Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_4/V15NO414.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 33KB

Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 05:08:01
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #414
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 12 Nov 92       Volume 15 : Issue 414

Today's Topics:
                         Feynmann's legacy...
                      Low-pressure O2 atmosphere
                Lunar "colony" reality check (3 msgs)
             Lunar "colony" reality check and Apollo fire
                       Man in the loop (2 msgs)
                    Mars Simulation in Antarctica
               N-1 giant Moon rocket photo in *AvLeak*
                             NASA COVERUP
        NASA Town Meeting in Rayleigh -- Was: NASA is too big.
                          oxygen atmospheres
                       Positioning Satellites?
                          Reality check (2)
              Science and Velikovsky (was NASA Coverup)
                         Space suit research?
                           Technology book
                        Water and Moon Rocks?
              What kind of computers are in the shuttle?
                Where are Pioneer and Voyager Headed?

    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, 11 Nov 92 19:00:56 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Feynmann's legacy...

>In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (I am a terminator.) writes:
>>I was reading Feynman's account of his work investigating the Challenger
>>and he was complaining about how NASA is so backward. Now the shuttles
>>are flying again, what is NASA's situation?

...
>until SSF is assembled) to get a 45% probability of losing an orbiter.  Feynman
>must be spinning in his grave.  Hopefully, those in NASA with a less vested
>interest in piloting spacecraft are seriously considering heavy lift vehicles,
>if only to prevent another Challenger from catching the American public unaware.

>I'll give a more complete report on the meeting in a few days.

Bad luck. Al Gore's campaign speeches on the topic indicated that
NASA is going to continue to invest in the Shuttle well into the
21st century; Gore also talked about the need to scale back the
efforts to develop new launchers.

He's supposed to be smarter than Quayle, so I can only conclude that
he's trying to wreck the space program _on purpose_.

>Gerald Cecil [e-mail]  919-962-7169
>Physics & Astronomy, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA

--
Phil Fraering
In the country of the blind....
60 minutes doesn't run stories about people trying to ban hearing

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:41:45 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Low-pressure O2 atmosphere
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>One of the concerns of the Apollo program was that lunar materials might
>ignite in the oxygen atmosphere of the Lunar Module...
>It could be that most of the materials are too thoroughly oxidized
>to be particularly flammable...

As on Earth, most of the lunar materials are oxides, which are definitely
completely nonflammable.  (Well, in a fluorine atmosphere I guess they'd
burn, but...)

>... Here's the composition for the Apollo 11 site: SiO2 (42.04%),
>TiO2 (7.48%), Al2O3 (13.92%), FeO (15.74%), MgO (7.90%), CaO (12.01%),
>Na2O (0.44%), K2O (0.14%), P2O5 (0.12%), MnO (0.21%), Cr2O3 (0.30%).
>(There are also tables for overall highland and maria composition.) Does
>anything in there sound like it would be flammable...

Note, straight oxides.  One or two of them could add a bit more oxygen,
but overall this is *not* a flammable mixture.  Some of them would react
a bit with atmospheric water vapor to form hydroxides.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 18:14:44 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: lunar "colony" reality check

-From: [e-mail] (Herman Rubin)
-Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
-Date: 11 Nov 92 15:36:08 GMT
-Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

-In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stan Ryckman) writes:
->If you don't plan to spend tax dollars, though, I'm sure neither
->Nick nor I will stand in your way (though he, of course, can
->speak for himself).

-But the government WILL stand in the way.  This is the real problem;
-money can be raised.

The US government insists that space vehicles launched by Americans meet
reasonable safety requirements, requires (I think) a certain amount of
liability insurance coverage, and is admittedly a little sticky on protecting
US organizations and technology transfer (the net result of the latter being

that launching a US vehicle abroad or launching a foreign payload from the
US requires more paper work and sometimes is not approved).

Obviously, these policies are a financial burden to some private space
ventures. But do you really believe that they make a definitive difference
in the practicality of all such ventures, such that without them everything
would be "sure - piece of cake", but with the current situation everything
is "nope - sorry, can't afford it"?

I pretty much agree with what I know of the policies on range safety -
a rocket that can get into orbit could crash just about anywhere on the
Earth (the heavily populated areas, anyway). As for the liability insurance
issue, it's possible that legislation to limit liability would help.

(Remember, the US didn't sign the Moon Treaty."

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Nov 92 22:27:50 GMT
From: steve hix <[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] (John D. Boggs) writes:
>=From article <[e-mail]>, by jenkins@fritz (Steve Jenkins):
>=
>=Yes to blindness in newborns, but it is the *nitrogen* that has the narcotic
>=effect in deep sea diving -- hence the use of helium for the really really
>=deep dives.
>
>If oxygen at high pressures DIDN'T cause the bad effects, why bother mixing it
>with helium?  Yes, nitrogen has narcotic effects at high pressure, but so does
>oxygen.

I think it's worse than that for O2: above two atmospheres or so, it's very
toxic.

The mixing gases are used to get the partial pressure of O2 down to non- (or
at least less-) toxic levels.


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

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:21:30 GMT
From: Steve Linton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John D. Boggs) writes:
|> From article <[e-mail]>, by jenkins@fritz (Steve Jenkins):
|> >
|> > Oxygen, like many gases, has narcotic effects at very high pressures,
|> > such as in deep-sea diving.  It can cause blindness in newborns
|> >
|>
|> Yes to blindness in newborns, but it is the *nitrogen* that has the narcotic
|> effect in deep sea diving -- hence the use of helium for the really really
|> deep dives.

Oxygen causes drunkenness-like symptoms above around 2atm. Any inert gas (except
helium, which I'll come back to) causes narcosis (anaesthesia) at sufficient
partial pressure. Roughly, the larger the molecule, the lower the pressure
needed. For nitrogen it's about 10atm, for ether or chloroform, less than 1.
Helium, presumably because of its very small molecule, causes the opposite effect
at very high pressure (> 50atm), causing trembling and over-excitation  of the
nerves. Hence divers at great depths breathe  mostly helium, with a few %
nitrogen to balance the effect of the helium, and less than 1% oxygen. Hydrogen
is also used, but I'm not sure of the details.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 22:51:29 GMT
From: "John P. Mechalas" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check and Apollo fire
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> soc1070                          writes:
>
>I'll concede this one. Re-reading the section of _Carrying The Fire_,
>the actual cause of death is not explectly stated. However, death by
>burns is implied. The text makes it sound as though the entire inside
>of the capsule was consumed by fire. Probably sells more books that way.

I have not heard of that book.  Who was the author?  If you are interested,
check out Mike Gray's _Angle of Attack_.  It's a history of the Apollo
program, centering on the engineering aspects of the missions.  Fascinating
stuff.

--
John Mechalas                                          "I'm not an actor, but
[e-mail]                                 I play one on TV."
Aero Engineering, Purdue University                     #include disclaimer.h

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:50:18 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Man in the loop
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Lawrence Curcio <[e-mail]> writes:
>Well it's strange, ain't it. Whenever there's a slow decision to be
>made, the responsibility in a human-machine system is given to the
>human, figuring the machine will make a mistake. (That's why we have
>decision *support* systems instead of decision *making* systems.)
>Whenever there's a fast decision to be made, as in fly-by-wire and
>nuclear power plant control, the responsibility is given to the machine,
>figuring the human will make a mistake.

And they're both right, too.  Machines aren't good at coping with
unforeseen situations, hence a bias toward leaving non-time-critical
decisions to humans.  They are good at making simple decisions quickly
hour after hour, which humans don't do well at.  (A human pilot can
fly an unstable aircraft, but it's extremely tiring and very intolerant
of even small mistakes.)

It's worse than you think, though.  In automated systems like modern
airliners, increasingly humans are placed in the role of system monitors
rather than active participants.  They are basically asked to remain
alert for long periods of time with nothing much to do, and react quickly
when needed... this being exactly the sort of task that *machines* do
well and humans don't.

There are many situations where a little *more* automation could do
wonders for safety.  I mean, it does not take megabytes of code to watch
the coordinates from an inertial navigation system and turn on a warning
light if you're about to enter Soviet airspace...
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:00:00 GMT
From: IGOR <[e-mail]>
Subject: Man in the loop
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, Lawrence Curcio <[e-mail]> writes...
>Well it's strange, ain't it. Whenever there's a slow decision to be
>made, the responsibility in a human-machine system is given to the
>human, figuring the machine will make a mistake. (That's why we have
>decision *support* systems instead of decision *making* systems.)
>Whenever there's a fast decision to be made, as in fly-by-wire and
>nuclear power plant control, the responsibility is given to the machine,
>figuring the human will make a mistake.


Actually one is giving control to the machine so that the human can
THINK about what is going wrong. Most of the research in specific accidents
such as Loss Of Coolant Accident (LOCA) are studied in a way to allow the
operator a safe margin of time to see what he can do to stop the whole process.

>
>It's true that the human is always given the last word, but then if you
>look at nuclear power plant accidents, they seem to occur most when the
>human intervenes.

While it might be true for the Chernobyl disaster, for Three Miles
Island accident even the machine
could not do anything since they were not designed to handle this huge hydrogen
bubble.


>
>Bottom line: Never trust a human, and never trust a machine.
>
>
Better : Never trust a bad design (TMI), Never trust an efficient design
(Chernobyl) :-)


Igor
Nuclear Engineering Department
Texas A&M University

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

Date: 11 Nov 1992 22:43:36 GMT
From: "Kevin W. Plaxco" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Simulation in Antarctica
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes...
>"Dante" to Descend into Volcanic "Inferno"
>
>    Later this season, NASA plans to send an eight-legged robot into the
>crater of Antarctica's Mount Erebus, the world's only easily-reached volcano
>with a permanent lava lake.

This is obviously some new definition of the phrase "easily-reached".
Where are there lava lakes that are harder to reach?  Unless, of
course, there are political considerations I am unaware of.

Come to think of it, Mars will be rather easier to explore than our
planet; no tricky visa's to obtain or obstinate customs agents (yet).

-Kevin

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:39:56 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[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:
>
>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 N-1 has always been cloaked in secrecy, and this is only the
>second photo of it that's been published in the West.
> |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

That's not true. At the least, photos of the N-1 published in the west
probably number in the dozen.  Spaceflight magazine had several detailed
photos of the N-1 Block A (first stage) and excerpts of film of one launch
in an issue a few months ago.

Aerospace Ambassadors group has published a few photos in their Russian
made books, but these have mostly been seen in other sources first.

Also, a book published a few months ago in France contains some
photos of the N-1 different from any I have seen in this country,
including an aerial photo of 2 N-1's on both launch pads. This book also
contains information on other once secret projects similar to the
Russian "Unknown Spacecraft" booklet privately published earlier this year
or last year and translated by the good folks at FBIS-JPRS.

Dennis Newkirk ([e-mail])
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

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

Date: 11 Nov 92 18:09:00 GMT
From: Elling Olsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA COVERUP
Newsgroups: sci.space

HS> This is laughable.

EO>Why don't you do some work and disprove the claim that the
EO>earth/moon neutral point have changed from 20,000-25,000 miles
EO>to 43,495 miles from the center of the moon?

HS>I have too much real, worthwhile work to do already.

EO>Or is it more
EO>confortable to sit in your couch judging and laughing?

HS>"They laughed at Fulton."
HS>
HS>"Yes, but they also laughed at Rube Goldberg."

With limited time, I understand and respect peoples need to do
what they consider real and worthwhile.  What I feel rather
strongly about is someones need to laugh at what they know
little about and do not care to look at.  I do not know about
Fulton or Rube Goldberg, so please enlighten me.  My current
interpretation of Henry Spencers comment is that he finds it OK
to laugh at Fulton because Rube Goldberg was wrong.  I find that
kind of attitude very saddening, more so when it comes from one
interested in science and even more so if the person happens to
be a scientist.  Such a person may be useful in science, but it
is not likely he will do anything outrageous for his time.  He
will not invent the telephone, build an airplane, ask the
doctors to wash their hands after touching a corpse or (read my
lips) find a cure for AIDS.

Elling

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:35:33 GMT
From: Gerald Cecil <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA Town Meeting in Rayleigh -- Was: NASA is too big.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (I am a terminator.) writes:
>I was reading Feynman's account of his work investigating the Challenger
>and he was complaining about how NASA is so backward. Now the shuttles
>are flying again, what is NASA's situation?

Based on the 1st NASA Town Meeting in Rayleigh on Monday that I attended,
some in NASA are still denying reality.  The lone astronaut chairing the panel
took issue with the question I posed to Goldin regarding shuttle reliability.
Goldin gave a reasonable response, stressing ongoing work on improving engine
and turbopump reliability.  He emphasized that within 2 yrs NASA was going to
fly the shuttle strictly for missions that required human presence, once they
launch all the shuttle-specific payloads that have accumulated. Later, after
Goldin left, the astronaut stridently stated that (I paraphrase): ``I want to clear
up some misconceptions regarding the Shuttle. The Shuttle is the most reliable
space vehicle that's every flown.  We have a reliablity of .987, etc etc etc.''
OK, so use his number, raised to the 45th power (= approx # of shuttle flights
until SSF is assembled) to get a 45% probability of losing an orbiter.  Feynman
must be spinning in his grave.  Hopefully, those in NASA with a less vested
interest in piloting spacecraft are seriously considering heavy lift vehicles,
if only to prevent another Challenger from catching the American public unaware.

I'll give a more complete report on the meeting in a few days.
---
Gerald Cecil [e-mail]  919-962-7169
Physics & Astronomy, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA

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

Date: 12 Nov 92 00:00:26 GMT
From: Rich Kolker <[e-mail]>
Subject: oxygen atmospheres
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

The astronauts were in their suits and sealed up during launch.  They were breathing
O2.  The cabin was pressurized with air.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
   rich kolker       [e-mail]
                          It's been a long, long time
--------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 11 Nov 92 19:38:43 GMT
From: Chris Allen <spuddy!chris>
Subject: Positioning Satellites?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Can anybody help me? (perhaps by telling me which group this *should* be in :)

I have heard people mention a satellite or satellites whose signal enables
you to find your position wherever you happen to be.

Can anybody tell me more - or point me to papers or references?

many thanks,


chris allen.

--

 * Meeeow ! Call Spuddy on [phone]/682331 for FREE mail & Usenet access *

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 20:25:58 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reality check (2)

-From: [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer)
-Subject: Re: reality check (2)
-Date: 11 Nov 92 15:04:10 GMT

-In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
->-Most of this is for processes which will have lunar equivalents which
->-don't use water. Abundant and cheap solar energy will provide alternatives.

->Abundant - yes, cheap - no (at least by Earth standards). It may actually
->make sense to start with fission and imported fuel (or a combination of
->fission and solar power - performing the energy-intensive tasks only
->during the day), until large power storage facilities can be brought on line.

-True enough for electricity but that's not what I had in mind. At first
-electricity will be hard to get (until the solar cell plant becomes
-operational) but raw heat is abundantly available with a few light weight
-mirrors. Many processes can use heat.

Like burning nylon, for instance. :-)  One such application was mentioned
on "Space Age" - using solar mirrors to heat lunar soil until it partially
fuses, forming a building material that's stronger than concrete.

->I'm in favor of establishing permanent human settlements on the moon, but I
->think there's a tendency to underplay the problems (or overplay them :-).

-Granted but I believe that we won't know what the problems are until we
-actually do it. If we sit here and wait until all the problems are solved
-then we won't ever go.

I think a lot of the initial work could be done with robots, more cheaply than
sending humans there right away. (Once we know more, and hopefully have more
appropriate launchers, we can send humans.)

This approach is also likely to be more politically feasible (especially
if you call it "technology development" rather than "SEI".

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Nov 92 11:09:21 GMT
From: Paul Johnson <[e-mail]-mrc>
Subject: Science and Velikovsky (was NASA Coverup)
Newsgroups: sci.space

I have removed alt.conspiracy from the newsgroups line as we do not
have it here.

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

>    On this basis then, I concede that the lunar gravity is 1/6 .

Thank you.

>    I  apologize  ,publicly  ,  over the net, to the general class of people
>   known as "NASA Scientists" who I accused of concealing  the  truth  about
>   the lunar gravity.

Sir/Madam, you are most unusual.  Most people putting forward
"alternative" theories (many would say "crank") will go through any
logical contortion rather than admit that they are wrong.  Your
willingness to concede to evidence is commendable.  I hope that I can
be as open minded.

> [...]

>    I  will  continue , however to point out alternative theories to account
>   for various facts  of  nature.  Theories  are  not  science,  but  merely
>   suggestions  of  possible  explanations  for  observed  phenomena  .   An
>   alternate theory need only be logically and mathematically consistent  to
>   be as viable as relativity , or any other theory.

Not quite.  "Science" as an enterprise covers the whole gamut from
collection of data, through established and less established theories,
to outright speculation.

You mention logical and mathematical consistency (these are actually
the same).  This is the first requirement of a theory.  There are
others.

The second requirement is consistency with reality.  If a theory is
not consistent with reality then it looses.  I could (for instance)
propose a theory of the universe where Newton's constant G is
negative.  This would make everything fly apart instead of clumping
together.   This theory is logically consistent, but is not consistent
with reality.  Hence it is wrong.

The third requirement is simplicity.  Given two theories which both
explain the facts equally well, we pick the simpler.  This is Occam's
Razor.

>    I  am  , at least,gratified to learn that Velikovsky's idea of planetary
>   collisions , long scorned and ridiculed by the scientific community ,  is
>   now the prevailing theory explaining the origin of the moon.

Velikovsky's ideas bear only a passing resemblance to the scientific
theory.  The scientific idea has the planets starting to form 5-6
billion (thousand million) years ago, and it took a long time.  During
this time many smaller bodies formed and collided.  Sometimes they
accreted, other times they split up.  The Earth-Moon system was the
result of such a split.  Things settled down gradually.  This has the
following major differences with Velikovsky:

1: V. has these catastrophic occurances happening only a few thousand
   years ago (time frame out by a factor of a million).

2: V. has a fully formed solar system (planets in well established
   orbits, no large amounts of debris in highly eliptical orbits) and
   only a few highly catastrophic events.  Those events were witnessed
   but not understood by those on Earth.

This ignores all the other problems with V's theory, including
planetary movements which are highly inconsistent with Newton's laws
of gravity, and the strange business of the hydrocarbon residue from
Venus becoming nutritious carbohydrate "manna".

Paul.
--
Paul Johnson ([e-mail]).        | Tel: [phone] ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 22:52:36 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space suit research?

-From: [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)
-Subject: Re: Space suit research???
-Date: 11 Nov 92 21:27:59 GMT

-Advanced spacesuit research is basically stalled for lack of funding.
-A high-pressure suit (probably 8psi or so rather than full normal
-pressure -- most people can take a certain amount of pressure change
-without much risk of the bends) was planned for the space station but
-scuttled by funding cuts.  It would still be useful, because prebreathing
-greatly increases the time needed for a spacewalk.

In the NASA Select coverage of a Shuttle mission (this year, I think) in which
EVAs were used, I believe the commentator remarked that with something other
than the usual pre-EVA cabin depressurization, only about half an hour of
EVA pre-breathe was required. I considered that to be an astounding
statement, but I never heard any followup. (I'm pretty sure that the mission
was STS-49, and the cabin pressure was 10.2 psi.)

Has anyone else heard anything about this?

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 20:38:51 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Technology book

-From: [e-mail] (Doug Mohney)
-Newsgroups: sci.space
-Subject: Re: N-1 giant Moon rocket photo in *AvLeak*
-Date: 10 Nov 92 21:52:31 GMT
-Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park

-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? :-)

At Farnborough '92, one of the well-known people present (John W.R. Taylor
of Jane's All the World's Aircraft) said that when he asked a Russian pilot
for permission to look in the cockpit of his aircraft, the pilot, instead of
saying "nyet" (which may have been the case in previous years),
said "five pounds". :-)

(The Russian aircraft now have fly-by-wire, by the way.)

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:20:17 GMT
From: Bruce Hendler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Water and Moon Rocks?
Newsgroups: sci.space

The other evening I was watching a PBS special about the moon.  I briefly
caught a portion of the program about some scientists creating water
from moon rocks brought back by one of the Apollo missions. It was being
done by introducing hydrogen into the rock.  They showed this working...
you could see water dripping from the moon rock.  Could someone please
explain this in more detail.  Like I said, I only caught a glimpse of it and it
totally amazed me.

Thanks in advance...

Bruce

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Bruce Hendler                        | E-Mail: [e-mail]    |
| Mfg Systems Engineering Dept.        | HPDESK: Bruce Hendler/HP5200/08      |
| Networked Computer Manufacturing Oper| Telnet: 1-785-4971                   |
| 8000 Foothills Blvd.                 | Telephone: [phone]            |
| Roseville, California       95678    | fax: [phone]                  |
| Mailstop: R3ME                       |            ___   __o  __o  __o       |
|                                      |          ____    \<,  \<,  \<,       |
|                                      |              ___O/_O_O/_O_O/_O____   |
|                                      |                                      |
|                                      |       "STI, it's like cheating"      |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:42:47 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: What kind of computers are in the shuttle?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (I am a terminator.) writes:
>The computers used to control the shuttle use very complex programs
>that people don't want to rewrite for newer computers. Has any
>upgrades been done or are the computers still the same old beasts?

A (compatible) upgrade is being done as opportunity permits, when the
orbiters go in for major overhauls.
--
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:52:06 GMT
From: Gerald Cecil <[e-mail]>
Subject: Where are Pioneer and Voyager Headed?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] () writes:
>A student asked me what direction the Pioneer and
>Voyager spacecraft are headed.  I had no idea but
>I said I'd try to find out.  Does anyone have an
>approximate RA and Dec for the asymptote of the
>trajectories of any of the four spacecraft that
>are beyond Pluto's orbit?

The Starflight Handbook, p.6 quotes figures from
Cesarone, Sergeyevsky, and Kerridge, ``Prospects for the
Voyager Extra-Planetary and Interstellar Mission'', JBIS 37
(March 1984), 99-116.  Anyone have this handy?

The Starflight book gives the following table:
                Pioneer 10    Pioneer 11   Voyager 1   Voyager 2
Loss of Signal   1994/59 AU   1996/45 AU   2012/121 AU 2013/106 AU
Departure Vel
Asymptotic (AU/yr)  2.4       2.2          3.5         3.4
Trajectory angle
to Earth Orbit plane 2.9      12.6         35.5        -47.5
(degs)
Closest stellar     3.27      1.65         1.64        0.80
approach (ly)
Star                Ross 248  AC +79 3888  AC +79 3888 Sirius
yrs to reach        32,600    42,200       40,300      497,0000

The Pioneer 11 & Voyager 1 trajectories look quite different, but they are
both going in the general direction of AC +79... whose name gives the Dec
at least.
---
Gerald Cecil [e-mail]  919-962-7169
Physics & Astronomy, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 414
------------------------------