not just a simple matter of Countries stopping
to build weapons and presto!, would peace happens?  Some international,
cooperative, civilian related or based, endeavor needs to be created
which can redirect and maintain present Scientific, industrial, and
technological activities at or above those levels attained during the
cold war or talk of world peace and international cooperation will be
just that , TALK!   World Peace is not something that happens simply by
TALK and WISHFUL THINKING alone.  World Peace must be PRACTICED by
implementing PRACTICAL, LOGICAL and REALISTIC international programs and
cooperative activities which will work and not just look good on paper!
    It takes money to solve problems, and as we all now money does
not grow on trees !  Its fine and dandy to say solve world hunger!, solve
world environmental problems!,  stop global warming!, and give money to
the poor!, and I strongly support every one of these problems being
solved, but where is all this money going to come from if everybody is
unemployed and all the corporations are bankrupt.  Its fine and dandy to
say stop building weapons and peace on earth and good will to men, and I
would truly like to see this occur, but what are all the millions of
people who are employed around the world in science, technology, and
industrial defense related jobs going to do when they suddenly have no
jobs!  What's going to happen to the families, communities, and whole
national and regional economies that are now supported by defense related
activities, when the very bases for their existence is suddenly
eliminated!  Just stopping to build weapons and cutting off defense
expenditures makes no sense, is not logical, and can't  realistically be
done with out devastating aftereffects far worse than those which existed
in its place.  The present conditions in the USSR and the now lagging
economy in the USA are a two very good examples of the types of problems
created from this type of approach.
    Diverting present, world wide, excess or unnecessary national
defense related efforts and activities to other similarly related efforts
and activities, while maintaining there integrity and established
economic levels, by far makes more sense, is much more logical, and is
practical, because all nations can benefit from and maintain their
present economies with little or now change in their established
technological and industrial economic infrastructures.  The United Space
Federation is now attempting to do just this; create an endeavor which
can integrate, with little or no change, multinational  scientific,
technical, and industrial activities, similar in form and structure to
that of the present defense related activities, world wide, and divert
them to more constructive, peaceful, and productive activities and
endeavors.
    Going to the Moon and Mars is not running from our problems here
on earth, its providing a way to solve them!  Next time those who reply
innocently, or not, with this response, " why do a stupid thing like go
to the Moon or Mars when we have problems like weapons proliferation,
world hunger, world environmental problems, world poverty, global
warming, and world economic crisis' right here on earth ", I would highly
suggest those whose answer in this way  to go and water your money tree!,
because you will really need it in about two or three years when the real
money is all gone and the real problems begin, like world war III.
            Thank you for your time and support, Godspeed!
                Sincerely,
                Rick R. Dobson

                Founder and Executive Director
                UNITED SPACE FEDERATION, Inc.

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

Date: 2 May 91 16:53:12 GMT
From: mcsun!inesc!unl!unl![e-mail]  (Jose Pina Coelho)
Subject: Re: Galileo works?


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Fraering Philip) writes:

> I don't know, but maybe because the radio waves could become focused in
> such a way as to interfere with the spacecraft electronics. I don't know
> how much radio-frequency interference the circuits can take.

They better be able to take a lot of it or they won't survive
Jupiter's radiation belts (I mean, they are *strong* radiation
fields, World War III would be peanuts arround Jupiter).



--
Jose Pedro T. Pina Coelho   | BITNET/Internet: [e-mail]
Rua Jau N 1, 2 Dto          | UUCP: ...!mcsun!unl!jpc
1300 Lisboa, PORTUGAL       | Home phone: (+351) (1) 640767

- If all men were brothers, would you let one marry your sister ?

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

Date: 4 May 91 21:25:35 GMT
From: usc!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: What about ozone as an oxidant?

In article <Added.Ic8Vc=[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Ristow) writes:
>There's been some discussion about alternative propellant chemistry.  Does
>anybody know the current thinking on using ozone as the oxidant? ...

As far as I know, nobody has found a way around the fundamental problem
of coping with a cryogenic liquid that is a powerful and touchy explosive.
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 2 May 91 16:21:59 GMT
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and Design Reuse: Saturn VI? (RBB: Real Big Booster)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (/dev/null) writes:
>Legally, people are trying to reduce emissions on cars.  On rockets
>there are no restrictions.  Maybe start putting restrictions on
>emissions of launchers?

Again, why are launchers such a special case?  Their contribution to total
emissions is insignificant; why are we proposing restrictions on them?  If
we must, why are we proposing restrictions on hydrocarbon-fueled launchers,
which are among the cleanest of the lot?  (The shuttle, for example, is
very dirty by comparison; the hydrogen-fueled SSMEs don't make up for those
filthy SRBs.)

>After all, they do launch in the wetlands AND spew half burnt
>hydrocarbons and other exhaust all over.

For a few seconds right at the start.
--
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 3 May 91 03:05:52 GMT
From: tardis.computer-science.edinburgh.ac.uk![e-mail]
Subject: Re: "Bussard Ramjets" AKA duct space drives

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (FrankCrary) writes:

>As far as the uniformity of the ISM, all astronomical methiods of measuring
>its density give results which are the average over, at least, light years.
>Local density clumps are not detectable at this time.
>
>                      Frank Crary
>                      UC Berkeley

I thought one of the problems in astrophysics at the moment was the
uniformity of the interstellar medium. Or am I getting it confused with
the M.B.R. ?

-Chris

------------------+------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Samuel| [e-mail]    [e-mail]    *!mcsun!ukc!aber!ccs7
c/o Physics Dept.,| ccs7%uk.ac.aber@ukacrl         ccs7%uk.ac.aber@nsfnet-relay
UCW Aberystwyth,  | [e-mail]    jd%uk.ac.ed.cs.tardis%nsfnet-relay
Aberystwyth,      +------------------------------------------------------------
Dyfed,            | Disclaimer:   I mean nothing I say, and say nothing I mean.
WALES             | Comment   : The future's so dark I gotta wear Mirrorshades.
------------------+------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 3 May 91 16:15:28 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu![e-mail]  (/dev/null)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and Design Reuse: Saturn VI? (RBB: Real Big Booster)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (/dev/null) writes:
>
> >> The driving force in launcher safety is NOT the lives of the crew.
> >> Payload replacement cost IS the driving factor. The average payload
> >> today is worth far more than the crews who launch it.
>
> >What is your cost estimate of a crew member? :)
>
> I guess I would say $2 to $5 million per crewmember.
>
> I see the smiley but the point needs to be made: human life DOES
> have a value. It is an important parameter in the cost of many
> things we use like cars and aircraft. There are lots of things
> which could be done to reduce loss of life in aircraft crashes
> which aren't done because the money spent on them isn't worth the
> lives saved.

It was kind of funny how when the Challenger exploded, more people
were concerned with the (inexpensive) crew compared to the
(expensive) shuttle and payload!

I guess they don't understand the value of a life, eh?

No, life DOES NOT have a value that can be estimated.  The LEGAL
COSTS of a trial does not equate to a human life.

The potential LEGAL COSTS equate to safety features.  This may
seem like semantics, but its not.  Don't be fooled into thinking
that since lawsuit #1234 gave $5million to widow X, thaty
the 'market value' of a human is $5,000,000

This whole discussion has gotten way off track.

If the original point you were making is that there have to be a lot
more safety oriented design to preserve the integrity of payload since
the great expense to a company or government, you made your point, and
I agree.  I don't like placing a value on human life because it makes
things a bit too scary (Well, since he is only worth $5million, and
the safety feature costs $6million, we can save $1-6 million by
'needlessly' endangering his/her life!)


--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Society of Philosophers, Luminaries,           | Brent L. Irvine       |
| and Other Professional Thinking People.....   | Only my own ramblings |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 4 May 91 03:06:44 GMT
From: van-bc!rsoft!mindlink![e-mail]  (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: Tethers

[e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:

> I have also proposed a scientific "astronomy flashlight" mission that could
> take advantage of the magnetic flux with a small probe in the near term.

Is that to replace the nuclear power generator?  A two part probe with a tether
between them, trading power source mass for orbital lifetime?

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

Date: 1 May 91 21:10:23 GMT
From: wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!unixhub!slacvm![e-mail]  (Jon J Thaler)
Subject: Re: Gas Guns and Tethers

It seems to me that there is a problem with the tether notion even if the
shuttle can match velocities exactly.  At the moment of link-up the tension
in the tether will suddenly increase by an amount necessary to keep the
shuttle from falling back down.  I haven't gone through the calculation,
but I'd expect this tension to be a substantial fraction of the weight of the
shuttle.

This sudden stress on the tether will cause the whole system to bounce.
The situation is exactly analogous to that of holding a mass next to a
dangling spring, connecting it, and then letting go.  The size of the
effect will depend on the mechanical properties of the tether.  (Note
that the elasticity ot the tether is not directly related to its breaking
strength.)  I'd guess that the bouncing, having an amplitude of tens of
kilometers, will seriously complicate any attempts to "reel in the fish."

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

Date: 24 Apr 91 16:23:11 GMT
From: mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss![e-mail]  (Paul Blase)
Subject: Re: Lunar Origins

to: [e-mail] (Chris @ SSDA ...)

 C@>         I thought that the earth-moon configuration was caused
 C@>  via the collision of the moon onto the earth, which caused the
 C@>  melting of both objects, etc...  I saw a simulation done on a
 C@>  cray which showed this...

 C@> Actually I know very little about this theory, anyone got any
 C@> more info about this ???

Actually (from Scientific American, NOVA, and other sources) the current
theory is that (4 or 5 billion years ago) a Mars-sized object collided
with the Earth at exactly the right angle.  The core of the object
ended up in with the Earth's core; the crust of the object wrapped itself
around the Earth (giving rise to certain observed features of the Earth's
mantle and crust - primarily a sharp division about 300 miles down); and
a large amount of the Earth's crust was splashed up into orbit to form Luna.
This would account for the observed chemical nature of the moon and it's
similarity to the Earth's crust.

(I think that that's right, it's from memory).

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

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

Date: 1 May 91 12:29:20 GMT
From: dev8a.mdcbbs.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Alexander Abian wants to blow up the moon?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Alan Lohof) writes:
>
> Earth - moon fragment collisions:  remember that all previous collisions
> that we know of were from meteors, asteroid stuff.  the moon fragments
> would come in as decaying orbits, spiraling in, like the space shuttle.
> lots of time spent burning in the atmosphere. and it would take a very
> large chunk to make it thru the atmosphere and hit surface.
>
> Comments??
>

  When I was still at NASA, I worked an expedition to the Arizona Meteor Crater
outside Flagstaff. When searched with a powerful magnet, the ground yeilds up
tiny raindrop shapes of re-condensed meteoric material. A sufficiently
large mass burning in the atmosphere will leave a saturated cloud of
vaporized material in its wake. When it recondenses and falls to Earth,
I would hate to be under it.

  For those of you empirical types, try wrapping a magnet in a piece of
Saran Wrap and running it through the dust at the bottom of a rain
gutter. Examine the magnetically attracted debris with a microscope (the
Saran Wrap makes it easier to get off of the magnet). See the round shiny
pieces? They are probably recondensed meteoric material from the constant
shower of small meteors that fall to Earth every day.

  There is another point. For any large mass that burns up in the atmosphere,
the energy of its momentum is only partially transformed to heat. Evidence
at the Arizona Crater indicates that the shock wave from the meteor itself
killed ground dwelling animals as far away as 700 miles along the incoming
trajectory.

Mike

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #507
*******************