Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_4/V16NO482.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 20KB

Date: Fri, 23 Apr 93 06:15:14
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #482
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 23 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 482

Today's Topics:
                       Abyss--breathing fluids
                         Big amateur rockets
          Death and Taxes (was Why not give $1 billion to...
                   Eco-Freaks forcing Space Mining.
              Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.
                        Moonbase race (2 msgs)
                 Moonbase race, NASA resources, why?
                   New planet/Kuiper object found?
                Old Spacecraft as NAvigation Beacons!
                        Sunrise/ sunset times

    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: 23 Apr 1993 07:29:50 GMT
From: William Lewis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Abyss--breathing fluids
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Doug Loss) writes:
>Besides the mechanical problems of moving so dense a medium in oan out
>of the lungs (diaphragm fatigue, etc.), is there likely to be a problem
>with the mixture?  I mean, since the lungs never expel all the air in
>them, the inhaled air has to mix pretty quickly with the residual air in
>the lungs to provide a useful partial pressure of oxygen, right?  Would
>this mixing be substantially faster/slower at the pressures we're
>talking about?

  There was an interesting article in Scientific American some time ago
about breathing liquid. (It was a few months before _The Abyss_ came out.)
As far as I can remember, they mentioned three things that were difficult
to do at once with a substitute breathing fluid:
  - low viscosity --- if it's too difficult to force the fluid in & out
    of the lungs, you can't extract enough oxygen to power your own
    breathing effort (let alone anything else)

  - diffusion rate --- obviously, not all the air in your lungs is
    expelled when you breathe out; and the part that isn't expelled
    is the part that's nearest the walls of the alveoli. (alveolus?)
    So the trip from the blood vessels to the new air has to be done
    by diffusion of the gas through the fluid. Apparently oxygen
    tends to diffuse more readily than CO2, so even if you can get enough
    oxygen in, you might not be able to get enough CO2 out.

  - oxygen/CO2 capacity --- you have to be able to dissolve enough
    gas per unit volume.

  Oh, and of course, your new breathing fluid must not irritate the lungs
or interfere with their healing or anything like that...

--
Wim Lewis, [e-mail]

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

Date: 21 Apr 93 18:27:41 GMT
From: Mark Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Big amateur rockets
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Paul Dokas) writes:

>I was reading Popular Science this morning and was surprised by an ad in
>the back.  I know that a lot of the ads in the back of PS are fringe
>science or questionablely legal, but this one really grabbed my attention.
>It was from a company name "Personal Missle, Inc." or something like that.

The company was probably "Public Missiles, Inc" of Michigan.

>Anyhow, the ad stated that they'd sell rockets that were up to 20' in length
>and engines of sizes "F" to "M".  They also said that some rockets will
>reach 50,000 feet.

Yup.

>Now, aside from the obvious dangers to any amateur rocketeer using one
>of these beasts, isn't this illegal?  I can't imagine the FAA allowing
>people to shoot rockets up through the flight levels of passenger planes.
>Not to even mention the problem of locating a rocket when it comes down.

Nope, it's not illegal. It is, however, closely regulated. In order to
purchase and use the big rocket motors required, it is necessary to be
one of the following:
a) An employee of a government agency.
b) An employee or student at a university doing research involving rockets.
c) A member or representative of an educational organization involved in
research or other uses of rockets. There are two such organizations:
The Tripoli Rocketry Association and the National Association of Rocketry.
Members of either organization must demonstrate proficiency in construction
and flight before they are allowed to purchase large motors on their own.

The FAA will issue a waiver of its regulations, upon request, to any
organization which can persuade them it has taken adequate precautions
to avoid conflicts with aircraft. The usual stipulations are:
- Only operation up to a specified ceiling is allowed. Depending on the
location, this ceiling may be from 5000 to 50000 feet AGL.
- The operator of the rocket is responsible for avoiding any aircraft
within the operating radius around the launch site.
- Flight into clouds or beyond visual range in haze is expressly prohibited.
- The FAA will provide a NOTAM informing other users of the airspace that
unmanned rocket operations are taking place at the specified place and time.

Most of the launches that are held (and there are dozens of them every year)
are held in areas where air traffic is relatively light, such as over the
western deserts (the Black Rock Desert north of Reno is particularly popular
since it is 25 x 150 miles of *nothing to hit* on the ground).

The two rocketry associations test and approve motors for their members'
use, to insure safety. Depending on motor size, the launcher setback is
from 50 to 500 or more feet.

By the way, rockets under 1 lb and powered by an "F" motor are exempt from
most Federal regulations on unmanned rockets anyway. See FAR 101, Subpart
C, for details.

As for recovery...although the higher altitude rockets can reach up to
50,000 feet, most of them only get to 2,000 to 5,000 feet. The typical
rocket is 2 to 6 inches in diameter, and carries a 3 to 6 foot parachute,
or multiple parachutes, depending on the payload. Many rockets also carry
either a small transmitter or an audio sounder--particularly at launches
in the eastern US, where there are more obstructions.

Camera, telemetry transmitter, and video payloads are becoming quite common.

>And no, I'm not going to even think of buying one.  I'm not that crazy.

Why not? It's a lot of fun...check out the traffic on rec.models.rockets
for information about the model (3 lb and under) and high power (everything
bigger) rocket hobbies. As with all dangerous activities, the key is to
practice safety. I've been flying consumer rockets ranging up to 4-5 lbs
takeoff weight for 27 years, and still have all my extremities intact.

>-Paul "mine'll do 50,000 feet and carries 50 pounds of dynamite" Dokas

That's another thing. NO EXPLOSIVE WARHEADS OF ANY KIND ARE ALLOWED ON THESE
ROCKETS. NONE! Please forgive me for shouting, but that's one of the biggest
misconceptions people have about our hobby.

>/*            Just remember, you *WILL* die someday.             */
True. But it will not be related to the rocket hobby, unless I get

hit while crossing a road with a rocket in my hand.
--
Mark Johnson                          USnail: NCR Peripheral Products Division
E-mail:  [e-mail]       3718 N. Rock Rd.
Voice: [phone] [V+ 654-8189]           Wichita, KS  67226
[Non-business email: [e-mail]]

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

Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 08:00:21 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Death and Taxes (was Why not give $1 billion to...
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> In my first posting on this subject I threw out an idea of how to fund
> such a contest without delving to deep into the budget.  I mentioned
> granting mineral rights to the winner (my actual wording was, "mining
> rights.)  Somebody pointed out, quite correctly, that such rights are
> not anybody's to grant (although I imagine it would be a fait accompli
> situation for the winner.)  So how about this?  Give the winning group
> (I can't see one company or corp doing it) a 10, 20, or 50 year
> moratorium on taxes.
>
> Tom Freebairn


Who says there is no mineral rights to be given? Who says? The UN or the US
Government?
Major question is if you decide to mine the moon or Mars, who will stop you?
The UN can't other than legal tom foolerie.. Can the truly inforce it?

If you go to the moon as declare that you are now a soverign nation, who will
stop you from doing it. Maybe not acknowledge you?

Why can't a small company or corp or organization go an explore the great
beyond of space? what right does earth have to say what is legal and what is
not.. Maybe I am a few years ahead on this.. It is liek the old Catholic Church
stating which was Portugals and what was Spains, and along came the Reformation
and made it all null and void..

What can happen is to find a nation which is acknowledged, and offer your
services as a space miner and then go mine the asteroids/mars/moon or what
ever.. As long as yur sponsor does not get in trouble..
Basically find a country who wants to go into space, but can't for soem reason
or another, but who will give you a "home".. Such as Saudia Arabia or
whatever..
There are nations in the World who are not part of the UN, got to them and
offer your services and such.. I know that sound crazy, but. is it..
Also once you have the means to mine the moon (or whatever) then just do it.
The UN if done right can be made to be so busy with something else, they will
not care..
If your worried about the US, do the same thing..

Why be limited by the short sighted people of earth.. After all they have many
other things to worry about that if someone is mining the Moon or MArs or what
ever..
Basically what I am saying is where is that drive of yeasteryears to go a
little bit farther out, to do jus ta  little bit more, and to tell the crown to
piss off.. If my ancestors thought the way many today think, Id have been born
in Central Europe just north of the Black Sea..

I just read a good book, "Tower of the Gods" Interesting..

==
Michael Adams, [e-mail] -- I'm not high, just jacked




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

Date: 23 Apr 93 08:17:18 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Eco-Freaks forcing Space Mining.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1r6b7v$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>  Besides this was the same line of horse puckey the mining companies claimed
> when they were told to pay for  restoring land  after strip mining.
>
> they still mine coal in the midwest,  but now it doesn't look like
> the moon when theyare done.
>
> pat
===
I aint talking the large or even the "mining companies" I am talking the small
miners, the people who have themselves and a few employees (if at all).The
people who go out every year and set up thier sluice box, and such and do
mining the semi-old fashion way.. (okay they use modern methods toa point).

I am talking the guy who coem to Nome evry year, sets up his tent on the beach
(the beach was washed away last year) and sets up his/her sluice box and goes
at it "mining".
I know the large corps, such as Alaska Gold Company, might complain to..

My opinions are what I learn at the local BS table..

My original thing/idea was that the way to get space mining was to allow the
eco-freaks thier way.. As they have done with other mineral development.
You can't in many places can't go to the bathroom in the woods without some
form of regulation covering it..

==
Michael Adams, [e-mail] -- I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: Fri, 23 Apr 93 09:06:09 BST
From: Greg Stewart-Nicholls <[e-mail]>
Subject: Keeping Spacecraft on after Funding Cuts.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary,sci.space,sci.astro

In <[e-mail]> Greg Hennessy writes:
>In article <1r6aqr$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>#The better question  should be.
>#Why not transfer  O&M of all birds to a separate agency with continous funding
>#to support these kind of ongoing science missions.
>
>Since we don't have the money to keep them going now, how will
>changing them to a seperate agency help anything?
>
How about transferring control to a non-profit organisation that is
able to accept donations to keep craft operational.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi
[e-mail] or     : Vici
[e-mail] : Veni

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

Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 05:20:47 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moonbase race
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>You'd need to launch HLVs to send up large amounts of stuff.  Do you know
>of a private Titan pad?

You'd need to launch HLVs to send up large amounts of stuff *if* you assume
no new launcher development.  If you assume new launcher development, with
lower costs as a specific objective, then you probably don't want to
build something HLV-sized anyway.

Nobody who is interested in launching things cheaply will buy Titans.  It
doesn't take many Titan pricetags to pay for a laser launcher or a large
gas gun or a development program for a Big Dumb Booster, all of which
would have far better cost-effectiveness.

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

Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 05:49:01 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moonbase race
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charlie Prael) writes:
>Doug-- Actually, if memory serves, the Atlas is an outgrowth of the old
>Titan ICBM...

Nope, you're confusing separate programs.  Atlas was the first-generation
US ICBM; Titan I was the second-generation one; Titan II, which all the
Titan launchers are based on, was the third-generation heavy ICBM.  There
was essentially nothing in common between these three programs.

(Yes, *three* programs.  Despite the similarity of names, Titan I and
Titan II were completely different missiles.  They didn't even use the
same fuels, never mind the same launch facilities.)

>If so, there's probably quite a few old pads, albeit in need
>of some serious reconditioning.  Still, Being able to buy the turf and
>pad (and bunkers, including prep facility) at Midwest farmland prices
>strikes me as pretty damned cheap.

Sorry, the Titan silos (a) can't handle the Titan launchers with their
large SRBs, (b) can't handle *any* sort of launcher without massive
violations of normal range-safety rules (nobody cares about such things
in the event of a nuclear war, but in peacetime they matter), and (c) were
scrapped years ago.

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

Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 05:43:06 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moonbase race, NASA resources, why?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Craig Keithley) writes:
>Ah, there's the rub.  And a catch-22 to boot.  For the purposes of a
>contest, you'll probably not compete if'n you can't afford the ride to get
>there.  And although lower priced delivery systems might be doable, without
>demand its doubtful that anyone will develop a new system...

You're assuming that the low-cost delivery system has to be a separate
project.  But why?  If you are spending hundreds of millions of dollars
in hopes of winning a billion-dollar prize, it is *cheaper* to develop
your own launch system, charging its entire development cost against
your contest entry, than to try to do it with existing launchers.  No
other demand is necessary.

>> Any plan for doing
>> sustained lunar exploration using existing launch systems is wasting
>> money in a big way.
>
>This depends on the how soon the new launch system comes on line.  In other
>words, perhaps a great deal of worthwhile technology (life support,
>navigation, etc.) could be developed prior to a low cost launch system.
>You wouldn't want to use the expensive stuff forever, but I'd hate to see
>folks waiting to do anything until a low cost Mac, oops, I mean launch
>system comes on line.

You're assuming that it's going to take a decade to build a new launch
system.  But why?  The Saturn V took less than six years, depending on
exactly when you date its start.  Pegasus took about three from project
start to first flight.  Before SDIO chickened out on orbital development,
the target date for an orbital DC-Y flight was 1996.  If you really want
speed, consider that the first prototypes of the Thor missile (still in
service as the core of the Delta launcher) shipped to the USAF less
than 18 months after the development go-ahead.

One of the most pernicious myths in this whole business is the belief
that you can't build a launcher without taking ten years and spending
billions of dollars.  It isn't true and never was.

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

Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 01:54:39 GMT
From: Dave Tholen <[e-mail]>
Subject: New planet/Kuiper object found?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Francisco da Fonseca Rodrigues writes:

>     Tonigth a TV journal here in Brasil announced that an object,
> beyond Pluto's orbit, was found by an observatory at Hawaii. They
> named the object Karla.

The name is a working name only; quite unofficial.  The formal designation
is 1993 FW.

>     The program said the object wasn't a gaseous giant planet, and
> should be composed by rocks and ices.
>
>     Can someone confirm these information? Could this object be a
> new planet or a Kuiper object?

It's most likely a Kuiper Belt object, with an estimated diameter of
290 km.  The orbit hasn't been determined well enough yet to say much
more about it.

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

Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 06:43:42 GMT
From: "Gregory N. Bond" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Old Spacecraft as NAvigation Beacons!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
   Other idea for old space crafts is as navigation beacons and such..
   Why not??

Because to be any use as a nav point you need to know -exactly- where
it is, which means you either nail it to something that doesn't move
or you watch it all the time.  Neither of which is possible on a
deactivated spacecraft.  Then you have to know exactly how far away
from it you are; this may or may not be possible with the hardware on
board.

Apart from which, there is absolutely no need for navigation beacons.
--
Gregory Bond <[e-mail]> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
   Knox's 386 is slick.            Fox in Sox, on Knox's Box
   Knox's box is very quick.       Plays lots of LSL. He's sick!
(Apologies to John "Iron Bar" Mackin.)

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

Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 05:10:52 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sunrise/ sunset times
Newsgroups: sci.misc,sci.math,sci.space

In article <1r6f3a$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rouben Rostamian) writes:
>>Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used
>>to compute sunrise and sunset times.
>
>Here is a computation I did a long time ago that computes the length
>of the daylight.  You should be able to convert the information here
>to sunrise and sunset times.

Sorry, not so -- the changes in sunrise and sunset times are not
quite synchronized.  For example, neither the earliest sunrise nor the
latest sunset comes on the longest day of the year.

You can derive day length from sunrise and sunset times, but not
vice-versa.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 482
------------------------------