Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V10_0/V10_069.ZIP/V10_069

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.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/0Z7Iscm00VcJ84Ik5d>;
          Sun, 24 Sep 89 17:59:05 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 89 17:58:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #69

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 10 : Issue 69

Today's Topics:
             Charged Dark Matter
             Images of "the face"
               re: Private launch costs
            Re: Edgar Rice Quayle on Mars.
       Re: NASA Headline News for 09/12/89 (Forwarded)
Re: Progress M-1 (new type of cargo craft) launched to USSR's Mir station
        RTGs (was Re: How is Voyager powered?)
         Re: Frequently asked SPACE questions
        Re: Hurricane Gabrielle GIF pictures from GEOS
           ISDC 91 Conference announcement
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 89 20:20:50 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Charged Dark Matter

I noticed the following abstract in the 9/89 Bull. APS:

   Charged Dark Matter    S. L. Glashow, Harvard Uuniversity

   We introduce as dark-matter candidates massive stable singly-charged
   particles (CHAMPs).  Relic champs and antichamps in equal numbers
   may provide critical density for the universe and be the non-baryonic
   component of galactic halos.  Cosmological arguments constrain
   its mass to be between .1-1 million amu.  The flux of champs
   incident upon Earth should be ~0.1 grams/cm^2 Gy.  Its abundance
   by mass in the crust should be ~0.1 ppm, and in lunar material
   ~ 100 ppm.  Champs mimic superheavy isotopes.  At least half should
   appear as hydrogen, the rest should be bound to light nuclei. We
   advocate the search for isotopes in this mass range in unrefined
   terrestrial, meteoritic and lunar samples.  This work done with
   A. De Rujula and Uri Sarid.

While I had thought that massive hydrogen-like atoms had been ruled
out at these densities by mass spec searches, it would be extremely
interesting if these particles actually exist.

If both positive and negative champs have accumulated in the crusts of
the solid bodies of the solar system (the negative ones in light
nuclei), they would form a readily storable matter-antimatter fuel for
energy generation, rocketry and weaponry; the energy needed to
dislodge a negative champ from its nucleus (and thus make it available
for annihilation) would be on the order of 1 billionth of its rest energy.

I note that at the hypothesized rate (1e-10 grams/cm^2 year), the earth
is accumulating champs at the rate of 500 tonnes/year, which (if
continuously annihilated) would liberate 1500 terawatts of energy.
This exceeds the power of sunlight striking the entire earth.  Renewable
energy, indeed.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date:     Wed, 13 Sep 89 17:10 EDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Images of "the face"


  I caught the posting of some data of it, but it was lost in the bitbucket
somehow.  Could the person who posted the data send it to me at my e-mail
address (or anyone who has it)?  Thanks.

                Korac MacArthur
                [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 13 Sep 89 10:46:54 PDT
From: mordor!lll-tis!oodis01!riacs!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: ucsd!nosc!crash![e-mail]
Subject: re: Private launch costs

John Roberts writes:
> Another problem: the USSR has just one "company" to supply all its launch
> needs. If the US has 10 private launch companies, will it have to have 10
> times the USSR's launch volume for all the companies to have good economy
> of scale?

The Soviet government's effectiveness in space activities can, in general,
be attributed to the fact that while our private sector is more effective
than the Soviet public sector, our public sector is LESS effective than
the Soviet public sector.  Why this is so becomes obvious when you
consider that the Soviet public sector has no private sector to tax --
any costs are born by itself, directly, whereas in the US (and other
relatively free market economies) the governments have the luxury of
becoming fat and lazy at the expense of the private sector.

It is a simple matter of accountability, the US private sector is
most accountable for its costs, the Soviet system is next most
accountable for its costs and the US government is least accountable
for its costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery    Phone: [phone]
PO Box 1981                  Join the Mark Hopkins Society!
La Jolla, CA 92038   (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.)

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Sep 89 19:10:30 GMT
From: uccba!uceng![e-mail]  (daniel mocsny)
Subject: Re: Edgar Rice Quayle on Mars.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (N = R*fgfpneflfifaL) writes:
>     Vice President Dan Quayle, explained why the
>     United States should undertake a manned mission to Mars:  "Mars is
>     essentially in the same orbit.  Mars is somewhat the same distance
>     from the Sun, which is very important.  We have seen pictures where
>     there are canals, we believe, and water.  If there is water, there is
>     oxygen.  If oxygen, that means we can breathe."

The two US presidents with the highest IQ's were, I believe,
Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter. If Quayle ascends to the presidency,
can we expect to enter an unprecedented time of prosperity?

Dan Mocsny
[e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Sep 89 13:33:57 GMT
From: xanth![e-mail]  (Frank C. Paterra)
Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 09/12/89 (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>                           NASA Headline News
> Tuesday, Sept. 12, 1989                         Audio:202755-1788
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
[stuff deleted]
> Aerospace Daily says that NASA's international partners in the
> space station freedom program remain disturbed over descoping
> plans revealed last week.  The publication reports that the
> partners are concerned about not being included in the initial
> descoping study and not being given options on proposed changes.
> the Daily says if ESA, Japan and Canada remain dissatisfied with
> changes proposed by a NASA-Langley review team they may invoke
> dispute resolution procedures and request another meeting.  The
> trim back was prompted by probable congressional cuts of $400
> million from the Space Station program in the FY 90 budget.

Does anyone have the poop on these "descoping plans"?

Frank Paterra
[e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Sep 89 16:21:25 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Progress M-1 (new type of cargo craft) launched to USSR's Mir station

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>Was this wishlist based on an coherent, specific *plan*, or is it just all
>>the projects you find attractive this week?
>
>No and no.   Undiscovered nature and untapped markets are not coherent.  They
>do not have a "theme" or a "goal", and neither do my suggestions.   This was
>a general list of stuff space scientists and industrialists have desired
>for a several years...

In other words, it's all the projects *they* find attractive this week.
Our lack of complete knowledge about the solar system means that plans may
have to be modified in the light of new information, but it does *not*
make it impossible or undesirable to *have* a plan.  So long as each mission
is conceived in isolation, each will have to fight for funding by itself,
follow-ons to successful missions will be rare, and the pace of exploration
will be slow.  It doesn't have to be that way.

>>I don't see any mention of
>>Venus, not much of Mars, very little on asteroids, not much on the Moon,
>
>Lunar Polar Orbiter, Mars Observer 2, Asteroid Rendesvous, asteroid surveys,
>and Lunar/Martian/Asteroid sample-return missions to Antartica...

*One* mission apiece to the Moon and Mars.  CRAF is Asteroid Flyby, not
Asteroid Rendezvous.  The missions to Antarctica return meteorites that
*might* be from the Moon/Mars/asteroids, but are so poorly documented
and have so many complicating factors that they are not much use as samples.

A program which is *planned* knows where it's going.  That means that one
successful mission is followed by another.  (For that matter, an unsuccessful
mission is followed by another try, because if it's worth doing then it's
worth persisting with.  If you want a real nightmare, think about what
happens if Galileo fails.)  That means that missions are planned to support
each other.  That means you know what the second mission will be before
you launch the first.  Where are the follow-ons?

>Starprobe is not high on my list either, but may be on other's.  I'm easy
>(as long as you don't propose spending $tens of billions!!!)  The underlying
>reasoning is: "if you want oil, drill lots of wells."  Not one garganguant dry
>hole at LEO.

On the whole, I agree, but I draw very different conclusions.  One mission
per planet is not "lots of wells".  We need smaller, less ambitious missions
in much greater numbers.  It's not impossible.  In the mid-60s, there was a
period of 18 months in which NASA launched *TWELVE* unmanned lunar missions.
They could do this because they had a plan -- Apollo -- and those missions
were a necessary part of it.

>>And of course, assuming that killing the space station will free up that
>>money to be spent on "worthier" space projects is ridiculous.
>
>It's not ridiculous to expect that we'll get a lot farther in space if
>we get our priorities straight.  It's not ridiculous to expect NASA to alter
>its budget proposals to give more to space science and industry...

It *is* ridiculous to expect Congress to allocate more money to areas that
it has made it clear it doesn't care much about.  Congress has little
hesitation in altering NASA's budget proposals when it likes projects
that NASA isn't funding adequately.
--
V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Sep 89 07:17:37 GMT
From: emcard!wa4mei!kd4nc![e-mail]  (John DeArmond)
Subject: RTGs (was Re: How is Voyager powered?)

[e-mail] (nick szabo) writes:

>The
>strontium RTG's presumably suffer from neither of these disadvantages.
>I would like to see how they plan to protect customers from the radiation,
>and how they plan to dispose of depleated RTG's.

Radiation protection from Strontium is a simple matter.  Sr-90 emits only
a fairly energetic beta which is easily stopped by an inch or so of low-Z
material.  If the Sr-90 is encased in a high-Z material like stainless
steel, Bremsstrahlung X-rays become a problem.  The common practice is
to encapsulate the isotope in a low-Z material like ceramic which are
low Bremsstrahlung producers and which are in turn hermetically sealed in
multiple, concentric stainless steel capsules.

In terms  of disposal, I'd hope that this would consist of refilling them
with new Sr-90 capsules and redeploying!  There is little to go wrong on
these machines.

John

--
John De Armond, WD4OQC                     | Manual? ... What manual ?!?
Radiation Systems, Inc.    Marietta, GA    | This is Unix, My son, You
...!gatech!kd4nc!wd4oqc   **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!!

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

Date: 13 Sep 89 01:39:32 GMT
From: ginosko!usc!csun!psivax!quad1!ttidca![e-mail]  ( Avatar)
Subject: Re: Frequently asked SPACE questions

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eugene Miya) writes:
+This list does change.
+
+1) What happen to Saturn V plans? What about reviving the Saturn V
+as a heavy-lift launcher?
+
+Possible but very expensive -- tools, subcontractors, plans, facilities
+are gone or converted for the shuttle, and would need rebuilding,
+re-testing, or even total redesign.
+
 Excuse me, but I take exception your having posted this as if it were a
cast-in-concrete fact. Ever since STS this has been the NASA party-line on
the subject. Not everyone is so sure of this, Eugene. A partial reason for
my reaction is the current breakdown of the NASA budget; go look at a copy
if you are unsure...the real heavy costs have nothing whatsoever to do with
anything like tools or parts...the real costs involved in doing anything at
NASA (but especially anything that looks like WORK! ;-) ) involve having at
least 3 levels of management! The facts are:

1) There are 3 semi-complete Saturn V units available for reverse-engineering.
2) Engineers (not MANAGERS!) could, in a matter of months, cut new NC/CNC
    tapes for a majority of the required structural components.
3) The electrical sub-system could be re-engineered using modern PC-based
    circuit emulator packages; the harnesses could be built and tested in any
    number of wire-houses (most of which are in Mexico, BTW!) that now supply
    such complex wiring looms for major computer manufacturers, at about 1/2
    the cost of the orignal wiring looms!
4) Rockwell's Rocketdyne Div. CAN STILL SUPPLY F-1 ENGINES.

 Too costly? Not compared to the Shuttle! People keep pointing to the Soviets
and mumbling about BigDumbBoosters...cripes! We HAD this down to a fine,
science long ago..we could do it again, and it's not as expensive as the NASA
party line would have you believe. The real reason that everyone in management
at KSC keeps spouting this lie is to keep a lid on the fact that they all
GOOFED when we went to STS, and that their fat-ass salaries chew up most of
the damn budget. No :-)'s here, check it out....
--
-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY           +-------------------------+
Citicorp(+)TTI                          *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 *
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   [phone], ext. 2973 +-------------------------+
Santa Monica, CA  90405 {csun,philabs,randvax,trwrb}!ttidca!ttidcb!sorgatz **

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

Date: 12 Sep 89 18:23:03 GMT
From: cica!ctrsol!IDA.ORG![e-mail]  (Eric Roskos)
Subject: Re: Hurricane Gabrielle GIF pictures from GEOS

Phil forwarded to me a question someone asked about how these pictures
were produced.  Unfortunately the posting in which the question appeared
has not arrived here, so I will follow up to the original posting.

Note, incidentally, that the pictures are not from GEOS, they are
primarily from the NOAA TIROS-N satellites.

The equipment used to produce these pictures is as follows:

    - Dressler ARA-800 active antenna
    - Kenwood R-5000 with internal VC-20 VHF converter
    - A&A Engineering WEFAX demodulators
    - PC/AT clone
    - My own software to produce the raw data
    - FBM to produce the GIF images

The R-5000 unfortunately does not have adequate bandwidth for the
satellite pictures, which is the reason for the snow in some of the
whitest and blackest portions of the picture.
--
Eric Roskos ([e-mail] or [e-mail])
--
Eric Roskos ([e-mail] or [e-mail])

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

Date: Wed, 13 Sep 89 10:58:41 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Richard Murphy)
Subject: ISDC 91 Conference announcement


In keeping with its international flavor, the Space Development conference
is held each year in a prominent U.S. city.  In 1988 it was Denver, with its
magnificent snow-capped mountains; 1989 is Chicago, the gate-way to the
Great Lakes; and 1990 will find us in Los Angeles, the show-biz capital of
the world.  The year 1991 will be no exception.  We will meet in
multi-cultured San Antonio, Texas, the 9th largest city in the United
States.  A city of festivals and the historically famous Alamo.  A city . . .

Where strolling along the Paseo del Rio (riverwalk) is a unique
experience - a way of life for residents and visitors alike,

Where roving mariachi bands provide dancing in the streets, and

Where savoring the mouth-watering flavor of a real taco is not to be
missed.

Plan now to attend this exciting conference in a truly exotic and fun place.
You will be updated by experts on NASAUs status, the Russian space
program, and other international space activities.  Don't delay . . . 1991
will be here before you know it.  Return the following form along with your
$50.00 registration fee by May 1, 1990, after which time the price will be
increased.  This will ensure your participation in what promises to be a
fantastic conference and will support conference preparation.
Cancellation must be made four (4) weeks before the conference.  There is
a $15.00 non-refundable handling fee.


Send registration to:  Beatrice Moreno
                       Southwest Research Institute
                       P.O. Drawer 28510
                       San Antonio, Texas 78228-0510


To obtain further information: Carol A. Luckhardt
                               Southwest Research Institute
                               P.O. Drawer 28510
                               San Antonio, Texas 78228-0510
                               [phone] or 340-1290
                               Internet: [e-mail]
                               Usenet: convex!pemrac!isdc-91

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #69
*******************