Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V09_3/V9_384.ZIP/V9_384

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/YYHej7y00UkZAGbU4N>;
          Fri, 21 Apr 89 00:19:20 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 89 00:19:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #384

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 384

Today's Topics:
     Planitary Positions vs short wave radio propagation
             Re: failures and engineering
          shuttle design and low g tolerance
         Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties
          Re: QUESTION? ASTRONAUTS AND F-19 STEALTH.
    Re: The Stirling Engine (was Re: Success with cold fusion...)
        Is 'better than gravity assist' used?
    Re: The Stirling Engine (was Re: Success with cold fusion...)
              Vol 375 and Yes I am back.
         Re: astrology (or effect of moon on people)
             Re: failures and engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sender: "Robert_Swenson.osbunorth"@Xerox.COM
Date: 18 Apr 89 17:52:16 PDT (Tuesday)
Subject: Planitary Positions vs short wave radio propagation
From: "Robert_Swenson.osbunorth"@Xerox.COM
Cc: "Robert_Swenson.osbunorth"@Xerox.COM


Items ran in Space Digest v9 nos 371 & 373 about someone who could predict
inteference in long distance short wave radio transmission.

There was an article about this in Analog many years ago.
This is from memory, so I may not have all the facts correct.  If anyone
can locate the original, it would help this discussion.

1. The Earth is, at least in a manner of speaking, inside the atmosphere of
the Sun.
2. The orbit of the Earth is an elipse, with one focus at, not the center
of the Sun, but the CG of the solar system.
3. Jupiter and Saturn have enough mass to move the CG of the solar system
away from the center of the Sun if they are in the correct positions.
4. As the locations of Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn move, the position of
Earth relative to the surface of the Sun and so Earth's depth in the solar
atmosphere varies.
5.  Therefore, the number (and type?) of particles bombarding the earth
changes depending on the relative positions of Earth, Jupiter and Saturn.
As the number of particles changes, so does the strength and location of
the electrically charged layers in the atmosphere which reflect radio
signals and make long distance short wave radio possible.
Conclusion:  Short wave radio propigation is changed by the relative
positions of Earth, Jupiter and Saturn.

According to the article, this person had about 93% success in predicting
interference.  He never missed, but sometimes the interference he predicted
did not, in fact, occur.  He, according to the item, made his living by
forcasting these disturbances to the radio communications companies.

I make no claim as to the accuracy nor to the spelling of the above.

Bob Swenson
[e-mail]

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

Date: 18 Apr 89 14:40:08 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hpctdlb!hpctdke![e-mail]  (Richard Katz)
Subject: Re: failures and engineering

/ hpctdke:sci.space / [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) /  6:51 pm  Apr 15, 1989 /
In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stuart Warmink) writes:
>> .................... The way you find out about these things is to try
>> them.  The major factor in how quickly you learn is how often you try.
>
>Another point of view is that with careful systems design and good engineering
>you don't need to learn from your mistakes. That is what engineering is all
>about. For instance, see the many successful Mariner, Pioneer, Voyager and
>Viking missions.

Yup, see them -- but study them properly.  Mariner 2, struggling past Venus
with one problem after another developing.  The early Pioneers, a total
disaster area.  Voyager 2, limping towards Neptune with its primary command
receiver dead and its backup one ailing (and don't blame this on the length
of the mission -- the problems developed almost immediately after launch),
not to mention the lubrication problems in the scan platform.  The Viking 1
lander, dead before its time due to human error back on Earth.

And let us not forget Seasat, with its slip-rings failing less than three
months after launch.  TDRS-1, with various electronic ailments fouling it
up to the point where it's been officially retired to standby status, now
that a replacement is finally in position.  Galileo, which is damned lucky
that it *didn't* fly in spring 1986, because its thruster system had *two*
disastrous design flaws, found only a few months ago, that would have made
it the most long-awaited and expensive failure in the history of planetary
exploration.  The GOES satellites, failing one after another as the lamps
in their scanner encoders burned out.

I repeat my comment:  the major factor in how quickly you learn is how
often you try.  It is *not* possible to get everything right the first
time.  NASA, ESA, etc. like to pretend otherwise, but the universe has
a habit of reminding them that they're wrong.
--
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]
----------

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

Subject: shuttle design and low g tolerance
From: [e-mail] (Nicholas C. Hester)
Date:    Wed, 19 Apr 89 15:34:07 EDT

from what i have read of the shuttle design, the 3g limit is to permit an easie
r ride for the astronauts, since non-military personnel were to be used. this w
ould preclude the rigorous training required of the mercury thru apollo astrona
uts, who had to withstand high g forces (5g?).

=nick=
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: 19 Apr 89 20:16:04 GMT
From: mas1![e-mail]  (Rick Kawala)
Subject: Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (MacLeod) writes:
> I have received requests for the citation which covers the
> illegal aspects of man-ET encounters.  I am quoting here from the
> enigmatic KRILL document previously posted here.
>
> "Dr. Brian T. Clifford (Pentagon) announced 10-5-82 that cases of
> citizen-extraterrestrial contact were illegal under Title 14,
> Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations (and adopted
> 7-16-69, a few days before the first moon landing).  The Code
> specifies up to a year in jail and a 5000 dollar fine.  The NASA
> authorities can examine you to determine if you have been "ET
> exposed", and can impose an indefinite quarantine which cannot be
> broken, even by court order."
>
> Michael Sloan MacLeod   (amdahl!drivax!macleod)

I called a friend of mine who's a paralegal and asked him to look
this thing up. He told me that it citation was incomplete, that
one has to say "Code of Federal Regulations", <subsection>, Title 14,
Section 1211, where <subsection> can be replaced with things like
"Coast Guard Regulations" or something. Otherwise, you're faced
with too many books to look through. It's something like saying
"It's in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, page number 432" but not
saying which volume of EB you're referring to. If anyone has any
more information, I'd love to hear about it.

Rick Kawala
Contracted to Measurex Automation Systems
I disclaim everything

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

Date: 18 Apr 89 14:42:36 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!hwcs!hwee![e-mail]  (I. Sutherland)
Subject: Re: QUESTION? ASTRONAUTS AND F-19 STEALTH.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>A. We will assume you mean a NASA astronaut, since it's probably impossible
>    for a Westerner to get into the Soviet program, and the other nations

  Well I wouldn't be too sure about that one, it now seems likely that Britain's
first man ( somehow I doubt that person is the right word to use ) in space
will be travelling on a Russian mission. I haven't seen any real details but
I'm sure one newspaper gave a date of 1991.
  I saw the announcement quite recently, in fact it was probably while
Gorbachov(sp?) was on his visit to this country.

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

Date: 19 Apr 89 07:03:48 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!lynx![e-mail]  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: The Stirling Engine (was Re: Success with cold fusion...)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Taylor) writes:

>The "Buffalo News" ran a story about the Stirling a couple of days
>ago; of course, the object wasn't to explain the Stirling, but to defame it
>and then use it to beat Sen. Alfonse D'amato over the head with (he
>initiated substantial funding for Stirling R&D). The whole premise of the
>story was the uselessness of the Stirling and what a waste of taxpayer money
>it is.

Hmmm....objective news reporting at its best again. Didn't anyone ever tell
these newspaper clods that they are supposed to report the news in an
objective fashion?

Anyway, I seem to remember reading a short blurb in a magazine (Popular
Science? Scientific American?) about a Sterling engine that the military
has been working on recently. No regular Stirling is this....it integrates
the latest in high-tech microprocessor control. Supposedly the Air Force
has several passenger vans running this engine for experimental purposes.
One of the nice features is that, being an external combustion engine, the
Stirling can burn almost any fuel, including the left-over transmission and
lubricating oil from jet engines, which the Air Force used to throw
away (ie, spend money disposing of properly).

Also, the nice thing about the new Stirling was that the microprocessor
control made it have accelleration comparable to a similar sized gasoline
engine....one of the problems with the older Stirlings was that the
acceleration was poor.

Contrasting with the article in the "Buffalo News" as mentioned above, the
article I read was objective in its reporting, but the quotes from the Air
Force personnell involved made it seem they were pretty happy with their
success so far.

>Would someone explain the operating principle(s)?

Cannot remember any specifics, but the stirling engine uses external
combustion to heat a working fluid, unlike the internal combustion engine
that is in all motor vehicles mass produced today, where the gasoline or
diesel is the fuel and working fluid both. In the stirling engine, the
vaproization and condensation of the working fluid transfer the heat and
is the cause of the mechanical motion. Someone more mechanically inclined
than I will have to provide more details.



Neal

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

Date: 19 Apr 89 01:17:16 GMT
From: mcvax!kth!draken!chalmers!ce.chalmers.se!afs-news!hacke7![e-mail]  (Kristian Wedberg)
Subject: Is 'better than gravity assist' used?

Gravity assist has been used many times, by the Voyager-probes for instance.
The way I understand it, however, is that if you use a part of your fuel
just when you swing by the moon/planet/sun, you can reach a higher
velocity than if you use it all up when you start the voyage.

Is this so and has it been used, or did I break something in the energy-laws?


    -kitte

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

Date: 19 Apr 89 16:33:55 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: The Stirling Engine (was Re: Success with cold fusion...)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Neal Woodall) writes:
}Anyway, I seem to remember reading a short blurb in a magazine (Popular
}Science? Scientific American?) about a Sterling engine that the military
}has been working on recently. No regular Stirling is this....it integrates
}the latest in high-tech microprocessor control. Supposedly the Air Force
}has several passenger vans running this engine for experimental purposes.
}One of the nice features is that, being an external combustion engine, the
}Stirling can burn almost any fuel, including the left-over transmission and
}lubricating oil from jet engines, which the Air Force used to throw
}away (ie, spend money disposing of properly).
}
}Also, the nice thing about the new Stirling was that the microprocessor
}control made it have accelleration comparable to a similar sized gasoline
}engine....one of the problems with the older Stirlings was that the
}acceleration was poor.

I remember reading about an experimental passenger car using a Sterling engine
in Popular Science circa 1982/83.  The reporter who test drove it said that
there was very little difference from an internal-combusion gasoline engine
except for a 30-second warmup on starting.
--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: [phone] (school)
ARPA: [e-mail]  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
            Disclaimer? I claimed something?
    You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.

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

X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Date:     Wed, 19 Apr 89 13:15:12 -0900
Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Sender: <[e-mail]>
From: ROBERT J HALE                    <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Vol 375 and Yes I am back.

   That is right I am alive.   Back from KOREA.   I am overrun with
work and my colleg courses.   Not much ISECCo mail from me for a while.

   Now my question.   Vol 375 of the NASA perdiction,  How do you read
and use the data?   I think this was asked before but I would like someone
to E-mail it to me.

   Thanks for everyone being so patient with my replys since I went on
vacation.   Now for some space time so I can catch up on what is happening
at ISECCo.
                                Robert J. Hale III
                                ISECCo Director.
 P.S.   I know this is not Astronomy, but does anyone have a recomdation
of a good book on building a Dobsonian telescope.   Have you read one that
covers the new light and portable designs.   RJH

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

Date: 19 Apr 89 20:24:55 GMT
From: arc![e-mail]  (Ken Stuart)
Subject: Re: astrology (or effect of moon on people)


    Here are the references some of you requested concerning the
scientific research on astrology.  Several books and articles have
been written by the authors; only the first is listed.

    John Nelson
    (Short-wave Radio Propagation Analyst in the
     Solar and Ionospheric Research Department at
     RCA Corporation
     from 1946-1968)
    "Cosmic Patterns: Their influence on Man and his communication"
    1974 (book)

    Michel Gauqelin, PhD
    "Astrology and Science"
    1970 (book)(1966 in French)

Also, in the process of getting you the above specifics, I came across
the following book yesterday, which discusses these works (as well as
others published by NASA employees who feared being ridiculed if they
presented the material to NASA):

    H.J. Eysenck
    D.K.B. Nias
    "Astrology: Science or Superstition"
    1982 (book)

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

Date: 18 Apr 89 14:36:24 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hpctdlb!hpctdke![e-mail]  (Richard Katz)
Subject: Re: failures and engineering

>/ hpctdke:sci.space / [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) / 10:16 am  Apr 16, 1989 /
>I noticed that in your roll call of broken satellites and probes, you included
>Voyager 2.  This is a perfect example of how a space probe should be designed;
>*in spite* of the fact that there are point failures on board, it *still
>works*.  Voyager is out there laying the groudwork for the future exploration
>of the solar system, and you're sitting here on Earth complaining about the
>lube job.  I feel sure that if it had been a Soviet probe, you'd be singing
>it's praises almost daily.  In the end, all I can say is that while the Soviets
>keep sending probes out, "gaining experience", we're the ones with the
>working spacecraft.

I believe that your analysis is superficial.  You say that voyager is
a perfect example of how a spacecraft should be designed - in spite of
failures it still works.  Nothing against voyager and the people who
worked on it - I am just commenting on your argument.  First, we are
lucky it works at all.  As Henry pointed out, the receiver failures
occurred early in the mission.  One is lost and the other only works
in a very limited bandwith, not the way it was supposed to.

The cause of the failure should be examined before it is stated
whether voyager was the perfect way to go about doing things.  What
happened?
        - design fault?
        - workmanship error?
        - test error?
        - the unforseeable?

If voyager indeed does work at all because we are lucky, then you are
condoning a very flawed decision process.

Also, if memory serves me correctly, voyager had some last second
fixes at the pad, and some late modifications that let the dual
command systems both operate contributing to the success of the
missions from the added processing power.

I don't think that with the current spacecraft the US can afford to
keep shooting them out.  Galileo cost over a billion dollars and has
been in development for over a decade.  Magellan, which uses a lot of
Galileo spares I believe is over $500 million dollars.  A little to
expensive and too long a wait for "engineering" missions.

Then again, there are better ways for NASA to do business.

rich katz
hewlett packard
p o box 7050
colorado springs, co
80933-7050

email: [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #384
*******************