Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_5/V15NO578.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 21KB

Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 05:00:11
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #578
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 22 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 578

Today's Topics:
                     Aerospike engines/SSTO/DC-?
                           Aurora (2 msgs)
                      Breeder reactors (2 msgs)
                         Breeder reactors...
              Cassini Undergoes Intensive Design Review
             funding for Lunar Prospector urgently needed
                 Justification for the Space Program
                         Moral Justification
                        Shuttle thermal tiles
                                 SPAN

    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: 21 Dec 92 15:15:39 GMT
From: Brad Whitehurst <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aerospike engines/SSTO/DC-?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>On the subject of DC-? , SSTO and Aerospike Engines the following
>observation could be made to the question Why Aerospike Engines
>are not used.
>
>Lets make an assumtion here that the military has a super secret
>spy plan (Aurora?) that can go (atleast) mach 8 to 10.
>An engine such as this would need to be built to support a SSTO
>vehicle. The military could not have some non classified project
>stumble on their working design. What then is the goal of the
>military as it comes to SSTO research?
>
>The military will oversee the research in this area. Any designs
>which could work (or would lead to the program developing the
>same engine) will be discouraged or lobbied as non workable
>designs. In short the objectives of the military is to assure
>that this country does not have a working civilian SSTO craft.
>
>or atleast thats how I see it
>
>Bob
>
    Actually, right conspiracy theory, wrong engine! :-)
    IF there is an Aurora (decent bet), there's no reason for it
to be powered by an aerospike rocket.  It is almost certainly an
airbreathing engine.  The two most likely candidates are either a
pulsed detonation wave engine (PDWE--the "doughnut on a rope"
contrail) or a SCRAMjet, in combination with a turbine engine to get
it up and going.  The likelihood of it being a SSTO is slim--at Mach
5-8, it can get anywhere it wants in a hell of a hurry, and it'll be
plenty high--certainly (?) over 100,000 feet.  I'd bet that they've
flown both kinds of engines, and may use some sort of variable-cycle
engine.  Lastly, while I doubt that there would be an active
conspiracy to suppress SCRAMjet/aerospike/SSTO research--Congress does
a good enough job anyway--it is disappointing that there is a
potential research bonanza squirrelled away while we're spending more
$$$$$ reinventing the wheel.  Hopefully, it will be a better wheel!
--

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
[e-mail] |   We like it hot...and fast.

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

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 15:37:43 MET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Aurora

Colin Tinto wrote (15 Dec 92 14:17:54 GMT):

>For the last couple of years, people of the Western Isles (Last islands
>of Scotland before the open Atlantic) have been plagued by loud noises
>and rumblings which rattle the windows of their houses.

The Machrihanish base is a good candidate. It is located in the
Kintyre peninsula, SW Scotland. Secret aircrafts coming from
the USA could fly between Islay(*) and Northern Ireland before
landing.
Are the above mentioned Western Isles Islay and Jura, Mull and Skye,
or Uist(s) and Lewis?

J. Pharabod

(*) The "Islay Mist" is an excellent scotch whisky (blended, if
my memory is good).

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

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 17:27:46 MET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Aurora

John Roberts wrote (Wed, 16 Dec 92 07:58:24 EST):

>It's common to have chase planes flying along with an aircraft
>undergoing tests. One of the two Valkyrie supersonic aircraft was
>destroyed when a chase plane crashed into it.

Thanks for that info. However, does "flying along with" means "chasing"?
(AW&ST wrote "chasing"). Also, was the Valkyrie a "black" aircraft? I
apologize for being so skeptical and stubborn, and for my bad knowledge
of American and/or military aviation words, but I want to be sure...

J. Pharabod

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

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 12:10:48 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Breeder reactors

Brenda asks:
>>Speaking of breeder reactors, why doesn't the U.S. have more of
>>them?

Henry sez:
>Limited demand (as Paul said) and massive political problems.  The choice
>of the fast breeder may also have been a poor one; there are alternatives.
>(The whole US nuclear-power enterprise has suffered from early decisions,
>arguably premature, to concentrate on one or two reactor types and give
>little or no attention to others.)

Maybe it's just as well.  The way I heard it, France is already reaching
the point where the costs are becoming dominated by uranium ore
recovery, as it gets rarer & rarer.  And they've had nukes for what,
15 years?  That's pretty short, especially considering all the other
high-tech-costs in reactor operations.

-Tommy Mac
------------------------------===========================================
Tom McWilliams               |Is Faith a short '  `      '   *.;     +%
[e-mail]       |cut for attaining    +    .      '
[phone] -or- 353-2986 |  . knowledge? ;"'       ,'    .   '     .
a scrub Astronomy undergrad  |      *     ,    or is it just  .       .
at Michigan State University |   ';   '        * a short-circuit?   ,
------------------------------===========================================

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

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 12:23:22 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Breeder reactors

Brenda asks;
>>Speaking of breeder reactors, why doesn't the U.S. have more of
>>them?

Zack sez:
>Because they're too damn dangerous.

How do you figure?  Is this just blind fear?

Three Mile Island realeased as much radiation, during it's operation
as your average American recieves in a lifetime of X-rays.  That's
a total, not a per-capita, and most of it radiated onto things that
left no damage at all, like air, or water, or asphalt, or Jane Fonda :-)

Chernobyl was simply badly designed.  In an effort to make changing
the fuel rods easier, they built the whole thing with this nifty
removable cement ceiling.  Of course, if the pressure within the
core was to get too hign for some reason...

Are these the reasons you fear the things made by humans?  You judge
by the hype and mistakes?  You must have quite contradictory feelings
about the Shuttle ;-)

-Tommy Mac
------------------------------===========================================
Tom McWilliams               |Is Faith a short '  `      '   *.;     +%
[e-mail]       |cut for attaining    +    .      '
[phone] -or- 353-2986 |  . knowledge? ;"'       ,'    .   '     .
a scrub Astronomy undergrad  |      *     ,    or is it just  .       .
at Michigan State University |   ';   '        * a short-circuit?   ,
------------------------------===========================================

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

Date: 21 Dec 92 13:45:25 GMT
From: "John S. Neff" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Breeder reactors...
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:
>From: [e-mail] ("Phil G. Fraering")
>Subject: Re: Breeder reactors...
>Date: 20 Dec 92 16:52:27 GMT
>
>\[e-mail] (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>
>/>Speaking of breeder reactors, why doesn't the U.S. have more of
>\>them?
>
>/Because they're too damn dangerous.
>
>\Zack Sessions
>/[e-mail]
>\University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
>/"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
>
>Same reason we don't have automobiles, eh?
>
>There isn't anything inherently dangerous about breeders. It's
>just that there are a bunch of lobotomized idiots out there
>who are more concerned with making policy than actually knowing
>anything about nuclear physics.
>
>Of course, these same people have prevailed upon the government
>to ban nuclear fuel recycling. I had a hard time trying to
>convince a friend of my dad's the other day that there was a
>solution to the nuclear waste problem, and the gubbimint, "will
>ofthepeeble" (or the feeble minded) had _banned_ a way to reduce
>the "dangerousawfulearthdestroyingnucularwaste" problem by a
>couple orders of magnitude.
>
>--
>Phil Fraering
>"...drag them, kicking and screaming, into the Century of the Fruitbat."
><<- Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_
>PGP key available if and when I ever get around to compiling PGP...
The Enrico Fermi power plant near Detroit was the first and only
commercial breeder reactor in the United States. Because of a design
failure the a cooling pipe broke inside of the reactor. They were able to
shut down the reactor without release of radiation, but evidently it was
a real nail biter. Some idiot was quoted as saying " We nearly lost
Detroit". The net result of this incident was the no commercial power
company has considered building a breeder reactor.

When Carter was president he opposed breeder reactors because of his
concern about the poliferation of nuclear weapons.

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

Date: 21 Dec 92 10:56:46 GMT
From: James Thomas Green <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cassini Undergoes Intensive Design Review
Newsgroups: sci.space

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Hayim Hendeles) writes:
>>Pardon my asking an ignorant question, but I can't understand why it
>>should take 7 years to get to Saturn. When Voyager went to Jupiter and
>>Saturn, it took (if I recall correctly) 4 years and a Jupiter flyby to
>>make it to Saturn. Here, you are using 4 flybys, and it's taking you 7
>>years! I would think that if you were to adjust the launch date so that
>>Jupiter and Saturn were in the same relative positions as they were in
>>1977 (when Voyager was launched), you could do the same trick again...
>

One thing to remember that's different about Cassini than
Voyager is that Cassini has to stop while voyager kept going.
Voyager could zoom by, but Cassini has to be able to stop.


/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: [e-mail] :-)~~~\
| "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving    |
| the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the     |
| Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."            |
|                  <John F. Kennedy; May 25, 1961>         |

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

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 08:39:21 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: funding for Lunar Prospector urgently needed

-From: [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)
-Subject: funding for Lunar Prospector urgently needed
-Date: 20 Dec 92 02:21:46 GMT

-A small group of folks in Houston -- Lunar Exploration, Inc -- has been
-working for several years on a privately-funded lunar polar orbiter
-mission, dubbed Lunar Prospector.  The objective is a geochemical survey
-of the Moon, with some emphasis on resolving the question of whether
-there is ice in permanently-shadowed areas at the lunar poles.

-When NASA or politicians talk
-about "reviving unmanned planetary exploration", they may be talking about
-Mars, or Saturn, or Pluto... but not the Moon.

-Prospects of getting such a mission flown as a government project seem
-slim:  Congress does not like SEI and has consistently refused funding
-for unmanned precursor missions, and the official Clinton/Gore space
-position says "no serious money for SEI".  It looks like it's private
-funding or nothing.

Ah, a light begins to dawn...

-The plan is to fly a small spin-stabilized spacecraft in low lunar
-orbit for a nominal one-year mission.  Experiments are a gamma-ray
-spectrometer (geochemical mapping), a neutron spectrometer (hydrogen
-mapping, including mapping of possible ice deposits and solar-wind
-gases), an alpha-particle spectrometer (mapping of radon releases,
-indicating ongoing geological activity and possible sources of other
-volatiles), a magnetometer and electron reflectometer (mapping the
-lunar magnetic field, using hardware designed for Mars Observer),
-and precision spacecraft tracking (mapping the poorly-known
-gravitational field of the Moon).

Realizing that it doesn't have the same instruments, is it possible that
the recent Galileo lunar polar flyby (preliminary science press conference
Dec 22) will tell us annything that might be helpful in making up our minds?
Such as the exact placement of candidate craters?

-This is a reputable, professional effort, despite having been (so far)
-primarily a volunteer project with a minimal budget.  The folks
-running it are mostly engineers from the JSC contractor community.
-Principal investigators for the six experiments include people from
-LANL, two universities, and JPL.  It has the approval of NASA
-officials, including Goldin.

So what happens if the government breaks what you consider to be a promise
and decides a lunar resource mapper is a good idea? Given this "approval",
is it possible that they would be willing to involve these guys?

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:39:42 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

I'll address Wingo's other points in another message.

I asked Wingo to bring up a resource that could be obtained from
space that was not substitutable, used in small quantities so that
price rises could be tolerated, or in short supply.   He suggested
platinum.

The US is a net consumer of about $1 B worth of platinum group metals
per year.  This is rather minor, compared to consumption of (say) iron
or coal.  The US economy (and, any economy as productive as ours)
could easily tolerate a (say) factor of 10 increase in the price of
PGEs.

PGEs are not in short supply.  World mine production in 1989 amounted
to 2.84x10^5 kilograms.  World reserves are estimated at some 56
million kilograms, some 200 times larger.  Note that this is
*reserves*, not *resources*, which tend to be much larger.  One source
I have read stated that an igneous complex in the Fairweather Range in
Alaska is estimated to contain some 10^8 tons of PGEs (this may have
been a typo in the units, but even 10^8 kilograms would be
impressive).

There is certainly room for substitution and conservation of PGEs, if
costs increase.  Catalysts are active only the surface of particles.
Design changes that make the particles smaller increase activity.  For
automobiles, better removal of poisons from fuels, switching to
alternate fuels, or innovations in catalyst composition (recent work
on substituting palladium for platinum, for example) could also reduce
costs.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 12:04:07 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moral Justification

[e-mail] (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983) writes:

>: |>   Can any of you think of any moral or philosophical justification
>: |>   for using huge amounts of taxpayer money to fund the "space
>: |>   program" at all?  Not counting, of course, it provides high-
>: |>   pay, high-tech jobs for a bunch of us.
>:

> Well, I have one good reason, the space program more than pays for itself in
> new technology and spin-offs (actually the frequently quoted figure is for
> each dollar invested we have gotten a return of about seven bucks in high
> tech industry and savings)

>Mark

Sorry.  Valuable, perhaps, but not moral.

1) If it has such a good return, why do we need the gov. to pay for it?

2) How do you convince that factory worker that lost his job to a robot
   that his money should be spent to help put him on the street?

-Tommy Mac
------------------------------===========================================
Tom McWilliams               |Is Faith a short '  `      '   *.;     +%
[e-mail]       |cut for attaining    +    .      '
[phone] -or- 353-2986 |  . knowledge? ;"'       ,'    .   '     .
a scrub Astronomy undergrad  |      *     ,    or is it just  .       .
at Michigan State University |   ';   '        * a short-circuit?   ,
------------------------------===========================================

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

Date: 21 Dec 92 17:12:39 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle thermal tiles
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Anybody know if anything's been released on Buran's tile technology?
>Allegedly the Buran tiles are not as long-lasting, but they're tougher.
>A lot of people were surprised when the Soviets brought the first Buran
>to the Paris air show -- flying it in atop a Mriya, straight through a
>rainstorm.

A call to the Russian embassy or Glav-whomever, perhaps? Say you're a
researcher and offer 'em $20 bucks (U.S.) for the data. Heck, $30 and shipping
would probably get you a used Buran tile. :)

                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:07:00 GMT
From: "E. V. Bell, II - NSSDC/HSTX/GSFC/NASA - (301" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPAN
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bruce Shetler) writes...
>
>Apparently there is something called the Space Physics Analysis
>Network.  Does anyone out there have knowledge of this net, how to
>access it, etc.?  Feel free to reply here or via e-mail.
>
>Thank you,
>Bruce
>
>--
>
>========================================================================
>  Bruce Shetler
>  Photon Research Associates          Living in Southern California...
>  San Diego, CA   92121               The ultimate oxymoron?
>  [e-mail]
>========================================================================

    SPAN is a DECnet protocol network which used to be run out of
    the National Space Science Data Center at Goddard Space Flight
    Center. At the time there were two competing NASA networks,
    SPAN and NASA Science Internet, which used the TCP/IP
    protocol. A few years back, NASA HQ realized that it was silly
    that it had two competing networks for essentially the same
    purpose (NSI was run out of Ames). There was a competition
    between Goddard and Ames and Ames won. Both the DECnet and
    TCP/IP protocols are still supported, but they are now both
    known as NASA Science Internet, the SPAN portion now being
    called NSI/DECnet. NSI/DECnet, nee SPAN, is part of a larger
    DECnet network which includes European DECnet, HEPnet, and
    several other nets. Most nodes which used to be on SPAN are
    now also on the Internet, usually with the node names being
    the same (see my sig below for an example).

+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  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]        |                           |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 16:50:37 GLT
From: "Andreas Stalidis" <[e-mail]>

Hello,
I don't know if it is the right address to ask for the following info,but
I would like you to send me ,if possible, a list of spaceship models and
NASA's near-term projects (especially about space colonies).


Andreas Stalidis
[e-mail]   -INTERNET
[e-mail]    -BITNET

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 578
------------------------------