Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V09_3/V9_309.ZIP/V9_309

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/sY:TZdy00UkZ0L9U5x>;
          Fri, 24 Mar 89 03:16:42 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 89 03:16:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #309

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 309

Today's Topics:
        Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?
                  Space News
               RE: Black hole trolling
             Re: Solar cells on the moon
               Re: Congressional Blame
Re: Discovery's return-to-flight photographs record many firsts (Forwarded)
Re: Discovery's return-to-flight photographs record many firsts (Forwarded)
           Re: Moronic Television Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 16:42:23 EST
From: Glenn Chapman <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail]
Subject: Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?

    A very astounding breakthrough just may have been made in nuclear
fusion.  According to both the Financial Times (Mar 23, pg. 1, 26, and 22)
and the Wall Street Journal (Mar. 23, b1 & b8) two scientist will announce
indications of room temperature fusion of heavy hydrogen (deuterium) inside
a solid material today at the University of Utah.  These are not off the
wall guys - the FT points out that both are experimental experts in
electrochemistry (Dr. Martin Fleischmann of Southampton University UK,
Dr. Stan Pons of University of Utah).  Fleischmann is also a fellow of
the Royal Society in London.  I will summarize the articles but suggest
that you get hold of the FT one (the WSJ was written by someone who really
does not know the details).  I have added some physics info to make it
more understandable.
    The process they are using consists of the following.  Consider an
electrochemical cell (like a battery) with a platinum electrode, a heated
palladium electrode in a bath of heavy water (deuterium oxide).  Flow current
from the palladium (negative electrode) to the platinum electrode (positive
one).  At some current the deuterium flow into the palladium, combined with
the effect of the material itself, causes the deuterium nuclei to come
together and fuse into helium 3 plus a neutron (with 3.27 MeV of energy)
or tritium plus hydrogen (with 4.03 MeV, 1 MeV = 1.6E-13 Joules of energy).
(My speculation the fusion processes here are not certain).
To show the real strangeness here note that the repulsive forces from the
positive charges on the two nuclei normally require temperatures
of 50 - 100 Million degrees to overcome (high temp. mean the atoms are
travelling very fast and so when they collide they overcome the repulsion
to get close enough together to have fusion occur).  This room temp.
result is obviously very unusual.  What really indicates that fusion has
occurred is that the FT article states they saw fusion products, gamma
rays, tritium and neutrons, none of which are generated by chemical processes.
It is especially the neutrons that are important - that shows that fusion
occurred.  People at the UK Atomic Energy Authority say they know of the
work and are treating it seriously.  The article has been submitted to the
British science journal Nature.  Just my own speculation but one
thing that may agree with this is that there is a material called Zeolite
which stores hydrogen at densities higher than that of liquid hydrogen.
This shows that solids can force hydrogen atoms closer together than they
normally would be.
     There is a news conference that will be held today at U of Utah.  If
there is anyone who can get more information on this please send it to me.

                                                      Glenn Chapman
                                                      MIT Lincoln Lab
                                                      [e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Mar 89 14:40:01 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250![e-mail]  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Space News

Jonathan's Space Report

Mar 21, 1989 (No. 8)

Space Shuttle Mission STS-29 ended on Mar 18 with the landing of
Discovery on concrete RW 22 at Edwards.  Atlantis has been mated with
the STS-30 stack at Kennedy Space Center; it has been in the VAB since
Mar 12 and is due to be moved to pad 39B tonight (Mar 21/22).

The Soviet Union has launched the Progress-41 robot cargo tanker, and
docked it with the Mir orbital station on Mar 19.

The SDIO Delta Star launch has been delayed.

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

Date: 21 Mar 89 17:38:10 GMT
From: killer!pollux!ti-csl![e-mail]  (Dane Meyer)
Subject: RE: Black hole trolling

The following response was generated by a physicist who wishes to remain
anonomous to avoid megabytes of mail being sent to him.  But he agreed
to let me post his comments for your information.


Dane Meyer  (Texas Instruments, Dallas)

ARPA/CSnet: [e-mail]
UUCP:       {convex!smu im4u texsun pollux iex rice}!ti-csl!dmeyer

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

<<<     Easy.  The forces that hold a macroscopic object together are
<<< electromagnetic.  They require the exchange of virtual photons between
<<< the particles to be held together.  When the object extends across the
<<< event horizon, the photons can no longer go from the atoms inside the
<<< black hole to the atoms outside.  Thus the tether is neatly sliced.

    Too simplified!  The answer below is actually more accurate.

<<This is incorrect. The definition of the event horizon is the point at
<<which photons cannot escape to *infinity*. This in no way implies that
<<they cannot cross the event horizon, they just cannot make it very far
<<past it (depending on how deep they started). The bonds between atoms
<<(nucleons) would begin to behave *oddly* as the energy of the virtual
<<photons (gluons) would be different as seen by the higher and the lower
<<(gravitationally speaking) particles. How oddly? Who's interested in a PHd
<<thesis (maybe only a Masters)?

    A full detail of this interaction in a closed reference frame
    would probably be worth a PhD!!!  The problem is that an
    outsider would never be able to see the 'fishing line' cross the
    event horizon.  When the hook was sent out... it would appear to
    approach the horizon but due to extreme time dilation (the
    lengthening of observed time intervals) the hook would only
    approach the event horizon and then APPEAR to take forever to
    reach it.  In the frame of the hook, it would cross the event
    horizon and then the physics turns weird because of the phase
    transition to a space-like object rather than the time-like
    object we normally know.  The top of the hook could send a
    signal (say electrostatic) to the bottom of the hook but the
    bottom of the hook could not respond.  So the attractive forces
    which keep ordinary matter ordinary would only work one
    directionally but the gravitational force would work in the
    opposite direction and at enormously greater magnitudes.  So the
    hook (and also the line) would gradually get stretched more and
    more.  Simultaneously (if that means anything to an object with
    3 time coordinates), the very atoms of the hook would gradually
    separate with the more massive ones accelerating faster than the
    lighter ones.  Eventually (as if that means anything either),
    the very nuclei would get stripped apart with neutrons
    accelerating toward the black hole faster than the protons and
    much faster than the electrons!  Everything would shred into
    fundamental matter!!!  BUT this would not happen in time but
    over some distance measure!!!  Or some such thing.  I've
    forgotten some of the details (I took the graduate 'GRAVITATION'
    course about 5 years ago).  Such things like electromagnetism
    get affected and temperature has a weird meaning and time has
    3 coordinates and space only has 1 coordinate and so on!!!

    Take my word for it...  the effects inside of the event horizon
    of a black hole are weird*weird*weird!

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

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 89 18:59:20 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Formerly: National Bureau of Standards
Sub-Organization: National Computer and Telecommunications Laboratory
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: Solar cells on the moon

>From: pitt!cisunx![e-mail]  (James C. Benz)
>Subject: Re: Solar cells on the moon

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>
>>power storage (3 weeks or more). A pivoting solar array would cost much
>>more than one just laid flat on high ground, and would only collect about
>>60% more power (at the equator). It would, however, provide full power

>*ONLY* 60% ?  seems like a lot of power to give up to me.

It may seem like a lot, but you should remember that land area and solar
energy are now effectively unlimited on the surface of the moon, so the
figures of greatest interest are the cost and reliability of a total system
to provide the power needed. For an initial lunar station, with components
manufactured on earth and transported to the moon, structural members cost
about as much per pound as solar cells. In spite of the low gravity and
lack of wind, it would be very difficult to design and build a large tracking
system that could be easily transported and assembled on the moon. If use
of a tracking solar array raises the peak power cost by a factor of 2-4
(a cautiously pessimistic estimate), but you only get ~60% more total power,
then it may be a poor economic decision to choose a tracking system.

There are many factors going into the choice of a lunar power system, some of
them discussed in the original posting. A tracking system provides a longer
period of peak power output, but can be expected to be much less reliable.
(In calculating power collection, I use a simplifying assumption from a
book on solar power, that the power produced by a solar cell, as a ratio to
peak power, is directly proportional to the sine of the angle of the
incident light. By integration over 180 degrees or pi radians, the energy
gathered by a passive collector is 2 / pi, or ~64% of the power gathered
in the same time by a collector pointed directly at the source.) If the
tracking collector gets stuck pointed at the horizon, it will gather power
only 25% of the time, with total energy collection half that of a passive
system pointed straight up. Passive or active reflectors are another option
to consider.

Some people feel that the best initial lunar power system would be a solar
thermal system, with heat storage underground for use during the lunar night.
                                   John Roberts
                                   [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1989 13:32-EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Congressional Blame

>  Not exactly. Congress , while by no means blameless, did not turn the
> shuttle into a hodgepodge of fiscal compromises.  Blame Dick Nixon, who

If you want to see what congressional micromanagement does to
government agencies, I recommend you read "The Unexpurgated Grace
Commission Report". I believe it is available from the Cato Institute
in DC. The version released by the Reagan administration was sanitized
so as not to offend powerful men.  But the original authors had rights
to their work and later published the original, WITH names of all the
very guilty parties.

If you want to see how corrupt your government is (and very
nonpartisanly corrupt) read this report. I recommend you have nothing
breakable or crushable near you while your read it.

I still don't believe NASA can lead us into space, but this book shows
clearly one of the reasons they and other agencies do such atrociously
poor jobs.

And PS: I do basically agree with Marc's article.

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

Date: 22 Mar 89 05:33:05 GMT
From: urania.CS.ORST.EDU![e-mail]  (Don Willits)
Subject: Re: Discovery's return-to-flight photographs record many firsts (Forwarded)

I had the privlege to meet Pat Jones who works at the Lunar and Planetary
Institute in Houston, and conducts much of the preliminary work on Shuttle
photography, as well as astronaut briefings.  As a result, I have two
comments:

1)  The Great Wall *IS NOT* the only man-made object visible from orbit.  If
I remember correctly, it is the only one visible *FROM THE MOON*.  Many of
the slides taken from shuttle (that Pat showed in the lecture series she held
here at Oregon State) show CLEAR and RECOGNIZABLE signs of human habitation.
From tankers dumping oil at sea to cities themselves (such as Moscow, Rome,
New York, and a personal favorite of the astronauts:  Houston)

2)  For anyone wishing to obtain copies of photos taken from Shuttle, the
Lunar and Planetary Institute sells several excellent slide sets (put together
by Pat).  For more information, contact:

Lunar and Planetary Institute
3303 NASA Road One
Houston, TX  77058-4399  U.S.A.

LPI also offers a number of other slide sets as well as a number of interesting
books.  Write them for a catalog.

Don Willits
[e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Mar 89 03:36:59 GMT
From: beowulf![e-mail]  (Robert Carragher)
Subject: Re: Discovery's return-to-flight photographs record many firsts (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>Charles Redmond
>NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                March 14, 1989
>
>James Hartsfield
>Johnson Space Center, Houston
>
>
>RELEASE: 89-
>
>DISCOVERY'S RETURN-TO-FLIGHT PHOTOGRAPHS RECORD MANY FIRSTS
>[lots of stuff on pictures deleted]

Can we actually get these?  (free/$$$)  If so, what is the place to
mail requests?  Thanks.

Please reply via email to avoid flooding the net with answers to
these (probably) oft-asked questions.

                    Bob Carragher

Reply: [e-mail]     These opinions represent those of my
   OR  [e-mail]       company!
                                       -- Representative
if the above didn't work.                 Me, Myself, and I, Inc.

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

Date: 21 Mar 89 23:37:26 GMT
From: naucse![e-mail]  (Robert Wier)
Subject: Re: Moronic Television Coverage




 If you'd like better coverage of the shuttle flights, you might
 try your local cable-tv company.  Back before the FCC deregulated
 cable, most systems had to devote a certain number of channels to
 "public interest" and "local interest" programming.  Some still do
 this in order to maintain good will with local regulating agencies
 (although they can no longer really regulate).

 When I was at my last school in Fort Worth, Texas I beat on the local
 cable company for about a year to provide continuous coverage of
 manned missions taken from the NASA Select satellite transponder.
 It was a real hassel, since the cable company didn't really want to
 do it, and required me to do things like get permission from NASA
 in writing that is was ok to rebroadcast.  At any rate, by
 invoking the use of the school's public access channel, getting
 IEEE to sponsor (in a political, not fiscal way) the coverage, and
 generally pointing out that there were a large number of scientific
 and engineering type subscribers in the area (due to the presence
 of General Dynamics, etc) I got it going.

 I was gratified to see that the coverage was listed in the local
 newspaper as a "special service" to the community.


   - Bob Wier                                College of Engineering
  Flagstaff, Arizona                      Northern Arizona University
  ...arizona!naucse!rrw |  BITNET: WIER@NAUVAX | *usual disclaimers*

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #309
*******************