Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_1/V16NO100.TXT

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

Date: Sun, 31 Jan 93 05:18:58
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #100
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 31 Jan 93       Volume 16 : Issue 100

Today's Topics:
                              Beanstalk?
                        Challenger transcript
                        Help on catching this
                     Microgravity Research Today
                     Orbital Mechanics--Careers?
              Rent Mir/Commerical SS Fred not build it.
                      Solar Sail/Parachute/Brake
                      Space Station Freedom GIF
                         SSF & Mir & Energia
            Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger (4 msgs)

    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: 29 Jan 93 18:52:07 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Beanstalk?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ed Faught) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>Does anyone know anythng about how to build a beanstalk?
>>
> Magic beans.

You mean coffee?


Reviewing *Time Trax*: "In this future  | Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey
police have gotten more technical,      | Fermilab
computers have gotten much smaller,     | Bitnet: [e-mail]
criminals have become much cleverer,    | Bitnet: [e-mail]
and matte painters                      | SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS
have lost the secrets of their ancestors." --Mark Leeper

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 22:58:08 GMT
From: Tesuji <[e-mail]>
Subject: Challenger transcript
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

X-Anon-To:sci.space,sci.astro



  A secret NASA tape reveals that the crew of the shuttle Challenger not only
survived the explosion that ripped the vessel apart; they screamed, cried,
cursed and prayed for three hellish minutes before they slammed into the
Atlantic and perished on January 28, 1986.

  The tape is said to begin with a startled crewman screaming,"What happened?
What happened? Oh God - No!"  Screams and curses are heard- several crewmen
begin to weep- and then others bid their families farewell.

  Two minutes forty-five seconds later the tape ends. That's when the shuttles
crew compartment, which remained intact after the vessel exploded over the
Atlantic, hit the ocean at over 2,000 miles per hour, instantly killing the
crew.

 " Cover up? Of course there was a coverup, " declared Robert Hotz, a member
of the Presidential commission that investigated the disaster. " NASA can't
face the fact that they put these astronauts in a situation where they didn't
have adequate equipment to survive. NASA doesn't give a damn about anything
but covering it's ass, " he said.

  The official account released by NASA ends with shuttle pilot Michael Smith
saying, " Uh-oh!
" Some NASA employees have evidently heard more-much more.
And they provided the rest of the account based on what they've discussed
within NASA in the last five years. The astronauts had time and realized
something was happening after the shuttle broke up.

 " All shuttle astronauts carry personal recorders and the tape in question
apparently came from Christa's (McAuliffe), which was recovered after the
shuttle disaster, " said Hotz. Jarvis was sitting beside her, and when he
figured out what was happening he said, " Give me your hand. "

 " NASA insists there's nothing like that on tape but they're talking about
the mission tape, not Christa's. So they're not lying, but they're not telling
the truth, either. "

   A journalist with close ties to NASA was even more emphatic, " There are
persistent rumors, dating back to the disaster, that this tape is absolutely
bone-chilling. "

   The following transcript begins two seconds after NASA's official version
ends, with pilot Michael Smith saying, " Uh-oh! " Times from the moment of
takeoff are shown in minutes and seconds and are approximate. The sex of the
speaker is indicated by M or F.

T+1:15    (M)  What happened? What happened? Oh God, no - no!
T+1:17    (F)  Oh dear God.
T+1:18    (M)  Turn on your air pack! Turn on your air...
T+1:20    (M)  Can't breathe... choking...
T+1:21    (M)  Lift up your visor!
T+1:22    (M/F)  (Screams.)  It's hot. (Sobs.) I can't. Don't tell me... God!
                  Do it...now...
T+1:24
    (M)  I told them... I told them... Dammit! Resnik don't...
T+1:27    (M)  Take it easy! Move (unintelligible)...
T+1:28    (F)  Don't let me die like this. Not now. Not here...
T+1:31    (M)  Your arm... no... I (extended garble, static)
T+1:36    (F)  I'm... passing... out...
T+1:37    (M)  We're not dead yet.
T+1:40    (M)  If you ever wanted (unintelligible) me a miracle...
               (unintelligible)... (screams)
T+1:41    (M)   She's... she's... (garble) ... damn!
T+1:50    (M)   Can
't breathe...
T+1:51    (M/F)  (screams)  Jesus Christ! No!
T+1:54    (M)   She's out.
T+1:55    (M)   Lucky... (unintelligible).
T+1:56    (M)   God. The water... we're dead!  (screams)
T+2:00    (F)   Goodbye (sobs)... I love you, I love you...
T+2:03    (M)   Loosen up... loosen up...
T+2:07    (M)   It'll  just be like a ditch landing...
T+2:09    (M)   That's right, think positive.
T+2:11    (M)   Ditch procedure...
T+2:14    (M)   No way!
T+2:17    (M)   Give me your hand...
T+2:19    (M)    You awake in there? I... I...
T+2:29    (M)    Our Father... (unintelligible)...
T+2:42    (M)    ...hallowed be Thy name... (unintelligible).
T+2:57    (M)    You...over there?
T+2:58    (M)    The Lord is my shepherd, I shall...not want. He maketh me to
                 lie down in green pastures... though I walk through the
                 valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil... I will
                 dwell in the house...

T+3:15 to end. None. Static, silence.

Rest in Peace
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to [e-mail].
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.

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

Date: 30 Jan 93 00:51:05 GMT
From: Daniel Seeman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help on catching this
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rajesh Batra) writes:
>Hi,
>
>Here's a problem that I'm just plain stuck on, see if you can help.
>
>Scenerio:  You're on the moon, a 1700 m/s container (containing ice) which
>weighs approximately 120 kg is hurled at you. How do you catch it such
>that you can salvage the ice? You have free reign over the container-
>hence the size/material.
>
>        I'm currently investigating silica aerogels--
>        or a big crater coated with steel or some tough
>        material to ram the projectile into. Hopefully, I can
>        close the opening of the container before the vaporized
>        ice escapes.
>
>
>                        Thanks for your time,
Hi,

I have no definative answers, but maybe a comment.  You seem to be focusing on
how to stop the thing by catching it with a bead of tissue (so to speak) or
using the "catcher's-mit" philosophy.  It seems to me the thing is just travel-
ing too fast.  Should you not slow it down first?  Why not allow it to orbit the
moon for some time and attach some guiding rockets to it so you can help it
"fall" with a bit more control.  Then you don't have to worry about it breaking
into pieces.

dks.

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

Date: 29 Jan 93 19:12:24 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Microgravity Research Today
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Roger Alexander) writes:
> Do you know where on Internet I might find people discussing microgravity
> research in detail? What's the state of such research right now? Who's doing
> it, where, and how long has it been going on, that kind of thing...

Sorry, Roger, but I'm not aware there is much... I presume it would
show up either in sci.space or sci.materials.  The subject does come
up but there's not extensive discussion of it.

Maybe we can stimulate some by posting this message!

The NASA press kits for individual Shuttle missions, posted to
sci.space.news and also FTP-archived at ames.arc.nasa.gov, give
pretty good summaries of individual experiments that fly.

I would also check lists of NASA and ESA publications for more general
texts.  See the sci.space FAQ for address information.

--Can somebody summarize microgravity research in materials or
  "life sciences?" (A tall order.)  Well, how about some sub-discipline
   within these fields?

--Can you recommend good books or review articles in journals on
  microgravity research?

--What places and people are leaders in this?  What are the hot
  conferences to attend if you want to hear from them?

--If you're involved with such research, can you tell us a bit about
  it?  (Example:  Dennis Wingo has just described his Spacelab
  experiment in the thread on space-qualified hardware.)  Or offer more
  detailed information to people who request it by e-mail, if it's too
  specialized or voluminous to post?

There, Roger, maybe that will get things started.

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

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

Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1993 00:31:18 GMT
From: tomas o munoz 283-4072 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Orbital Mechanics--Careers?
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.research.careers,sci.space,soc.college.grad

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Srinivas Bettadpur) writes:
|> >>>(mark jones) writes...
|> >>>>
|> >>>>  etc....   What are the opportunities
|> >>>>in orbital mechanics and will they still be there in 5 or 6 years.
|> >     * Typical places for employment might include JPL, NASA-(gsfc and
|> > jsc), Lockheed, Rockwell, Martin Marietta, Aerospace Corp., Hughes STX
|> > and a bunch of other Aerospace companies.
|>
|> This suggests an interesting algorithm for Mr. Jones:
|>
|> 1) Get the proceedings of a recent conference on orbital mechanics.
|>
|> 2) See who's writing the papers.  Also note the companies they work
|> for.
|>
|> 3) Talk to the people in (2).  Ask *them* your questions.
|>
|> 4) Apply to the companies for jobs.
|>
|> To the list Srinivas gave I might add Science Applications
|> International, Teledyne Brown, and Eagle Engineering.  General
|> Dynamics and McDonnell-Douglas operate launchers and hence employ a
|> few astrodynamics people.  Military services also employ civilians.|>


In addition to looking at these companies, I would suggest you
call some NASA centers such as JSC, KSC, LaRC, MSFC, etc...
[I think there is a total of 7 centers and some labs].
You can call the operator at each center and ask for the
personnel office - the switchboard at JSC in Houston is
[713] 483-0123.  Good luck.

--
========================================================================


Thought for the day [plagiarized from someone else's posting]:

Engineers think equations are an approximation of reality.
Physicists think reality is an approximation of the equations.
Mathematicians never make the connection.
========================================================================

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 23:09:28 GMT
From: GIGGEY Mike S <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rent Mir/Commerical SS Fred not build it.
Newsgroups: sci.space

Can you imagine what Congress would do with that proposal.  I don't
think that the politicians nor the public would appreciate money going
to Russia without any jobs being created here.  Besides, what is happening
with the Energia since the strap-on boosters are made in the Ukraine.
Not

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

Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1993 17:57:25 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Solar Sail/Parachute/Brake
Newsgroups: sci.space

ida@atomic (David Goldschmidt) writes:

>  btw, there was a previous posting about solar sails having trouble
>slowing down upon reaching their destination. This isn't much of a problem;
>the sail can continuously adjust its orbit without doing any clear "accelerate"
>or "decelerate " part of the trajectory.  Sails can move into lower orbits
>just as easily as into higher ones, by slowing themselves down and letting the
>sun pull them in.

The problem of interstellar braking is very different from the problem of
slowing down in the solar system.  In orbit, sails are indeed capable of slowing
down.  When entering a system at interstellar velocities however, the problem
is that the sail is moving too fast to stay in system.  You have to design one
that can brake very quickly or it will just keep going.  Zubrin's magsails may
provide a solution for interstellar braking.
--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]

Q:  How do you tell a novice from an expert.
A:  A novice hesitates before doing something stupid.

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

Date: 29 Jan 93 17:52:37 GMT
From: Ken Sheppardson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Station Freedom GIF
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.binaries.pictures.d

I've posted the first four parts (of nine) of ssf.gif to
alt.binaries.pictures.misc. I'll post the remaining five
later.

It's a 1200x1000 or so color gif of the PCC (Permanent
Crew Configuration) Space Station Freedom generated on
a Silicon Graphics here in our office using Wavefront.
The image was generated using the current official SSF
Level II I-DEAS solid model of the PCC configuration.

I have another gif showing a closeup of the module pattern,
which I'll post later. (I'll be out of the office for a week
starting tomorrow.)

---
Ken Sheppardson
[e-mail]
Space Station Freedom Advanced Programs Office
NASA Langley Research Center

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

Date: Sat, 30 Jan 93 12:43:07 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF & Mir & Energia

-From: [e-mail] (Sean Michael Gallagher)
-Subject: Re: SSF & Mir & Energia
-Date: 26 Jan 93 17:00:42 GMT

[e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
->Energia (it's only flown twice). The main problem with choosing these options
->at this point is that if they are to be used, the decision should have been
->made several years ago.

-Yes, but several years ago we were too busy worrying about whether the Soviets'
-more advanced booster technology would be used to lob a couple of hundred
-nuclear missles our way.  The Russians are offering us help (for a fee), so
-why are we so unwilling to accept it?  Goldin's NASA is supposed to work
-smarter, faster, and cheaper, and Energia is a heckuva lot faster and cheaper
-than Shuttle, and that seems like a smart idea to me.

That's "*smaller*, faster, cheaper". Energia isn't exactly small. :-)

The list price for launch of SSF parts by Energia may be lower than the
list price for launch by the Shuttle, but that parameter alone doesn't
*necessarily* mean that launch by Energia would be cheaper. Consider two
factors: redesign, and reliability.

The redesign issue is fairly straightforward. At this point in time,
considerable design work has already been done, with a view toward launch
by Shuttle or compatible carrier. Some fabrication (I don't know how much)
has already begun. If plans were switched abruptly toward use of an entirely
different kind of launch system, much of the design work and perhaps some of
the fabrication would have to be done over again. That would represent a
significant cost. It's *possible* that the savings in assembly cost in orbit
(by launching larger pieces) plus the lower launch price would make up for
the redesign cost, but it's not obvious - considerable analysis is required.
Some analysts appear to feel that the tradeoff would be favorable, while
others dispute that.

Now consider the contribution of reliability to launch costs. To do this, you
have choose either a model in which a launch failure of any one component will
doom the station, or one in which the program might recover from a launch
failure (i.e. by reconfiguring, building a replacement, or both). While the
first model is fun for gloating about, I don't think the program would have
made it as far as it has without some plans along the lines of the second
model - that's not to say that there are spare parts sitting around, but
that at the least someone has put together a set of contingencies.

The Shuttle is pretty reliable as launchers go, but it's not perfect - the
NASA estimates for post-Challenger launches are about one orbiter loss
per 78 launches. (There are other estimates, but that's the one I generally
use, based on the observation that NASA knows more about the Shuttle than
the other folks making estimates, and after Challenger, they have a strong
incentive not to be too optimistic in their estimates.) I still haven't
found out the number of Shuttle launches expected to be required to ferry up
all the components in the latest SSF design, but supposing for instance
that it's 20 launches, then the odds of losing an orbiter (and a payload,
let's say, for the sake of simplicity) are approaching 25%. So a rough
estimate of the expected cost due to losses with the Shuttle as the carrier
(and again assuming 20 launches - anybody know the official number?) would
be 1/4 of the cost of an orbiter (say about $400 million) plus 1/4 of the
cost of an SSF module or other component lifted by the Shuttle (say 1/80
of the cost of the SSF hardware). There are other costs, but I'm just trying
to get a very rough approximation here.

Let's compare reliability estimates for Energia. Unfortunately, I'm not aware
of any firm estimates. There are two main areas of concern: low number of
flights, and the strap-on boosters. Energia has flown only twice. (The first
flight had problems with an upper stage, but it's considered generally a
success.) This gives Energia far less operational record to go on than the
Shuttle, which has over fifty flights (over half of them *after* Challenger),
to build up some reputation for reliability. Energia also uses strap-on
boosters, which are equivalent to Zenit first stages. I don't know how many
Zenit first stages have been used operationally, but I'm only aware of ten
(four on each of the Energia launches plus two in separate Zenit launches), and
of those ten, one failed and destroyed the launcher. (That was on one of the
separate launches - the other one I've heard of also failed, but that may have
been due to the second stage, so we won't count that against Energia
reliability.)

An Energia launch in support of SSF assembly would presumably use either
four or six Zenit boosters - and unless there have been a large number of
successful Zenit launches I don't know about, the odds based just on
operational record don't look too good for an Energia launch. Of course,
the Energia would presumably require considerably fewer launches than the
Shuttle for SSF assembly, but on the other hand, if there is a failure,
that means a much bigger chunk of SSF hardware has been lost, and has to
be replaced or configured around. (I don't have enough numbers to even
try a reasonable guess at this - does anybody know of expected number of
component launches for Energia vs Shuttle for SSF assembly, and statistics
on success rate of Zenit first stages?) Given what little information there
is on Energia reliability, I'd say it's very much up to any organization
proposing SSF launch by Energia to demonstrate that the total *expected*
cost (including losses) is less.

For the claim of "faster", consider two factors: the necessary redesign
mentioned above, which takes time as well as money, and the observation
that the Ukraine has reportedly discontinued production of the Zenit booster
as of December, 1991. So it's not as though you could launch a fleet of
Energias next week - there might conceivably be one or two sitting around,
but for any greater number, production would have to be started up again,
which is not a trivial task.

It's for these reasons that I said that these approaches might have had a
lot more potential if they'd been initiated several years ago - if started
now, they might not save any significant amount of time or money compared
to what's currently planned.

There's been talk of a scaled-down version of Energia called Energia-M.
While that might turn out to be very useful for other applications, it's
not clear what it might be able to do for SSF assembly.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Jan 93 21:56:08 GMT
From: Justin Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>Even more errie, in December 1985 (around the 28th or 29th) I had this
>dream about a shuttle catching fire (flames spewing out of one of the
>boosters) and seeing it on TV just before it exploded. The name clearly
>visible on the orbiter just before fade out was 'Challenger'.
>
>I still regret not having told anyone about this.  The morning it happened
>I remember getting this icy cold feeling around the time the disaster
>occured, before I even heard about it.
>Simon

Its remarkable that you posted this. Almost a year before the Challenger
disaster I had started writing down my dreams and trying to "interpret" them.
I had a dream about some kind of space launch and a huge white octopus
in the sky. When I wrote the dream down the next morning I was in a deep
depression that lasted for several days. I was never able to "interpret"
the dream (actually, it was very painful to think about it --- and
I had no idea why).  I forgot all about it until I saw the footage of the
Challenger blowing up...the image of the smoke trails seemed to be
identical to my dream.

Aside from the obvious questions this raises about causiality and "seeing
into the future" it is striking that the emotional impact of the event
was undistorted even though the actual meaning of the images was not clear
(at the time of the dream).

--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Justin R. Smith                                        Office: [phone]
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science           Home: [phone]
Drexel University                                         Fax: [phone]

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

Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1993 01:18:23 GMT
From: Illinois Bound <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

I was in high school and most of my Chemistry was coming from lunch when
someone said the shuttle blew up.  We, at first w3ent to a neighboring
classroom that had a TV while someone went and got one from the media
center.  For the rest of the day, we watched the coverage provided by the
network.  It was a sad day for this country.

Just in case people are wondering, there's a memorial (maybe they are
buried there too -- I don't remember) at Arlington National Cemetary
just behind the building from which you can watch the changing of the
guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers.  Does anyone know of other
sights where there are memorials for the crew of STS-26?


Sandy
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1993 00:07:31 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Haines) writes:
>
>Oh, give me a break. Seven trained people, flying a brand-new,
>more-or-less untested vehicle? They knew the risks. How is this even
>comparable to massive tragedies like the famines in the Horn of
>Africa, or the Azerbaijan earthquake, or even to the Lockerbie
>bombing? To any airliner crash? There are even highway pileups which
>kill more.
>
>Sure, it's a tragedy. But don't go blowing it out of proportion.
>
>Nick Haines [e-mail]

I have to agree with Nick Haines.  Although I've been quite interested to
hear what people were doing when they heard the news (and their initial
reactions) some of this weepy waily stuff has been a *little* hard to believe.

One thread comes through *very* clearly: in very many respects, the Shuttle
was sold as something far more than what it actually was.  And that's too bad,
because what the shutlle actually was is still pretty damn good.

--

I had thought about staying home to watch the launch but got tired of waiting
and headed off to my "Finite Elements in Applied Electromagnetics" class.
I was listening to "The Early Edition" on CBC Radio when an announcer cut in
with, "This is CBC Radio News.  Moments ago, shortly after it cleared the
launch tower, the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded.  The countdown had been
fairly routine.  There was certainly no indication of any major problems that
might have led to such a catastrophe."  Then, the announcer stumbled a bit and,
in a less authoritative tone of voice, continued, "I'm not working from a
news script.  We have no details of what happened as of yet.  We still don't
know if the orbiter or the crew survived.  Stay tune to this station for
further information."  Within a few minutes, CBC Vancouver joined the
CBC National Network...  Shortly thereafter, I arrived at school and headed
off to class.

---
Dave Michelson                             University of British Columbia
[e-mail]                                  Antenna Laboratory





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

Date: 30 Jan 93 02:14:00 GMT
From: Ken McGlothlen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

I was watching it live.  I still do that whenever I can, even though I live on
the West Coast, and "live" often means 6am.

I noticed the fluttering light between the shuttle and the ET, and was just
thinking "Now, that's strange" when the whole thing blew.  I heard the NASA
announcer read off some more figures about the trajectory, and realized that he
wasn't reading off gauges; he was reading a script, and hadn't noticed yet.

Back when the shuttle design had been finalized, I was pretty vocal about the
shuttle not being designed with any sort of escape mechanism---I was only four
when Grissom, White and Chaffee died, but it'd made quite an impact.  After
watching the first replay, looking for clues, I called up a friend who's also
heavily into space, and told him that Challenger's ET blew.  There was a pause;
then he asked "On the pad?"  I said "71 seconds into the flight."  Another
pause, and he said, "Well, that's that, then."

I'm still not crazy about the shuttle's current escape mechanism---the slide-
down-the-pole-with-a-parachute-while-debris-is-flying-around-you-at-Mach-10-
with-the-crew-module-spinning-crazily method.  I wish they'd put a proper
escape mechanism in place.  But. . . .

And I still tense up when the clock gets to 65 seconds.  Every single time.
And then there's the knot in the stomach every time I hear the words "Go at
throttle up. . . ."

                ---Ken McGlothlen
                   [e-mail]
                   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1993 12:44:09 -0700
From: "Bradford A. Morgan" <[e-mail]>

South Dakota School of Mines and Technology

POSITION VACANCY

VICE PRESIDENT

An academic vice president is sought for this public science and engineering
university dedicated to excellence.  The 2,500 undergraduate and graduate
students are involved in 32 degree programs, through the Ph.D. in some
disciplines.  Students have combined average ACT scores of 25.

 Located in the Black Hills near Mount Rushmore and the Badlands, and not
far from the Big Horn Mountain Range of Wyoming, greater Rapid City is a
community of 85,000 with a favorable quality-of-life/cost-of-living ratio in
a forested setting with ponderosa pines, Black Hills spruce, hiking trail
networks, dinosaur relics, Sioux tradition, and national caves.

APPLICATIONS and NOMINATIONS

The selection of the Vice President of the South Dakota School of Mines
and Technology should serve to impact the institution to better effect a
positive environment by promoting professional development and global
telecommunications, including the following criteria:

1.  An awareness of innovative learning methodologies existing in the
engineering, science, and humanities curricula elsewhere and their
transferability to curricula here.
2.  An awareness of computer communications such as the Internet which
has particular impact on overcoming geographical isolation
experienced by students and faculty at this institution.
3.  The willingness to support faculty as they innovatively explore new
teaching/learning strategies.
4.  An awareness of faculty development programs which seek to
strengthen classroom teaching and research abilities.
5.  A recognition of the necessity for developing on-going and continual
faculty-student-administrative dialogue on issues of all kinds as they both
affect these groups and as they pertain to a stimulating environment
intellectually for these groups.
6.  An awareness of the complexity of issues and the willingness to take
risks which push our institution into the national area as a premier
undergraduate institution.
7.  A desire to cultivate and affirm diverse attitudes, personalities, ideas,
and temperaments to benefit students and faculty alike, allowing us to grow
in social consciousness and awareness complementary to our solid scientific
and technical backgrounds.

Candidates for the position must have an earned doctorate in a discipline
of engineering or science and possess the administrative experience
necessary.  Nominations will be accepted.

Applicants should submit a cover letter explaining interest in the
position along with names, addresses, and phone numbers of at least
five references, and a statement of goals, to:

    Dr. Douglas K. Lange and Dr. Harold D. Orville
    Co-Chairs, VP Search and Screen Committee
    South Dakota School of Mines and Technology
    501 E. St. Joseph Street
    Rapid City, SD 57701-3995

Review of the applications begins February 15, 1993, and will continue
until a suitable candidate is hired.   An Equal Opportunity Employer.

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

Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.space

From: Benjamin T Dehner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fluidic envelope on a point gravitational source suspended in a uniform field
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Sender: USENET News System <[e-mail]>
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 22:18:05 GMT
Lines: 27
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Hyde) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:

>    An impressive article, but I have one problem with it.

    Jeez.  Only one?  I didn't think it was that good :)
    Plus, I think my calculations on escape velocity are not quite right.
In particular, I don't think the integral should go out to infinity, but
only to where the gravity of the primary will prevent an object from
returning to earth.
    I find it interesting, however, that we have been doing calculations
on Ted's pet theories to find out the implications of his models, and he
has been strangely silent.  I even found, for example, that the assumptions
I made would leave earth outside of the Roche limit.  What is it, Ted?  What
assumption was made in my calculations that you didn't like?  The 6 m/s grav.
field?  the 2000K Saturn photosphere?  The batteries in my calculator?

Ben

>                        Bill Hyde

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
[e-mail]       Iowa State University
                      Ames, IA 50011

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 100
------------------------------