Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_5/V16NO506.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 22KB

Date: Sun,  2 May 93 05:12:09
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #506
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun,  2 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 506

Today's Topics:
            ALTERNATIVE Heavy Element Creation in Universe
          Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93)
         HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days (2 msgs)
                      NASA budget and STS costs
                    Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly?
                             Rocket Types
                      What planets are habitable
               Why not give $1 billion to first year-lo

    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 Apr 93 18:19:24 -0600
From: [e-mail]
Subject: ALTERNATIVE Heavy Element Creation in Universe
Newsgroups: sci.space



                              BIOLOGICAL ALCHEMY

                        ( ANOTHER Form of COLD FUSION )

               ( ALTERNATIVE Heavy Element Creation in Universe )

               A very simple experiment can demonstrate (PROVE) the
          FACT of "BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS" (reactions like Mg + O
          --> Ca, Si + C --> Ca, K + H --> Ca, N2 --> CO, etc.), as
          described in the BOOK "Biological Transmutations" by Louis
          Kervran, [1972 Edition is BEST.], and in Chapter 17 of the
          book "THE SECRET LIFE OF PLANTS" by Peter Tompkins and
          Christopher Bird, 1973:

               (1) Obtain a good sample of plant seeds, all of the same
                   kind.  [Some kinds might work better that others.]

               (2) Divide the sample into two groups of equal weight
                   and number.

               (3) Sprout one group in distilled water on filter paper
                   for three or four weeks.

               (4) Separately incinerate both groups.

               (5) Weigh the residue from each group.  [The residue of
                   the sprouted group will usually weigh at least
                   SEVERAL PERCENT MORE than the other group.]

               (6) Analyze quantitatively the residue of each group for
                   mineral content.  [Some of the mineral atoms of the
                   sprouted group have been TRANSMUTED into heavier
                   mineral elements by FUSING with atoms of oxygen,
                   hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, etc..]


               BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS occur ROUTINELY, even in our
          own bodies.

               Ingesting a source of organic silicon (silicon with
          carbon, such as "horsetail" extract, or radishes) can SPEED
          HEALING OF BROKEN BONES via the reaction Si + C --> Ca, (much
          faster than by merely ingesting the calcium directly).

               Some MINERAL DEPOSITS in the ground are formed by micro-
          organisms FUSING together atoms of silicon, carbon, nitrogen,
          oxygen, hydrogen, etc..

               The two reactions Si + C <--> Ca, by micro-organisms,
          cause "STONE SICKNESS" in statues, building bricks, etc..

               The reaction N2 --> CO, catalysed by very hot iron,
          creates a CARBON-MONOXIDE POISON HAZARD for welder operators
          and people near woodstoves (even properly sealed ones).

               Some bacteria can even NEUTRALIZE RADIOACTIVITY!


               ALL OF THESE THINGS AND MORE HAPPEN, IN SPITE OF the
          currently accepted "laws" of physics, (including the law
          which says that atomic fusion requires EXTREMELY HIGH
          temperatures and pressures.)



          "BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS, And Their Applications In
               CHEMISTRY, PHYSICS, BIOLOGY, ECOLOGY, MEDICINE,
               NUTRITION, AGRIGULTURE, GEOLOGY",
          1st Edition,
          by C. Louis Kervran, Active Member of New York Academy of
               Science,
          1972,
          163 Pages, Illustrated,
          Swan House Publishing Co.,
               P.O. Box 638,
               Binghamton, NY  13902


          "THE SECRET LIFE OF PLANTS",
          by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird,
          1973,
          402 Pages,
          Harper & Row,
               New York
          [Chapters 19 and 20 are about "RADIONICS".  Entire book is
               FASCINATING! ]


               For more information, answers to your questions, etc.,
          please consult my CITED SOURCES (the two books).



               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.


                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC

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

Date: Thu, 29 Apr 93 21:19:42 GMT
From: Michael Rowley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Command Loss Timer (Re: Galileo Update - 04/22/93)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Cobban) writes:
>Having read in the past about the fail-safe mechanisms on spacecraft, I had
>assumed that the Command Loss Timer had that sort of function.  However I
>always find disturbing the oxymoron of a "NO-OP" command that does something.
>If the command changes the behavior or status of the spacecraft it is not
>a "NO-OP" command.
>
>Of course this terminology comes from a Jet Propulsion Laboratory which has
>nothing to do with jet propulsion.
>

    I don't know where you got this idea from, JPL's history dates back to
    to the 1930s when a Caltech professor named Von Karman conducted
    experiments in rocket PROPULSION with a group of graduate students
    on the present site of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.   The Army started
    funding the laboratory and had jurisdiction untill the late 1950s when
    NASA took over. The early research conducted at the Laboratory
    led to many applications the first being Jet-assisted takeoff rockets
    for aircraft.  I think this should explain where JPL got it's name, I
    should know, I worked there for five wonderful years.
----------mike.
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Jim Cobban   |  [e-mail]                        |  Phone: [phone]
>BNR Ltd.     |  bnrgate.bnr.ca!bcars5!jcobban         |  FAX:   [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 20:10:36 GMT
From: Michael Corvin <[e-mail]>
Subject: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro

Regarding the feasability of retrieving the HST for repair and
relaunching it:

(Caution: speculation mode engaged)
There is another consideration that hasn't been mentioned yet.
I expect that retrieving HST would involve 'damaging' it considerably in
order to return it to its cradle in the cargo bay.  Most of the deployed
items (antennas and, especially, the solar arays) probably are not
retractable into their fully stowed position, even by hand.  They would
have to be removed by the astronauts.  (The only advantage that this
might yield is that we could put new panels on that don't 'ring' due
to thermal cycle stresses...)

I also expect that, as has been discussed, the landing loads on the
HST optics structure is a big issue (but that the reentry loads are
much less so.)  Can the moveable optical components even be re-caged
(I assume that they were caged for launch)?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Corvin                           [e-mail]
GN&C R&D                    Martin Marietta Astronautics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============    My views, not Martin Marietta's   ========================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 29 Apr 1993 20:51 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael Corvin) writes...
>Regarding the feasability of retrieving the HST for repair and
>relaunching it:
>
>(Caution: speculation mode engaged)
>There is another consideration that hasn't been mentioned yet.
>I expect that retrieving HST would involve 'damaging' it considerably in
>order to return it to its cradle in the cargo bay.  Most of the deployed
>items (antennas and, especially, the solar arays) probably are not
>retractable into their fully stowed position, even by hand.  They would
>have to be removed by the astronauts.  (The only advantage that this
>might yield is that we could put new panels on that don't 'ring' due
>to thermal cycle stresses...)
>
>I also expect that, as has been discussed, the landing loads on the
>HST optics structure is a big issue (but that the reentry loads are
>much less so.)  Can the moveable optical components even be re-caged
>(I assume that they were caged for launch)?
>

It would be nice if someone here from the HST program was talking instead
of all the speculation that is going on here. From what I understand from
Dr. Frank Six of the Marshall Space Flight Center there is no insrmountable
problem in bringing HST back. IT was designed that way to begin with.

Also it is my understanding that the solar arrays WILL be one of the items
replaced on this mission. The originals were built by Brit Aerospace and
I think the new ones are too. I am currently working with the guys at MSFC
that are in charge is the HST power system, although I have not spoken with
them in a long time about HST.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 29 Apr 93 17:30:25
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA budget and STS costs
Newsgroups: sci.space

What fraction of the NASA workforce is civil servant
as opposed to contractor and what are the rules on
reduction in work force for civil servants?

eg, if say the shuttle program is terminated, how
much is payroll reduced and how?

|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
| [e-mail] |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

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

Date: 29 Apr 93 16:21:32 CDT
From: Bob Kierski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly?
Newsgroups: sci.space

There are a number of Philosophical questions that I would like to ask:

1)  If we encounter a life form during our space exploration, how do we
determine if we should capture it, imprison it, and then discect it?

2)  If we encounter a civilization that is suffering economicly, will
we expend resources from earth to help them?

3)  With all of the deseases we currently have that are deadly and undetectable,
what will be done to ensure that more new deadly deseases aren't brought
back, or that our deseases don't destroy life elsewhere?



--
Have a day,

  @   @
   ( )     bobo

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

Date: 30 Apr 1993 11:27:20 +1000
From: Glen Justin Balmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rocket Types
Newsgroups: sci.space

The other week I saw a TV program about the american space industry and NASA.
It said that in the 60's they developed a rocket that used ions or nuclear
particles for propolsion.
The government however, didn't give them $1billion for the developement
of a full scale rocket.
Did anybody see this program?
If not, has anybody heard of the particle propolsion system?

Thanx. 8-)

Glen Balmer...

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

Date: 29 Apr 1993 17:49:03 -0700
From: Ken Hayashida <[e-mail]>
Subject: What planets are habitable
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jonathan P. Gibbons) writes:
>I would appreciate any thoughts on what makes a planet habitable for Humans.
>I am making asumptions that life and a similar atmosphere evolve given a range
>of physical aspects of the planet.  The question is what physical aspects
>simply disallow earth like conditions.
>
>eg Temperature range of 280K to 315K (where temp is purely dependant on dist
>     from the sun and the suns temperature..)
>   Atmospheric presure ? - I know nothing of human tolerance
>   Planetary Mass ? - again gravity at surface is important, how much
>     can human bodies take day after day.  Also how does the mass effect
>     atmosphere.  I thinking of planets between .3 and 3 times mass of the
>     earth.  I suppose density should be important as well.
>
>Climate etc does not concern me, nor does axial tilt etc etc.  Just the above
>three factors and how they relate to one another.
>
>Jonathan

Jonathan, interesting questions.  Some wonder whether or not the moon could
have ever supported an atmosphere.  I'd be interested in knowing what
our geology/environmental sciences friends think.

As for human tolerances, the best example of human endurance in terms
of altitude (i.e. low atmospheric pressure and lower oxygen partial pressure)
is in my opinion to the scaling of Mt. Everest without oxygen assistance.
This was accomplished by a team of mountaineers who trained at high
altitudes for quite awhile (I think a few months) and then were flown by
helicopter from that training altitude to the equivalent altitude on
Mount Everest, where they began the ascent of our planet's highest peak
without oxygen tanks.  This is quite a feat of physiological endurance, because
if you or I tried to go to 20,000 feet and exert ourselves, we would probably
pass out, get altitude sick, and could even die from cerebral edema. So
this is the limit of low pressure.  High pressure situations would be
limited by the duration of time which it takes to slowly acclimate to a higher
pressure.  Skin divers would know alot about high pressure situations and
could tell you about how they safely make deep dives without getting the
bends.  Some military experiments have put people under several atmospheres of
pressure (not sure what the high limit was because the papers aren't in
front of me).  Usually at a certain point, the nitrogen in the air becomes
toxic to the body and you start acting idiotic.  Divers call this nitrogen
narcosis.  Those afflicted can do very dangerous and irrational things, like
taking off a diving mask and oxygen tank in order to talk to fish at 100 feet
under water.  (Hope any diving folk can elaborate on this matter, as I
am not a diving expert).

Mars cannot support human life without pressurization because the atmosphere
is too thin (1/100 th  our Earth's atmospheric density).  In addition,
the Mars atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide.  Basically, you would need a
pressure suit there, or you'd die from the low pressure.  Interesting huh?

ken
[e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Apr 93 07:20:52 GMT
From: Ralph Buttigieg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why not give $1 billion to first year-lo
Newsgroups: sci.space

Original to: [e-mail]
G'day [e-mail]

21 Apr 93 22:25, [e-mail] wrote to All:

 kc> [e-mail] (Craig Keithley), via Kralizec 3:713/602


 kc> But back to the contest goals, there was a recent article in AW&ST
about a
 kc> low cost (it's all relative...) manned return to the moon.  A General
 kc> Dynamics scheme involving a Titan IV & Shuttle to lift a Centaur upper
 kc> stage, LEV, and crew capsule.  The mission consists of delivering two
 kc> unmanned payloads to the lunar surface, followed by a manned mission.
 kc> Total cost:  US was $10-$13 billion.  Joint ESA(?)/NASA project was
$6-$9
 kc> billion for the US share.

 kc> moon for a year.   Hmmm.  Not really practical.  Anyone got a
 kc> cheaper/better way of delivering 15-20 tonnes to the lunar surface
within
 kc> the decade?  Anyone have a more precise guess about how much a year's
 kc> supply of consumables and equipment would weigh?

Why not modify the GD plan into Zurbrin's Compact Moon Direct scheme? let
one of those early flight carry an O2 plant and make your own.

ta

Ralph

--- GoldED 2.41+
 * Origin: VULCAN'S WORLD - Sydney Australia [phone]  3:713/6
(3:713/635)

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


To: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!netcomsv!butch!force.ssd.lmsc.lockheed.com!TSTROUP
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Long Term Space Voyanges and Effect NEwsgroup?
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>,<1rp0ht$[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 93 22:10:22 GMT
Lines: 71
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <1rp0ht$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>
>The first item of business is to establish the importance space life
>sciences in the whole of scheme of humankind.  I mean compared
>to football and baseball, the average joe schmoe doesn't seem interested
>or even curious about spaceflight.

I disagree.  It think the average joe is interested/curious about spaceflight
but sees it as an elitist activity.  Not one which he is ever going to
participate in.

>All of us, in our own way, can contribute to a comprehensive document
>which can be released to the general public around the world.  The
>document would scientifically analyze the technical aspects of long
>term human habitation in space.

Why is the general public going to be interested in the technical details
of long term space habitation?  I like the idea of the study, but it should
be released to other scientists and engineers who will be able to use it.
If you want a general public document, you'll need a more general publication.

>I believe that if any long-term space exploration program is to
>succeed we need to basically learn how to engineer our own microworld
>(i.e. the spacecraft).  Only through the careful analyses of engineering,
>chemical, biological, and medical factors will a good ecosystem be created
>to facilitate human life on a long-duration flight.

As one working on Controlled Ecological Life Support Systems, engineering
the microworld isn't the problem.  The problem is understanding the basic
chemical, biological and medical factors to be able to engineer them
efficiently.  For example, the only way we know how to produce food is from
plants and animals.  Food synthesis is not very far advanced.  So we have
to orbit a farm.  Well that's obviously not very efficient, so we use
technology to reduce the mass and grow plants hydroponically instead of
using dirt.  This is where the engineering comes in.  But new technologies
bring new basic questions that we don't have the answers to.  Like, in
dirt we can grow tomatoes and lettuce right beside each other, but in
hydroponics it turns out that you can't do that.  The lettuce growth is
stunted when it's grown in the same hydroponic solution as tomatoes.  So
now you have to consider what other plants are going to have similar
interactions.  This means some basic applied scientific research.  And that's
what needs to be done with all technologies that have been developed so far.
We also need to find out how they interact together.  That's where we are now.

>So, I would like to see posts of opinions regarding the most objective
>methods to analyze the accepted scientific literature for technologies
>which can be applied to long-duration spaceflight.

First you need to do the literature search.  There is a lot of information
out there.  Maybe we should just pick a specific area of long term habitation.
This could be useful, especially if we make it available on the net.  Then
we can look at methods of analyzing the technologies.

>Such a detailed
>literature search would be of interest to ourselves as space advocates
>and clearly important to existing space programs.
>In essence, we would be dividing the space life science issues into
>various technical problems which could be solved with various technologies.
>This database of acceptable solutions to various problems could form the
>basis of detailed discussions involving people from the bionet, isunet,
>and any other source!

Unless there is an unbelievable outpouring of interest on this on the net,
I think we should develop a detailed data base of the literature search
first.  Then if we accomplish that we can go on to real analysis.  The data
base itself could be useful for future engineers.

That's my response Ken, what do you think?

Tim

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 506
------------------------------