Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_4/V16NO413.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 36KB

Date: Sat,  3 Apr 93 12:23:44
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #413
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat,  3 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 413

Today's Topics:
                       Abyss: breathing fluids
                      Elevator to the top floor
                How do they ignite the SSME? (3 msgs)
                      Luddites in space (3 msgs)
                               Mach 25
           Metric Masterminds (was Re: Quaint US Archaisms)
                          PBS space special
                         Quaint US Archaisms
                Questions about Titan IV and Ariane 5
               Small Astronaut (was: Budget Astronaut)
                        STS-1 DISASTER/COVERUP
                          the call to space
          What happened to "space philosopher" Earl Hubbard?
                         Why is Venus so bad?

    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: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 17:40:42 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Abyss: breathing fluids
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <1pge9v$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>|In <1pcjmt$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>|
>|>|But, I've heard reports that's a similar emulsion has been approved for
>|                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|>|use in neonates who are experiencing lung problems due to underdeveloped
>|  ^^^
>|>Of course, by the Time the FDA approves it for wide spread use,
>                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|>the EPA will have finished Banning CFC's, so it will be back to
>||the drawing board.  Of course, it may make a pretty good non-dairy
>|>dessert topping.
>|
>|You're not paying attention, Pat.  See underlined above.
>|
>|Already been approved.  Is in widespread use.  No, you can't go down
>|to the local 7/11 and buy a few hundred gallons, but then you can't do
>|that with most drugs.
>|

>Somehow I always thought there was a significant difference between
>Something being approved for a rather special care need and for widespread
>use.  Note the underlining.

It's in widespread use for what it is designed to do -- act as a
surfactant.  I believe the oxygen carrying properties may be
secondary.

>So can I order this stuff from my
>Local hospital supply store because my mother has emphysema?

No, but you can't order most drugs that way, unless you are a doctor.
Not to mention that it wouldn't do your mother any good.

>Or can I get it for testing dive gear?

No, but you also can't just order amphetamines for testing hiking
boots.

>>[I just happened to know someone who worked for the company the
>>developed it.]
>>

>Did they try it out as a Dessert topping?

Somehow I doubt it.  ;-)

>>Hey, I'd think you would approve of the FDA's attitude.  It so matches
>>your own with regard to programs looking into innovations like 20kHz
>>power, after all.  ;-)
>>

>Actually I do like the FDA approach.  Test rigorously,  Show safety
>and efficacy.  Issue waivers in critical cases (AIDS, Cancer).
>Develope a good population and then broaden approved use.

That's certainly an explanation for sarcastic comments about the time
they take to approve things.  ;-)

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: 2 Apr 1993 14:10:23 -0500
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Elevator to the top floor
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Mountains are the easiest. A two hundred mile high mountain would
>only need a base 3300 miles across to be "stable". That much mass
>would upset the tectonic balance though, and who's willing to donate
>a continent for the site?

Gee, this sounds like a perfect job for Australia. :-)
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 18:59:30 GMT
From: WELLS <[e-mail]>
Subject: How do they ignite the SSME?
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Roger
Wilfong, [e-mail] writes:
>They use a pyrotechnic ignitor mounted on the pad that produces a lot
of sparks for about 10 seconds.

Please, where does your information come from?

The pad mounted "sparklers" are free hydrogen ignitors that tend to
prevent large, and potentially dangerous clouds of unburned hydrogen
from forming. The SSME's have their own internal ignitors for primary
ignition.

Dennis W.

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

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 19:01:08 GMT
From: WELLS <[e-mail]>
Subject: How do they ignite the SSME?
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Roger
Wilfong, [e-mail] writes:
>They use a pyrotechnic ignitor mounted on the pad that produces a lot
of sparks for about 10 seconds.

Please, where does your information come from?

The pad mounted "sparklers" are free hydrogen ignitors that tend to
prevent large, and potentially dangerous clouds of unburned hydrogen
from forming. The SSME's have their own internal ignitors for primary
ignition.

Dennis W.

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

Date: 2 Apr 93 17:18:00 PST
From: "RWTMS2::MUNIZB" <[e-mail]>
Subject: How do they ignite the SSME?

On Wed, 31 Mar 1993 22:01:19 GMT, "Carlos G. Niederstrasser" <phoenix.Princeton.EDU![e-mail]>
writes:
/Subject: How do they ignite the SSME?
/
/The subject line says it all.  My professor today could not remember how they
/ignite these babies.
/
/On a possible related subject, what are all the sparks flying around
/underneath the engines just before takeoff?

Based on my rusty memory [someone borrowed my rocket propulsion class
notes and didn't return them :-( ], the SSME is a staged-combustion engine with
main combustion chamber (MCC) flow driven by the high pressure pumps, the high
pressure pumps driven by low pressure pumps, and each of the low pressure pumps
driven by a LH2 or LOX pre-burner (like a mini-CC).  The pre-burners and MCC
have Augmented Spark Igniters (big spark plugs).  The low pressure pumps can't
work until the high pressure pumps do, and vice versa so the startup is rather
complicated (I hear even the Transient Analysis gurus sometimes shake their
heads).  LH2 starts flowing first (fuel-rich start) to avoid burning up things,
and those sparks underneath the engine are there to light off the accumulated
H2 before it builds to explosive concentrations.

Some other engines use a hypergolic charge to start the process, which has
been likened to starting a big explosion with a small one!

Disclaimer: Opinions stated are solely my own (unless I change my mind).
Ben Muniz     [e-mail]    w(818)586-3578
Space Station Freedom:Rocketdyne/Rockwell:Structural Loads and Dynamics
   "Man will not fly for fifty years": Wilbur to Orville Wright, 1901

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

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 16:37:34 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Luddites in space
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:

>[e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>Have you ever seen me (or anyone else here, for that matter, no matter
>>how 'pro-man in space' they are) do anything like "insist that the
>>vast bulk of NASA funds should be devoted to [my] products while
>                        ^^^^^^^^^
>My original quote said "astronaut projects" here -- and I was
>specifically referring to STS and SSF.

It certainly wasn't clear that you were "secifically referring to STS
and SSF"; that takes you from being insulting in calling me a
'Luddite' to merely being stupid, since I doubt you've seen many notes
from me promoting either one of those.  Even the folks who *do*
promote those programs don't go around calling for the cancellation of
others; they try to promote them on their merits (such as they are).
Why don't you give that a try in stead of engaging in silly
demonization of anyone who disagrees with you?  Why don't you give
that a try instead of spending so much of your time trying to trash
everthing else except the One True Szabo Space Plan (tm)?

>>Halley flyby, CRAF, etc. are cancelled and other planetary projects
>>are gorssly misdesigned to fit on astronaut carrying launchers or are
>>delayed"?

[Note that the preceding was originally said by Nick, not by me as his
note makes it appear.  Please be careful with attributions, Nick.]

>I've seen that be NASA's policy for the last 18 years, with plenty
>of people cheering them on.  NASA still devotes twenty times as
>much of its budget to astronaut programs as it does planetary science:
>about $6 billion : $300 million not counting ground infrastructure,
>overhead, etc. for each.  Do you object to turning that around?  Spending
>$6 billion per year on planetary science and $300 million a year on
>astronauts?  If so, why?  As usual, Luddites don't care about the
>costs; they just blindly lobby for their own bizarrely expensive
>astronaut projects at the expense of everybody else, including in
>the long term the astronauts and their own hopes for travelling
>into space.

First, Nick, you apparently either need to learn or else remember to
keep in mind that everyone who disagrees with you does not necessarily
favor the way NASA does things.  You also need to learn, apparently,
that simply because someone disagrees with you or comes to different
conclusions than you do, they are not necessarily stupid, evil, or any
other thing warranting your stupid stereotyping and 'smear labels'.

Yes, I would object to turning that around because I think it is a
mistake to do so.  Despite what you may think, Nick, we still need
experience with people living and working in space.  Manned activities
are inherently more expensive than unmanned activities, so it makes
sense to me to allocate more money to them.  Unlike you, apparently,
Nick, I recognize that there are precursors required before things
become 'economically viable'.  I recognize that there are going to be
market failures (in the economic sense) in some areas that are in the
long term desirable, and that part of government's function is to step
in and try to redress those failures.  Manned space is currently one
of those areas.  So is planetary science, for that matter, and this is
one of those areas where I see you as the consumate hypocrite.  You
scream and rage about 'Luddites' spending your tax dollars
'economicaly unviable' manned space, yet you never seem to want to
level that gun against your own plans.


>>Have you ever seen me (or anyone else here, for that matter, no matter
>>how 'pro-man in space' they are) do anything like "rail against the
>>'failures of AI'"?

>Herman Rubin et. al. have just given us splendid examples of this -- all
>sorts of bashing about how "machines can't be intelligent" without
>any discussion of economics or specific technological problems, and
>totally ignoring the fact that every single cost-effective commercial
>and military application in space is 100% automated.

Do I look like Herman Rubin?  Maybe I'd better check my badge and make
sure, huh?  And since when does naming one person followed by 'et al'
comprise a convincing argument about these masses of 'Luddites' you
are now raving about?  However, let's look at your position here.
Since you claim that all this automated stuff is so sure-fire and so
'cost-effective', why don't we just take the government money that the
government currently spends on unmanned space and spend it on manned
space (where the market failure currently is) and let the free market
economy fund all that stuff you want?

[Note that I actually view the preceding as an incredibly bad idea,
but it seems to fit with the arguments Nick wants to use.]

You might also want to note that Herman Rubin is right.  Machines
*can't* be intelligent.  The question, of course, is just how much
intelligence is required for a given task.  Those 'cost effective'
'automated' (you have a rather peculiar usage of the word sometimes,
but whatever) tasks require strictly minimal intelligence, and many of
them are teleoperated from the relatively close planet they happen to
be hanging around.

Personally, I am unconvinced that you can make a machine that is
sufficiently adaptable, flexible, and intelligent to do some of the
planetary surface exploration that we want to do.  Ah, but planetary
surfaces aren't part of the Szabo Plan, so that doesn't matter.  Isn't
that right, Nick?

>So your flames, and those of Rubin et. al, have illustrated better
>than I ever could what I am talking about: who are the Luddites,
>where they are coming from and what they are all about, what a
>destructive effect they have had and continue to have on NASA, and
>its ability to foster U.S. industrial competiveness in aerospace and
>in general.  You've helped me demonstrate it in spades; I very much
>wish it could be otherwise.

You're a fool, Nick.  I flame you because you flame everyone who
doesn't bow down before the  One True Szabo Space Plan (tm).  I flame
you because you are insulting to anyone who dares to disagree with
you.  I flame you because rather than justify what you want to do, you
prefer to try to make it look justified by trying to trash anything
that isn't part of the One True Szabo Space Plan (tm).  In short,
Nick, I flame you because you act like a fool.  There's your
'illustration' for you.

Personally, I prefer McElwaine.  you both behave equally stupidly, but
at least his garbage is somewhat entertainging, in a Zippy the Pinhead
sort of way.  Yours is merely tiresome and boring.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 16:50:52 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Luddites in space
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Stewart-Nicholls) writes:

>In <[e-mail]> fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:
>>Famous last words.  I'm curious, though, Pat.  How would you feel if
>>your doctor told you that he/she "didn't bother" with medical school
>>because they "already knew the field" or that the flight control
>>software for the airplane you were riding in was designed and built by
>>someone who "didn't bother" with training to learn about software
>>engineering because they "already knew the field"?

>  There's nothing so unreal about this. Possession of a piece of paper
>does not guarantee competence. After all <reminiscence on> when I started
>doing software there was no such thing as a computer science course.

While a hunk of sheepskin certainly is no guarantee of competence, the
lack of one in a complex field is potentially an indicator of some
holes in the requisite underlying knowledge.

>  I think you'd be amazed (particularly in software) at the number of
>truly competent people who've never bothered with degrees, because they
>were too busy doing real work :-)

Well, no, I don't think I would.  I got a degree in that, too, and I
frankly find the number of not so competenet people with credentials a
lot more surprising than I do competence in people without them.  Kind
of leaves me wondering what some schools are teaching these days.
However, unless they spent a lot of time learning a lot of things
people without that academic background are going to be missing some
of the underpinnings, no matter how good they might be at developing
specific applications.  Sort of the difference between being able to
build a house and being able to design one and being able to use those
same skills to design a ship.

Of course, there are also folks to whom reasonable software
engineering practices come 'natural' as the result of the application
of good sense and experience.  However, at the bottom line, economics
ain't programming.  Good sense, experience, and how they 'think' it
works just don't correspond real well to how things actually work.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Luddites in space
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 16:56:44 GMT
Lines: 44
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:

>[e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>>Pat:

>>>    Who didn't bother, because i already know the field.

>>Famous last words.  I'm curious, though, Pat.  How would you feel if
>>your doctor told you that he/she "didn't bother" with medical school
>>because they "already knew the field" or that the flight control
>>software for the airplane you were riding in was designed and built by
>>someone who "didn't bother" with training to learn about software
>>engineering because they "already knew the field"?

>>Hmmm, maybe this explains some things?  :-)

>I think a lot of the economics going around these days is at the
>equivalent level that medicine was in when it was unneccesary for
>a medical student (who were the _medical professionals_ as opposed
>to midwives given the job) to wash his hand between disecting the
>corpse of a leper and assisting a woman in labor (although I wonder:
>was he just there to make sure the kid caught something and died,
>before he moved on to the next patient? I mean, what good could he
>do, compared to the bad he was doing? The Nineteenth century in
>Europe, because of this practice, had an abnormally high infant
>mortality rate).

Well, I disagree.  While there are certainly huge quantities of things
that we don't know or don't understand well, there are also some
things that are pretty clear.  One routinely sees various '-ians' make
statements that are *known* to be wrong.

>Getting back to economics, many people in both parties seem to be
>operating at the level of the "broken window" fallacy, or worse.

Don't judge the state of knowledge of economics by what politicians
decide or are able to do.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: 2 Apr 93 17:07:00 PST
From: "RWTMS2::MUNIZB" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mach 25

On 25 Mar 93 01:21:10 GMT, Jordin Kare <[e-mail]> writes:

/Leik designs some pretty fancy vehicles, and has done a good deal of
/nice mechanical and aerodynamic design and testing, but he's a _very_ long
/way from having something that will fly.

The following is from Prof. Myrabo's article in the Nov/Dec 1992 issue of
the Space Studies Institute (SSI) Update:
"With SSI support in 1993, our team will develop similar designs for a full-
sized microwave Lightcraft and smaller GBM (ground based microwave)-boosted
technology demonstrators which will look very different and depend on other
engine cycles than those described below.  In addition, we will carry out proof-
of-concept microwave propulsion experiments, and organize a high-level team of
scientists and engineers to analytically investigate these conceptual designs
for microwave and laser Lightcraft engines and vehicles.  We will be looking
for the potential showstoppers which need to be addressed in the next few years.
This modest SSI-funded project constitutes a realistic first step into the
exciting new adventure of beam-powered flight."

In the same issue, Dr. Freeman Dyson (SSI president) discusses his differences
with Myrabo's approach but says:
"Nobody has yet built a model laser-driven or microwave-driven engine that
produces enough thrust to lift itself off the ground.  This is the essential
first step that must be taken before any detailed design of full scale systems
will make sense.  We hope that, with the modest level of support that SSI may
provide, Myrabo might be able to build a model engine that will give some
reality to his dreams and to ours."

This sounds similar to the situation re: mass-drivers before SSI's work on them
several years ago.  I send my best wishes for success to SSI, and as a Senior
Associate some of my $ as well ;-)

Disclaimer: Opinions stated are solely my own (unless I change my mind).
Ben Muniz     [e-mail]    w(818)586-3578
Space Station Freedom:Rocketdyne/Rockwell:Structural Loads and Dynamics
   "Man will not fly for fifty years": Wilbur to Orville Wright, 1901

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

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 17:24:50 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Metric Masterminds (was Re: Quaint US Archaisms)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("F.Baube[tm]") writes:

>From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Acceptable metric conversions
>>
>> Uh, this is the United States.  Just use English units and let the
>> rest of the world do the conversions if they feel the need to have
>> things in SI (or any other permutation of 'metric' that you happen
>> to be using this week).

>Yeah, I suppose just shifting decimal points left and right
>wouldn't keep enough NASAzoids busy scratching their heads
>trying to find conversion charts and funding $50M furlongs-
>per-fortnight calculators and wondering if the king's foot
>really *was* exactly 12 inches long.

The point (remember that?) is that these are *PRESS RELEASES*,
presumably written for the people signing the big checks, who happen
to use the English system of weights and measures.  Now, if Europe has
a problem doing the conversions for themselves, they should start
paying U.S. taxes to fund all this stuff and then they can have a
voice, too.

[And you need to get your newsreader fixed.  It put the bogus
Distribution: of 'sci' on your article.]

>(Hardly sci.space business, but what the hey, it's April Fool's ..)

>Ever seen a European map ?  There's no scale line

>    |=====|-----|-----|-----|
>    0     10    20    30    40  mi

>It's not necessary.  If the map is 1:200000, 1 centimeter is 2 kilometers.

This strikes me as BAD (broken as designed) rather than as a
'feature'.  You can, after all, do the same thing with U.S. maps just
by picking the appropriate scale (and many maps are done in these
sorts of scales).  However, it is simply easier if there is also a
visible reference of scale, which is why we put them on maps in the
first place.

>The solar system at 1:100,000,000 ?  No problem !

Yeah?  What are you going to use for, say, Phobos and Deimos?

>Of course, pervasive innumeracy might make this impossible in the US.

Odd how, if the English measures are so 'hard' and the SI measures are
so 'easy', all those innumerate Americans can manage to cope with
English measures, wouldn't you say?

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: 2 Apr 93 17:23:00 PST
From: "RWTMS2::MUNIZB" <[e-mail]>
Subject: PBS space special

On Date: 1 Apr 93 19:04:00 GMT, "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]> responds:

/In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
/>I am interested in the Net's reaction to last night's PBS special,
/>whose prosaic title "Living and Working in Space" concealed the...

/I liked it. I thought it did a good job of communicating to children
/that space was exciting and that someday we would do the same things
/we doon Earth in space. I saw it with two teachers who have no special
/interest in space and they agreed.
/
/My main objection was the lack of scientific accuracy in some of their
/segments.

I liked it, too.  I was especially glad to see people such as the late Dr.
Gerard O'Neill (I was told by one of the producers that it was his last public
interview) and Dr. Robert Zubrin of Mars Direct fame (I wish he had been on
longer, though).

I've been in contact with FASE (the Foundation for Advancement in Science and
Education) productions re: use of this video and future efforts, so if anyone
has specific comments/complaints on scientific accuracy or other issues please
e-mail them to me and I'll pass them on.  Or contact FASE at [phone].
BTW, they are very interested in getting this into classrooms.  Educators have
one year off-the-air record rights and the study guide may be legally copied.

Ben Muniz: President; Organization for the Advancement of Space
Industrialization and Settlement (OASIS)/L.A. chapter-National Space Society
Internet:[e-mail] Voicemail:[phone]

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

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 16:36:03 GMT
From: Doug Page <[e-mail]>
Subject: Quaint US Archaisms
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
|> >May I humbly point out that the English system has standard sizes in
|> >an exponential distribution (1/2", 1/4", 1/8", etc.) while metric
|> >sizes tend to be anything.  An old American car can be serviced with
|> >about 5 wrenches.  A proper metric wrench set has lots of sizes,
|> >typically 3 to 25 millimeters in increments of 1 mm.
|>
|> Not to be seen as defending a decicentric measuring system, but in
|> countries where SI units abound, strength of materials still requires
|> fasteners in an exponential series. Only a few sizes of metric fasteners
|> are in common use, and oddly enough they are the ones closest to Imperial
|> measures. Pass the 1/2 inch, I mean 13mm, wrench please.
|>
|> Gary
|> --
|> Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
|> Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
|> 534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
|> Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

Let's not forget that the US has been "officially" SI since the 1800s.  (It
was actually one of the first nations to "go to" the metric system.)  It has
largely been the pragmatic side that has encouraged such a slow migration to
their daily use.  Besides, if the US actually retired the English system
completely the US Congress would have to decide if they were willing to raise
the "national" speed limit on most highways from 55 mph to 90 kmh. :)

FYIW,

Doug Page

***  The opinions are mine (maybe) and do not represent those of my  ***
***  employer (or any other sane person, for that matter).           ***

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

Date: 2 Apr 93 17:20:00 PST
From: "RWTMS2::MUNIZB" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Questions about Titan IV and Ariane 5

On Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1993 16:58:15 GMT, "Garret W. Gengler" <[e-mail]>
writes:
/I have several questions about the Titan IV-SRMU/Centaur and Ariane 5 launch
/vehicles.  I'm having trouble obtaining information on the launch environment
/(temperature, pressure, load factors, etc.) and payload fairings for each of
/these.

Try the ENVIRONET database at GSFC. FTP to envnet.gsfc.nasa.gov or
128.183.104.16, or call [phone].  They have data on STS, Ariane, Titan,
Atlas, Delta and Scout launch environments.

Disclaimer: Opinions stated are solely my own (unless I change my mind).
Ben Muniz     [e-mail]    w(818)586-3578
Space Station Freedom:Rocketdyne/Rockwell:Structural Loads and Dynamics
   "Man will not fly for fifty years": Wilbur to Orville Wright, 1901

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

Date: 2 Apr 93 17:09:00 PST
From: "RWTMS2::MUNIZB" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Small Astronaut (was: Budget Astronaut)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brenda Kalt) writes:
> Large astronauts seem to come from (1) SF magazines that wanted heroic
> types and (2) current pilot-training requirements, which evolved from
> the military. Neither of those reasons is carved in stone.

Most of the test/fighter pilots and astronauts I've seen are of average or
less height ~5'8" for men and 5"5" for women [metric conversions available
upon request :-) ].  At 6'1", I distinctly remember being taller than most of
the aviators the time that I went to the NAS Oceana Officers Club.  I think the
max height for most fighters (including T-38s which astronauts must be
qualified in) is about 6'2".  "Compact" is a good description of the typical
body type.

also,

on Date: 1 Apr 93 11:43:23 GMT, Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
writes:

/lower-budget, and less interesting than *Destination Moon*.  The first

Does anyone know where I can rent/buy a video copy of "Destination Moon"?

Disclaimer: Opinions stated are solely my own (unless I change my mind).
Ben Muniz     [e-mail]    w(818)586-3578
Space Station Freedom:Rocketdyne/Rockwell:Structural Loads and Dynamics
   "Man will not fly for fifty years": Wilbur to Orville Wright, 1901

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

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 19:09:58 GMT
From: WELLS <[e-mail]>
Subject: STS-1 DISASTER/COVERUP
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> ,
[e-mail] writes:
>I was widely disbelieved

Yup.

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

Date: 2 Apr 93 17:11:00 PST
From: "RWTMS2::MUNIZB" <[e-mail]>
Subject: the call to space

on 25 Mar 93 09:09:22 GMT, Pat <[e-mail]> writes:

/Nuclear Power proved to be a technological rathole.  Nice in certain
/areas,  but Holistically not terribly useful.    SPS's are in that
/same area.  Maybe Large scale infrastructure improvements will
/help,  but I worry about setting out for this Brunellian vision
/without some other justification.

Much discussion then ensued about how the technology is not at fault.  However,
Pat still has a relevant point was that "holistically" it doesn't work in the
U.S. (due to non-technical factors).  Engineering solutions must account for
social concerns in order to be "usefull" (most definitions of engineering
state or imply that the creations must have some type of value).

From "Engineering History", R.S. Kirby, et al., Dover, NY, 1990: "Professor
Hardy Cross, in his delightfull "Engineers and Ivory Towers", has generalized
the position of engineering: 'It is customary to think of engineering as a part
of a trilogy, pure science, applied science and engineering.  It needs emphasis
that this trilogy is only one of a triad of trilogies into which engineering
fits. . . . the second is economic theory, finance and engineering; and the
third is social relations, industrial relations, engineering.  Many engineering
problems are as closely allied to social problems as they are to pure science.'"

Discussions of space development must account for these factors (e.g., light
pollution due to SPS, "graypeace" concerns about lunar mining, etc.), or the
technologies developed will develop the same problems that nuclear power has
faced in this country.

However, technically literate people should speak out when public perception
does not match reality (see "Trashing the Planet", D. L. Ray, HarperCollins,
NY, 1990: specifically Chapter 1, "Who Speaks for Science?", where the case
is made that there are many factiods ("false, exaggerated, or misleading
information made believable by constatnt repetition") in existance which
drive public opinion and policy.)  Which isn't to say that they will agree,
witness some discussions here :-)

Disclaimer: Opinions stated are solely my own (unless I change my mind).
Ben Muniz     [e-mail]    w(818)586-3578
Space Station Freedom:Rocketdyne/Rockwell:Structural Loads and Dynamics
   "Man will not fly for fifty years": Wilbur to Orville Wright, 1901

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

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 19:26:02 GMT
From: Jeff Bytof <[e-mail]>
Subject: What happened to "space philosopher" Earl Hubbard?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Back in the late sixties I read numerous articles by Earl Hubbard,
who promoted a philosophy that exhalted space exploration, and
gave it a high moral value.  What has become of him?

-Jeff Bytof

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

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 17:59:29 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why is Venus so bad?
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.scuba

In <1pchne$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Oivind Toien) writes:
>|
>|In a previous record dive (dry) at NUTEC, Bergen, Norway to about 500
>|m they used a Heliox mixture most of the time except during the descent
>|were the gas mixture contained some nitrogen. The idea was the the
>|effect of N2 narcosis should reduce the effect of high pressure nerve
>|syndrome.
>|Several of the divers suffered serious injury. Although technology
>|seems to develop infinitely, physiology sets certain limits...
>|
>>In a program on the Norwegian channel 2 yesterday it was said that 1
>>of 7 divers are injured (per dive...) in dive operations in the North
>>Sea occuring at more than 300 m.

>My understanding is that Commercial diving  has some real problems
>following the Navy Dive tables.  Even if  you rigorously follow them,
>that multiple diving causes some form of Micro Nitrogen bubbles
>in the nervous tissue.  Long term studies of the spinal tissues
>of commercial divers shows large amounts of nerve damage.

The Navy dive tables are maximum numbers assuming divers in very good
physical condition.  Personally, I would be inclined to use a *large*
safety margin with them.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 413
------------------------------