Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V09_3/V9_314.ZIP/V9_314

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 19KB

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/8Y=9lty00UkZ8PAU44>;
          Sun, 26 Mar 89 03:16:57 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <YY=[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 89 03:16:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #314

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 314

Today's Topics:
     Encouraging US launch industry (was: US/USSR costs)
          Success with cold fusion reported
       Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
            Re: Sojuskarta Photos
               Re: Commercial Spaceport
                Re: Astrology
             Re: Solar cells on the moon
             US/USSR launch costs
            volatiles on the Moon
             What can you see from space?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 21:59:45 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: Encouraging US launch industry (was: US/USSR costs)


>From: [e-mail]
>The biggest difference is that the soviet booster, primitive though it
>may be, is turned out on an active assembly line. They have been
>producing them for decades and have achieved a very high level on the
>production learning curve and the economies of stable production and
>economies of scale.
>Whereas the US launch vehicles are produced either hand made one at a
>time or in batch runs of new models with high setup costs.
>But when our private sector finally gets its toe hold, they'll ALL be
>left in the dust.

During the discussion of the Advanced Launch System, it was pointed out that
one of the major difficulties will be getting enough business to achieve
significant economies of scale and a rapid learning curve. This is a problem
that effects all US launch services, and could become more severe when there
are numerous companies competing. Commercial demand for launches is currently
restricted mainly to communications satellites and fairly limited in volume,
and is not likely to expand much until launch costs are a *lot* lower. The
greatest hope for expanded launch demands (and the only current hope for
interplanetary flights) in the near future is in government-sponsored launches.
Another problem is that many of the launch companies are startups, and thus
unable to afford long periods of below-cost operation to attract business.
In other words, the US commercial space industry is likely to have a lot
of trouble developing and expanding, unless deliberate measures are taken to
encourage its growth.

Some possibilities:
- Expand demand for launches
  - Encourage US companies to buy US launch services, discourage use of
    foreign launch services (already being done)
  - Persuade US industry to buy more launch services
  - Increase government purchases of private launch services
    - Decrease use of government-built launchers, except for experimental
      development (beginning to be implemented)
    - Launch lots of inexpensive earth-observation and interplanetary probes
      (suggested by Nick Szabo and others)
    - More SDI (gasp!) and other military launches on private launchers
- Reduce costs/risks to private launch companies
  - Legislation of liability limitations (proposed)
  - Reduce paperwork requirements
  - Private launch facilities (likely to be done)
  - Long-term government contracts, difficult for the government to break
  - Encourage large corporations to buy small launch companies, to finance
    them during the initial loss period
  - Subsidies (shudder!) - Many other countries subsidize launch services,
    and it could be argued that we should too, in order to establish a
    "level playing field"
  - Tax incentives for greater investment in private launch services

I don't necessarily support any of these, but they seem to be the main options.

If the government is to help a private US launch industry to get established,
the trick is to encourage it to become both economical and self-supporting.
In long-term contracts, for instance, the government could agree to buy the
first few launches at high rates, with a fixed schedule of price reductions
for subsequent launches. This would enable a startup company to obtain the
experience and capital it needs to function economically.
                                    John Roberts
                                    [e-mail]

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

Date: 23 Mar 89 16:09:48 GMT
From: glacier![e-mail]  (John B. Nagle)
Subject: Success with cold fusion reported


     The University of Utah has announced that researchers there have achieved
"a sustained thermonuclear reaction at room temperature".  A press conference
will be held there this afternoon.  Papers have been submitted to Nature.
An article appears on page B1 of today's Wall Street Journal.  Few details are
available at this time.

     If this is not bogus, it is the biggest development in energy production
since nuclear fission.

                    John Nagle

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

Date: 23 Mar 89 21:55:49 GMT
From: vlsi![e-mail]  (Glenn Chapman)
Subject: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?


    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]
                                                      [e-mail]

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

Date: 23 Mar 89 21:39:28 GMT
From: phoenix![e-mail]  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: Sojuskarta Photos

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>     Photos from Sojuskarta can include any area except Soviet Union,
>  China, and other socialist countries.

    Huh?  I understand the Soviets not selling photos of the Soviet
Union or countries in their sphere of influence, but China?  Since
when have the Soviets ever done ANYTHING for the Chinese?  Not
all Socialist countries are allied in any way with the Soviets!

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
-Keith Mancus <[e-mail]>  <- preferred
              <[e-mail]>

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

Date: 23 Mar 89 18:28:56 GMT
From: leah!rpi!pawl6.pawl.rpi.edu![e-mail]  (Mark O. Chadwick)
Subject: Re: Commercial Spaceport

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert C. Pilz) writes:
>...Hawaii has
>two potential sites and Virginia wants to develop an existing
>NASA facility on Wallops Island off the southeast coast. Earlier,
>California made efforts but has dropped the ball. (This was
>due to the "Great Tax Revolt.")

Does anyone else know anything about the current status of the spaceport
on the Big Island of Hawaii?  I went to a pseudo-news conference involving
a space group lead by (former?) councilman Mufi Hanneman a few years ago,
and at that time, it seemed like such a site would have a 60% or so chance
of being approved.
I'd really like to know what it's current status is.  Thanks!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail]       | Live long and prosper, Spock
[e-mail]   | I shall do neither.  I have killed my
 (Mark Chadwick)           |    captain...and my friend

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

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 89 17:18 EDT
From: Why is there only one Monopolies Commission? <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Astrology

John Roberts <[e-mail]> writes:
>The forces described by astrology may not have any significant effect on
>humanity, but the institution of astrology does have a strong influence.
>It effects the views of a large part of the population toward science and
>logical thought.

All too true.

>By the way, the moon, by providing variable illumination at night and
>influencing the tides, has a demonstrable influence on animal and human
>activity, on a month-by-month basis.

In what way? And how seriously? I mean, do ya have some sources?

I mean, maybe the moon has some effect on noctournal animals, but if you're
trying to defend the age-old astrologer's "the moon effects the tides, and
they're water, and since the human body is 98% water, the moon must affect
people" argument, then I would really love to see some data on that.


Damian Hammontree                                      [e-mail]
System Programmer                                      [e-mail]
Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore      [phone]
============== What do you get if you multiply six by nine? ===============
  Standard disclaimer follows.... 8^)

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

Date: 23 Mar 89 14:13:05 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!ois.db.toronto.edu![e-mail]  (John Hogg)
Subject: Re: Solar cells on the moon

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Larry Wall) writes:
>Perhaps with newer pulsed soliton lasers that don't diverge much you could
>power the solar array from earth at night.  I hear FELs are getting pretty
>efficient.  Tune the FEL to emit the best frequency for the potatoes growing
>next to the array.  Call it a spin-off from SDI...

A novel and interesting idea, and worth looking into for a nearside base.
It's unfortunate that this wouldn't work for a farside observatory.
Unless, of course, SDI was raided some more: put one or more mirrors
into orbit around the moon to reflect the beam farside.

(I suspect that there are cheaper ways to acquire this technology than
SDI...)
--
John Hogg            [e-mail]
Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto

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

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 20:33:33 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: US/USSR launch costs

>From: mnetor!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>...
>>There are at least three
>>plausible incentives for maintaining an artificially low rate:
>>...
>> - Economies of scale: The ability to maintain a high volume of launches
>>     and to accelerate the learning curve (and possibly to discourage the
>>     competition) can make it economically attractive to sell products or
>>     services for less than the actual cost...

>I rather doubt that the Soviets are expecting enough of a rush of Western
>customers to significantly improve their existing economies of scale.
>We're talking about a space program that has a launch every three or four
>*days*, remember.

That's a good point, but it can still work the other way. In an unregulated
market, unlimited cheap foreign launch services can keep US companies from
achieving significant economies of scale, thus tending to prevent them from
becoming serious competitors in the future. US government and industry seem
aware of this possibility, as shown by the negotiations with China toward
limiting the number of launches for US customers.

>>Similarly, the Energiya is a fine booster, and has enjoyed two demonstration
>>launches, but this does not guarantee that it is not fabulously expensive
>>to build and launch.

>Energia costs are an open question, since it's a new booster using some
>new technology.  I would note, however, that (a) cost per pound to orbit
>for the Saturn V was not significantly higher than current US launchers,
>and (b) Energia is supposedly already committed to production volumes
>(first batch of 50) that most Western launcher manufacturers can only
>dream about.

This brings up another point. If the Energia proves to be a reliable and
economical booster, it might be a good idea for the US to swallow its pride
and develop its own heavy booster based on the Energia. Though the Soviets
did not copy the US Space Shuttle exactly, they obviously learned a lot
from its design description and from its observed good and bad properties.

>Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

"Passengers are reminded before disembarking to make sure they have sufficient
yen deposited for a return passage."
                                       John Roberts
                                       [e-mail]

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

Date: 23 Mar 89 16:42:43 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: volatiles on the Moon

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (ERIC WALLIS) writes:
>     Volatiles in the moon? Unlikely...
>     Water? as far as I know the moon is nothing more than a large block
>of basalt, any water would have been driven off during the moons creation.

The suggestion is not that they've been there from the beginning, but that
they arrived later due to comet impacts.

>and with no atmospheric pressure to speak of how could water be maintained?

The same way it's maintained on comets:  extreme cold (there are probably
crater floors near the lunar poles which never get sunlight) and layers of
less-volatile material on top.

How likely it is that there actually *are* significant volatiles in lunar
polar craters depends on who you ask.  You can find people who will assure
you that the idea is ridiculous and has been totally discredited; you can
also find people who will assure you that the objections are fallacious
or incomplete and the possibility still exists.  The question simply isn't
settled, and probably won't be until suitable remote-sensing instruments
are placed into lunar polar orbit.  It looks like the Soviets may do so
in 1992.
--
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 23 Mar 89 21:27:39 GMT
From: phoenix![e-mail]  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: What can you see from space?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Don Willits) writes:
<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)

    I am fairly sure that this is incorrect.  That the great wall
is visible from the moon is a myth of unknown origin.  You cannot
possibly see ANY man-made object from 240,000 miles away with
the naked eye.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
-Keith Mancus <[e-mail]>  <- preferred
              <[e-mail]>

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #314
*******************