Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V10_1/V10_145.ZIP/V10_145

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/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/oZEAqmy00VcJI8gU4a>;
          Sat, 21 Oct 89 16:12:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 89 16:12:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #145

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 145

Today's Topics:
               Re: Human contamination
               Hopeful outcome
            Re: More whining about Galileo
               Re: Pharmacies in Space
             Re: Hauling asteroids about
         Re: random notes about AMROC attempt
            Re: RTGs, shuttle launch risks
         Re: random notes about AMROC attempt
            Re: More whining about Galileo
            Re: More whining about Galileo
       Re: Time Urgent: Galileo plutonium debate on CNN
             Re: gravity assist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Oct 89 16:25:15 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!me!radio.astro!helios.physics!utpsych![e-mail]  (Michael Gemar)
Subject: Re: Human contamination

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

>An evolutionary change does not have to benefit the individual organism, as
>long as it benefits the species as a whole. If it turns out that spores are
>capable of crossing interplanetary or interstellar distances and seeding new
>planets (several mechanisms for this have been proposed), then such an ability
>in microorganisms (which could later evolve into more complex organisms) would
>indeed be important. [...]

*SIGH*  Not to attack John, or anyone else personally, but I am rather
dismayed at the level of understanding of evolution displayed in this
newsgroup.  In response to the above point, evolution in the vast,
overwhelming number of cases documented, occurs at the level of the
*individual*, and *not* the species.  This is because the mechanism of
evolution works through increased "fitness" or reproductive success of
individuals - *not* through the (rather abstract entities called) species.
To argue otherwise is to invoke a rather outdated, although still popular,
in non-biology circles, notion of evolutionary change.  (Granted, there
are some models of evolutionary mechanisms which use "group selection,"
rather than individual variation, as the driving force, but such models
are rare, and the types of cases of change they cover are not like that
mentioned above.)

To moralise a bit, while I realize that this isn't talk.origins ;-), it is
surprising to me that the level of discourse in this group, which is usually
quite learned, is not better than it is on this topic.  If posters here are
going to complain about the general ignorance of the masses, perhaps they should
first recognize that their own knowledge is not always complete.

(Yes, I know this isn't very space related, but it seemed like a comment
should be made.  For those interested in a readable, although somewhat
extreme, view of individual selection, see Richard Dawkins popular book,
_The Selfish Gene_.)

- michael

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

Date: 10 Oct 89 15:36:01 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!stda.jhuapl.edu![e-mail]  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Hopeful outcome


It has been said that some of the representatives of the "keep plutonium
on earth" have said that if the courts give the ok for launch that they
will physically place themselves on the launchpad.

Here is hoping that the courts ok it, they put their bodies under the
shuttle, and the launch goes on.

The average intelligence of earth will go up by some small margin.


"In these matters the only certainty is that nothing is certain"
                    - Pliny the Elder
These were the opinions of :
[e-mail]  - or - [e-mail]  - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET

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

Date: 10 Oct 89 16:10:23 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!aplcen!stda.jhuapl.edu![e-mail]  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: More whining about Galileo

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
}Exactly right.  You understand that only you and a few hundreds of thousands
}of people like you (mostly centered around universities and industrial
}R&D departments) give a fig about Jupiter.  "Oh yeah, Jupiter.  That's in
}Europe between Germany and France, right?"
}
}Now who are you to presume to tell the other 220 million people how we should
}spend the money from all of us?  Why should we spend so much money just for you
}guys?  And if you're taking genuine risks with something we hold near and
}dear to our hearts, for example Plutonium contaminating the wheat fields
}which means a half-year's harvest gotta be thrown away which means the
}price of Wonder bread and cheeseburgers goes up, who do you f***ing think
}you are?

I really like this.  It is so nice to ber able to argue from a position
of ignorance.

BTW:  Where are the wheat fields in florida?
BTW:  Why didn't anyone complain about the satellite tracking of Hugo?

"In these matters the only certainty is that nothing is certain"
                    - Pliny the Elder
These were the opinions of :
[e-mail]  - or - [e-mail]  - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET

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

Date: 11 Oct 89 00:16:02 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Pharmacies in Space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steven_Tenney) writes:
>Does anyone know of any good articles discussing the
>proposal of pharmaceutical labs in earth orbit?

This was largely NASA-encouraged propaganda when they were trying to
sell the space station.  McDonnell-Douglas had a project -- continuous
flow electrophoresis -- that was obsoleted by advances in earth-based
protein separation technology.  McDD terminated CFE last year.

>Also, I thought
>I overheard the mention of genetic engineering on a space station
>as well.

This would make no sense.  There is no need for microgravity to
do genetic engineering.

As far as this layman can tell, the one interesting application of
microgravity for drug companies is growing large protein crystals for
high resolution molecular structure determination.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 10 Oct 89 16:42:12 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Hauling asteroids about

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Terrell Drinkard) writes:
>How are we planning to haul these asteroids around?  Even  a
>'small' one of 100m diameter is a bit largish to stuff into a
>shuttle cargo bay, obviously.  So, are we anticipating some
>enormous tow vehicle?  Or mounting rocket motors on the asteroid
>itself?  Or [tacky idea follows] use nukes to redirect the orbit?

The fuel requirement for shoving one of them around with chemical engines,
or even fission rockets, is totally ridiculous.  Nobody's ever going to
do that, either with a tugboat or with asteroid-mounted engines.  Nuclear
pulse propulsion -- that is, nuclear bombs -- is a perfectly workable way
of pushing asteroids around with today's technology, with not much in the
way of harmful side effects, but it has political problems of various
kinds that will probably prevent its use for the moment.

For the immediate future, we'll be visiting for a bit of mining work,
rather than hauling the whole thing back.  It will probably be worthwhile
to do some refining on site too, to reduce the mass for the return trip.
--
A bit of tolerance is worth a  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
megabyte of flaming.           | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 10 Oct 89 16:53:01 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: random notes about AMROC attempt

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Keith Lofstrom) writes:
>2)  AMROC chose the hybrid technology for safety reasons;  construction
>and handling is simplified.  The polybutadiene rubber propellant is
>simple to work with and environmentally benign...

As I've mentioned before, this is silly.  LOX is much the most dangerous
component of the standard liquid-fuel combinations, and Amroc is still
using that.  (Amroc's rockets ARE safer than solids, but that's not hard.)
Even liquid hydrogen isn't in the same league as a safety hazard.

>... They
>may change from LOX to nitrous oxide.  I'm not sure I heard this right -
>perhaps N2O5 - the person I talked to said it would be liquid at room
>temperature, and use a smaller tank.

I would guess nitrogen tetroxide, N2O4, which is the standard room-temperature
oxidizer, but I could be wrong.  Nitrous oxide is N2O, if memory serves,
which strikes me as a poor choice -- too much nitrogen along for the ride.

>4)  The LOX is pressurized with catalytically heated helium - this saves
>tankage weight (the helium is heated to 800 degrees F, and the LOX is
>pressurized to 400 PSI, pardon my FPS).  Sheila Smith, the engineer who
>thought this one up, wonders why nobody tried this before.

Heated helium is a new one on me, but hot-gas pressurization is not new.
It's not generally considered a particularly great idea nowadays, because
the gas cools in the tank and this makes it difficult to control pressure
precisely.  Maybe Amroc has found some new wrinkle.
--
A bit of tolerance is worth a  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
megabyte of flaming.           | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 10 Oct 89 16:17:13 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!aplcen!stda.jhuapl.edu![e-mail]  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: RTGs, shuttle launch risks

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
}BTW hydroelectric plants are not free from risks either.  Thirty
}years ago the dam at Vionia (sp?), Italy, failed and killed
}20 000 people by flushing the village off of the face of the
}opposite hill.  The number is approximate because few of the bodies
}were recovered.

Well, sort of....

The mountain behind it (most of these lakes are in valleys) slipped its top,
fell into the lake, and it sloshed over the top of the dam.  Bending the
metal on top out of shape rather badley but leaving the dam intact.  The
slosh proceeded down the valley and wiped out the town.

It looks really odd - the surface where the top slid down looks like polished
marble, and you can see how high the water went in the valley from the
torn up trees.

Yes, I have been there and seen it personally.


"In these matters the only certainty is that nothing is certain"
                    - Pliny the Elder
These were the opinions of :
[e-mail]  - or - [e-mail]  - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET

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

Date: 10 Oct 89 19:47:29 GMT
From: argosy![e-mail]  (Kevin S. Van Horn)
Subject: Re: random notes about AMROC attempt

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Keith Lofstrom) writes:
>Some random notes about AMROC:
>...
>4)  The LOX is pressurized with catalytically heated helium - this saves
>tankage weight (the helium is heated to 800 degrees F, and the LOX is
>pressurized to 400 PSI, pardon my FPS).  Sheila Smith, the engineer who
>thought this one up, wonders why nobody tried this before.

Could you expand on this?  I'm not clear on what "catalytically heated" means,
and how this saves tankage weight.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin S. Van Horn            | Privatize the courts!
argosy![e-mail]  |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 10 Oct 89 14:43:22 GMT
From: amdahl!pyramid!leadsv![e-mail]  (Pat Wimmer)
Subject: Re: More whining about Galileo

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
>
> Now who are you to presume to tell the other 220 million people how we should
> spend the money from all of us?  Why should we spend so much money just for
> you guys?  And if you're taking genuine risks with something we hold near and
> dear to our hearts, for example Plutonium contaminating the wheat fields
> which means a half-year's harvest gotta be thrown away which means the
> price of Wonder bread and cheeseburgers goes up, who do you f***ing think
> you are?
>

Dear Flatlander,

    Your outburst proves my observation of the mental powers and
    sense of vision of your ilk.  To paraphrase a quote from RFK, who
    borrowed the original quote, "Some people look at a new challenge
    and say WHY.  I look at the same challenge and say WHY NOT?"

    If you are more worried about risk, which is a downward spiral
    into mental midget mentality, than you are with risk management,
    than you deserve the country you get!  But you won't have to
    worry too long about controlling your own fate, because your
    country won't be yours much longer!

Pat

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

Date: 9 Oct 89 19:49:15 GMT
From: att!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane![e-mail]  (John Sparks)
Subject: Re: More whining about Galileo

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Robert Thorson)
writes:
>If you wanna get the rest of the human race (i.e. about 99.9% of it) to
> support your hobby, you gotta get some interest in it.  Start a rumor!
>"Hey, bud.  Did you know Galileo will help us predict the planting time for
>the winter wheat crop down to 30 seconds of accuracy?

Nah... only the farmers care about the wheat. Better:
"Hey, bud. don't ya know that Dan Quayle is going to be on board Galileo?
Yea, that's right... on the part that will be staying on Jupiter. He said
he's doing it for science."--
John Sparks   |  {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps
|||||||||||||||          [e-mail]         | 502/968-5401 thru -5406
Mixed Emotions: When you see your mother-in-law back over a cliff in your
new Mercedes Benz.

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

Date: 11 Oct 89 00:36:29 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: Time Urgent: Galileo plutonium debate on CNN

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>The safety of the Galileo Jupiter probe launch will be debated on the Cable
>News Network program "Sonya Live" on Wednesday, 11 October, during the
>12:30-1:00 PM EDT segment.

>Tim Kyger, a staffer for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), will be speaking in
>favor of a Galileo launch.  Opposing him will be Larry Sankin of the Christic
>Institute, one of the groups involved in the lawsuit.

Was anyone from NSS or The Planetary Society contacted about appearing
on this show?  It seems a shame to let the luddites get all of the
free publicity this thing is generating.

>CNN's "Sonya Live" program is a call-in show, so you have a chance to express
>your opinion.  (Sorry, I don't have their phone number!)

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi                University of Rochester
[e-mail]        Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

Date: Mon, 9 Oct 89 10:29 CST
From: "I did not commit any crime." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: gravity assist.

For those of you still having problems here (I started the whole thing, so
I'll attempt to give my version), One way to figure it out is to do the
one-dimensional case, with a planet and sattelite on a line.  This isn't
the best, but gives a good idea . . .

Scott

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #145
*******************