Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V09_3/V9_350.ZIP/V9_350

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/IYDiU6y00UkZ0IZE43>;
          Sun,  9 Apr 89 01:20:07 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun,  9 Apr 89 01:19:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #350

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 350

Today's Topics:
            Re: NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89
            Re: NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89
           Re: space news from Jan 30 AW&ST
        Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)
     Re: Reactions described in the Pons seminar summary
        Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)
  Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)
     Unmanned shuttle advantages (was: Re: alien contact)
     Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
Outgoing NASA head focuses on budget, Space Station issues (Forwarded)
               Asteroid mining
        Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)
        Re: Success with cold fusion reported
               Re: Deuterium extraction
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 89 15:39:19 GMT
From: uflorida!haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdb.jhuapl.edu![e-mail]  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Howard Stateman) writes:
}>This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline for the week ending
}>March 31, 1989.
}>8 embryos that died were part of 16 which were fertilized the day before
}>liftoff, the other 16 were fertilized nine day prior to launch.  April 1st
}>Hotline.  This message will next be updated April 7, 1989.
}>----------
}This is useless information, unless they did a control group which did
}not go into space.
They did, of course.

}If they
}didn't, I'd like to know why not, and what makes them think they are
}doing an experiment worth paying any attention to.

I would not extend opinions on technical competence on the performance of
experiments further than personal experience.

Or perhaps that WAS your way of doing it?  How often have your experiments
crashed because of leaving out the control group?


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

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

Date: 6 Apr 89 02:59:43 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1![e-mail]  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: NSS Hotline Update 3/31/89

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Meritt) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Howard Stateman) writes:
>}>8 embryos that died .. This is useless information, unless they did a
>}control group which did not go into space.
>They did, of course.

What did they do to the controls?  I would expect that you'd want at least
two groups of controls -- one to just sit there, the other to run through
a simulation of the non-microgravity part of a shuttle flight.  Shake 'em,
rattle 'em, and centrifuge them at 3G for a while.
--
Mike Van Pelt                      "Nobody's life, liberty, or property
Video 7                             are safe while Congress is in session."
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp                        -- Will Rogers

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

Date:    Wed, 5 Apr 89 05:19:30 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Frank J. Nagy, VAX Wizard & Guru)
Subject: Re: space news from Jan 30 AW&ST
X-St-Vmsmail-To: SPACE_DIGEST

> Subject: space news from Jan 30 AW&ST
> US antimatter research (notably for space propulsion) is being affected
> by a shortage of antiprotons.  CERN, the only major source at present,
> dedicates its supply to basic research [and also has political reservations
> about involvement in anything that hints of military applications, even
> fairly innocuous ones like space propulsion].  DoD considers it urgent
> to develop a domestic antiproton source; modification of the SSC is being
> looked at.

This is a great example of how confused our government is.  Fermilab
makes antiprotons, stores antiprotons and uses antiprotons.  I know that
for a while we surpassed CERN in antiproton production, though this might
no longer be true (CERN was planning/installing an upgrade to improve
the rate of antiproton production and collection the last I heard).

This is all rather moot however, since the antiproton beams being stored
at either CERN or Fermilab qualify as high-grade vacuums at best.  Also,
the Robert Forward "wallplug" efficiency of antiproton production at
either lab is laughably small.


= Dr. Frank J. Nagy   "VAX Guru & Wizard"
= Fermilab Research Division/Electrical and Electronics Dept/Controls Group
= HEPNET: WARNER::NAGY (43198::NAGY) or FNAL::NAGY (43009::NAGY)
= BitNet: NAGY@FNAL
= USnail: Fermilab POB 500 MS/220 Batavia, IL 60510

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

Date: 5 Apr 89 00:32:54 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)

Along the lines, what other nifty spacecraft are lying in the ocean?
There must be dozens of V-2's off the English coast, plus a few launched
in "46 and "47 from Cape Canaveral and the USS Norton Sound.

A few years ago, someone mentioned some Apollo hardware was in the ocean
(I think it was the LEM from Apollo-13).

Could someone post a brief list of the most interesting or historic hardware
at the bottom of the sea (preferably with approximate location and depth)?

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

Date: 5 Apr 89 15:14:11 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcrl!tekgvs![e-mail]  (Arnie Frisch)
Subject: Re: Reactions described in the Pons seminar summary

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (William Johnson) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes:
> > In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Timothy K Reynolds) writes:




> >     My other question is:  these people used a cell with palladium and
> > platinum electrodes and heavy water.  Where would the lithium come from?  I
> > didn't hear any mention of lithium in the electrodes or in the solution
> > before this article that I am replying to.
>
> This one is a lot easier.  The lithium was added (as deuterated lithium
> hydroxide, 0.1 molar solution) before the start of the experiment, probably
> to make sure that the solution was a nice, highly-conductive electrolyte.
> (Distilled water, remember, isn't very good at carrying a current.)  Whether
> the lithium participates from a nuclear point of view -- i.e., is required
> for the cell to work -- is completely unclear to us kibitzers; it would be
> interesting to hear the F&P viewpoint on this.
>


It is interesting to note that Jones specifically stated that you
needed to have co-deposition of metal at the cathode to make his
experiment work - i.e. to have fusion.  He described his electrolyte as
an un-optimized solution of metal salts (including Lithium).  Pons also
used Lithium salts, but there was no mention of its importance to the
experiment - other than the fact that it improved the conductivity of
the solution.

Hmmmmm!



Arnold Frisch, Tektronix Laboratories: arnief@tekgvs

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

Date: 5 Apr 89 23:32:09 GMT
From: m2c!wpi![e-mail]  (Tom [Chris] Murphy)
Subject: Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
>A few years ago, someone mentioned some Apollo hardware was in the ocean
>(I think it was the LEM from Apollo-13).

There's no way a LEM could survive re-entry.  The thing is EXTREMELY flimsy,
I once heard (in a book by Michael Collins I think) that a technician once
dropped a wrench through the hull.

Tom



--
Thomas C. Murphy         Worcester Polytechnic Institute CAD Lab
Internet:   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
BITNET:     TMURPHY@WPI              CompuServe: 73766,130
               "I drank what?" - Socrates

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

Date: 4 Apr 89 21:54:48 GMT
From: amdahl!pacbell!qvax2![e-mail]  (Jerry Gardner @ex2561)
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>For one thing, I keep trying to prod people into looking at the situation
>in the US and realizing just how bad it really is.  Never mind the really
>optimistic predictions; merely looking at the predictions made early in
>the current shuttle program is enough to make you cry.  The dream may be
>alive, but not at NASA headquarters.
>--
>Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
>passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]


I'm curious, how's the Canadian space program doing these days?



Jerry Gardner, NJ6A        Qantel Business Systems
               {hplabs,pacbell,ihnp4}!qantel!qvax2!jerry
Disclaimer?  We don't need no stinking disclaimers!

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

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 89 12:01:31 PDT
From: Peter Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Unmanned shuttle advantages (was: Re: alien contact)

 [e-mail]  (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:

>  There's absolutely no use for an unmanned shuttle mission that
>I can think of.

Well, let's start with the possibilities for additional payload if you've
designed your shuttle so that you can remove the life-support systems
fairly easily (anyone know whether this can be done with Buran?)
And then you can fly missions that are outside the envelope of human
comfort/survivability, e.g. duration (no running out of air), acceleration
(high g forces), radiation (flying during solar flares),... anyone got any more ideas?

Peter Scott ([e-mail])

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

Date: 5 Apr 89 19:48:55 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James C. Benz) writes:
>Well, if you are going to assume *lots* of relatively free fusion energy,
>why not just accelerate at 1G or some appreciable fraction thereof, until
>you are halfway there, then turn around and decelerate at the same rate?

Because the power requirements are not merely high, but staggering, if
the fuel consumption is to be kept sane.  I did the calculation in sci.space
a week or two ago; it was way up in the terawatts, as I recall, given some
reasonable assumptions.  Never mind generating it; merely handling that
much power is a horrendous problem.  1% inefficiency means you have to
dissipate gigawatts of heat.

Someday; not today.
--
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Apr 89 18:53:53 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Outgoing NASA head focuses on budget, Space Station issues (Forwarded)

Jeff Vincent
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      2 p.m. EDT
                                                    April 5, 1989

N89-29

NOTE TO EDITORS:

OUTGOING NASA HEAD FOCUSES ON BUDGET, SPACE STATION ISSUES

     In his final speech as NASA Administrator, Dr. James
C. Fletcher today called Space Station Freedom "a tempting
target" for budget-cutters and warned that significant reductions
in the program would have dire consequences for the nation's
future in space.

     "It's time this fact is understood," Dr. Fletcher said at
the Fifth National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs, Colo.
"If cut significantly, Space Station Freedom will be cancelled
and we will deliver a clear message to our children and the rest
of the world:  The United States intends to leave the business of
space exploration to others."  The symposium is sponsored by the
U.S. Space Foundation.

     Fletcher acknowledged he's been accused of "crying wolf"
about NASA budget cuts.  But "when the wolf is at the door, as it
has been for the last three years," he said, "it's prudent to
sound an alarm."

     Reflecting on his service as NASA administrator, Fletcher
said he would be "returning to private life with the deep
satisfaction of having participated in a truly extraordinary
reversal of our national fortunes."  He was named to the position
-- his second appointment as head of NASA -- 4 months after the
Challenger accident.

     "We have weathered severe setbacks.  Chastened by the hard
lessons of crisis, we have recovered and returned to the task
ahead," he said.  "Today, NASA is a strong and flexible
instrument of national policy, an instrument I confidently hand
over to my successor."

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

Date: 5 Apr 89 19:39:01 GMT
From: amdahl!nsc![e-mail]  (andrew)
Subject: Asteroid mining

Recent postings have discussed the economics of asteroid mining in light
of the possible future need to "go and get some more palladium". Here is
some data which might come in handy:

1. Metals requirements
----------------------
In 1967 US produced 3e8 tons of iron, steel, rolled iron, aluminium,
copper, zinc and lead = 3e11 Kg.
Assuming 3% ore @ 3.5gm/cc, US produced an equivalent sphere 1.7 Km diameter.
At 250 million US population, US produced about 1000 Kg per capita.
To supply the whole world at this (first world) rate requires 5e12 Kg total.
Assuming 3% ore @ 3.5gm/cc, this is an equivalent sphere 4.5 Km in diameter,
weighing 5e9 tons or 5e12 Kg.
There exist at least 40,000 asteroids larger than 5 Km in diameter.

2. Asteroid mining energy considerations
----------------------------------------
The deltaV from the Belt to Earth is 7 Km/s. Moving 5e12 Kg of asteroid
needs 1e20 joules (about 1% of world's annual (1978) energy use).

Reproduced without permission from "A Step Farther Out" by Jerry Pournelle
=====
Andrew Palfreyman         USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew
National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090,
Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788         there's many a slip
                            'twixt cup and lip

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

Date: 5 Apr 89 19:30:07 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl![e-mail]  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
> Along the lines, what other nifty spacecraft are lying in the ocean?

Unfortunately, unlike the Liberty Bell 7, I think that most (if not all)
other space-related objects on the see floors are there because the object
in question crashed into the sea, either by design or by accident, and will
therefore be heavily damaged, at best!

Some examples are the boosters from STS-4 (see the recent Shuttle postings,
thanks!), one of the earlier Mariner probes and who-knows how many pieces
of satellites and spacecraft that survived re-entry, for instance the
plutonium-powered thermionic generator of Apollo 13's LEM.

I remember reading somewhere about one of the early nuclear "missiles",
called the Snark (basically a large unmanned winged  projectile).
Apparently there were a lot of problems with launch and guidance systems,
and the term "Snark infested waters" became a well-used phrase by those
involved in the project...

Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA

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

Date: 5 Apr 89 16:58:52 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!mips![e-mail]  (Jim Warford)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Frost) writes:
>
>Although utility companies are required to by any excess power you generate
>YOU are responsible for purchasing a synchonous interface to the grid ( a
>synchronous inverter if you're generating DC) plus a new meter and pay for
>periodic calibration inspections by the utility company.
>
I believe you also have to provide 1 million dollars in liability insurance
just in case your equipment malfunctions and wreaks havoc on the electric
companies equipment.
[e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Apr 89 19:53:32 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Deuterium extraction

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Space Cadet) writes:
>>... more efficient (although more complex) ways to do the early stages.
>
>    Could you give us some details?

Unfortunately I don't remember them very well.  Basically, the difference
in mass is enough to produce a slight difference in chemical reaction rates.
Cycle the stuff through a well-chosen reaction over and over again and you
get a fair degree of isotope separation.  This is much more energy-efficient
than electrolysis.
--
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 #350
*******************