Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_4/V15NO407.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 31KB

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 05:02:26
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #407
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 11 Nov 92       Volume 15 : Issue 407

Today's Topics:
                       Galileo HGA: Hypothesis
                       Hubble's mirror (2 msgs)
                            Ice hardness
                           imdisp (2 msgs)
              Libertarian Platform (Was: Oh, never mind)
                Lunar "colony" reality check (5 msgs)
                          Man in space ...
               N-1 giant Moon rocket photo in *AvLeak*
                      NASA Coverup (pooh, pooh)
               Pangaea, Laurasia, and Gondwanaland....
                      Russian Engines for DC-Y?
                           Sounding Rockets

    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: 11 Nov 92 01:51:28 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo HGA: Hypothesis
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michel Dignard) writes...
>I imported the newly released GIF of Galileo High Gain Antenna (HGA)
>photographed during its assembly [ames.arc.nasa.gov:
>/pub/SPACE/GIF/gllhga.gif].

This photo is of the *backup* antenna and was taken in 1991 at JPL.
Jim Hoffman, Galileo's antenna engineer, is pictured working on the antenna.
If you'll notice, the antenna is placed in a three stuck rib configuration.
This image is in the GIF89a format with a caption file embedded in the image.
You can view the caption file provided that your GIF viewer supports this
feature of the GIF89a format.

>Could the HGA be stucked because of:
>
>1) One or more rib bent/compressed during encapsulation/decapsulation?
>

Galileo was never encapsulated.  It was deployed from the cargo bay of the
Space Shuttle and no encapuslation was required.

>2) The transparent "celluloid" kind of dust protection envelope around
>   the HGA during its preparation could have been accidentally torn
>   when removed, and a piece has remained caught at the top of a rib
>   and prevent it to be released, thereby exercising a retaining force
>   on the whole assembly?

The spacecraft was inspected before it was placed in the cargo bay, and
was in full view of the Shuttle astronauts during the deployment, so
anything like this would have been easily detected.

When the antenna didn't open, it surprised a lot of people including
Jim Hoffman who was most familiar with the antenna.  He said, "I was
so confident.  I knew the antenna inside and out.  I had worked with it
daily.  I surpervised all the technicians who performed the modifications
and testing and finally buttoned the thing up.  We had deployed its
engineering twin so many times.  We knew everything there was to know
about what could possibly compromise its proper deployment.  When it
didn't open it was really a shock."
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Give people a second
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | chance, but not a third.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:48:59 GMT
From: Thomas Clarke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble's mirror
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Pendleton) writes:
> From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Brian Stuart
Thorn):
> > If there is a perfect mirror presumably sitting at Kodak, why doesn't NASA
> > simply return Hubble to Earth and replace the faulty mirror?
>
> > Doesn't bringing Hubble home for repairs make more sense than jerry-rigging
> > and dangerous EVAs on orbit?
> >
> > -Brian
>
> Depending on whose figures you believe a shuttle launch costs some
> where between $100,000,000 US and $250,000,000 US.
>
> Repair on orbit requires 1 launch. Repair on the the ground requires 2
> launches.

I know Hubble is in a high orbit, but why couldn't we combine
a Hubble retrieval with another light-payload mission like the recent
LAGEOS launch?  The Hubble could be retrieved with little extra
cost over the repair mission, but with a much higher probability
of success.

Actually, we should forget Hubble and spend the money needed
for the repair mission on building a half-dozen Keck-type telescopes.

> P.P.S
>
> Do we need nuclear weopons anymore? Or can we destroy the worlds
> economy by just defaulting on the our loans?

Paraphrasing the comedian Emo Phillips:
    When the international bankers come to the US and ask for
their money, we'll just have to say "Aw shucks.  We spent all the
money on these here nuclear weapons."
    Whereupon the bankers will say: "That's OK.  We'll just
renew your loans for another decade."


> --
> Bob Pendleton             | As an engineer I hate to hear:
> [e-mail]              |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."
> Speaking only for myself. |   2) Our customers don't do that.
>                    <<< Odin, after the well of Mimir. >>>

--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
[phone], FAX: [phone], [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:10:34 GMT
From: Phil Fischer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble's mirror
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>If there is a perfect mirror presumably sitting at Kodak, why doesn't NASA
>simply return Hubble to Earth and replace the faulty mirror?
>

There is another wrinkle to this. Apparently the Kodak mirror is in a sealed
box which they will not allow anyone to open. Hmm? Is it possible that
Kodak is no longer in possession of the mirror. I wonder who might have
purchased it?


--
Phil Fischer                         | Hamilton, Ont.
[e-mail]   | Canada
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy       | L8S 4M1
McMaster University                  | 416-525-9140 X 4574

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:18:41 GMT
From: Donald Lindsay <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ice hardness
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Andrew Haveland-Robinson) writes:
>>->even one good-sized H-bomb placed directly into the
>>->nucleus would pretty much eliminate any "threat to earth". Seems it
>>->would be mostly vaporized and scattered.
    ...
>I would assume that this is an indication that cryogenic ice is pretty
>hard stuff...

Being hard doesn't mean that bulk material is without flaws. It
wouldn't be surprising if the explosion caused major fracturing.
Precisely how much, would be unpredictable.

Plus, no way the bomb is going to vaporize (much less melt) very much
of the comet.
--
Don        D.C.Lindsay     Carnegie Mellon Computer Science

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:57:43 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: imdisp
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]>, Earl W Phillips <[e-mail]> writes...
>Does anyone know what images are used for the imdisp
>software, and where to get 'em?

IMDISP will support VICAR, PDS, FITS and GIF formats.  VICAR is the format
used by the JPL Image Processing Lab, and there are several images
(mostly Magellan images) available in the pub/SPACE/VICAR directory at
ames.arc.nasa.gov.  I've converted most of these images to GIF and they
are in the pub/SPACE/GIF directory.  The PDS format is used on the CD-ROMs
put out by JPL, and there are dozens of these CD-ROMs available from
NSSDC at the Goddard Space Flight Center.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Give people a second
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | chance, but not a third.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: 10 Nov 92 16:06:37 GMT
From: Dave Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: imdisp
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

Earl W Phillips ([e-mail]) wrote:
> Does anyone know what images are used for the imdisp
> software, and where to get 'em?
>
The image format is called VICAR.  I have one (1) VICAR image that
I got from BIX, an online service.  One of the participants there
was involved in NASA image processing.  He's also occasionally on
Usenet, but I'll let him speak up for himself if he's listening.
He has also ported the VICAR processing code to Microsoft Windows.

--
||------------------------------------------------------------------------
||Dave Jones ([e-mail])|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY  |

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:35:32 GMT
From: "Mitchell E. Gold" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Libertarian Platform (Was: Oh, never mind)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ted B. Drude) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell E. Gold) writes:
>>NASA discovers new properties of aerodynamics and materials that saves
>>industry a lot of money that can be spent on other development. The party
>>seems to believe that if it is in the best interests of all involved, the
>>companies would make their own group to do what NASA does, but that group
>>would still be limited, either in how long it might take to build the
>>necessary infrastructure (which NASA has) or in general not having the
>>equipment NASA has (again, mostly already paid for). This isn't the only
>>case where a government agency already has material and manpower invested
>>in productive projects.

>Hmmm...reminds of an article I saw recently in Design Engineering.
>McDonell Douglas has already designed a simple single-stage to orbit
>space shuttle that they expect to deploy in the mid '90s.  It's super
>light weight (compared to NASA's behemoth),  has a has a great payload
>capacity,  and will be rated for manned flight.  It was developed
>WITHOUT any contract funding from NASA or the military. Main cost
>breakthroughs were in new composites and cryogenics (if I remember
>correctly).  Yet we are still throwing billions at the NASP project.

It's specifically these other technologies (composites, cryogenics, new fuels)
that I consider more than worthy of funding. However, the DC-X is under contract
from the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO), though McD and others
have invested in the basic technologies and facilities. A document on this
craft is available on ftp from ames.arc.nasa.gov:pub/SPACE/FAQ/DeltaClipper.
This has gotten more technical than political. Follow-up has been redirected to
sci.space for those interested in continuing on this area.

--
Mitchell Gold, [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:44:26 GMT
From: David Knapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joseph Versagg) writes:
>Sorry for rehashing what was posted earlier, or , even worse, what may now
>be common knowladge, but what is this about ice at the poles of Mercury?
>Since Mercury rotates, although slowly, ice would be baked off the surface,
>then would leak into space due to the low gravity.

Since the obliquity is almost exactly 90 degrees, there are regions, in the
shadows of craters, etc, which literally never see light. In fact, a recent
paper in Science magazine reports that water ice may be stable in those regions
on the order of a billion years. (not bad)

Pick up last week's Science as there are three articles, back to back,
on this subject.

--
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:48:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (david michelson) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Louis Giglio) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W.
>>Sherzer) writes:
>>
>>|> >* A livable atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, not oxygen.
>>|>
>>|> Which comes as a rude suprise to the astronaust who lived
>>|> weeks on end on pure oxygen.
>>                   ^^^^ ^^^^^^
>>
>>I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either party, but I want to point
>>out that
>>this can't possibly be correct.  The oxygen had to be diluted with
>>something.
>>They would have died otherwise.
>>
>>Louis Giglio
>>Severe Storms Branch
>>NASA/GSFC
>
>
>Suffice it to say that Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo astronauts worked in a
>5 psi pure O2 environment.  This simplified the environmental control system
>and eliminated the need to purge N2 prior to EVA.
>
>Didn't Skylab add a small amount of nitrogen to the mixture in an effort to
>reduce the fire hazard and improve the acoustics?  Perhaps someone can fill
>in the details.
>
>--
>
>Dave Michelson
>[e-mail]

After the Apollo 1 fire, I believe that some amount of Nitrogen was added
to the capsule's atmosphere, and the pressure was brought up from 3 to 5
psi. However, in the suits for sure and maybe in the LM, it was all pure
oxygen.


------
Tim Harincar                Millions long for immortality
Central Minnesota             who don't know what to do with
Association of Rocketry            themselves on a rainy Sunday
[e-mail]            afternoon. -Susan Ertz

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:08:30 GMT
From: Bruce Dunn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check
Newsgroups: sci.space

> Henry Spencer writes:
>
> However, hauling substantial amounts of LH2 to the Moon appears to pose
> no particular problem.
>


        There is a lovely way to get hydrogen from low earth orbit into lunar
orbit, if you are not in a hurry.  Put the hydrogen in a tank in LEO, and
attach a low cost solar array.  Pipe the boiloff hydrogen from the tank to a
resistojet (specific impulse 850, efficiency 75%) or arcjet (specific impulse
2000, efficiency 30%).  Over a period of a year or so, the low thrust vehicle
will spiral up into a high orbit from where it can enter lunar orbit and
spiral down.
        The mass of the solar array and resistojet are not critical as the
vehicle mass is dominated by the hydrogen, not the propulsion system.  This
means that low cost components can be used. Note that this is true only as
long as you are willing to wait for the vehicle - if you insist on speeding
up the transfer, the solar panels and resistojet must be increased to a
substantial fraction of the vehicle mass, and then their specific mass
becomes important.
        Once the liquid hydrogen is in lunar orbit, a hydrogen/oxygen lunar
lander ascends from the lunar colony and brings it down.  The lander is then
refueled using some of the hydrogen, plus oxgyen from lunar sources.  The
empty transfer vehicle can then be returned to low earth orbit using a small
amount of residual hydrogen (the transfer will be fast, as the bulk of the
mass has been left at the moon).  The hydrogen transfer vehicle can then be
refurbished and reused - the solar panels will probably have to be replaced
or repaired by thermal annealing because of radiation damage suffered during
the spiral ascent through the Van Allen radiation belts.


--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   [e-mail]

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

Date: 10 Nov 92 16:12:13 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Louis Giglio) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W.
>Sherzer) writes:
>
>|> >* A livable atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, not oxygen.
>|>
>|> Which comes as a rude suprise to the astronaust who lived
>|> weeks on end on pure oxygen.
>                   ^^^^ ^^^^^^
>
>I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either party, but I want to point
>out that
>this can't possibly be correct.  The oxygen had to be diluted with
>something.
>They would have died otherwise.

No, all US "spam in a can" missions, Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, used
a pure oxygen atmosphere identical to the atmosphere used in US space
suits, 5 PSI pure oxygen. Certainly a 14 PSI pure oxygen atmosphere would
lead to oxygen poisoning, so *they don't do that*. Nitrogen serves as
a dilutant at sea level pressure, but a dilutant is not needed if the
pressure is reduced enough. Of course this atmosphere isn't *pure* oxygen.
There's some CO2 from respiration, and trace gases from out gassing of
the capsule materials.

The point being made, however, is that gaseous nitrogen is not needed
to support life. Even plants can't directly use atmospheric nitrogen.
They depend on "fixed" nitrogen that they get from the soil or the water
in the form of nitrates. There are bacteria that can fix atmospheric
nitrogen, and soybean plants form symbiotic relationships with them to
get part of their nitrogen requirement. But most plants get their nitrogen
from inorganic sources such as the nitrates that form as the result of
lightning discharges in the atmosphere forming nitric acid in combination
with rain drops that in turn forms nitrates when mixed with soil. In other
words, acid rain is important to plant life on Earth. And also, plants
get nitrogen recycled through animal wastes. This is just plant nitrogen
that has been consumed by animals and excreted as waste. And/or plants
get nitrogen from synthetic fertilizers. Any of the sources will do,
gaseous nitrogen isn't essential to life, nitrates are.

Gary

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:17:01 GMT
From: Louis Giglio <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

In a previous article I wrote:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W.
>Sherzer) writes:
>
>|> >* A livable atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, not oxygen.
>|>
>|> Which comes as a rude suprise to the astronaust who lived
>|> weeks on end on pure oxygen.
>                   ^^^^ ^^^^^^
>
>I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either party, but I want to point
>out that
>this can't possibly be correct.  The oxygen had to be diluted with
>something.
>They would have died otherwise.

As lots of folks have pointed out, I was wrong.  I was stupidly assuming a
one atmosphere cabin/suit pressure.  One can match the partial pressure of
oxygen in air by reducing the pressure of a pure oxygen atmosphere.


--------------------
Louis Giglio
Severe Storms Branch
NASA/GSFC

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:40:20 GMT
From: Steve Jenkins <jenkins@fritz>
Subject: Man in space ...
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> jenkins@fritz (Steve Jenkins) writes:
>>... At normal arterial O2 partial pressure (about 100 mmHg),
>>the blood is almost completely saturated with oxygen.  You can raise
>>the partial pressure by hyperventilating, but not the oxygen content.
>
>How do the breath-holding effects of hyperventilation work, then?
>Flushing CO2 out to suppress the desire to breathe, as opposed to
>providing more internal oxygen to eliminate the need to breathe?

Precisely.  The neural ventilatory drive generated by the carotid
bodies (located in the carotid artieries conveniently placed near the
brain) is proportional, at a given PO2, to the PCO2 of the arterial
blood.  The slope of the line rises as the PO2 decreases.
Hyperventilation raises the PO2 somewhat, perhaps from 100 mmHg to 140
mmHg or so, but can lower the PCO2 from its normal 40 mmHg down to near
zero, thereby nearly abolishing the carotid ventilatory drive.  This
is unwise.  Hyperventilation also causes alkalosis, as the pH of
arterial blood is determined in the short term by the PCO2.  That's
what causes the dizzyness if you overdo it.

>Certainly the desire to breathe can be suppressed for surprisingly
>long periods by hyperventilating first, even if you're holding
>breath *out* to minimize oxygen in the lungs.

Normal breath-holding causes a potent respiratory stimulus, as the
simultaneous increase in PCO2 and decrease in PO2 potentiate each
other.  This condition is called asphyxia.  Hyperventilation delays the
onset.  In addition, the functional residual capacity (normal exhale
position lung volume) of a normal adult is about 3 liters, so even
"breath out" you've got a considerable supply of O2 on board.

As an aside, I always find the images of (U.S.) football players
breathing oxygen on the sidelines amusing.  Sprinting and other forms
of anaerobic exercise cause the release of lactic acid into the blood.
The buffering of lactic acid by bicarbonate causes a dramatic rise in
the PCO2, which causes the carotid bodies to scream out "breathe, you
fool!"  Pure oxygen does nothing to solve the problem (which can by now
only be solved by ventilation), but instead shuts off the neural
signals.  It's like turning off the fire alarm because it keeps you
awake.  There are not many athletes who can out-exercise the lung's
ability to oxygenate.  Most of us can (easily) exceed the
cardiovascular system's ability to deliver O2 to muscle tissue and the
lung's ability to get rid of carbon dioxide.  Sometimes just reaching
for the TV remote control is enough. :-)

>>The best you could do in anticipation is to prepare to hold your
>>breath (carefully!) so as to maintain some O2 pressure in the lungs...
>
>Probably a bad idea, since it doesn't take very much internal overpressure
>to cause serious lung damage.

Only recommended as a gedankenexperiment. :-)  The point is that,
without some O2 in the lung, you'll be out cold in 30 seconds or so,
hyperventilation or no.

A good reference on all this is John B. West's little monograph
"Respiratory Physiology--the essentials".  I think it's up to two
volumes now.  Highly recommended.

--
Steve Jenkins                  [e-mail]
Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory    [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:57:03 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: N-1 giant Moon rocket photo in *AvLeak*
Newsgroups: sci.space

I think this one can't wait for Henry's summaries...

The new 9 November issue of *Aviation Week* just hit my mailbox.  On
page 65 is a nice photograph of the Soviet N-1 rocket on its pad with
service tower.   The N-1 was the "Soviet Saturn V," the BIG rocket
whose failure doomed their manned lunar landing program.

The photo, taken in 1968 or 1969, was given to American educator Edwin
N. Cameraon by an official of NPO Energiya.  Other photos Cameron took
at Baikonur-- I mean Tyuratam-- show the N-1 service tower as it
appeared today, and an old N-1 shroud that's been converted into a
toolshed.

The N-1 has always been cloaked in secrecy, and this is only the
second photo of it that's been published in the West.

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: 10 Nov 92 16:53:00 GMT
From: John McDonald <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA Coverup (pooh, pooh)
Newsgroups: sci.space

))   jump about 18 inches vertically without a  run.   On  all  of  the  video
))   footage  shot  by  the  astronauts  while  in  the moonwalking mode , the
))   highest leaps performed by the most vigorous individuals,  such  as  John
))   Young,  never  amounted  to  more  than  about 18 inches, while they were
))   THEORETICALLY CAPABLE OF SLOW BACKFLIPS!
)
)If we assume, though, that the moon landings *were* real and in low G (just
)for the purposes of argument, of course), wouldn't it be plausible that the
)astronauts were being very careful and restrained *NOT* to do backflips, in
)ordor to avoid possible adverse effects due to a bad landing damaging their
)space suits?

Not to mention an additional 80 some odd pounds of life support equipment
they were lugging on their backs.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 12:32:37 EST
From: "S.K. Whiteman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pangaea, Laurasia, and Gondwanaland....

>From: Joe Cain <[e-mail]>
>Non-geologists appear to be confused by the time scale of events about
>which such events have occurred.

         For those who are interested: The article that appeared in
         Scientific American, April 1992, Vol 266 No 4, Mountain Belts
         and the Supercontinent Cycle, Page 84; should shed some light
         on the subject.
                                What do I know, I'm a geology major.
        \       /___________________          Sam
         \_____/                   |          IBM Systems Programmer
Chicago/ |                     *   |  O       Indiana University -
    I    |               Ft. Wayne |  H       Purdue University at Fort Wayne
    L    |               1794-1994 |          Fort Wayne, Indiana USA

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

Date: 10 Nov 92 18:04:06 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Russian Engines for DC-Y?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert B. Whitehurst) writes:
>slush kerosene, anybody? :-) Seriously, I'll exhibit a little more
>ignorance here:  In kerosene/LOX engines, do they vaporize the LOX, or
>do they inject it as a spray into the combustion chamber?  We use
>strictly gaseous fuel in our work--just thinking about all those 2
>phase sprays gives me a headache! :)
>

If i understand it correctly,  the F1s in a saturn used something like
a giant shower head to spray liquid O2/ into the nozzle.
i saw something in Air and Space where they were describing the developement
troubles of the injectors.  they were using something like a manhole
cover with holes in it, and it wasnt real stable.  later improvements
improved combustion stability, but they lost a lot of sleep over it.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:31:00 GMT
From: "E. V. Bell, II - NSSDC/HSTX/GSFC/NASA - (301" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sounding Rockets
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Urbanski) writes...
>
>Anyone have / know where I can get data
>on sounding rockets.
>
>Thanks for any info you can send me .
>
>john

    That depends on what kind of information you're wanting. As
    part of it's duty as World Data Center A for Rockets and
    Spacecraft, the National Space Science Data Center tracks all
    kinds of information about rocket launches. It's not as
    detailed as our information about various spacecraft, but that
    may not matter depending on what you want.

+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Dr. Edwin V. Bell, II    |  E-mail:                       |
|  Mail Code 633.9        |    (SPAN) NCF::Bell               |
|  National Space Science    |    or   NSSDC::Bell               |
|    Data Center        |    or  NSSDCA::Bell               |
|  NASA                |    or  NSSDCB::Bell               |
|  Goddard Space Flight Center    |   (Internet) [e-mail]       |
|  Greenbelt, MD   20771    |                           |
|  [phone]        |                           |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

From: Curtis Roelle <roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu>
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
Message-Id: <roelle.721413660@uars_mag>
Sender: USENET News System <[e-mail]>
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:41:00 GMT
Lines: 28
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

[e-mail] (david michelson) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Louis Giglio) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W.
>>Sherzer) writes:
>>
>>|> >* A livable atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, not oxygen.
>>|>
>>|> Which comes as a rude suprise to the astronaust who lived
>>|> weeks on end on pure oxygen.

>>I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either party, but I want to point
>>out that
>>this can't possibly be correct.  The oxygen had to be diluted with
>>something.
>>They would have died otherwise.

>Suffice it to say that Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo astronauts worked in a
>5 psi pure O2 environment.  This simplified the environmental control system
>and eliminated the need to purge N2 prior to EVA.

Are you certain that Apollo astronauts breathed pure O2?  I thought that
after the fatal Apollo 1 fire, which killed astronauts Grissom, White, and
Chaffee on January 27, 1967, pure O2 was no longer used because it was a
proven fire hazard.  Or did NASA simply reduce the cabin pressure as
suggested by Carl Lydick?

Curt Roelle

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 407
------------------------------