Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V09_3/V9_349.ZIP/V9_349

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/kYDRkgy00UkZ4HX05S>;
          Sat,  8 Apr 89 06:17:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat,  8 Apr 89 06:17:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #349

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 349

Today's Topics:
       NASA selects Small Explorer missions (Forwarded)
        Re: Space applications of cold fusion
        Re: Success with cold fusion reported
            Global positioning satellites?
         Re: Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion
              Re: Space problems
         Re: Solid State Fusion for Launchers
            Space visible objects
                 I surrender!
  Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)
               Re: Deuterium extraction
         Re: Solid State Fusion for Launchers
             Re: Babies in Space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 89 19:10:21 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA selects Small Explorer missions (Forwarded)

Paula Cleggett-Haleim
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      April 4, 1989


RELEASE:  89-43

NASA SELECTS SMALL EXPLORER MISSIONS


     Dr. Lennard A. Fisk, associate administrator for NASA's
Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA), today announced
the selection of the first Small Explorer missions, which will
study some of the most important questions in space physics,
astrophysics and upper atmosphere science.

     Termed Small Explorers, these spacecraft weigh approximately
400 lbs. and can be launched from available Scout-class
expendable launch vehicles.

     The Small Explorer Program, a vital element of the OSSA
strategic plan, provides frequent flight opportunities for highly
focussed and relatively inexpensive space science missions.
These missions allow critical training opportunities for the next
generation of scientists and engineers.

     The selected studies, chosen from 51 submissions, propose
the following:

o    A study of solar energetic particles, anomalous cosmic rays,
galactic cosmic rays and magnetospheric electrons would be
launched in mid-1992.  Called Solar, Anomalous and Magnetospheric
Particle Explorer, this study was proposed by Dr. Glenn M. Mason,
University of Maryland, College Park, and 10 co-investigators
from American and German institutions.

o    A study of how molecular clouds collapse to form stars and
planetary systems, called the Submillimeter Wave Astronomy
Satellite, would be launched in mid-1993.  The principal
investigator is Dr. Gary J. Melnick, Harvard-Smithsonian Center
for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Mass., heading a team of 11 co-
investigators from institutions across the U.S. and Cologne,
Germany.

o    An investigation of the processes operating within the
auroral region, called Fast Auroral Snapshot Explorer, would be
launched in late 1993.  Dr. Charles Carlson, University of
California, Berkeley, is the principal investigator.  The co-
investigators are from Lockheed Palo Alto Research Laboratory,
Calif., and the University of California at Berkeley and Los
Angeles.

o    A study of stratospheric ozone is the mission of the Total
Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS).  It will provide daily mapping
of global ozone and detect global ozone trends.  TOMS was
proposed by Dr. Charles E. Cote and nine co-investigators, all
from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Greenbelt, Md.
This investigation is a high-priority Earth observing mission
that is critical to monitoring long-term stratospheric ozone
depletion trends.

     The Small Explorer Program is managed by the GSFC Special
Payloads Division.  Costs for developing such spacecraft and
instrument payloads are expected to average $30 million.

     The Explorer Program is a long-standing NASA program for
launching small and moderate-sized space science mission
payloads.  Over 75 U.S. and cooperative-international scientific
space missions have been part of the Explorer Program.  For
example, the International Ultraviolet Explorer, which produced
astronomical data for more than 1,400 articles in scientific
journals, continues to operate after more than 10 years in Earth
orbit.

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

Date: 4 Apr 89 16:40:30 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space applications of cold fusion

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott Hess) writes:
>... One device I've read about in Jerry Pournelle's
>"High Justice" used lasers. It seems that a powerful ground-based laser
>is fired into a cavity at the bottom of the spacecraft. It is pulsed on
>and off, at a high speed. The cavity is vented in such a way that it draws
>in air. The laser heats the air very quickly, so the air pushes out the
>bottom, propelling the craft. Then more air is brought in ... Basically
>a ramjet with half the engine ground-based...
>My basic question is this: Does this work? ...

In principle it ought to, although arranging for the laser to heat the
centimeters of air in the cavity but *not* the kilometers of air in the
rest of the beam path is a bit tricky.

The US has a small research program on laser launchers, although they're
currently focusing on rockets rather than air-breathing systems.  It is
hoped that SDI will develop the necessary lasers and optics.  It looks
both feasible and promising.  In particular, with short-pulse lasers,
it scales down well.  Launching capsules weighing tons takes formidable
power sources and lasers, but if you're willing to settle for something
smaller, the system (and its budget) gets much more manageable.
--
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 3 Apr 89 15:19:10 GMT
From: pitt!cisunx![e-mail]  (James C. Benz)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris Phoenix) writes:
>Not necessarily.
>Imagine how cheap it would be, with unlimited power, to turn large areas of
>land into mirrors.  Just find any sandy area such as a desert, then melt it
>smooth, then sputter on some shiny metal.
How about just painting all roofs in all our cities white?  Sounds a lot
cheaper, and should work almost as well.  If you are going to melt deserts,
you probably will :
1) generate a *lot* more heat than you reflect
2) piss off a *lot* of environmentalists
3) kill off a *lot* of wildlife
4) change permanently a *lot* of weather patterns
5) blind a *lot* of airline pilots
6...infinity) your own imagination can fill in the rest

What a dumb idea

--
Jim Benz              [e-mail]     If a modem
University of Pittsburgh                     answers,
UCIR                 [phone]             hang up!

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

Date: 5 Apr 89 00:11:52 GMT
From: apple.com![e-mail]  (Greg Kimberly)
Subject: Global positioning satellites?

I'm interested in information on how to use the civilian global
positioning satellites. Can anyone give me a pointer to some sources,
and/or a short summary of how they work?

Thanks in advance

Greg

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

Date: Tue, 4 Apr 89 12:21:06 PDT
From: Peter Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion

 mcvax!cernvax![e-mail]  (jon) writes:

>Their first experiment was with a palladium cube, this finished when the
>cube ignited, in the nuclear sense.
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What does this mean in this context, please?  I have heard the term applied only
to the break-even point in fission reactors.

Peter Scott ([e-mail])

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

Date: Tue,  4 Apr 89 22:00 CST
From: Scott Hess <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Space problems
Original_To:  BITNET%"[e-mail]"

From Henry Spencer:
>>>It is also an unproven conjecture that advanced biotechnology will be
>>>needed to deal with the immune-system problem.  There might be some
>>>simple fix.
>>
>>But will we know what that fix is without advanced biotechnology? ...
>
>Plain, ordinary medical research may well suffice.  Note, I'm not saying
>that it *will*, just that it is an exaggeration to say that we *need*
>advanced biotechnology for it.

I agree with this, but my question is - What is advanced biotechnology,
then? I suppose one could argue that ALL advanced biotechnology was ordinary
medical research, at some time or another. Same with most other subjects.
I would call anything that helps astrounauts (or cosmonauts) to survive
in space pretty advanced. I would doubt if its something extremely simple.
The Col Fusion in Utah thing is NOT ordinary medical research, either, so
that can't be used to say it may be very simple. Not to say it won't.

Of course, if it is something very simple - how are we to find out? We really
haven't got the time or space for experiments which we can't give a good
reason why they'd work. If you went out to try a year ago to try to get money
to research the possibility of fusion induced by pallidium absorbtion, I
don't think you'd have gotten the money. Same thing here. Until we can throw
up alot more "borderline" experiments, we probably won't see any simple
procedures to guard against immuno-whatever problems.

Scott Hess,
<[e-mail]>

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

Date: 5 Apr 89 00:35:49 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!censor![e-mail]  (Jeff Hunter)
Subject: Re: Solid State Fusion for Launchers

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
> Most postings to this newsgroup seem to assume that the discovery of
> cold fusion is a great boon to the exploration and colonization of
> space.  This does not seems obvious to me.  From what I have read
> so far, cold fusion may help space exploration only a litle,
> and hamper space colonization quite a lot.
> ...
>   Note that energy is only a small fraction of
> the cost of a launch, so cheap energy on the ground will not make space
> launches much cheaper.

    Some rocket designer who's name escapes me noticed the same thing
and proposed the Big Dumb Booster (BDB). The theory is that if the cost
of the rocket structure is much greater than the fuel, then making the
structure cheaper (and therefore heavier) will easily offset the
additional cost in fuel to lift it.
    Using fuel costs of two years ago he figured that it would be
much cheaper to make huge boosters out of sheet steel (?) with last
generation rockets than the current practice of using ultra-thin aluminum
shells with every-last-drop-performance motors.
    Anything that drops the cost of LOx and liquid hydrogen just makes
this approach more attractive.

    I realize that there's more cost than just the rocket & fuel,
but the BDB should have it's uses.
--
      ___   __   __   {utzoo,lsuc}!censor!jeff  (416-595-2705)
      /    / /) /  )     -- my opinions --
    -/ _ -/-   /-     No one born with a mouth and a need is innocent.
 (__/ (/_/   _/_                                   Greg Bear

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

Date: Tue,  4 Apr 89 10:32 CST
From: Scott Hess <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space visible objects
Original_To:  BITNET%"[e-mail]"

Why would only the Great Wall be visible? How about the pyramids?
What about the Superdome? I know, THAT's probably not visible, but the
pyramids should be.

Scott HEss,
<[e-mail]>

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

Date: 4 Apr 89 13:58:45 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: I surrender!

Okay!

Upon rechecking my figures, I realized that the graph from which I got my
'slightly greater' population density used a shading for the U.S. and Europe
that classified the regions as having a density of 50 to 500 per square mile.
Needless to say, the U.S. and Europe are on different ends of the spectrum.
However, Europe as a whole (East and West) has, (according to composite figures
from various recent issues of Time and National Geographic) roughly 510
million people (this excludes European Russia, by the way) in an area of about
3.8 million sq. mi, giving a density of approximately 134 people/sq. mi.  If
you look at the mainland U.S., and remove the desert regions (remember, no
deserts in Europe), the density goes to roughly 100.  Of course, this doesn't
count...

However, the main part of this posting:  In my earliest posting, I should have
said 'by almost any standard, we are the most *technologically* advanced nation
around...'.  I thought I made this clear in my more recent postings; I am not
degrading any other part of the world with respect to the U.S.  I have nothing
but respect for the nations of Europe (with the exception of France), and
although I have not had the opportunity to visit there, I do plan to do so
in the future.  I am not claiming moral, ethnic, racial, or political
superiority, just technological.  I hope this posting makes this clear enough;
if not, send mail.  I plan to post no further on this subject.


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

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

Date: 3 Apr 89 16:59:09 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive![e-mail]  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rick Wojcik) writes:
>human body.  The Soviet government has given the impression that it is willing
>to sell space on missions--to our embarrassment, since we 'capitalists' don't
>have any missions to sell.  That's neat propaganda, which you seem to have
>taken at face value.

The Japanese seen to have taken it at face value too.

They just signed a deal to send a journalist on a week long
trip to Mir in 1992.

Standard price tag and contract conditions.
    Bob.

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

Date: 5 Apr 89 03:04:44 GMT
From: agate!saturn!ssyx.ucsc.edu![e-mail]  (Space Cadet)
Subject: Re: Deuterium extraction

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
*Actually this is an inefficient way to make heavy water; it was used in
*early experiments, and is still used for final purification, but there
*are more efficient (although more complex) ways to do the early stages.

    Could you give us some details?

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

Date: 5 Apr 89 15:25:46 GMT
From: uflorida!haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdb.jhuapl.edu![e-mail]  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Solid State Fusion for Launchers

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
}The apparent absence of major neutron emission and hot waste from the
}solid state fusion discovery raises the possibility of resurrecting
}nuclear rockets for launchers.
}
}For use in launchers, we'd want a fusion reactor that (1) can be shut
}down in seconds,


Paul, the CURRENT launchers cannot be shut down in seconds.  Why put
restrictions on something that are not currently met?

(solid-fuel boosters turn 'on' fine, but 'off' is a b*tch!)


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"
                    - D. Duck

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

Date: 05 Apr 89 19:45:50 EDT
From: Colin Hunter <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Babies in Space

From: Colin Hunter

mcvax!ukc!axion!stc!idec!camcon![e-mail] (Chris Cracknell) writes:

> Much of early embryogenesis is very species-independent.  (This is often
> quoted as a piece of evidence for related ancestry of  vertebrates.)   I
> have an embryologist  friend currently studying bird eggs mainly because
> it is easy to get to  the  embryo  without  worrying about having to cut
> open and keep alive a mother.  I suspect that this is a major reason for
> using eggs in such a study.

There  are  a  great  many  differences  between  avian  &  reptilian, and
mammalian  embryology, one of the most critical being the mode development
from the egg stage.

Birds produce an enormous, fertilised egg  containing  large  reserves  of
mRNA, tRNA, ribosomes, macromolecule precursors, etc.  The contents of the
egg  then  go  on  to  produce  an embryo through rapid cell division, but
without much change in embryo mass.

Mammals,  on  the  other  hand  produce  a  tiny  egg,  which  upon  being
fertilised, goes on to multiply many times (about 2^55 generations, taking
into account cell death) along with considerable RNA synthesis.

I fully agree that bird eggs make  a  much  easier model to work with than
any placental animal, but this does not make them a  *suitable* model from
the  point of view of ever being able to apply the  results  to  non-avian
systems.  Besides, how  can  you  completely allow for all the differences
between the experimental and control groups such that micro-gravity is the
*only* variable.  You really need fertilisation  and normal gestation time
in  a  micro-gravity  environment.   Embryological experiments should wait
until Freedom is operational.

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #349
*******************