Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V10_1/V10_164.ZIP/V10_164

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/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/4ZGwG0:00VcJAFK05Q>;
          Sun, 29 Oct 89 22:48:18 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 89 22:46:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #164

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 164

Today's Topics:
           Re: Try thinking before stinking
                   finally!
           gravitational assist - intuitive model.
       Re: NASA Headline News for 10/18/89 (Forwarded)
             D.D. Harriman Found!
                 SAVE NASP!!!
         Re: Galileo, Protest, Argumentation
       Re: Christic Bashing  ( The moral of the Story )
          Re: More scares: Pu in earth orbit
           Re: Try thinking before stinking
              Re: Confederacy in Space?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Oct 89 23:55:40 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Try thinking before stinking

Henry Spencer writes:
> The RTGs are demonstrably capable of surviving reentry.  What's the problem?
                             ^^^^^^^
> Even if they didn't survive, the radioisotope release is insignificant
> compared to what happens when a Soviet radarsat reactor core reenters.

Capability is not enough.  I am *capable* of hitting a wastebasket with
a paper wad thrown across the room, but I am not assured of doing so.
In retrospect we know that the Shuttle was *capable* of achieving orbit
with design-flaw-induced SRB seal damage, because it happened several
times.  Challenger demonstrated that the shuttle was also *capable* of
blowing to Kingdom come with the same design.  As Feynman said, "It
flies and nothing happens," but inferring safety from this is a fatal
error.  Even if ten RTGs had re-entered safely it would not mean #11 was
assured of doing so.  To evaluate such a risk objectively is difficult
when you have a vital, vested interest in a favorable evaluation as NASA
does.  The fact is there is no cost effective alternative to the RTG for
work in the dimly lit outer planet belts, millions of miles from Earth.
And it's enormously expensive in dollars and launch mass to use safer
fuels or heavier shielding.  GIVEN NASA HISTORY THESE SHOULD BE "RED
FLAG" REASONS TO WORRY ABOUT THE IN-HOUSE SAFETY NUMBERS.  When programs
are on the line, NASA can produce ANY number required.

Unfortunately NASA has gotten us in bed with another unhappy design, and
I'm afraid it does make more sense to launch this one probe and take our
chances than to grind everything to a halt.  But no further such probes
should be designed.  Time to spin off some of this fantastically
expensive SDI research on high energy chemical cells and adapt them to
something useful in gas giant country.

Steve Masticola writes:
>- Just because Soviet reactor cores re-enter and plutonium bombs have
>been blown off in the atmosphere doesn't make it right to release more
>pollution. If it were, then we might as well go ahead and put trichlor
>down the wells and spray the blueberries with dioxin, because that's
>been done before too.

Amen to that.  The only excuse lousier than "It flew and nothing
happened" is "The other side screws up even worse."  Since when do we
let the clunky Russians set space performane standards?
--
The real problem with SDI is     %/    Tom Neff
that it doesn't kill anybody.    /%    [e-mail]

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

Date: 18 Oct 89 17:01:56 GMT
From: usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: finally!

Atlantis and Galileo are on their way, SRBs separated and everything
looking fine.
--
A bit of tolerance is worth a  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
megabyte of flaming.           | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 19 Oct 89 08:48:59 GMT
From: munnari.oz.au!murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au!ditmela!yarra![e-mail]  (Chris Jankowski)
Subject: gravitational assist - intuitive model.

Can somebody point me to aproppriate literature (for novices)
or just describe in an intuitively easy to understand manner
the basic principles of gravitational assist as used in the
Galileo mission?

In my simplistic thinking whatever path one follows in the solar
gravitational field between points A (the Earth) and B (Jupiter)
the amount of energy to spend to get there is the same.
This of course does not take into account the arrival speed
and direction, which obviously have to be appropriate for
the craft to be captured as a Jupiter satelite.
As well as the initial angular momentum of the craft.

In general what are the main design objectives, problems
and methodology of designing of such mission?

I am prepared to swallow even some difficult maths but I believe
that there may be quite easy intuitive model for this.

I apologize if the subject has been beaten to death before. I have just
subscribed to the group.

I'll summarize to the net if anything interesting arrives through email.

      -m-------   Chris Jankowski - Senior Systems Engineer [e-mail]{.au}
    ---mmm-----   Pyramid Technology Corporation Pty. Ltd.  fax  [phone]
  -----mmmmm---   11th Floor, 14 Queens Road                tel. [phone]
-------mmmmmmm-   Melbourne, Victoria, 3004       AUSTRALIA       [phone]

"Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation,
and is thus a source of civilized delight."  -- William Safire

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

Date: 19 Oct 89 16:20:11 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!mailrus!sharkey!itivax!vax3![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 10/18/89 (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>Aerospace Daily reports House-senate conferees late yesterday
>approved a $12.4 billion NASA appropriations bill for fiscal year 1990.

So does anybody know if the conferees put in any money for NASP?

  Allen

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Oct 89 20:02:49 PDT
From: mordor!lll-tis!oodis01!riacs!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: ucsd!nosc!crash![e-mail]
Subject: D.D. Harriman Found!

D.D. Harriman is too busy sucking on the government tit to do
anything real or even think about it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      PHONE: [phone]     BE A SPACE ACTIVIST
PO Box 1981            GET OFF THE NET AND SET UP AN APPOINTMENT WITH YOUR
La Jolla, CA 92038                         CONGRESSMAN!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 5 Oct 89 08:24:10 PDT
From: mordor!lll-tis!oodis01!riacs!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com![e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: ucsd!nosc!crash![e-mail]
Subject: SAVE NASP!!!

All PROspace activists should lobby congress heavily to favor
NASP over Space Station.  The reason is simple:  Since NASP is
totally bankrupt technically and is promising "results" in a
few years, we could kill off Space Station almost immediately
and NASP would die in another 5 years or so.

The situation with NASP dying to save Space Station is
terrible.  We really do need space facilities.  Now we will
end up with a gold-plated, bureaucrat-controlled CDSF about 10 to
15 years after we could have had an affordable, industry-controlled
CDSF.  Giving NASP enough rope to really jerk its head off
when it falls would be a great wake-up call to Congress.

Unfortunately, Congress has just enough knowlege to see that NASP
won't work and that maybe NASA can fly something called a Space
Station.  They don't have any deeper insight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      PHONE: [phone]     BE A SPACE ACTIVIST
PO Box 1981            GET OFF THE NET AND SET UP AN APPOINTMENT WITH YOUR
La Jolla, CA 92038                         CONGRESSMAN!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 17 Oct 89 21:16:08 GMT
From: crdgw1!crdos1![e-mail]  (Wm E Davidsen Jr)
Subject: Re: Galileo, Protest, Argumentation


  I heard a GREAT quote this morning from one of the launch control
people being interviewed. If I paraphrase it's unintensional, I didn't
write it down...

  "Security is very tight on the site today. It would be a shame to have
a launch with someone on the pad."

  Hell, I've been in a meeting all afternoon, maybe they DID.

--
bill davidsen    ([e-mail] -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
"The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called
'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see
that the world is flat!" - anon

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

Date: 18 Oct 89 21:05:30 GMT
From: ogccse!blake!milton!maven![e-mail]  (Games Wizard)
Subject: Re: Christic Bashing  ( The moral of the Story )

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Greg Goebel) writes:
> I'm not usually into writing op-ed essays, but some things concerning
> the fighting over the Christics have gotten my old rusty gears turning --
> not so much in terms of taking sides (in any case, I'm on NASA's side
> in the RTG case) but in terms of raising a few fine points:
>
.. Take out yer chainsaw here.
> But invective serves no purpose but self-satisfaction and achieves no rational
> goal.  It does not address the questions.  It does not impress the opposition
> and in fact only encourages it in its fervor.  It alienates third parties and
> lowers one's credibility, and even can make the sympathetic grow to question
> their support.
> --
>     +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
>     | Greg Goebel                                                         |
>     | Hewlett-Packard CWO / 1000 NE Circle Boulevard / Corvallis OR 97330 |
>     | [phone]                                                      |
>     | INTERNET: gvg@hp-pcd                                                |
>     | HP DESK:  GREG GOEBEL / HP3900 / 20                                 |
>     +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

I must say that I agree with this wholeheartedly.  There has bee far too much
of an emotional reply from the "Scientific" community out there in net land.

probably caused by the emotional level of the Christic onslaught.  However
we must all try to remain calm, explain the risks ( and honestly evaluate
the risks ), and then launch anyway, and smile when it all comes out
O.K.  ( If it goes bad, then we all be in deep doo-doo ).

It seems to mee that throughout this entire thread, there has been FAR too
many statistics that are corrected, and recorrected.  Come on people,
where are you reference books?  Do some of you never look at them anymore?

For all of you who posted bad statistics, stick out your hand...
>SLAP<
Now go home, and get out your reference materials, read it for yourself,
and feel shame.

I Think that the conflicting supporting statistics tend to look to the
outside world as supporting evidence for the christics.

I suppose that now the shuttle is off, this is all a moot point, but
we must remember that this is likely to happen again, and again, as these
organizations are prevalent in todays society.  Add to that the effictiveness
of an emotional plea to the american people, and you have a powerfull
combination.

Please don't dismiss this as an isolated incedent, once something becomes
a high visibility target, it tends to attract other attackers.  Next time it
will be something else, but it will probably be better organized, better
funded, and they will probably have thier facts straight.

It could be much worse.

We all must learn from this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

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

Date: 19 Oct 89 23:53:09 GMT
From: calvin![e-mail]  (John Sahr)
Subject: Re: More scares: Pu in earth orbit

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Ayers) writes:
[deletions]
>It would do the earth (and mankind) so little damage that the damage would
>probably be undetectable.
>
>Support: We (the USA and the USSR) have atomized hundreds of kilograms
>of Pu in the atmosphere, creating maximally-dispersed Pu and daughter
>products. Nothing much happened. Statistical studies have usually shown
>no increase (above background) in *anything*.
[deletions]

From the Journal of Geophysical Research:

"Origin of Radioactive fallout in the Northern Hemisphere after the
spring maximum in 1959," by Bleichrodt et al., _66_, 2183, 1963;

The February 1963 issue contains 16 articles detailing the
modification of the magnetosphere and Van Allen belts by the high
altitude test of  9 July 1963, for example:

"Satellite observations of the artificial radiation belt of July 1962,"
by Van Allen et al., _68_, 619, 1963.

The July 1963 issue contains articles from the "International
Symposium on trace gases and Natural and artificial radioactivity in
the atmosphere," _68_, 3745, 1963, with 44 articles, including

"The influence of weather on the concentration of nuclear bomb debris
in air," by Storeboe*, _68_, 3857, 1963,  and

"On the inventory of artificial tritium and its occurence in
atmospheric methane," by Martell, _68_, 3759, 1963.

I did not bother to look in JGR for years after 1963, but articles
analyzing atmospheric tests appeared into the 1970's. The near-earth
magnetosphere was strongly modified by the high altitude nuclear
tests, so that particles from tests such as Starfish could be detected
a decade after the explosion.

The "lack" of effects on humans, and the "lack" of detectability of
artificial radionuclides does not jibe with the recent experience of
Europe following Chernobyl.  Also, A few years back a Soviet nuclear
powered satellite certainly did rain radioactive debris upon northern
Canada.

*Swedish oe, a la tex: \"o

>Before sounding like Chicken Little, please digest some of the science and
>engineering that's been posted to sci.space recently.
>
>Bob

john


--
John Sahr,     Dept. of Electrical Eng., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
johns@{alfven,calvin}.ee.cornell.edu,  {rochester,cmcl2}!cornell!calvin!johns

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

Date: 17 Oct 89 15:34:04 GMT
From: texbell!uhnix1!jane![e-mail]  (Rikhit Arora)
Subject: Re: Try thinking before stinking

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Walter Santarelli) writes:
>
>                             ........ If NASA had maintained any sort
> of expendable launch vehicle capability during the '70s Galileo could
> probably go up on a much more reliable vehicle. Let's face it, with so
> few launches the shuttle doesn't have a gleaming performance record
> when compared with the Atlas program for instance.
>
  Wait a minute here.  Of the 67 Atlas/Centaur launches to date, only 57
have been declared by NASA to have been successful.  But you might say,
"Hah! but let's not forget that the Atlas program started in the 60's and
so a few early disasters can be discounted."  Well then, of the last 12
Atlas/Centaur launches, 3 have been failures (AC-59, 8/6/81; AC-62, 6/9/84;
AC-67, 3/26/87).  If 3 of the last 12 STS launches had ended up as failures,
we would have had 1 orbiter, no US space program (manned or otherwise),
and the name of this newsgroup would've been sci.space.fantasy.
  I wish people would check the facts before believing all this nonsense
about non-manrated boosters being "safe" and having a "gleaming" perfor-
mance record!!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                .............                    |       Rikhit Arora
 And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod  |    [e-mail]
    The high untrespassed sanctity of space,     |    [e-mail]
Put out my hand, and touched the the face of God.|    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 19 Oct 89 06:25:36 GMT
From: crash!orbit!pnet51![e-mail]  (S Schaper)
Subject: Re: Confederacy in Space?

Considering all the flames here lately, I enjoyed the humor.  More please!
    For those who are taking this dead seriously, I doubt that Lord Kelvin
would have willingly worked for the Confeds. But if someone strikes a strange
object while plowing in Pennsylvannia...
:-)

UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!schaper
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #164
*******************