Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_6/V13_661.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-16 | 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/gcL4V8e00WBwEP1k5h>;
          Mon, 17 Jun 91 01:27:37 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 01:27:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #661

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 661

Today's Topics:
        Re: Tethers (was Re: Laser launchers)
  The Reasons for a Station? Was Re: Rational next station design...
        Re: Female Cosmonauts (the Soviet experience)
               Re: Calculating delta-V
               Re: The Un-Plan
            SPACE Digest V13 #577
Re: The Reasons for a Station? Was Re: Rational next station design...
               Re: Saturn V and the ALS
             Re: Help for science writer
            Re: NASA and Criticism

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: 1 Jun 91 11:47:55 GMT
From: coplex!disk![e-mail]  (joefish)
Subject: Re: Tethers (was Re: Laser launchers)


Re:   Your long post on tethers;

Tethers are planned for space shuttle experiments, but
they are very short (several miles), and are only for dragging
a sensor package through the atmosphere.

The long things you were discussing are called "beanstalks",
and are science fiction, because the materials to make them
possible will never exist.   A steel cable 20 miles long will
break from it's own weight.   The question is:  How can discussions
of beanstalks be stopped?

Joe Fischer              [e-mail]


j

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

Date: 27 May 91 11:23:14 GMT
From: mcsun!unido!mpirbn![e-mail]  (Daniel Fischer)
Subject: The Reasons for a Station? Was Re: Rational next station design...

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>Here are the missions that I want to see done that I think can be done only
>or best by a station:

>    * Long-term Human studies
This kind of study is being performed by the Soviets since two decades; they
have had people up for 1 year and flown a doctor on a 200+ days mission. What
could be learned by repeating these boring adventures that they don't already
know and are likely ready to join?

>    * some Microgravity (not all)
Microgravity reasearchers prefer quick return of their samples and do *not* ask
for superduper manned stations that can be served only once in a while.

>    * most Biological science
What Biological science? Again the Soviets have done all that before,especially
with the Biosputnik spacecraft where many foreign experiments were flown.
Adding up points 1 & 3 one could also ask: why should we be interested at all
in the response of biological systems to microgravity as all life as we know it
has developed under 1g conditions? Seems like a lousy circular argument: "We
need man/animals in space so that we can learn how badly space affects them..."

>    * Spacecraft Refurbishment
this is the best point - but wasn't the capability to serve other s/c the FIRST
thing they threw away when they had be begin to descope Fred? Here (in the light
of GRO's successful and HST's upcoming orbital repair) I would argue for
developing a fleet of flexible shuttles, manned (for LEO) and unmanned (for GSO)
and highly maneuverable (for GTO, like for catching defective HIPPARCOSses).
Imagine what could have been done in this respect with the billions already
wasted on Fred...

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

Date: 28 May 91 11:38:24 GMT
From: world!ksr![e-mail]  (Chris Jones)
Subject: Re: Female Cosmonauts (the Soviet experience)

In article <[e-mail]>, fcrary@lightning (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Purtill) writes:
>>    Well, for one thing, we might actually like to find out what
>>happens to women for more than a few days.  In case you haven't
>>noticed, the Russians haven't had any women cosmonauts for some time.
>>Judging by the comments from various Russians when the British sent a
>>female cosmonaut (along the lines of "women don't belong in space"), I
>>don't think it's likely that they'll be giving us any information on
>>this any time soon.  (I omit pointing out that a year isn't really
>>very long only because someone else already has).
>>    Flames that the Russians are right to /dev/null.
>>
>The Soviet attitude torwards female cosmonauts is the result of their early
>experience, during their Vostok program. Their first female cosmonaut,
>V. V. Tereshkova, was one of thier first six people in orbit. She was
>selected for political reasons, and was not selected for military pilots
>nor did she fit the same medical profile as the other Vostok cosmonauts.
>Possibly for these reasons, she was the ONLY one of the Vostok cosmonauts
>to suffer from very serious space sickness (Space Adaptation Syndrome).
>She was unable to complete all the objectives of her flight as a result.
>Today, we know that Tereshkova was a statistical fluke, and that women are
>no more prone to SAS than men. However, to the early soviet mission planners,
>there was no way to tell this. They concluded from a very small sample
>(5 men and 1 woman) that female cosmonauts were a mistake.

The "Soviet attitude" toward female cosmonauts may be a result of many things,
and is somewhat hard to discern.  Certainly, their actions haven't backed up
their words, which pay service to the equality between the sexes under a
socialist regime.  In this respect the space program mirrors their society as a
whole.

I've heard a lot of speculation about Tereshkova's performance during her
flight.  Much of it seems to have been unfounded rumor, and I'd be interested
to hear which objectives of her flight she was unable to complete.  Given the
almost non-existent workload of Vostok cosmonauts and given that her flight was
undertaken, as you say, more for its propaganda value than as a result of a
planned program of scientific study, I'd say that her flight of three days,
giving her more space flight experience than that of the entire Mercury
program, probably amply met its objective.

Also, whether or not Tereshkova suffered from space sickness, she would not
have been the first Soviet cosmonaut to do so.  Gherman Titov on Vostok 2
reported nausea commencing on the fifth or sixth orbit of his day long flight.
His experience led to a year's delay before Vostok 3's flight.  That and
subsequent flights demonstrated that his experience was subjective.  (The
Mercury and Gemini astronauts reported no such problems, apparently because the
capsules were so confining that they did not allow enough freedom of movement
to trigger the symptoms.  Commencing with Apollo, US astronauts began to
experience "space sickness" as well.)

--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]    {uunet,harvard,world}!ksr!clj

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

Date: 29 May 91 00:57:53 GMT
From: tristan![e-mail]  (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: Calculating delta-V

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>> [e-mail] writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
::
:: :A good solution is to give SI as the ratio of thrust (in Newtons) to
:: :propellant consumption (in kg/s). This will give SI in m/s ...
::
:: In fact, this amounts to forgetting specific impulse entirely and simply
:: stating the effective exhaust velocity.  Definitely the right approach.
:
:
:     I have heard it suggested that the easiest way to regard specific impulse
:is that it ***is*** exhaust velocity, but that for obscure reasons it has been
:measured in units of 9.8 m/sec^2.  For a quick and dirty conversion between
:specific impulse and exhaust velocity in meters/sec, ignore units and divide or
:multiply by 10 in your head (close enough to 9.8xxxx for many purposes).

    The "reason":

    In "English" units, there is a unit of mass called the "pound"
and a unit of force called a "pound". Their ratio is the acceleration
of gravity, about 9.8 m/s^2. In this type of system, the ratio of
force to mass rate is measured in seconds, when it is really a
velocity, the effective exhaust velocity (EEV).

    So that's the reason for the screwy units.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster: [e-mail]

Since this nodename is not widely known, you may have to try:

[e-mail]

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

Date: 29 May 91 18:53:29 GMT
From: sequent!muncher.sequent.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: The Un-Plan

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

>Who is Amgen?

The folks who put McDonnel Douglas/Johnson & Johnson out of the
erythropoetin electrophoresis business in the mid-80's by coming up
with a method for producing the stuff in bulk via genetic engineering.
Previous to Amgen's breakthrough, purifying erythrpoetin in microgravity
was considered promising, and prototypes were flow on the Shuttle by
McDonnel Douglas.  Erythropoetin is as estimated $2 billion/year market.

The upshot is, we need a diverse set of options for space industries.
Reliance on one field, whether micrgravity processing or SPS, won't cut
it.


--
Nick Szabo                [e-mail]
"If you understand something the first time you see it, you probably
knew it already.  The more bewildered you are, the more successful
the mission was." -- Ed Stone, Voyager space explorer

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

ReSent-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 29 May 91 18:09:04 EDT
Resent-From: tom <[e-mail]>
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Date:         Sat, 25 May 91 01:57:22 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
Subject:      SPACE Digest V13 #577
Comments: To: [e-mail]
To: david polito <[e-mail]>, Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>

Re: Powersats, Space Industrialization

>I can't prove that powersats will be The demand that kicks space industry
>off.

I can.  It was a change in energy source that underlies most of our species
changes.  In some ways, was the change.

Paleolithic to Neolithic    Wood (Probably)
Agricultural to Industrial  Coal
Industrial to 'Post modern' Oil, Nuclear

These sources all appeared unlimited to the ones who started using them, but
we now know they are all limited.  Eric Fromm called it an 'Energy Watersheds'
in his book _ENTROPY_, when a change was made from one to another.
Unfortunately, he gives the options of a dead world, or a solar powered one.
He neglects space completely.  What a drag.

If you assume space industry, powersats follow necessarily.  (Just like if you
assume lots of cars and trucks, rich Arabs and Texans follow)

>How many times have we told friends, "If you're serious about sustainable
>growth, you must become a serious supporter of space industry." It is
>fairly scary to hear the informed space community saying, "No hurry
>for twenty to fifty years."

>But I am certain that powersat demand can be anticipated in the 20-50
>year timeframe, as the _first_ benefit of major space industrialization.

Look around the major cities (even minor ones nowdays).  They are lit by
oil.  They are full of devices that use oil.  The materials were mined
and refined (glass, steel, etc) with oil-based energy.  The food eaten
by the inhabitants was fertilized by oil-produced compounds.  Etc, etc.

Powersats will not 'benefit' from Space Industrialization.
Powersats (or at least sun-cathcing devices of some sort) will BE space
Industrialization.

It's like saying 'Leaves benefit from growing on trees'.  The leaves ARE
the tree.  ( The powersats will be our leaves! )

Tom
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: 30 May 91 00:57:18 GMT
From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa![e-mail]  (Charles Frank Radley)
Subject: Re: The Reasons for a Station? Was Re: Rational next station design...



The Soviets have sent TWO women into space, not one.
Valentina Tereshkova  ( 1963 )
Svetlana Savitskaya ( 1983 or 4 ? )

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

Date: 30 May 91 17:05:18 GMT
From: fxgrp![e-mail]  (Mike Wexler)
Subject: Re: Saturn V and the ALS

[e-mail] (David Anderman) writes:

>Why buy Soyuzes to launch on Titans, when it might make more political
>sense to purchase 2 Hermes spacecraft. With the additional funding, ESA
>just might actually build the Hermes, and the purchase might make ESA
>feel better about the cancellation of the Freedom Space Station....
Because the Soyuzes already exist, have been extensively used (read tested)
and worked.
>
>Hermes could easily be launched on a Titan IV. Soyuz, on the other hand,
>is too small to be economically launched on a Titan IV (or even the
>Commercial Titan). Actually, an upgraded Atlas Centaur would be more
>appropriate for the Soyuz launcher, and the Atlas (was) man rated...
Is this a disadvantage. Are you saying that we should use Hermes because
it requires a bigger more expensive launch vehicle? Or do I misunderstand
you.
--
Mike Wexler ([e-mail])

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

Date: 31 May 91 00:42:12 GMT
From: att!cbfsb!cbnewsf.cb.att.com![e-mail]  (anthony.r.rizzo)
Subject: Re: Help for science writer

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kenneth Holden Chang) writes:
>This summer I'm taking leave of my regular persona of physics graduate
>student to be a science writer for the San Francisco Chronicle. I'd like
>some help from net people about possible article ideas as well as general
>comments about the state of science journalism. More specifically:
>
>   [ much stuff deleted...]

I have a suggestion for at least one article
regarding a serious problem that has a direct
impact on society and the economy.

It seems that a significant number of American corporations are putting
large-scale finite element analysis (FEA) programs
in the hands of inexperienced engineers and non-engineers.
The managers in those corporations think that such programs
are now so easy to use that mechanical engineering analyses
can be treated as a push-button activity.  At a recent conference
for users of one such program, last week,
I asked an audience of several hundred attendees
to raise their hands if they felt that FEA programs were being
misused within their corporations regularly.  To my inordinate surprise,
nearly half the audience raised their hands.

The implication of such misuse is that American corporations
are designing products on the basis of worthless analyses,
done by incompetents.  Unfortunately, all involved, including
managers and so-called analysts, believe the beautiful color
graphics that the programs generate.

You will be in an ideal position to bring this problem to light.
I hope that you do so.  Some day we and our families
may fly in an airplane or ride in a car
that was "analyzed" in this manner.
Just the thought of that scares me to death.

  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  *                           Anthony R. Rizzo                            *
  *                             The FEA Group                             *
  *                        AT&T Bell Laboratories                         *
  *   att.com!homxc!rizzo                                [phone]   *
  *           Knowing that you have a good answer is everything!          *
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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

Date: 31 May 91 15:30:21 GMT
From: mcrware![e-mail]  (Eric Miller)
Subject: Re: NASA and Criticism

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

>  Of course, others will argue that federal moneys
>should be more appropriately be spent on social programs and problems here on
>Mother Earth.  I can't argue that there is cause to answer those needs.

The best thing that has happened as a result of going in to space is that we
can finally see the Earth as a whole.  National and political boundaries
disappear into ecological regions.  Racial or religious issues disappear into
problems of the global ecology.

There is no doubt that we face some serious problems on this planet.  Among
them:

    - toxic and nuclear wastes
    - environmental destruction
    - proliferation of weapons of mass destruction

Most of these problems are caused by people (or politicians) who cannot view
the planet as ONE ECOSYSTEM with ONE CHANCE TO SURVIVE.

We do have to address the social problems in the great population centers
of the planet.  We do have to address the problems of food shortages caused
by overpopulation and environmental abuse.  Let's do it by not building
weapons of mass destruction!!!!  That way we have a *fighting* chance.

Every dollar put into space research and development will be paid back
100 fold by advances in medicine, access to mineral resources and advances
in associated technologies like energy production.

Are these really such difficult issues for politicians and their constituents
to grasp???

Eric Miller

****************
Sorry for the soapbox, no I'm not running for political office...
I just get a little emotional about this issue...
****************

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #661
*******************