Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V10_1/V10_153.ZIP/V10_153

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 19KB

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/sZEBIIK00VcJM9GU5t>;
          Sat, 21 Oct 89 16:44:05 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 89 16:43:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #153

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 153

Today's Topics:
            Next Christic action?
           Re: Try thinking before stinking
               Re: Pharmacies in Space
              Re: Trump Station
              Re:  SPACE Digest V10 #117
             Re: Hauling asteroids about
               Re: 5th orbiter?
    Detecting solar radio noise bursts from major flares.
             Re: TDRS vs military
                 Re: An Idea
     Re: Plutonium (was: South Florida Environmental Reader #12)
             Re: sterilization of Galileo
             CNN Quote of the Day
           Re: What will the next ten years bring?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Oct 89 19:36:15 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!radio.astro!helios.physics![e-mail]  (Prof. A. Griffin)
Subject: Next Christic action?

Disclaimer: I am NOT professor Griffin. If you use "F", please check the
attribution against the signature.

  With all this talk of plutonium oxide poisoning of Florida, the Christic
incident has overlooked an even more pressing danger. NASA admits freely
that the next shuttle flight will expel thousands of tons of a demonstrably
dangerous material in a cloud over the launch site. This material kills
hundreds of people each year, many of them small children. Just ten or
twenty grams is sufficient to kill somebody if taken into the lungs. In
short, the shuttle will release enough hydrogen oxide to kill everybody in
Florida, if properly administered. NASA claims that the material will be
vaporised, and the resulting cloud will disperse harmlessly, but the stable
phase of this material at the temperatures found in Florida is the liquid
phase, from which all known deaths have resulted. To maintain that the
cloud will remain a gas, then, goes against the very foundations of
thermodynamics. Me must alert the ignorant masses of this pressing and very
real danger, caused not by an accident, but in the normal operation of the
shuttle! They must be informed, so that they can implore their congressmen
to ban the production, distribution, and disposal of hydrogen oxide,
especially in liquid form. Donations can be left in the box at the front of
the room. Thank you for your attention.

  For those of you who haven't caught on yet, that was a joke. No flames,
please.

  Now, a serious space question. All the talk on the net is convincing me
that the American space program is terribly inefficient, and isn't likely
to do more than scrape by with subsistence level funding. How far away are
the Japanese from manned space flight? How, on the whole, is their program,
and is it efficient?
  My prediction is that within thirty years the Japanese space program will
have launched a rendezvous and recovery mission to an earth-approaching
metallic asteroid, and will be sending it to earth orbit. The American
congressmen, upon hearing that the Japanese will soon be selling refined
metals dirt-cheap to any nation which wants them, will demand to know why
NASA didn't do this years previously. Finally, some bright lawyer types
will go to court, trying to convince a judge that the asteroidal metal
belongs to all mankind (personkind?) and that the Japanese can't sell it,
as it would undermine (no pun intended) US metals extraction interests.
They'd then try to get an injunction to prevent anybody from using the
metals in the rock, since it would put a lot of hard-working constituents
out of work. Plausible?
  So, who will have a real industrial presence in space first? The US or
Japan?
--
 Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  |  "I'm a scientist;
 [e-mail]               | nothing shocks me"
 [e-mail]              |   - Indiana Jones
 "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |

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

Date: 16 Oct 89 04:52:59 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (JOHNSON RICHARD J)
Subject: Re: Try thinking before stinking

[e-mail] (Christopher John Rapier) writes:

> Lets say it it smashes into the ocean and, say, 5% of
> the packing fails and 2 pounds of plutonium escape. Can any of you give
> more than a hapazard guess as to what effect that will happen to the
> environment in that area?
...
> Even if only 2 pound of plutonium
> escape into the atmosphere (only 5%) how many people will this kill over
> the next 20 years?
> the next 20 years?

Do you have any idea yourself?  Or are you just (perhaps subconsciously)
using the "ask a nasty question" technique?  Are we just supposed to assume
since the horrible devil radiation is involved that the answers to those
questions are just too horrendous to contemplate?

Or maybe you really were asking if the rest of us actually knew the
answers.  In my case, I know and trust enough to want to get on with the
launch.  I don't know the exact biological effects of the kind of release
you proposed.

Yes, there's a level of risk involved.  But can you put numbers on that
risk?  Please?  :-)

| Richard Johnson                           [e-mail] |
|    CSC doesn't necessarily share my opinions, but is welcome to.     |
|  Power Tower...Dual Keel...Phase One...Allison/bertha/Colleen...?... |
|   Space Station Freedom is Dead.  Long Live Space Station Freedom!   |

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

Date: 12 Oct 89 11:00:20 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Kian-Tat Lim)
Subject: Re: Pharmacies in Space

In article <[e-mail]>, Paul Dietz writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> Steven Tenney writes:
>>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.

No, but there is a need for isolation.  Potentially dangerous genetically-
engineered bacteria or viruses would find a much less fertile environment
upon escaping from a space station than they would upon escaping from an
earthbound lab.

I still doubt that it's economical to do in space, as the labs still need to
be redundantly isolated from the crew quarters (or do we let the lab techs
be guinea pigs?).

--
Kian-Tat Lim ([e-mail], KTL @ CITCHEM.BITNET, GEnie: K.LIM1)

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

Date: 12 Oct 89 18:38:24 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Trump Station

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Sweeney) writes:
>... his personal fortune is estimated at
>"only" around $ 1.7 billion.  While this is an incredible amount of money,
>it's not enough to run a personal space program.

It's enough to run quite a large personal space program if it's done right.
Remember, that's the equivalent of about 17 billion NASA dollars.
--
A bit of tolerance is worth a  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
megabyte of flaming.           | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date:     Thu, 12 Oct 89 15:17:31 CDT
From: "John G. Schroder " <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  SPACE Digest V10 #117


john,
  Ill let5 you have the entire island for some uw's.  there's already
a 50% harbor there.  wanna deal ???`
  Draco

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

Date: 12 Oct 89 18:44:40 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Hauling asteroids about

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes:
>> The fuel requirement for shoving one of them around with chemical engines,
>> or even fission rockets, is totally ridiculous...
>
>You're slipping, Henry.  First the bit about oxygen on Mars, and now
>this..
>... Exhaust
>velocity of 10**4 mps, using a plasma torch...

Notice the words "chemical engines, or even fission rockets" in what I wrote.
If you're willing to assume 10kps 20kN plasma engines, and a power source
that can run them, then the situation changes.

PS Don't forget the cooling system for the engines, which has to dissipate
    100MW of heat at your assumed 50% efficiency.  I doubt very much
    that regenerative cooling with 2 kg/s of fuel will suffice.
--
A bit of tolerance is worth a  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
megabyte of flaming.           | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Oct 89 18:36:52 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: 5th orbiter?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>... didn't NASA, in the 1970's intend to upgrade Enterprise to
>a space-worthy vehicle after drop testing?

This was the intent, at least officially.  (References on request.)

>     If the book I read is correct, Challenger (Structural Test Article-99)
>was to become the drop test vehicle after Enterprise (Orbiter Vehicle-100)
>was upgraded. NASA relaized that Challenger's airframe was lighter, so they
>changed their mind - Challenger was built into a fully-functional orbiter,
>and Enterprise was left a drop-tester.

There weren't any more drop tests planned, actually.  OV-099 was originally
meant for things like structural testing.  When Enterprise's weight problems
got serious, 099 was tested a bit less severely than originally planned and
was rebuilt into a complete orbiter.

>     I'm sure Enterprise's weight problem could be reduced...

I'm not sure; if the weight problems are in the structure itself, this
could be pretty difficult.
--
A bit of tolerance is worth a  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
megabyte of flaming.           | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Oct 89 21:05:35 GMT
From: ubc-cs!alberta!calgary!xenlink!clroslyn!clleth![e-mail]  (Cary Oler)
Subject: Detecting solar radio noise bursts from major flares.

Do any of you guys monitor the sun for flare-associated
noise-bursts (ie. Type IV solar radio noise bursts)?  I
would be most interested in hearing from anyone who has
accomplished this or knows how to accomplish this.  I need to
know what type of demodulation method works best (if there is
a preferred method) and what frequencies produce reliable
results.  I realize that brief ionization periods following
major flares can pretty-well blackout many shortwave
frequencies, but I would prefer a more reliable method of
detecting flares through radio noise bursts.  If anyone is
knowledgable in this area, or has some idea's that might help,
I would appreciate hearing from you.  Please e-mail responses.
Thanks!

       -Cary

--
"Women can keep a secret just as well as men, but it takes
more of them to do it."

UUCP: !uunet!{ubc-cs|utai}!calgary!xenlink!clroslyn!clleth!cary

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

Date: 13 Oct 89 16:37:14 GMT
From: m2c!wpi![e-mail]  (Jeffrey S Goldmeer)
Subject: Re: TDRS vs military

> Well, before concluding that it's invulnerable, look at some of the work
> that's been done on using a lunar flyby to get substantial payloads into
> a retrograde orbit.  A few tons of ice cubes in retrograde Clarke orbit
> will clean out all the comsats, early-warning satellites, etc. etc., and
> then go away.  (One hears that when those lunar trajectories were discovered
> in the West, somebody noticed that there had been Soviet research interest
> in them for years...)

  Can someone please tell me what a "retrograde Clarke orbit" is, and how
 one would place a payload into one via a lunar flyby.
  Thanks in advance.



******************************************************************************
*   Jeffrey S. Goldmeer                     Mechanical Engineering Dept.     *
*                                           Worcester Polytechnic Institute  *
*                                           100 Institute Road               *
*   Internet:  [e-mail]         Worcester, MA  01609             *
*============================================================================*
*       " Scientists are peeping toms at the Keyhole of Eternity "           *
*                        --  Arthur Koestler          *
******************************************************************************

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

Date: 13 Oct 89 21:18:32 GMT
From: agate!typhoon.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (George William Herbert)
Subject: Re: An Idea

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeff Goldader) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>
>>    Take a Pegasus rocket, being developed now, and mount it on top
>>of a surplus A-12 (variant of SR-71, the ones outfitted to carry a drone
>>on top).
>
>If I remember correctly, even the use of the GTD-21 drones (basically a
>scaled-down J-58 engine with wing-stubs attached, and a bay for ELINT or
>photo stuff) wasn't all that successful.  In fact, one M-12 (A-12 was
>the CIA version of SR-71 (actually, the SR-71 came after the A-12), M-12
>was the designation for the few (2? 3?) A-12s modified to carry the drones)
>was destroyed in a launch accident, when the drone pitched down and
>broke the M-12's back.  Also killed the launch officer, although I
>believe the pilot managed to eject from the wreckage.
>
>If a drone specifically designed to separate at high mach numbers couldn't
>survive the separation, I really doubt Pegasus could.  I'm not an
>engineer, but I think the aerodynamics would prohibit such a launch.

The plane that had the drone impact wasn't destroyed.  The drone operator was
killed, but the plane flew back to base and landed. (detail)

The drone was sucessful in all the other launches, which were lots.
The Pegasus had BETTER be tough enough to fly through a supersonic
shock wave: it does so by itself on normal launches.

george william herbert

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

Date: 16 Oct 89 03:12:21 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: Plutonium (was: South Florida Environmental Reader #12)

[e-mail] (Jan Steinman) says:

> and effect.)  Re-entry of plutonium fueled spacecraft also disperses finely
> divided plutonium oxide, adding to the global burden of a dangerous substance
> that didn't exist on Earth until 1941.

Not true.  A few years ago, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ran an article on a natural
atomic reactor which formed in a particularly rich bed of uranium ore
in Africa.  Admittedly, this geologic phenomenon is rare, perhaps unique.  But
in terms of literal truth, your statement is false.

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

Date: 14 Oct 89 19:08:00 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!yunexus![e-mail]  (Tony Wallis)
Subject: Re: sterilization of Galileo

[e-mail] (..) :
| Okay, so we have some hypothetical microbes which can withstand (in
| order to travel to Jupiter and live there in comfort) vacuum, hard (and
| I mean hard) radiation, high temperatures and high pressure.  Pray
| tell, then, how does one sterilize the probe?
| Magic incantations?                                  - Dillon Pyron

Yes.  Ask the people at the Christic Institute to be gracious losers
and to perform the ceremonies.                                   :-)

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

Date: 17 Oct 89 03:09:03 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: CNN Quote of the Day

From CNN Headline News (10/16/89) :

    "Jupiter is composed primarily of dust and gas.  Scientists
believe these two primordial elements created the universe..."

_______________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Date: 10 Oct 89 09:45:00 GMT
From: eru!luth!sunic!ericom!radar.ericsson.se!kiere![e-mail]
Subject: Re: What will the next ten years bring?



  From article <[e-mail]> :

  > I'm interested to know, from the experts out there, what are your
  > views on what will the next ten years bring in the relm of space?
  > What *new* technologies will be developed and are we ever going to
  > see a space station in our lifetime (within the next 10 years).

  I can't call myself expert on these matter, pessimist would be a
  better word for it.

  So here is some gruesome predictions of my part:

  89  -  Galileo is launched (HOORAY)

  90  -  Hubble telescope postponed, reason; not enough launching
         cabability for military and comercial payloads.

  91  -  Galileo projects terminates in-flight, reason; not enough
         money for the Space station.

  92  -  Space station design reduced because of budgetary strains.

  93  -  Hubble telescope terminated, reason; not enough money for
         the reduced Space station design.

  94  -  Great festivities at the 25-th anniversary of Apollo 11
         (all of Holly-Wood was there !)

  95  -  Space station design reduced further, reason; budget strains.

  96  -  U.S government proudly presents its plans for....
         a post stamp commemorating the 20-th anniversary of the Viking
         mission to Mars.

  97  -  USSR commemorates 30-th anniversary of sputnik by landing the
         first men on Mars :-)

  98  -  The space station is terminated because lack of money.

  99  -  VERY GREAT festivities commemorating 30-th Apollo 11 anniversary.

  =======================================================================

                                                         Leif Sterner

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #153
*******************