Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V09_3/V9_336.ZIP/V9_336

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

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/EYC7csy00UkZI3jk4f>;
          Tue,  4 Apr 89 03:18:01 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue,  4 Apr 89 03:17:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #336

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 336

Today's Topics:
             space news from Feb 6 AW&ST
           Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion
         Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
         Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
              Re: Two questions
  Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)
         Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?
                alien contact
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 89 02:42:21 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Feb 6 AW&ST

[A light news week, for no particularly obvious reason.]

Japan is considering transferring its comsat programs to commercial
hands in a few years.

Satellite launch-insurance rates are falling, as successful launches
continue.

Rockwell proposes building another set of shuttle structural spares for
NASA.  The original structural-spares set is being used to build the
new orbiter.

Japan flies another quarter-scale model of the H-2 booster, successfully.

NASA's general counsel advises that the legal requirement that NASA's
top two officials come from "civilian life" precludes hiring James
Abrahamson (ex-head of SDI) as head of NASA, despite frequent mention
of his name in that connection.  He is a retired military officer,
receiving a military pension and subject to the military code of justice.

Recent Office of Mismanagement and Beancounting decision requires private
funding for several NASA projects, notably the Flight Telerobotic Servicer
for space station assembly.  NASA plans a May contract to build the
servicer and related equipment for shuttle tests, but OMB refused funding
for it.  General opinion is that this is crazy, since the government is
probably the only customer.  Worse, this was in the middle of the contract
competition, which made no provision for private funding.  Industry says
it will not pay for the development work without strong guarantees of
recovering their investment.  This probably will not kill the servicer,
but it will delay it, and NASA is caught in between, because Congress
ordered that the servicer be tested and deployed before similar Canadian
hardware could be ready.  [Congress, of course, is also the bunch that
is constantly harping on how expensive the space station is getting.
Parochial pork-barrel projects like this are a significant reason.]
--
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 31 Mar 89 14:17:58 GMT
From: mcvax!cernvax![e-mail]  (jon)
Subject: Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion


This is a summary of a talk given by Professor Fleischmann at CERN, Geneva
on Friday 31st March. I should point out that I am a computer programmer and
not a physicist or a chemist, so therefore not all my understanding of the
facts may be 100% correct, but I kept notes so hopfully the following will
make some sense. Also this was strictly a scientific seminar, no questions
were allowed on the non-scientific aspects of the talk. In fact the camera
crews of various TV stations were asked to leave before the talk began.
But they were given a chance to interview Professor Fleischmann after the
seminar.

  It has taken Prof. Fleischmann and his collegue 5 years to get this far
and they had hoped to keep the experiment secret for about another 18 months
so they could be 100% certain of the results. But the results where "leaked"
(This was news to me, any confirmation?), and then they had the "awful news
conference", as he called it. They also funded the experiment privately
because they didn't think anyone would give them money for such a mad idea.

  The equation in the at the  palladium cathode is as follows

     D2O + e- <=> Dabs + OD-

     Dabs <=> Dlattice

     Dabs + D2O + e- <=> D2 + OD-

     Dabs = Absorbed Deuterium

     Dlattice = Deuterium in the Palladium lattice

     The deuterium in the lattice is very mobile.

He then said something that I quite didn't understand and gave the figure
of 0.8eV. I think this is the potential of the deuterium in the lattice.
This 0.8eV is equivalent to a pressure of 10^27 atm for gaseous deuterium.

The QM of the s-electron density of the Deuterium is VERY strange and is
not understood.

In the lattice the following nuclear reactions occur

   2D + 2D -> 3T + 1H + 4.03MeV

   2D + 2D -> 3He + n + 3.77Mev

Their first experiment was with a palladium cube, this finished when the
cube ignited, in the nuclear sense. The conclusion of this is that this
reaction does not fail safe. When it starts to run hot it runs very hot.
The cube almost burnt down their fume cupboard. But at least the effects
are not quite as serious as a meltdown of a fission reactor.

They then tried sheets before finally trying rods. These rods a 10cm long
and have diameters of 1mm ,2mm and 4mm. The best results are with the 4mm rod
therefore the reaction is dependent on volume as opposed to surface area, it
also seems to be dependant on temperature.

After 100 hours the measured output was 5MJ / cm3. They managed to detected
neutrons, gamma-rays and 5 fold increase in the tritrium in the heavy water.
They didn't manage to get a energy spectrum for the neutrons.

They calulated there are 10^4 neutron producing events/sec but to account
for the energy released there must be 10^13 events/sec, this means that
the prefered reaction path does not produce neutrons. They do not know
what this path is but lithium was being mentioned.

The efficiency of their cell is "miserable" and their best result was 111%
of breakeven (i.e. 100% => power in == power out), but they predicte that
with a properly designed cell their efficiency could be over 1200%, i.e.
10 times out what you put in.

It takes 3 months to charge a cell before it starts to produce anything.


That's the end of my notes, now for some editorial comments.

I personally could see nothing wrong with his explanation of the phenomena,
there is no known chemical reaction which can produce the amounts of energy
involved. It has to be nuclear fusion. Whether or not this is going to have
any practical use is still to be seen, as Prof. Fleischmann said a lot of
work now has to go into understand why and how this is happening. There
were some very worried theoretical physicists leaving the hall after the
talk, and there were mumbles about rewriting the theory of quantum mechanics.

The are going to be a hell of a lot of papers on cold fusion in the next
years!!

*---------------------------------------------------------------*
|                                                               |
| Jon Caves             {world}!mcvax!cernavx!jon               |
| Division DD,          [e-mail]                     |
| CERN CH-1211,                                                 |
| Geneva 23,            "Quote? I haven't got time to think     |
| Switzerland.             of a quote!"                         |
|                                                               |
*---------------------------------------------------------------*

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

Date: 31 Mar 89 18:55:40 GMT
From: rochester!rocksanne!helium![e-mail]  (Reiner Eschbach)
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?


>Well, from orbit, the United States is clearly the most advanced nation on
>Earth.  More roads, dams, and bridges are in the U.S. than anywhere else on
>Earth.

Ever been to Europe ? Or ever checked population densities ?

Reiner

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

Date: 1 Apr 89 20:44:11 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Reiner Eschbach) writes:
>
>>Well, from orbit, the United States is clearly the most advanced nation on
>>Earth.  More roads, dams, and bridges are in the U.S. than anywhere else on
>>Earth.
>
>Ever been to Europe ? Or ever checked population densities ?
>
>Reiner

No, I haven't.  But the population density of Europe is only slightly greater
than that of the U.S., and we do have a greater infrastructure than Europe,
however you care to measure it.  If you want population density, look to
some of the African nations, or perhaps India.

Georgia Institute of Technology     : Remember, wherever you go, there you are.
ARPA: [e-mail]        :

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

Date: 30 Mar 89 23:17:44 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Anand Patwardan)
Subject: Re: Two questions


To: Outbound News <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two questions, Radioactive waste disposal



The option of disposing radioactive waste into space has been thought of -
off and on. The problem seems to be one of volume and weight; there is just
an enormous amount of the waste lying around.

If you consider that even getting 2000 Kg satellites into geo stationary
orbits is a non-trivial task and all our planetary space probes are very
light and compact; even getting a small part of the stuff out into space and
ensuring that it does get into the sun(which seems the most feasible alt-
ernative) will probably be very difficult.
Perhaps when(or if) the space station is built, it will be easier to send
packets of the "hottest" wastes into the sun ( or into orbits around other
planets).... by launching them from space.


Anand Patwardhan
EPP, CMU

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

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

Date: 31 Mar 89 19:39:21 GMT
From: rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu![e-mail]  (Richard Connell)
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)

This is getting lengthy...

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rick Wojcik) writes:
>...I prefer to limit
>manned missions almost exclusively to scientific and professional personnel
>who can make the most efficient use of these extremely expensive missions.  I
>consider media events such as rock concerts to be a frivolous waste of
>precious technology.

    Well, if you want to get the average person interested, and thereby
get monies from our government, I think you had better be ready to cater to
such a 'frivilous waste of precious technology'.  I mean, really, is the
average person going to want to support something that they see as a waste of
their money, just because it is an advance in technology.  What ever happened
to the end-user?  Who isbenefitting from this technology, and why aren't they
seeing the results.  I have noticed that there is a question of NASA needing
money to perform experiments, and the fact that the media no longer focuses
on the launches as much, because there is nothing new, it is some experiment
that does not seem to have a real affect down here, where everyone else is.
    For this reason, just about any use of space that will catch people's
attention is, I feel, not a waste of resources, or money.  If you want to
keep it technical, how about such projects as trying to stay on the moon?
Or other places in space?

[arguement about soviets and economy deleted]

>> Don't you think...knowledge is likely to be expanded by flying a wider
>> cross-section of people than athletic professional astronauts?
>
>How, pray tell?  Why would we learn more by sending up poorly-trained people
>who are less cost-effective at carrying out the missions?  If you are
>concerned about the physical fitness of astronauts, I'm sure that we could
>find a few flabby scientists to send up.  :-)
>

    By exposing more people to space, you get a wider variety of opinions
about ways that it could be used.  If you send up untrained personnel, then
you will get uneducated, and unbiased reactions to the situation.  If you
send up a load of artists and musicians, then there will be a whole new
look at the idea of going into space.  Also this would focus more attention
on the program itself, and what it could accomplish...
    And if things went bad, what would a few less artists and singers do
to the world, just space em...:-)

    It is my opinion that the more people we get into space, the more
interest there will be in it for the average person.  I have no
rargument that it should start with techies, people who know all about it,
but there comes a time when even these people are not going to have any idea
of what in the world is going on.  And in this case, your average carpenter
might be better equipped to handle the situation, who can really say.
    Plus, once (or if) there is ever a space station, are we going to
want to pay big bucks to a person trained in aerospace technologies to
take out the garbage?  I don't think so.  That person can be put to a much
better use working in the science feild.  And this will be the same with all
the technical fields, so who takes out the trash?  Who provides for a little
relaxing entertainment every once in a while, etc?  Highly trained people in
the fields of science are not going to be the people to do this, or at least
not on the basis that normal people would need.

>>>The idea of getting people to "take over" our space
>>>program, operating it as a commercial venture, went out the window because it
>>>was impractical.  It was dreamed up by people who thought that the free
>>>market was the answer to everything...
>>Yes, ridiculous uncommercial people like Boeing.  And it went out the
>>window because NASA wasn't interested in relinquishing control, despite
>>a few encouraging noises early on.
>
>I would be interested in clarification here. Do you mean that Boeing, or some
>other aerospace company, wanted to 'take over' our manned space flight
>program?  I'm not sure that any company, or consortium of companies, has any
>such desire.  What for?  They are working with the government, which is the
>only conceivable customer for manned space flight right now.  Who was that
>stubborn, hidebound NASA supposed to relinquish control to?  There ain't
>nobody there.  That's why I called the idea impractical. Only governments can
>afford to fund this kind of scientific research right now.

    Missed the beginning of this discussion, so please excuse me if
I am going off on something that I know nothing about, but why do all the
flights into space have to be of a scientific nature.  If they all are
scientific now, when will the commercial interest get involved?  In any
serious way that is, for they are already interested.  Look at all the
communication sattelites that are up there.
    So when do the normal people get a chance to see space?  I thought
that the teacher in space program was a good start, and am very saddened by
the way that it ended.  These are the sorts of programs that are going to get
you the money, and the resources that you need to continue the program in a
useful way.

    Have fun, and please do send flames, I will welcome them, it's cold
here in Rochester.

                           | Ricky Connell| [e-mail]
                           |--------------| [e-mail]
    -------                |Disclaimer :     -----------------------------------
  /   ___   \   Happy   | A disclaimer??? Why a disclaimer???  Who really
 /    (O)    \  Mutants | cares whose opinion this is I'm borrowing!
(             ) For     |--------------------------------------------------
 \   )---(   /  Nuclear | "No matter where you go, there you are." -B.Bonzai
  \         /   Energy  | "Let's show this prehistoric b***h how we do
    -------             |  things downtown!" -- Ghostbusters

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

Date: 30 Mar 89 22:52:26 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!lynx![e-mail]  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: Discovery - UFO Close Encounter?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:

>Well, from orbit, the United States is clearly the most advanced nation on
>Earth.  More roads, dams, and bridges are in the U.S. than anywhere else on
>Earth.  Compared to the U.S., the Soviet Union is third-rate, at best.

And don't forget that the US probably puts out more RF energy than any
other nation on the earth, which is a sure sign of a scientifically
advanced culture (even if most of it is soap operas and cartoons!).



Neal

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

Date: 1 Apr 89 22:45:41 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: alien contact

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:
>As to who the aliens would contact...well, where would the best place be?  I
>would vote for the United States, because (1) by almost any standard, we are
>the most advanced nation on earth, and (2) the U.N. (for all it's worth) is
>located here...

Of course, if they consider spaceflight a major sign of civilization, then
there's absolutely no doubt about where they will go:  Baikonur.  Or just
possibly Plesetsk, although if they're being attentive to things like the
activity around Mir it'll be Baikonur for sure.  The other spaceports on
Earth are insignificant by comparison to either of those two.  Between them
they handle 80%+ of Earth's space traffic.
--
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #336
*******************