Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V10_1/V10_107.ZIP/V10_107

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 16KB

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/UZ:PsR:00VcJI46U5n>;
          Wed,  4 Oct 89 04:23:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed,  4 Oct 89 04:23:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #107

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 107

Today's Topics:
       Re: YAHSS (Yet Another Henry Spencer Signature)
       Re: NASA Headline News for 09/27/89 (Forwarded)
        Re: power source for the space station
       Re: NASA Headline News for 09/27/89 (Forwarded)
            Re: NASA and face data
        Plutonium is the least of our worries
          Re: Toxic materials on the Shuttle
               Re: NASA images
          Re: Toxic materials on the Shuttle
        Re: power source for the space station
     Mars fetish  ( or why not visit the rocks of Kansas first. )
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Sep 89 14:43:10 GMT
From: calvin![e-mail]  (John Sahr)
Subject: Re: YAHSS (Yet Another Henry Spencer Signature)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Per Danielsson) writes:

>Well, Trump is no dummy (or else he wouldn't be immensely rich)

Okay, maybe we should have the richest man in the U.S.A. be king.

--
John Sahr,     Dept. of Electrical Eng., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
johns@{alfven,calvin}.ee.cornell.edu,  {rochester,cmcl2}!cornell!calvin!johns
--When the dust settles, each B2 bomber will fund NSF for more than a year--

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

Date: 29 Sep 89 15:45:00 GMT
From: mailrus!sharkey!itivax!vax3![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 09/27/89 (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>Thursday, September 28....
>
>     3:30 P.M.       Amroc launch with Air Force/MIT experiments
>                     from Vandenberg AFB.  Window opens at 4:30
>                     P.M.



So does anybody know if it went up? If not, when?

I didn't see it on the news (although CNN said they would cover it when
we called).


  Allen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Allen Sherzer                     | DETROIT:                            |
|  [e-mail]                       | Where the weak are killed and eaten |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 29 Sep 89 16:33:10 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: power source for the space station

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Wilkins) writes:
>Has solar-thermo-couple power been considered,  ie a solar collector
>focused on one end of a bank of thermocouples???   Is this an improvement
>on solar panels in any shape or form??.

Thermocouples are awesomely inefficient, even worse than solar panels.
I don't think it would be worthwhile.
--
"Where is D.D. Harriman now,   |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
when we really *need* him?"    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Sep 89 19:27:43 GMT
From: usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax![e-mail]  (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 09/27/89 (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
:In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
:>Thursday, September 28....
:>     3:30 P.M.       Amroc launch with Air Force/MIT experiments
:>                     from Vandenberg AFB.  Window opens at 4:30
:>                     P.M.
:So does anybody know if it went up? If not, when?
:|  Allen Sherzer                     | DETROIT:                            |

It did not launch, scrubbed due to weather (fog I believe).  Next launch
attempt will be monday I think.


Lee

"I'm the NRA"

|Lee F. Mellinger                 Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA
|4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516  FTS 977-0516
|{ames!cit-vax,}!elroy!jpl-devvax!leem  [e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Sep 89 18:05:02 GMT
From: sjsca4![e-mail]  (Greg Wageman)
Subject: Re: NASA and face data

Opinions expressed are the responsibility of the author.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>    Many thanks to Loren Carpenter for supplying the raw data for the Mars
>"face" images.  I wrote a small program to help analyze the images and spent
>some time looking at them.  The results of about a half-day's worth of effort?
>It's a pile of dirt, of course!
>
>    So why hasn't NASA made greater efforts to bring this disproof to
>light?  Why should they?  It's just a trick of the lighting!  They already said
>it was a trick of the lighting and apparently most people have been satisfied
>with that answer (if they ever knew the question in the first place!).  There
>never was a cover-up, wasn't any need for one, and if researchers don't seem
>interested it is because a) they'd rather be doing science and b) the people
>who pay their salaries (i.e., taxpayers) have deemed the "face" a nonissue.

I attended a Smithsonian Lecture in San Jose last evening, where a
gentleman who specializes in image processing lectured on the latest
Mars data and analysis.

He did not mention the "face" until asked by an audience member,
whereupon he produce two slides which he had obviously expected to
need.  The first was of the unprocessed "face"; the second was
computer-enhanced in the manner described above.  With the shadow on
the right side, it looks like a very regular face.  When the area in
shadow is contrast stretched, the symmetry is completely broken.  As
he said, "Either the Martians had some strange projection on the right
side of their faces under their chins", and their eyes were not
symmetrical, or it's just a rock.

He also implied, however, that it is not in NASA's best interest to
dissuade interest in space exploration, even if the interest is
generated by something as insignificant as the "face".  If that's what
it takes to get public support to send an orbiter and/or lander up and
get better resolution pictures of the thing, then so be it.

I can't really argue with that.

Copyright 1989 Greg Wageman    DOMAIN: [e-mail]
Schlumberger Technologies    UUCP:   {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!greg
San Jose, CA 95110-1397        BIX: gwage  CIS: 74016,352  GEnie: G.WAGEMAN
        Permission granted for not-for-profit reproduction only.

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

Date: 29 Sep 89 15:56:33 GMT
From: voder!pyramid!infmx![e-mail]  (David Cortesi)
Subject: Plutonium is the least of our worries

In the 9/29 San Jose Mercury there is a long and well-balanced article
on the Galileo/Plutonium suit.  To me the most interesting feature was
a chart headed "Galileo risk analysis."  A footnote to the chart says
"Source: Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Panel."  I am reproducing the
chart below, not for what it says about plutonium but for the very
remarkable and frightening things it seems to say about the shuttle.

To keep the width below 80 bytes I have used exponential notation instead
of "million" and "billion"; also edited the captions.
===========================================================================
Accident        Risk of   Risk of      Pop.     Fatal    Individual
                        Accident  Pl. release  Exposed* Cancers  Risk
External fuel tank
explodes on launch pad  1:256     1:1e6        860,000  40       1:25e9

Shuttle hits tower
and explodes            1:5,000   1:1e6        670,000  20       1:33e9

Shuttle breaks up after
launch; fuel explodes   1:667     1:167,000    110,000   0.4     1:50e9

SRB ruptures just
after launch            1:556     1:1e6        880,000  80       1:11e9

SRB ruptures within
10-20 sec. of launch    1:2,222   1:1e6        460,000   9       1:50e9

SRB ruptures within
70-105 sec. of launch   1:3,125   1:1e6        0         0.5    insignificant

Galileo crashes to Earth
before/during deployment 1:37     1:1e6         27,000   0.08    1:300e9

Galileo crashes to Earth
during later flyby      1:2e6     1:2e6        4.5e9**   0-2,000  1:50e9

* Exposure is more than 1 millirem in 50 years
** the entire population of the world
===========================================================================

There are some strange things in this chart; for instance the next-to-last
row may or may not represent a total for the preceding rows; the Merc.
didn't print it as if it were a summary but it's hard to see how to get
a 1:37 chance any other way.

But what is very clear is that the "Interagency Nuclear Safety Review
Panel" (whoever they are) have published some very scary numbers on the
risk of an unsuccessful shuttle launch.  1 chance in 256 of the external
tank blowing!  1 in 556 of SRB rupture at launch!  Where did these
first-column numbers come from?  Are they correct?

///////   /     David Cortesi               {pyramid|uunet}!infmx!cortesi
//////   //                              ///////////////////////////////////
////  / ///     Informix Software        // I don't fly nothin' what got  //
///  / ////     4100 Bohannon Drive      // odds of explodin' that fit    //
//  / /////     Menlo Park, CA  94025    // in no 16-bit word!            //
/  ////////     [phone]           ///////////////////////////////////

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

Date: 29 Sep 89 17:00:15 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Toxic materials on the Shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Christian Reimer) writes:

>  The point you are missing is that while the shuttle's beryllium will only
>become a health hazard if it is vaporized/powdered and dispersed (so that it
>can get *inside* an organism), plutonium can and will pose a threat to public
>health even if it is dispersed in large chunks (radioactivity can act from
>*outside* an organism).

Wrong.  Pu238 is an alpha emitter that emits very little gamma
radiation (which is why it is used in RTGs).  It would only be a
hazard if particles were to lodge inside the body -- alpha particles
cannot even penetrate skin.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Sep 89 13:57:14 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax![e-mail]  (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: NASA images

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Craig Pepmiller") writes:
:Where should I write at NASA to get access to Voyager/Pioneer produced images
:for research?  Also does NASA have a repository of Earth and Lunar images?
:
:Thanks,
:
:Craig Pepmiller
:Computing Services
:University of Missouri--Columbia

Write to the Regional Planetary Image Facility
             Jet Propulsion Laboratory
             MS 202-201
             4800 Oak Grove Drive
             Pasadena, Ca 91109-8099

or call them at 818-354-3343.

All of the images that JPL has received are stored here, are available
for viewing, and I believe, can be acquired in electronic form (laser
video disks) for the reproduction costs.


Lee

"I'm the NRA"

|Lee F. Mellinger                 Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA
|4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/393-0516  FTS 977-0516
|{ames!cit-vax,}!elroy!bentley!leem  [e-mail]

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

Date: 29 Sep 89 19:18:38 GMT
From: m2c!wpi![e-mail]  (Tom [Chris] Murphy)
Subject: Re: Toxic materials on the Shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Christian Reimer) writes:
>
>  Radioactivity isn't just a boogey-man; it does bring into play different
>health hazards, and warrants greater concern than purely chemical toxins.

Having a basic, but not indepth, knowledge of radiological systems, I am
courious about the 'greater concern' warrented by radiation over chemical
toxins.  True, they pose different problems, but chemical toxins always
seem more worrisome to me.

Thomas C. Murphy                  Worcester Polytechnic Institute CAD Lab
         Internet:   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
             BITNET:     TMURPHY@WPI           BIX:  tmurphy
                          CompuServe: 73766,130

If the Universe is constantly expanding, why can't I ever find a parking space?

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

Date: 30 Sep 89 01:12:32 GMT
From: phoenix!puppsr![e-mail]  (marty ryba)
Subject: Re: power source for the space station

[e-mail] (Greg Wilkins) writes:
>Has solar-thermo-couple power been considered,  ie a solar collector
>focused on one end of a bank of thermocouples???   Is this an improvement
>on solar panels in any shape or form??.

Big NO.  The thermoelectric generators used in RTG's have a thermodynamic
efficiency of only 5% or so.  Combine this with mirror inefficiencies and
radiative losses, and you lose a lot.  Solar cells are approaching 20%
efficiency over the visible spectrum; although it does degrade some over time,
the direct conversion is still far superior, and much more reliable to boot.

>If the collector was big enough, it would also provide a solar furnace,
>which I am sure some material scientists would like to use in low Gs.
A solar furnace for it's own sake sounds interesting; I would suggest talking
seriously about this to someone official; NASA Lewis in Cleveland is in charge
of development of the power systems; I'm sure that idea would have an impact
on their electrical considerations.  My feeling though is that the small gain
in efficiency and initial cost doesn't make up for the problems of having the
furnace as a separate module instead of something that would be inside and more
accesible.

>If solar-thermo-couple is not better than solar panels, can anybody think
>of and arrangment of solar panels that would allow the waste heat and
>reflected light to be used by thermocouples?
Low grade heat isn't a valuable resource.

Thanks much for the interesting ideas....


Marty Ryba (slave physics grad student)
They don't care if I exist, let alone what my opinions are!
[e-mail]
Asbestos gloves always on when reading mail

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

Date: 30 Sep 89 01:39:38 GMT
From: milton!maven![e-mail]  (Games Wizard)
Subject: Mars fetish  ( or why not visit the rocks of Kansas first. )

This facination with Mars probably comes from the relative excitement
factor of the planet.  Joe Blow who is a steel worker in Detroit Listens to Dan
Quale, and thinks that this is a good deal, some day his kid may live on Mars
because there is oxygen there.   Big rocks in space don't interest him.

What this perception means is that the politicians, and everyone else that
relies upon public opinion ( via congressmen, donations, etc... ) will
put forth a voyage to mars before a rock, because it will have more mass
appeal, and hence more of a chance of success ( public opinion DOES influence
funding )

What people involved in some of these other projects should be doing is telling
the public that thier project is tied to the "MISSION TO MARS", and that it
will help ensure its success.

LIE THROUGH YOUR TEETH, AND YOU WILL GET WHAT YOU WANT.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trendy footer by:
            John Stevens-Schlick
            Internet?: [e-mail]
            7720 35'th Ave S.W. Seattle, Wa. 98126
            (206) 935 - 4384
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My boss dosen't know what I do.

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #107
*******************