Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_6/V16NO654.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 34KB

Date: Wed,  2 Jun 93 05:00:12
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #654
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed,  2 Jun 93       Volume 16 : Issue 654

Today's Topics:
 Can we use HST to look at possible Jupiter/comet collision? (2 msgs)
             Dyson Sphere (for a gaming world).. (2 msgs)
                  Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
           Liberal President murders spaceflight? (2 msgs)
                    Limits Seen On Human Existence
                         Mining on the Moon?
                              Moon Base
           NASA To Commercialize Remote-Control Technology
                            Sagan / TAPPS
         Von Braun and Hg (was Re: About the mercury program)
                  What about Swift/tuttle? (2 msgs)
                   Why a far side Science station.
                Why is everyone picking on Carl Sagan?

    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: 1 Jun 1993 15:14:02 GMT
From: "Bruce d. Scott" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Can we use HST to look at possible Jupiter/comet collision?
Newsgroups: sci.space

How is it that _one_ picture of a collision event would be useful?
I should think that to have any bearing on modelling of the collision
process one would need a series. Working on turbulence computation, I
have seen a lot of this type of problem...
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 16:44:16 GMT
From: Thomas Clarke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Can we use HST to look at possible Jupiter/comet collision?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
>How is it that _one_ picture of a collision event would be useful?
>I should think that to have any bearing on modelling of the collision
>process one would need a series. Working on turbulence computation, I
>have seen a lot of this type of problem...
>--
I think one picture of the spectrum of the colliding comet
might be useful in that it could be used as the basis of a
chemical analysis of the comet.


--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
[phone], FAX: [phone], [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 08:38:04 GMT
From: Michael Sandy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dyson Sphere (for a gaming world)..
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,sci.space

I've been working for a long time on a world shaped like a hollow
hula hoop.  Unlike a ringworld which needs walls to contain the
air, gravity and centripital force balance to produce about
equal gravity effect over the entire surface.

Ignoring the difficulty of construction and the near magical
compressive and tensile strengths required, the Toroid has some
interesting problems associated with weather.

First, a diagram,

o   /  axis of rotation
   /   o     ---Plane of orbit---                              Sun  *

O ---------------- O  (One character space equals 100,000 km)

It takes a little tinkering to figure out the proper rotation rate
for the Toroid, I guesstimated to be almost twice Earth's.

There are four major regions which are effectively isolated from
each other.  The polar and equatorial bands form effective barriers
that can only be crossed with powerful magic or high technology.  The
inner two regions experience two eclipses each year that last about
1 % of the year each.


A bit about the evolution of this idea:

When I studied the Ringworld designed by Niven, I noticed that the
huge mass of the Ringworld would cause a small gravitational gradient
towards the middle of the band.  The ring walls might not be necessary!
However, this meant that _everything_ would be pulled towards the
middle, air, water, crust!  So I redesigned it into a lens shape.
For a while I experimented with making its interior habitable, with
multiple levels illuminated by artificial suns.  Finally, I discovered
that a spinning torus would do that most essential thing for a habitable
construct, hold an atmosphere and lithosphere approximating Earth's without
complicated and _fragile_ mechanisms.  By happy coincidence it allowed
climate variation that would enable the variety a good sci-fi story
or game world requires.

The problems I wasn't able to answer, such as pertaining to solar tides,
and the effects of Eclipse storms, or Crossover, and the different
Coroilis effects for such a huge world, look smaller than the orbital
instability of Ringworld and the gravitation problems of a Dyson sphere.

The toroid can easily be scaled down by a factor of ten or so in both
the tubes' radius and the hoop's radius.

--
Michael Sandy
[e-mail]
"I resolve to make no non-tautological New Year's Resolutions!"

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 10:52:06 GMT
From: "G.R. Roberts" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dyson Sphere (for a gaming world)..
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,sci.space,rec.arts.sf.science

Probably been said before, but a Dyson Sphere is impractical as a gaming world, due to extreme size. Then again, those gaming worlds which don't appear to be set on a planet at all, but on a flat surface, may well be on the inner surface of a huge Dyson sphere.

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

Date: 1 Jun 1993 09:50 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes...
>In <1ttm8j$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>

>>Ken,
>
>>pat.
>
>>Don't include contingency satellitte return missions.  It would have
>>been cheaper to build new ones  and pop them off.
>--
>[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

It is real funny for me to read the "experts" talking about the cost of
satellite construction from those who have never laid their hands on one, or
been responsible for the construction and operation of one.

If you want to make statements like this back them up with numbers both the
cost of reconstruction and the cost in lost revenues during the construction
period.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 12:22:01 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <1uf2e9$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ray) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>>
>>>[e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>Power Issues and Choices_.  I will just quote from the conclusion with
>>regard to nuclear recycle, which starts on page 333.
>>
>>"There is no compelling national interest to be served by
>>reprocessing.  There appears to be little, if any, economic incentive
>>and it is unlikely that reprocessing and recycle could proceed without
>>subsidy.  The noneconomic benefits of reprocessing are small: fuel
>>supply for LWRs would be little enhanced; present experience with
>>reprocessing or plutonium stockpiles has little present value since
>>the introduction of breeders is sufficiently far in the future and
>>uncertain; and contemporary waste management risks with reprocessing
>[...]

>   I agree that the anti-nukes have some good arguments, but some of
>them take it to a whole 'nother level and are not even willing to
>entertain the notion that one day nuclear power could be safe, economical,
>and effective.

Note that the 1977 study I cited (_Nuclear Power Issues and Choices_
is not 'anti-nuke'.  It is intended to be a disinterested look at the
pros and cons of various technologies, funded by the Ford Foundation
and administered by MITRE.  In point of fact, the conclusion they seem
to arrive at is that fission power is safer than coal, but that
recycle and breeder reactors are economically indicated against, more
risky technologically, and provide adverse policy effects even if
those other things weren't true.  They also examine several other
possible energy sources and find them to be econonomically unfeasible
given the costs of coal, oil, and uranium.

>Gore's attitude towards Nuke power reminds me of
>Bush's attitude toward fetal tissue research. Gore seems to want to
>silence any further work on future nuclear technology (The Wall
>Street Journal had an article on him the other day about his attempts
>to censor data from the scientific community which contradicts some
>of his esoteric ideas)

I'm not sure Wall Street Journal is the best source for information
about something like this, although I don't necessarily find it
particularly surprising that Gore would be against nuclear power.
After all, this is not exactly the favorite administration for the
target audience of Wall Street Journal.

>   The Clinton administration "...constitutes a move away from
>nuclear power" (their own words), so even DoE funding for fusion
>research is being cut. I don't have a real problem with reliance
>on fission power being reduced (or moves toward energy efficiency),
>but nuclear power (fission and fusion) has real uses in outer
>space.  Not all areas of the solar system have the compounds needed
>for producing chemical fuels, wind power is obviously out of the picture,
>and solar arrays aren't much better if you want to build a large
>ship with lots of thrust.

From what I understand, Gore is not exactly pro-space, either, so I
don't think this is an issue for this administration.

>   What ever happened to NERVA (or a modified version for space only), or
>Nuclear Electric propulsion? Were they killed by the test ban, or
>anti-nuke hysteria of the 60s/70s? (ugh, remember all the paranoia and hysteria
>over Galileo's RTGs?)

As I recall, that's pretty much what the program died of, although it
was much prior to Galileo.

>   Will solar/wind power ever be able to deliver the performance
>needed to make laser sail propulsion feasable? I've heard the power
>requirements are pretty steep.

Solar power is somewhere between 3 and 8 times more expensive than
nuclear power (including all costs for both).  It simply isn't
practical.  It also varies through the day and the year, so some sort
of storage would be necessary.  Wind power, which is really just
another form of solar energy, suffers from the same sorts of problems.
One could conceivably get enough power for just about anything through
the use of solar, but it would be hideously expensive.

>   As for the material you quoted, it has a lot of validity, but I don't see
>how it's going to help the world situation. The way I see it, the nuclear
>genie is out of the bottle. Sooner or later thr third world is going to
>develop the technology to build both a-bombs and h-bombs -- it's only a matter
>of time.

True, but better later than sooner; this is the reason for the policy
prescriptions the study arrives at.  Also note that that is only one
of several reasons (technological risks, uneconomic at current or
projected uranium prices, etc.) for not investing in recycle or
breeders.

>Not to mention, that Europe and Japan already have plans to pursue
>breeders, and there would be little we could do to stop nations like China
>from pursuing them.

Note that in both Japan and Germany, nuclear plants are *required* to
recycle fuel.  This law was based on their apparent belief that this
makes the waste disposal problem more tractable, but this does not
actually appear to be the case.  Also note that all the nations so far
involved are already either nuclear armed or could be in a relatively
short time (including, of course, China).

>Our time would be better spent developing defenses against
>ballistic missile attacks, and helping to promote democracy and trade among
>the nations of the world. Countries which trade heavily with each other rarely
>try to anhillate their neighbors (customers).

I think our time is probably better spent doing *both* (discouraging
the spread of nuclear technologies and large, worldwide trade in
plutonium) and defense technology development.  However, you should
also note that developing BMD doesn't  really protect you from nuclear
attack; it merely makes doing it by one method more difficult.

>or to quote someone famous, "when goods don't cross borders, armies will."
>  The plutonium economy argument seems to be a little bit of a red
>herring (like the terrorists-bomb-nuke-plant argument).

All I can suggest is that you find a copy of the study and read it.  I
only posted the conclusion of one chapter, and really have no desire
to type in all 400+ pages of it.  You re, however, apparently under
some misapprehensions about the thrust of the study and the concern
about largescale trade in plutonium is hardly a "red herring".

>-Ray

>p.s. What is going to happen to the Integral Fast Reactor?

>>--
>>"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
>> in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden

>  This quote applies neatly to energy generation and nuke power. There are
>always risks with every technology, the goal is to make risks acceptable.
>Nuclear power may not be acceptable to a lot of people now, but I see no
>reason why we can't eventually develop solutions to the problems it
>has. Powered flight used to be dangerous, uncomfortable, and the risks
>unacceptable (in my view). Ditto for the current Space Shuttle design.
> Personally, I'm more afraid of driving down the highway or walking
>the streets of Baltimore than I am of having a nuclear plant in my
>back yard.

Me too, but so what?  The question was about recycle (uneconomical,
unnecessary, and undesirable from a policy standpoint) and breeders
(ditto).  Personally, given a choice, I'd rather live next to a CANDU-
style HWR than one of the PLWR's that we use in this country.  Even
though the CANDU design is better for the amateur bomb builder (fuel
can be cycled in and out of the reactor without power down, so it's
much harder to police the fuel cycle), they are also a much safer
design (no radioactive pressurized core, for example).

--
"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: 1 Jun 1993 12:38:10 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>Solar power is somewhere between 3 and 8 times more expensive than
>nuclear power (including all costs for both).  It simply isn't

The trick for most people who move off the grid,  solar/wind/water
power cycle,  is that they also materially reduce their energy
consumption.   High efficiency devices,  Super insulation, etc.

It's actually quite possible and to still maintain a high tech
lifestyle,  but one must become very aware of sources of power drain.

>>or to quote someone famous, "when goods don't cross borders, armies will."

This line wasn't from fred,  it was from the guy from UI.

A detailed analysis of the Iraqi/kuwaiti trade figures  would
seem to belie that somewhat simplistic argument.

States make war for numerous reasons.   Trade is only part
of the equation.

Germany in both pre war eras  was trading extensively with, Russia,
France, england  and poland.   It did not seem to be a deterrent to
either the Kaisers  actions or  Hitlers.

We have almost no trade with Rwanda,  yet i haven't heard of a rwandan
war.  it's kind of a facetious point,  but it serves as a logical
razor.   Improved trade may help improve relations,  but wars  are
somewhat independent of trade.   Look at the serbian race war.
Serbia  conducted all it's trade with croatia, bosnia and slovenia,
yet their tactical plans were to destroy everything in sight.

I know people think that countries can either send  zeros or monteros,
but it's not that easy
|though the CANDU design is better for the amateur bomb builder (fuel
|can be cycled in and out of the reactor without power down, so it's
|much harder to police the fuel cycle), they are also a much safer
|design (no radioactive pressurized core, for example).


That must create a real problem from efficiency.
The absence of a pressure cycle,  severley limits the
carnot efficiency of the system.  Does HWR mean Heavy water?
and does Heavy water have a significantly higher
boiling point or heat of vaporization?

pat

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 14:45:41 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Limits Seen On Human Existence
Newsgroups: sci.space

Has anyone read this article in the Science Times of today's New York Times?
A certain Dr. J. Richard Gott has developed a method for predicting the
likely maximum lifetime of a given object.  He maintains that the "longevity
of things can be estimated remarkably well from their histories," and that
all one needs to do that is know how old a given thing is now, and  to assume
that there is nothing special about it to distinguish it from other like things
or events.

Case in point was the likely longevity of the manned space program, which he
estimates a 95 per cent probability of continuing for a maximum of 1,250
years, and a minimum of 10 months, given only that it is 32 years old.  Dr.
Gott further maintains that this is a finite window of opporitunity to
establish a permanent presence in space, and that we'd better get busy before
the 1,250 years is up.  After 1,250 years is up, the manned space program
will end for whatever reason, and humans will be marooned on earth forever
more until their inevitable extinction.

I find his theory hard to accept, and am tempted to loudly say "Poppycock!"
I don't think the universe is that predictable, and that such a theory
could apply very well to things like human activity (space programs).  It
seems to carry with it some very heavy assumptions.

Peter Schlumpf
[e-mail]
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


--
__________________________________________________________________

Peter Schlumpf
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 14:41:19 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mining on the Moon?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce d. Scott) writes:

>|> Essentially nothing is known about this.  Ore deposits are, almost by
>|> definition, rare events -- the results of extreme conditions.  We have
>
> Except that titanium is so abundant in lunar surface material that it
> has been said to qualify as medium to high-grade ore by terrestrial
> standards. I think I saw this in some G Harry Stine-like propaganda
> some years ago, so I am not completely sure of its veracity.

Of course, titanium is so abundant on earth that these lunar deposits
are not "ores" in the economic sense (ilmenite concentrate on earth
currently sells for < $.10/lb).  Lunar high-Ti basalts are 8 - 14%
TiO2; there are enormous volumes of alkaline basalts on earth with
about 3% TiO2 (not to mention the less abundant very high grade
deposits currently being mined, some of which are > 50% TiO2.)

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 15:08:54 GMT
From: Brad Whitehurst <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Mills) writes:
>>> investment. It's akin to attempting to plant a colony in a malarial swamp
>>> when there is nice fertile high ground just over the next rise. The first
>>
>>   Remember Jamestown: a colony in a malarial swamp near fertile high ground.
>>It survived for about 90 years because it was on the water, and had easier
>>transportation back to England. A Moon Base would have a similar advantage
>>over Mars or asteroids.
>
>
>Only if it could import Negros and grow tobacco. Remember the story of
>Virginia Dare, the first Englishwoman to be born in the New World?
>Her colony simply disappeared between voyages from England. Jamestown went
>through "the starving" when the ships from England failed to return on
>schedule. The colony wasn't self sufficient, it was an appendage of
>the English mercantile explorers. It wasn't until the fertile areas were
>settled that English presence in the New World became secure.
>
>Gary
    Welll, actually it was mostly due to the Englishmen's
ignorance of their new home.  After a few years, they came to
appreciate the abundance provided by the land, rivers, and Chesapeake
Bay.  BUT they first had to learn the ropes of how, what, where, and
when to farm in the New World, what could be found in the waters,
etc.  (Englishmen STILL wilt in our Virginia summers, until they
acclimate!)  A cautionary tale, perchance?  They put up with the malarial
swamps ('tho they didn't know what caused malaria...) because ports
were so important to them.  Charleston, SC was an even worse swamp,
but offered a good harbor, so they lived with it, and still do.
    There'll be a learning curve when living in any new
environment, with the potential for disaster omnipresent.  That
doesn't necessarily mean that the environment does not have
advantages.  You have to try to live with it a while before you can
say what the tradeoffs really are.  Permanent moon colonies would
likely find advantages we've not considered.  Likewise for
orbital/asteroidal settlement.  And the advantages will not
necessarily be the same for both, or mutually exclusive for that
matter.
--

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

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

Date: 1 Jun 1993 15:54 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA To Commercialize Remote-Control Technology
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary,comp.robotics

Charles Redmond
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                        June 1, 1993
(Phone:  [phone])

Jim Doyle
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
(Phone:  [phone])

RELEASE:  93-100

NASA TO COMMERCIALIZE REMOTE-CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

     A remote-control technology used by NASA scientists to guide a
robot in a recent cross-country test soon will be turned over to
private industry.

     The remote-control technology is being licensed to a private
firm for commercial development, said Dr. Antal Bejczy, the
experiment Technical Manager at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(JPL), Pasadena, Calif.  The firm's identity is being withheld
while negotiations are in progress.

     In the test, researchers at JPL used a new, graphically-
oriented program to remotely control -- or "teleoperate" -- a
robotic arm at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

     This teleoperation technique is designed for free-flying
robots that would service orbiting satellites, and also has many
potential uses on Earth, according to Bejczy.

     Possible terrestrial applications for teleoperations include
nuclear or toxic waste site cleanup, decommissioning of hazardous
facilities, special emergency medical operations, construction and
building planning, and remotely operated highway maintenance.

     In the recent JPL-Goddard experiment, a robot arm equipped
with a power screwdriver was placed in front of a mockup of a
satellite at the Goddard center.  The satellite was fitted with a
replaceable module designed to be changed out by astronauts or
robots.

     The robot arm's job was to insert the screwdriver through a
18-inch (45- centimeter) long hole to reach a latching mechanism
that holds the replaceable module on the satellite, then to unlatch
and remove the module.  Finally, the robot arm was to place the new
module on the satellite's frame and latch it in place.

     Throughout the experiment, the arm was controlled by an
operator thousands of miles away in California.

     JPL researchers developed a software program that allows the
remote operator to superimpose high-fidelity computer graphics
models of the robot arm, screwdriver and satellite module onto
television pictures of the live scene.

     These synthetic TV camera views make visible the robot's
critical motion events that otherwise are hidden from the operator
in a normal TV camera view, said Bejczy.

     "The operator can generate and predict or preview the motions
without commanding the actual hardware," said Bejczy.  "Moreover,
the operator can see the consequences of motion commands in real
time, without time delay, through the simulation method overlaying
the actual work scene."

     After verifying an action of the robot arm and its result
through the synthetic TV view, the operator then commands the robot
arm and tool to actually execute the next action.

     During the test, computer commands were sent from JPL to
Goddard over the Internet computer network.  TV views of the robot
arm and satellite mockup were sent back to the JPL control station
over NASA's satellite TV system.

     "The module exchange task was originally designed to be
performed by astronauts working in pressurized suits in the Space
Shuttle's cargo bay," said Bejczy.  "The success of the experiment
shows that the same work can be done by robotic hardware controlled
from Earth."

     Bejczy also said that the graphics-based, remote-control
technique will form the basis for new features added to
commercially available computer graphics software packages.

     JPL's work on this experiment is being performed with funding
from NASA's Office of Advanced Concepts and Technology, Washington,
D.C.

-end-
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The tuatara, a lizard-like
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | reptile from New Zealand,
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | has three eyes.

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 93 14:56:02 EET
From: [e-mail] (F.Baube[tm])
Subject: Sagan / TAPPS

From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
>
> [e-mail] ("F.Baube[tm]") writes:
> >
> >From: "John F. Woods" <[e-mail]>
> >>
> >> this, then, was used to trumpet the fact that nuclear war is bad
> >> (OK, folks, hands up -- how many in the audience here were saying
> >> to themselves, "Gee, I thought nuclear war was a splendid idea
> >> until TAPPS proved their nuclear winter idea!").
> >
> >Well, don't forget that there were psychopathic
> >statements from the Pentagon brass like
> >"In the event of nuclear war, just lay a door over
> >a hole in the ground and shovel some dirt over it."
> >I believe this was said in testimony to Congress.
>
> Well, this makes more sense than going outside to watch!  Actually,
> dirt is a fiarly good shielding material, so if you don't happen to
> have a bomb shelter handy, this is probably the best advice you're
> going to get.

Agreed !  But ..

I for one got the distinct impression at the time that
Dr Strangelove was alive and living at FEMA, plotting
post-holocaust fun with Ollie.

Give Sagan a little credit for injecting into the discus-
sion a bit of rational thought about the ultimate effects
of such a war.  Something more complex and long-term than
planning how to collect taxes and corral dissidents.

--
* Fred Baube (tm)   * Quick Quiz: "Liberalism rejects ideological
* GU/MSFS/88        * struggle and stands for unprincipled peace,
* [e-mail] * thus giving rise to a decadent, philistine
* #include          * attitude and bringing about political degen-
*    <disclaimer.h> * eration." -- Mao Ze-Dong or Ronald Reagan ?

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

Date: 1 Jun 1993 09:44 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Von Braun and Hg (was Re: About the mercury program)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (joseph.l.nastasi) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>
>> In article <1tb0uo$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>> > Von Brauns  original plan was to have the capsule fully automatic,
>> > with the occupants, performing a few bio experiments.
>>
>> Did Wernher von Braun actually have anything to do with the Mercury
>> program, or did pat just see *The Right Stuff* too many times? (A
>> lousy way to get your history, by the way...)
>>
>
>Van Braun had very little to do with Mercury.  For a very good review
>of the political and technological decisions in the early space
>program, read David Baker's "The History of Manned Spaceflight"
>It was written in the very early eighties and most of the facts
>are still valid today...
>
>Joe Nastasi
>[e-mail]
>
>

Dr. Von Braun did not have too much to do with the capsule except to make
sure that the interface between the capsule and the Mercury Redstone was
compatible. However, to say that he had little to do with the Mercury program
is simply wrong. As we all know the Redstone is little more than an upgraded
V2, from the engines to the guidance control.

To say that Von Braun had little to do with Mercury is like saying that
Henry Ford had little to do with the Model T. The Redstone was flying
successfully years before the Atlas and at a time when the only Atlas flights
were the nice little fireworks on the pad the Redstone was putting up
live payloads.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 1 Jun 1993 12:20:03 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: What about Swift/tuttle?
Newsgroups: sci.space

I saw something in the paper, where they were concerned that
Swift tuttle might have shed fragments with enough drift
velocity to srike earth on the next pass.

Has anyone heard anything more about this?

pat

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

Date: 1 Jun 1993 16:56:13 GMT
From: Greg F Walz Chojnacki <[e-mail]>
Subject: What about Swift/tuttle?
Newsgroups: sci.space

From article <1ufvjj$[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Pat):
>
> I saw something in the paper, where they were concerned that
> Swift tuttle might have shed fragments with enough drift
> velocity to srike earth on the next pass.
>
Well, we know that P/S-T has shed lots of particles that strike Earth --
that's what the Perseid metoer shower is.

I also an article expressing some concern over extra Perseids possibly
endangering LEO sats, especially big onces like Hubble. However, the
densities of the swarms made the odds something like 0.1% -- and there's
lots of uncertainty about the density. Also, the 0.1 was for HST; other
smalelr satellites are as smaller risk.

[Can anyone remember: Was is 0.1 or 0.1%?]

Greg

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 14:07:52 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Why a far side Science station.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1u5i3g$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
>Is the earth uniformly radio noisy?
>
>I can see the US and Europe being real loud,  But over Big chunks of asia
> and the oceans,  it should be quiter,  or does the variation
>not matter enough?

It matters at UHF through SHF, that's why there are radio quiet zones
around major radio telescopes. However, there's much of interest to
listen for at VHF/HF/MF/LF/VLF and even ELF, that are all troubled by
over the horizon propagation modes, and problems with the ionosphere.
For these radio bands, there is no quiet zone short of the lunar farside.
And, as we venture into the millimeter wavelengths, the troposphere itself
becomes a major source of noise and attenuation.

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     |                     |

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

Date: Tue, 01 Jun 93 15:06:35 MET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Why is everyone picking on Carl Sagan?

> If we are going to bust on Sagan, we should get together
> and lynch Teller.  He's a much worse offender.
> Pat (28 May 93 20:31:05 GMT)

 Beware, young iconoclast ! Bashing Sagan is profitable, bashing Teller
 may be dangerous !

 J. Pharabod

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 654
------------------------------