Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_4/V15NO408.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 29KB

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 05:03:43
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #408
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 11 Nov 92       Volume 15 : Issue 408

Today's Topics:
                 Automated space station construction
                       Hubble's mirror (3 msgs)
                                imdisp
                      Low-Pressure O2 Atmosphere
                Lunar "colony" reality check (4 msgs)
                      Man in space ...  (2 msgs)
                               Mascons
             MS Windows Programs Available from SIMTEL20
               N-1 giant Moon rocket photo in *AvLeak*
                             Nasa coverup
                                Nylon
                   Off The Subject Help Please....
                     oxygen atmospheres (3 msgs)
                     Pen based computers in space
                      Russian Engines for DC-Y?

    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: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:21:56 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Automated space station construction
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Frank Radley) writes:
>Space Station Freedom is Apollo type technology ?
>Really ?

Pretty much so.  Only incidentals have improved very much.

>Using ADA and 386 / 586 processors and Nickel Hydrogen batteries,

Ada is not an improvement. :-)  Nor is the 386. :-)

The batteries are better... but a solar-dynamic system with phase-change
heat storage would be far superior to any kind of battery.  Had there been
any real effort at improving power technology since Apollo, it would have
been flight-qualified in time for Fred.  Even a regenerative fuel-cell
system would be superior.  Every five years or so, they're going to need
an entire shuttle flight just to replace the batteries.  This is 1960s
technology with minor embellishments.

I won't even mention the antiquated propulsion system being planned for
attitude control and reboost. :-)

Nor the 1970s-vintage spacesuits.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 15:53:30 GMT
From: Dave Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble's mirror
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

Brian Stuart Thorn ([e-mail]) wrote:
> If there is a perfect mirror presumably sitting at Kodak, why doesn't NASA
> simply return Hubble to Earth and replace the faulty mirror?
>
You want a list?  Just off the top of my head:

It would take two missions to return, fix and re-launch Hubble.  You
could probably rebuild Hubble on the ground and launch it for less.

The extended portions of Hubble are almost certainly not designed to
retract, and would have to be cut off in orbit.  This has never been
done before.

If one aspect of securing Hubble for the return mission fails, you're
screwed.  The mission would fail and Hubble would likely be disabled
permanently.

Hubble is doing valuable work right now.  Removing it from orbit, probably
for months, would damage astronomy far more than a mirror whose defects are
known and correctable by image-processing techniques.

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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 20:52:51 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble's mirror

-From: [e-mail] (Thomas Clarke)
-Subject: Re: Hubble's mirror
-Date: 10 Nov 92 16:48:59 GMT
-Organization: University of Central Florida

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

The *incremental* cost for the corrections for the error (including
diagnosis, COSTAR, and replacing the little mirrors in WF/PC II, but
not including the service mission and the manufacture of WF/PC II because
those had been planned anyway) is estimated at ~ $60 million, so make that
*one* Keck at current prices. Since two Kecks have already been provided
for, and since HST can do useful things that no Keck can do, I think it's
worthwhile to repair HST.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:18:53 GMT
From: "Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble's mirror
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <#[e-mail]> you write:
>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 no perfect mirror sitting at Kodak.  The "mirror" at Kodak is a blank
>that would need to be ground and polished at considerable expense.
>

Well, what happened to the backup mirror that Kodak made?  Did it really
get put into a KH-12 satellite (paid for by NASA utilized by the DOD) as
rumored?  I attended a lecture by the Kodak Manager who was supervising
the final figuring of the mirror, at the time the lecture was given.

--
[e-mail]
 |  Regards,         |   Hughes STX                |    Code 926.9 GSFC        |
 |  Doug Caprette    |   Lanham, Maryland          |    Greenbelt, MD  20771   |
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I am not a number. I am a free man." -- # 6

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

Date: Tuesday, 10 Nov 1992 16:22:08 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: imdisp
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

The primary distribution point for VICAR images is:

            ames.arc.nasa.gov


Retrieve them by anonymous ftp.  Look in /pub/SPACE/VICAR.  Lots of good
stuff there.

Leonard Abbey, F.R.A.S.
Georgia Tech Research Institute
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:05:09 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Low-Pressure O2 Atmosphere
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("F.Baube x554") writes:
>But in pure O2 lots of things burn that "shouldn't", like
>asbestos fibers.  This actually happened long before that
>Apollo capsule burned up, and should have alerted NASA.

Low-pressure pure O2 is not much worse for flammability than ordinary air.
NASA did extensive flammability tests under those conditions, and concluded,
more or less correctly, that there was no serious problem.

What they missed -- despite some hints of trouble -- was that the capsules
were operated at circa 1atm of pure O2 before launch, and under *those*
conditions the situation is indeed much worse.

It *is* thought that an inert diluent gas helps reduce fire hazards, but
the effect isn't huge.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 10 Nov 1992 21:59:37 GMT
From: steve hix <[e-mail]>
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.

At one atmosphere pressure, maybe so...but the U.S. manned space missions
up through Apollo used pure O2 at 3.5psi or so.

It reduced the total weight of the capsules, what with smaller pressure
loading, reduced tankage requirements (no nitrogen need be carried), and
so on.

It also contributed to problems such as the Apollo 1 pad fire, which was
conducted at >1atm O2...

The astronauts lived in pure O2 for extended periods quite nicely, thanks,
with some trouble from dehydration 'cause their "air" was too dry.

--
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give them away |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
-------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:25:50 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joseph Versagg) writes:
>... 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.

As with the Moon, Mercury's axis is almost precisely perpendicular to its
orbital plane, so a modest polar crater can have its floor permanently in
shadow.  Even so, nobody would have been rash enough to *predict* ice there.
Recent radar-mapping work shows strong echos from Mercury's poles which are
very difficult to explain as anything but ice deposits.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 10 Nov 92 17:21:46 GMT
From: Rolf Meier <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

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

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Louis Giglio) writes:

>>this can't possibly be correct.  The oxygen had to be diluted with
>>something.
>>They would have died otherwise.
>
>You would be correct had the vehicle been pressurized to 1 atmosphere.
>However, your conclusion does not follow if the cabin pressure was .2
>atmosphere.

Remember also that Apollo 1 burned because the capsule was filled with
pure oxygen.  This happened with the vehicle still on the earth.

_________________________________________________________________________
Rolf Meier                    Mitel Corporation

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

Date: 10 Nov 1992 22:09:07 GMT
From: steve hix <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

In article <roelle.721413660@uars_mag> roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
>
>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?

After the pad fire, NASA quit running the ground overpressure test in
pure O2.  In orbit, it was still pure O2 at about 3.5psi. Even that is
a bit above the partial pressure of O2 at sea level (~ 3.08 psi)

--
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
-------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 15:36:03 GMT
From: Dave Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Man in space ...
Newsgroups: sci.space

Henry Spencer ([e-mail]) wrote:
> 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?

I think the hyperventilation idea is an incorrect extrapolation from
underwater techniques.  Vacuum would be like an anoxic atmosphere - no
oxygen coming in, but no problem losing CO2.  Without buildup of CO2 in the
blood, there's no urge to breathe faster.  That's why people get caught out
by hypoxia: they don't feel a problem until they're so far gone they can't
save themselves.  Just this week a guy died inside a storage tank after it got
flushed with N2 by mistake.

Moderate ventilation might be a good idea for fully saturating the blood
with O2.  Beyond that you risk lowering blood pH to the point where you
impair your ability to function.

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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 18:27:58 GMT
From: Dave Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Man in space ...
Newsgroups: sci.space

Dave Jones ([e-mail]) wrote:
>
> Moderate ventilation might be a good idea for fully saturating the blood
> with O2.  Beyond that you risk lowering blood pH to the point where you
> impair your ability to function.

<ahem>  Make that raising blood pH.  Where do I hand in my Chem. degree?
>
> --
> ||------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ||Dave Jones ([e-mail])|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY  |

Note on underwater record holders: they need to concentrate on not needing
to breathe (hence the hyperventilation to suppress the reflex) and cutting
O2 demand (inactivity, water at blood temperature, self-control etc.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 21:33:14 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mascons

-From: [e-mail] (Bruce Watson)
-Subject: Re: Mascons
-Date: 9 Nov 92 19:01:42 GMT
-Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

-In article <[e-mail]| [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
-|...................................... The Earth does have an equatorial
-|bulge (mentioned later in your post), which is caused by the rotation of the
-|planet, which I believe has the main effect of perturbing the ascending node
-|of high-inclination orbits.

-The amount of rotation is proportional to cos(inclination), higher orders
-neglected, so there is rotation at all inclinations except i=90 where it
-is zero and i=0 where the ascending node in undefined.

That was sloppiness on my part - I was unwilling to put in an extra
paragraph to comment that low-inclination orbits would also be affected to
a lesser extent. Thanks for quantifying the difference.

By the way, in the gravity references I've been looking through, nobody
considers the gravitational anomalies caused by the Earth's equatorial
bulge or the the moon's off-center mass distribution to be "mascons" -
that term is reserved for more localized effects.

The Earth appears to be pretty much in isostatic equilibrium, except for
some very small regions of large imbalance. For the most part, the absolute
magnitude of the mascon-induced anomalies appears to be less on the Earth than
on the moon (one reference mentions "a few ppm" = a few tens of mgal), and
I would presume that the much greater mass and surface gravity of the Earth
would tend to render these effects less significant in terms of the
perturbation of orbits.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 21:19:05 GMT
From: Eric Bergman-Terrell <[e-mail]>
Subject: MS Windows Programs Available from SIMTEL20
Newsgroups: sci.edu,sci.astro,sci.space,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d,comp.os.ms-windows.apps,comp.os.ms-windows.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer

Folks:

My Microsoft Windows shareware programs were recently uploaded to
simtel20 and are available for anonymous ftp:

Program Name    Filename     Ver.  Description          Req'd

Astronomy Lab   ALW113.ZIP   1.13  Astronomy program    MS Win 3.x
Anim8           ANIM8.ZIP    1.02  Animation program    MS Win 3.x
Astronomy Clock ACLOCK.ZIP   1.12  Clock for astronomy  MS Win 3.x
                                   enthusiasts
Bog             BOG.ZIP      1.05  Word search game     MS Win 3.X
FracView        FRACVIEW.ZIP 1.03  Fractal viewer       MS Win 3.x
Hangman         HANGMAN.ZIP  1.01  Hangman game         MS Win 3.x
Puzzle-8        PZL8.ZIP     1.02  8 tile puzzle        MS Win 3.x
RCALC           RCALC103.ZIP 1.03  Talking RPN          MS Win 3.1
                                   calculator
Stopwatch       SW.ZIP       1.02  Clock/stopwatch      MS Win 3.x
Talking Clock   TCLK_106.ZIP 1.06  Talking clock        MS Win 3.1

They are stored in the simtel20/windows3 directory.

Here's how to get the programs from simtel20:

1.    ftp 192.88.110.20

2.    login as anonymous and use your e-mail address as a password,
    e.g. [e-mail]

4.    cd pd1:<msdos.windows3>

(Is simtel20 is a DEC 20 running Tops 20?  If so, cool!)

5.    binary

6.    get alw113.zip

7.    get bog.zip, etc.

8.    quit

If you don't have ftp access, feel free to send me a 3 1/2" or 5 1/4"
high density floppy disk in a self-addressed POSTPAID POSTPAID POSTPAID
mailer and I'll send you the programs (please include a cover letter
telling me what you want).

Eric Bergman-Terrell
Personal MicroCosms
8547 E. Arapahoe Rd.
Suite J-147
Greenwood Village, CO  80112 USA

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 21:52:31 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: N-1 giant Moon rocket photo in *AvLeak*
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>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.

Maybe NPO Energiya would create a full-color picture book called "Secrets of
the Soviet Space Program 1957-1992."

So, Bill, how much would you pay for such a book? :-)

            looking to accepting orders from the U.S.
            and Canada if Henry's check clears.


                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 18:31:08 GMT
From: Dave Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nasa coverup
Newsgroups: sci.space

John Roberts ([e-mail]) wrote:
>
> Isn't it Miranda that's supposed to have been blown apart and then reassembled
> itself? If you want to permanently destroy a moon or planet, you have to hit
> it so hard that most or all of the mass achieves escape velocity (and in
> different directions :-).
>
Not necessarily.  There's that moon of Saturn that was split in two and
now exists as two fragments that exchange orbits regularly.

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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 21:09:54 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nylon

-From: [e-mail] (Doug Mohney)
-Subject: Re: reality check
-Date: 10 Nov 92 15:33:40 GMT
-Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park

-In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
->So ship it in the form of nylon. Plenty of hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon,
->and able to withstand high impact velocity, which should save considerably
->on delta-v to land it on the moon.

-How difficult is it to break down nylon into useable components? Burn it or
-shove some ozone at it?

I mentioned nylon because it contains nitrogen, and because I believe it's
one of the materials used to make sabots for subcaliber ammunition, thus
demonstrating that it can withstand accelerations of up to hundreds of
thousands of G's (thus it can hit the moon *very* hard and still be recovered -
I don't think it would withstand free-fall from infinity, but it could still
save quite a bit on landing costs).

I don't know the best way to break down nylon - I can't even find it in the
CRC Handbook (though I presume it's there). If nothing else, brute-force
methods like heating and electrolysis ought to break it down into more
easily-managed compounds. If the cost is less than the incremental cost of
soft-landing the constituents in more fragile form (still very expensive,
by all accounts), then you come out ahead.

Some other form of plastic might be better - I'm not an expert in organic
chemistry. The only one I understand reasonably well is polyethylene,
and that doesn't contain any nitrogen.

Plastic is one of the propellants proposed for laser launchers. One could
imagine small payloads launched by laser from Earth, with small rockets to
kill enough of the reentry velocity for the plastic payload to survive
impact on the moon. Perhaps even better in the long run, you could make
the entire rocket out of plastic - use a laser lander on the moon to kill
some of the velocity and to direct it to a specified landing site.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 10 Nov 92 23:15:53 GMT
From: "M. Todd Lawson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Off The Subject Help Please....
Newsgroups: sci.space

   Hi!

     I am a student at Calif. State Univ. Chico studying computer engineering.
  I am currently looking forward to a career in the field of technical
  writing and documentation. Because of this, I have decided to start
  a journal for the most frequently asked questions about computers. I
  intend for it to be a bi-monthly publication with the purpose of answering
  all the most often asked questions new and semi-experienced computer
  users have. It will not be for those of you with off the wall, obscure
  questions, because I will not be able to answer many of those.

  Try to remember when you were a new computer user and some of the questions
  that you had.

    For me to get started, please send me any question that a new user is
  likely to ask; i.e. What is the speed of my computer? 386 or 33mhz?
  I know that seems simple, but you would be surprised to hear what
  new computer people will ask.

    Below is a subscription form and question
  sheet.  All I ask is that you send me a question, and your name will go
  into the mailing list. However, as I am a student, I have limited funds.

  If this is not in the scope of
  NetNews, then, forgive me and just send a question. I will print as many
  as I can afford and send them out.

    Thanks for your participation, and I look forward to hearing from you.

    Todd Lawson.

    [e-mail]

    1245 Esplanade Ave. #10
    Chico Ca. 95926






    Name:..................................................

    Address:...............................................

    City, State, Country:..................................

    Zip:..............

    Phone Number:..........................................

    Please put question below:.............................















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


   Thanks again.

   Todd.


--
===============================================================================
M. Todd Lawson -- [e-mail]
California State University, Chico. Computer Engineering Dept.
It happens to the best.  It happens to the rest.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 20:38:27 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: oxygen atmospheres



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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 20:39:38 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: oxygen atmospheres

-From: [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)
-Subject: oxygen atmospheres
-Date: 10 Nov 92 21:29:43 GMT

-Neither.  In space, the Apollo spacecraft used the atmosphere it was
-designed for:  low-pressure pure oxygen.  It wasn't feasible to run that
-way on the pad, though, because the spacecraft wasn't built to stand an
-external pressure exceeding internal pressure.  After some attempts to
-fireproof the interior for 1atm of oxygen -- abandoned as impossibly
-difficult -- they switched to using a mixed-gas atmosphere before and
-during launch, with switchover to low-pressure pure oxygen on the way up.

Did the astronauts continue to breathe pure oxygen on the pad to avoid the
bends?

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:29:43 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: oxygen atmospheres
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

In article <roelle.721413660@uars_mag> roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
>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?

Neither.  In space, the Apollo spacecraft used the atmosphere it was
designed for:  low-pressure pure oxygen.  It wasn't feasible to run that
way on the pad, though, because the spacecraft wasn't built to stand an
external pressure exceeding internal pressure.  After some attempts to
fireproof the interior for 1atm of oxygen -- abandoned as impossibly
difficult -- they switched to using a mixed-gas atmosphere before and
during launch, with switchover to low-pressure pure oxygen on the way up.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:06:07 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pen based computers in space
Newsgroups: sci.space

I received an inquiry from the editor of Pen Magazine, a magazine devoted
to the new pen based computers. He wanted to know about the use of PCs
and pen based PCs in space.

Does anybody know of any experiments or future shuttle flights where
there will be a pen based computer? If so, please email to me and I
will forward them.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------165 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:12:14 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Russian Engines for DC-Y?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert B. Whitehurst) writes:
>...In kerosene/LOX engines, do they vaporize the LOX, or
>do they inject it as a spray into the combustion chamber? ...

It goes in as a spray.  Rocket engines normally make no attempt to vaporize
the fuels on the way in; liquids are easier to handle and make better
coolants.  Localized small-scale boiling is sometimes permitted in cooling
jackets, but without affecting the bulk of the coolant flow.  There are
some borderline cases like liquid hydrogen, which is often above its
critical point (where the distinction between gas and liquid vanishes)
in rocket applications.

>...just thinking about all those 2
>phase sprays gives me a headache! :)

Designing a good injector gives lots of rocket engineers headaches. :-)
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 408
------------------------------