Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_0/V15NO027.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 13KB

Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 05:02:43
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #027
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 23 Jul 92       Volume 15 : Issue 027

Today's Topics:
           Antimatter (was propulsion questions)  (2 msgs)
                  Lunar Resource Mapper Information
                     Star Trek - instrumentation
                         U.S. Black Programs
                    Visual acuity in microgravity
                     What's the date on the moon?

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 07:22:35 +0000
From: Andrew Haveland-Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antimatter (was propulsion questions)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>
>It should be possible to chemically
>contain an antiproton in the form of an antiproton salt.
>Nowadays you could imagine capturing an
>antiproton in a positively charged bucky-ball cage, but there are
>also molecules like ferrocene that capture an ion between
>two five membered carbon rings.
>
>Once you've got some of this stuff, disolve a little bit in water,
>ammonia, whatever and burn in an "ordinary" rocket engine.  The
>heat of the engine decomposes the chemical releasing the antiproton
>which then annihilates releasing lots of energy and generating more
>heat.  Should a solution prove impractical then the antiproton salt
>could be injected seperately.
>
>The obvious name for an antiproton salt it dilithium :-)
>--
>Thomas Clarke
>Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
>12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
>[phone], FAX: [phone], [e-mail]

Nice concept, but I cannot for the life of me imagine how the hell you're
going to get an antiparticle in there!

How do you inject an antiparticle into the cage and make it stop within
the confines of the cage without destroying it, and hitting any atoms on
the way?
Or,
How do you keep the antiparticle stationary while building a cage around it?

I guess you'd need 1 bucky ball in 10E9 to be doped in this way to avoid
destroying a "conventional" rocket!

I would guess that *any* anti-ion with an atomic number greater than
2 or 3 would be attracted immediately to any electron within sniffing
distance...
The only anti-ion suitable *would* be an antiproton (negatron?) because
the net charge would be just too high on anything higher than anti-beryllium.

I'd just like to clarify some basics here:

Does it follow that from an "anti-perspective", matter would
have the same properties as anti-matter from our perspective?

Why haven't I heard of anti-energy?  Is there such a thing?

Would anti-matter have anything to do with anti-gravity by any chance?

Andy
~~~~
There is nothing wrong with making
anti-matter, but... be *careful*!    :-) Thanks to Henry for this one...

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Haveland-Robinson Associates        | Email: [e-mail]         |
| Pine Cottage, Osea Island, Essex    |        [e-mail] |
| CM9 8UH England.  0621-88756        | Also:  081-800 1708  081-802 4502    |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 07:30:18 +0000
From: Andrew Haveland-Robinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antimatter (was propulsion questions)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>>OK, now to play earths advocate, what kind of danger does releasing all that
>>incandescent gas, etc. cause.
>
>None whatsoever.  It's hot hydrogen.  The Sun pumps out billions of tons
>of hot hydrogen every second.

But that's on the Sun, not in the Earth's atmosphere!

It's a bit like saying, global thermonuclear war is harmless as the Sun
releases that much energy every millisecond! :-)

I wouldn't like to be too near...

Andy
~~~~
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Haveland-Robinson Associates        | Email: [e-mail]         |
| Pine Cottage, Osea Island, Essex    |        [e-mail] |
| CM9 8UH England.  0621-88756        | Also:  081-800 1708  081-802 4502    |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 23 Jul 92 11:55:51 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lunar Resource Mapper Information
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>
>Lunar Resource Mapper information that I give here is gleaned from presentations
>that I have heard in the last few months at various conferences.
>
[Lunar Resource Mapper information deleted]

Thank you for the information.  It is greatly appreciated.

>The cost for two spacecraft total mission expenditures is capped at somewhere
>under 200 million dollars exclusive of DSN support. This is a vast departure
>from the Lunar Observer mission, which uses much Mars Observer heritage hardware
>and from the last literature that I saw  the cost for LO was around
>750 million dollars. I hope you correct
>me if I am wrong on this one Ron, I do not have the book in front of me. The
>high cost of LO was prime in the decision of Congress not to fund it as a new
>start up in FY 91 or 92.

The Lunar Observer mission had a number of options, so the budget ranged
from 447 million to 1.1 billion dollars, but the baseline mission was at
600 million.

>Lunar Resource Mapper uses all of the research that was carried out by JPL on
>Lunar Observer and its predecessor Lunar Polar Orbiter as a baseline for the
>LRM missions.

It is interesting to note that the 200 million for LRM does not include the
ground work that was already done for Lunar Observer that LRM is using.

>Support LRM. Griffin's office took a 28% budget hit in the recission effort of
>the congress critters in June and not one person on here spoke up. Lunar
>Resource Mapper needs to fly if for no other reason than it will shake JPL
>up and help them become saved to the gospel of faster cheaper better.

JPL had already adopted the concept of the faster and cheaper missions.
Personally, I would like to go back to launching two spacecraft for every
mission (ie: Mariner, Voyager, Viking, etc.).  The proposed MESUR mission
will be sending *sixteen* landers to Mars.  Earlier this year JPL evaluated
120 proposals for future planetary missions ranging from Mercury to Pluto
including the asteroids and comets.  Each proposal followed the contraint
of a 100 million or 400 million budget for the mission.  The 10 best
proposals will undergo further studies, and then 2 or 3 of the survivors
will be proposed to NASA as a new mission start.

I'm all for the LRM mission, or any lunar mission for that matter, and I
don't care if JPL does the mission or not.  NASA hasn't had a lunar oriented
mission in 20 years.  My philosophy is to don't spend so much time
trying to design a mission (a la Space Station), just do it!
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Most of the things you
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | worry about will never
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | happen.

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

Date: 23 Jul 92 03:01:41 GMT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Star Trek - instrumentation
Newsgroups: sci.space

-From: [e-mail]
-Subject: Re: Star Trek and public perception of space/science/engineering
-Date: 20 Jul 92 18:10:51 GMT

-And then there are the tricorders.  These things have NO visible information
-display.  Just how do you get a diagnosis down to the synapses when all the
-user is looking at are flashing LEDs.

It's that great Star Fleet Academy training they all get. Don't you wish you
could take a 1-week survey course there now? At least I can look at an
oscilloscope display and derive a lot of information from what to a layman
would be a meaningless squiggle. :-)

The new version is better than the old Star Trek, in which Mr. Spock got most
of his information by looking into a blue light bulb!

I recently had a day off, and watched an old rerun of "Voyage to the Bottom
of the Sea". The displays on the submarine are really spectacular - the main
feature is a large grid of light bulbs that shows two 2-digit numbers, slowly
incrementing. :-) The digits are about a foot high.

The SSF walk-through mockup that was on display in Washington, D.C. is more
sophisticated - the displays are at least representative of what you might
see on the actual station. (Is it on display in some other city now?)

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 23 Jul 92 01:59:38 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: U.S. Black Programs
Newsgroups: sci.space

On 22 Jul 92 10:33:07 GMT, [e-mail] said:

JP> On 22 Jul 92 07:16:34 GMT Andrew Palfreyman asked:

>Please would you indicate the location of this "Antelope Valley"
>location?

JP> Antelope Valley, California, 34.45 N 118.20 W, next to Edwards A.F.B.

Lancaster, Palmdale, Littlerock, Pearblossom, Antelope Acres, Lake
Los Angeles, Rosamond.

Air Force Plant 42 is in Palmdale--home of the X-15, SR-71, B-1, B-2,
Shuttle, and a number of other aircraft, including the L-1011.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
[e-mail]                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

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

Date: 23 Jul 92 05:16:22 GMT
From: Joe Elso <[e-mail]>
Subject: Visual acuity in microgravity
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:

|> definitive has been found yet. I think the current theory is that fluid
|> shift may have some influence on the shape of the eyeball, rather than direct
|> gravitational distortion.

This sounds more reasonable.  After all, I can lie down on my back or side,
or stand on my head without having my vision go all blurry.

--
Cheers,
Joe Elso, CSLab, ANU
[e-mail]

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

Date: 21 Jul 92 18:24:06 GMT
From: "Michael G. Katzmann" <vk2bea!michael>
Subject: What's the date on the moon?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics,sci.space.shuttle

The newspapers and broadcast media were celebrating yesterday, July
20th as the 23rd aniversary of the first moon walk by Armstrong and
Aldrin of Apollo 11.

I remember the moon walk as occuring on Monday July 21st.  I was
in Australia in 1969, and watched it on television at around 3pm
(0200 GMT) July 21st. Since US EDT would be 4 hours behind this
( 10pm July 20th ), Americans remember July 20th as the aniversary.

The television signals from the moon were first received on the earth
by the CSIRO's radio telescope at Parks, west of Sydney (Australia),
therefore the moon would have been over Australia at the time.

So what is the date on the moon?  One might guess that it is the
same as the point on the earth that it is directly above, or one
might conceivably use GMT (UTC) as moon time but I doubt one uses
US EDT.  Therefore please adjust your history books to read the
first step on the moon took place JULY 21 1969.

P.S. If my memory serves me correct, during the mission the used
     G.E.T. (Ground Elapsed Time)
--
Michael Katzmann      >    Broadcast Sports Technology Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~     <    Crofton, Maryland. U.S.A
Amateur Radio Stations:   >
NV3Z / VK2BEA / G4NYV     <    opel!vk2bea![e-mail]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 027
------------------------------