Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_6/V13_688.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-23 | 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/McN4YhS00WBwI4jE5Y>;
          Sun, 23 Jun 91 03:09:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 91 03:09:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #688

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 688

Today's Topics:
         Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch?
            Re: Fred Vote Thursday
         Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch??
              Re: Microgravity?
                 earth's day
              Re: Microgravity?
       Re: INFO: More on Hoagland's Mars - ParaNet File
    Re: Shuttle & Launch Policies (Was: Re: More on Freedom Vote)
              Re: Microgravity?
         Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures
                 earth's day
         Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures
               Re: More on Freedom Vote

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 Jun 91 21:49:19 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!kksys!wd0gol!newave![e-mail]  (John A. Weeks III)
Subject: Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
> > educational  SHARETEXT  service. The  suggested  contribution is
> > $75.00 and entitles you  to  full access to our comprehensive library

> What amuses me is that ParaNet has the gall to ask for seventy-five
> bucks for this "valuable, educational SHARETEXT  service."  The
> "SpaceNews" information is widely available for free on other nets and
> BBS's.

I think you misunderstand what Paranet is all about.  They do not
want to sell you a subscription for $75, but rather, they are a non-profit
organization that relys on donations from people that are interested.
Think of it like public TV or public radio--you can watch it for free,
but it thrives only if listeners and viewer contribute.

If you are interested in this type of information, consider subscribing
to the paranet mailing list.

-john-

--
=============================================================================
John A. Weeks III               [phone]             [e-mail]
NeWave Communications, Ltd.                        ...uunet!tcnet!newave!john

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 13:35:43 GMT
From: prism![e-mail]  (Matthew DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Fred Vote Thursday

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>This is incorrect, 217 is enough to win by one vote. At the moment there
>are only 432 members in the House (three seats are vacant due to death,
>resignation, ect). Also note that a tie is a win since the VP gets the
>tiebreaking vote.

Just as a point of information, the tiebreaking authority of the Vice
President is in the Senate, not the House.  Oddly enough, my copy of the
Constitution doesn't seem to provide for tiebreaking in the House.

>The momentum is also on Freedoms side. Last Freday there where only 70
>votes in favor of the amendment to restore Freedom funding.

Maybe this near-death will scare the Freedom people into getting some
hardware built...
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Office of Information Technology      P.O. box."  - Zebadiah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]    _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 15:13:41 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!suned1!slced1![e-mail]  (Lloyd E Vancil)
Subject: Re: INFO: Clandestine Mars Observer Launch??

The fella says;
>
>BTW, I have a copy of the original NASA photo showing the "Face."  It
>is rather grainy, but I simply don't see how you can miss the "Face."
>It is nothing like the Kermit face that someone said they saw on Mars,
>nor is it anything like the face in the moon.  This thing is so
>distinct that it will capture your attention immediately.

It does do that, capture your imagination, but when mapped in 3d from the
intensity of the pixels in the image it takes on a new aspect.  From
the same viewing angle it still looks like a face.  When the viewing angle
is moved off to the side (about 120 degrees relative to 0 at the top of the
"face") and then down to about 45 degrees figured from 0 degrees in the plane
of the image it begins to fit the paradigm of impact crater.
From that angle it looks like an nearly spherical object impacted the surface
at extreamly low speed.  Now, from the size of this object I would estimate
the spherical section to be about .75 Miles in diameter.  Normally, we think
of impacts in the paradigm of the craters of the moon, huge violent impacts
that blast miles of surface in every direction.  This is not the only way
in which two objects can come together.  It is possible, not likely but we are
dealing with a universe here, that a nearly spherical meteor intersected the
orbit of Mars nearly tangentially and vectored in such a way that when it
intersected the surface of Mars its relative speed was measured in tens of
meters per hour.

Or it could be a crashed space ship three quarters of a mile wide..:-)


--
 | suned1![e-mail] | * S.T.A.R.S.!   .       +      o       |
 | [e-mail]    | The Revolution has begun!   .     +    |
 | sun!suntzu!suned1!lev         | My Opinions are Mine mine mine hahahah!|

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 20:33:47 GMT
From: arc!arc![e-mail]  (Steve Savitzky)
Subject: Re: Microgravity?

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

  In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bev Freed) writes:

  > A 710-meter shaft set deep into the Earth forms the centerpiece of a
  > new microgravity experimentation facility which will open in July.

  I must be missing something.  How do we get microgravity at this depth?
  The formula I recall would have the gravitational force there approximately
  .9999 g.

Drop something down the hole?
--
\ --Steve Savitzky--  \ ADVANsoft Research Corp \       FREE CYBERIA!      \
 \ [e-mail] \ 4301 Great America Pkwy \ Committee for a Free and \
  \ arc![e-mail] \ Santa Clara, CA 95954   \  Independent Cyberspace  \
   \__ [e-mail] _________408-727-3357___________________________________

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

Date: 3 Jun 91 18:49:16 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!demon![e-mail]  (Ian Stirling)
Subject: earth's day


>Now, all electrical energy consumed is eventually converted back to
>heat, so there is essentially no net effect on the amount of heat
>generated. Likewise, the fact that the energy is being converted to
>electricity first instead of heat will have no effect of the
>inevitable slowdown of the earth's rotation; it is neither enhanced
>nor reduced. Eventually, the earth day will be equal to the lunar
>month.


Wouldn't the moon slowly fall out of orbit,due to the `drag' first?
What happens to an orbiting body if it's slowed down over a long
period(long enough not to cause it to go into an epeliptical orbit)?
poster feed
poster feed
poster feed
poster feed
poster feed
poster feed
Mail to either                            |PLEASE do not send large
[e-mail]                      |(>20K)mail messages as
[e-mail]                   |I get charged for them.
[e-mail]                           |
one of these may work                     |

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 16:48:29 GMT
From: orca!bambam![e-mail]  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Microgravity?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bev Freed) writes:

             .....................

> > A 710-meter shaft set deep into the Earth forms the centerpiece of a
> > new microgravity experimentation facility which will open in July.
> > The center is expected to make a significant contribution to
> > biotechnology, metallurgy, ceramics, and other space related
> > research.

             ..................

> I must be missing something.  How do we get microgravity at this depth?
> The formula I recall would have the gravitational force there approximately
> .9999 g.

Not a problem. You put the experiment in a high density streamlined
container and you DROP it 710 meters. During the fall you get
microgravity. At the end you get macrogravity. :-)

                Bob P.

--
              Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself.
   [e-mail] or decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or hellgate!esunix!bpendlet

                         Tools, not rules.

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 16:52:38 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!boingo.med.jhu.edu!haven.umd.edu!ni.umd.edu!sayshell.umd.edu![e-mail]  (Louis A. Mamakos)
Subject: Re: INFO: More on Hoagland's Mars - ParaNet File

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Don Allen) writes:
>
>The following text comes from the ParaNet UFO echo.

>ParaNet File Number:
>Reprinted from Air & Space Smithsonian, June/July 1991.
>
>                            FACE OFF
>
>In 1976 the Viking I orbiter, flying some 1,100 miles above Mars,
>photographed  a  region called Cydonia. Close inspection  of  one
>frame  revealed  what looked like a human face  gazing  soulfully

Doesn't this direct reprint of a column from Air and Space magazine
sort of voilate the acceptable use criteria for copyrighted materials?
I mean, it a bit more than a few line excerpt..

louie

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 21:03:10 GMT
From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle & Launch Policies (Was: Re: More on Freedom Vote)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>Allen, following the Challenger accident, all commercial and most military
>payloads were taken off the shuttle...

Somewhat of an exaggeration, alas.  A considerable number of commercial
payloads stayed on for various reasons.  Some were shuttle-unique, and they
naturally had to stay on.  Others, like the planned Geostar navsats (now
never to fly, since Geostar is dead), had continued authorization to use
the shuttle for vague reasons that never were satisfactorily explained.
NASA basically made as many exceptions as it could.  Some of them have
since disappeared, as launch dates for anything but the highest-priority
payloads recede into the future and the commercial users go elsewhere.
--
"We're thinking about upgrading from    | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5."              |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 21:22:00 GMT
From: cix.compulink.co.uk![e-mail]  (Codesmiths)
Subject: Re: Microgravity?

In-Reply-To:  [e-mail] (Herman Rubin)
Organization: The Winged Psychos of Destiny

>> A 710-meter shaft set deep into the Earth forms the centerpiece of a
>> new microgravity experimentation facility which will open in July.
>
> I must be missing something.  How do we get microgravity at this depth?

You drop a capsule containing the experiment down the shaft in
free-fall.

Assuming a linear acceleration of g & a little time to decelerate at
the bottom, I estimate a drop time of 10s. Some form of viscous
damping during free fall would allow this time to be extended, but I
have no more information about the precise setup being used.

Parabolic flights on aircraft (the "Vomit Comet") give freefall times
of around 60s, but probably cost much more.

Dropping a capsule from a balloon at 710m altitude would be
susceptible to wind gusts & their resultant horizontal acceleration.

   _
 /  ) ' ,_   ,  /   _ ) _/_       [e-mail]
/_ / / / / (_) /_) (_)  /_        [phone]
          (_)

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

Date: 5 Jun 91 01:40:53 GMT
From: agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures

Although I agree that the largest single market for satellite repairs would
be geostationary orbit, I do not think this is currectly feasable. In my cost
estimates on a LEO station, the OMV fuel (e.g. transportation between the
satellite and the station) dominated the operational costs. I assumed a
100 m/s delta-v. If I recall correctly, a low Earth orbit to geostationary
orbit is about a 4000 m/s delta-v. As a result, the costs of repairing
geostationary satellites would be VERY much more expensive. I would guess
that GEO repair missions will have to wait on a advaneced propulsion
systems (such as an electric, or ion, rocket).

                     Frank Crary

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

Date: 3 Jun 91 01:04:00 GMT
From: cix.compulink.co.uk![e-mail]  (Ian Stirling)
Subject: earth's day


>Now, all electrical energy consumed is eventually converted back to
>heat, so there is essentially no net effect on the amount of heat
>generated. Likewise, the fact that the energy is being converted to
>electricity first instead of heat will have no effect of the
>inevitable slowdown of the earth's rotation; it is neither enhanced
>nor reduced. Eventually, the earth day will be equal to the lunar
>month.


Wouldn't the moon slowly fall out of orbit,due to the `drag' first?
What happens to an orbiting body if it's slowed down over a long
period(long enough not to cause it to go into an epeliptical orbit)?
poster feed
poster feed
poster feed
poster feed
poster feed
poster feed
Mail to either                            |PLEASE do not send large
[e-mail]                      |(>20K)mail messages as
[e-mail]                   |I get charged for them.
[e-mail]                           |
one of these may work                     |

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

Date: 4 Jun 91 15:00:15 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv![e-mail]  (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Self-sustaining infrastructures

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Ok, here's a thought that if it pans out guarantees funding (but since
>it's probably off base, no bets please).  Simply say that refueling
>sats is for reasons of "national security".  Realising that most (?)
>military spy sats are in geo orbit and unreachable by OMV, what if some
>were put in low orbit and designed to be highly mobile?  this mobility
>eats up fuel right, and is the reason we don't move them around at whim
>(maybe to check out what's over yonder border just for the heck of it)?
>If we could refuel them easily, might not such a sat find some kind of
>useful niche?  Adding the "national security" moniker makes it easier to
>get funding, since we already waste billions (trillions?) on such
>scams, er, schemes.  Of course, adding the "NS" moniker also raises
>the likelihood that any such refueling capability get labeled "top
>secret" and thus unavailable for the commercial world.  Any comments?
>Pete

I believe that the military would prefer to continue to use mostly
"throwaway" satellites. In fact, the military is now interested in
litesats because they can be replaced rapidly and cheaply. The danger
of using big long life satellites is that the enemy may simply
use an ASAT to destroy it and you wouldn't have a ready replacement.
While the military will continue to operate big expensive spy sats,
the trend is toward ready reserves and quick replacement launch
capability. Hence the military interest in Pegasus. It's probably
better from the military point of view to simply launch a new satellite
rather than pulling one from a presumably important observation job in
order to look at a new threat. While there is certainly some market for
repair and refueling capablility for military satellites, I don't believe
it should be considered a primary market. The primary market seems to
me to be commercial communications satellites and earth resources
observation satellites and scientific satellites, in that order.
A service depot at geosync would likely find the most work. It
would be the most difficult to supply though. This sounds like
a job for a LEO tether to boost supplies and crew up and down
from geosync orbit. Perhaps two stations, one at geosync, and
the other in low earth orbit equipped to service low orbit satellites
and equipped with a tether to boost cargos to geosync and beyond
would wind up profitable while a single repair station at either orbit
alone would not be profitable. This warrants some study.

Gary

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

Date: 5 Jun 91 04:51:13 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!ptimtc!nntp-server.caltech.edu!juliet.caltech.edu![e-mail]  (Lydick, Carl)
Subject: Re: More on Freedom Vote

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes...
>As for the production line bit, the production line was closed when
>Challenger blew up, and yet we have Endeavour.  I'll believe you when
>they destroy the tooling used in making shuttles.

Yup.  Of course, now that they've assembled Endeavor, they no longer have the
stock of spare parts they did before Challenger blew up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick    HEPnet/NSI: SOL1::CARL    Internet: [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #688
*******************