Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V10_3/V10_366.ZIP/V10_366

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 32766
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/8ZeWvAy00VcJQ0ok5P>;
          Tue,  9 Jan 90 13:34:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </usr/spool/ViceMsgQueue/QF.EZcz6La00VcJI20k8c>;
          Thu,  4 Jan 90 20:00:13 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu,  4 Jan 90 19:54:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #366

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 366

Today's Topics:
            Re: Big Bang:  Did it happen?
           The time thread that won't die.
      Re: Vacuum tubes in space, was Re: Techno-welfare
             Re: who's out there?
               Re: Antigravity
         Re: The time thread that won't die.
               who's out there?
       Re: Scientific value of Apollo (was Re: Motives)
                 Re: Motives
      Re: Relative distances and sizes in the Universe.
              Re: Techno-welfare
               Re: space program goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Dec 89 06:47:50 GMT
From: amdahl!dgcad![e-mail]  (Gary Bridgewater)
Subject: Re: Big Bang:  Did it happen?

What the article - in the San Jose Mercury News, anyway - said was that
CalTech scientists say they have observed large scale structures similar
to or suggesting cell/bubble boundaries. These structures seem to be made of
galaxies at extreme distances. The inference being that they are, therefore
very old - too old to have been formed in the time since the Big Bang. Or,
the time for the Big Bang is way, way off which would also pretty much
invalidates current theories.
The article also alludes to the cell-like structures' being similar to another
theory's predictions. (Hyper Inflation?)
There was an illustration which looked not at all like a picture - possibly an
artistic rendering.
More Science by Press Release?
--
Gary Bridgewater, Data General Corporation, Sunnyvale California
[e-mail] or {amdahl,aeras,amdcad}!dgcad.SV.DG.COM!gary
Shaken but not stirred.

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

Date: 21 Dec 89 23:59:24 GMT
From: milton!maven![e-mail]  (Games Wizard)
Subject: The time thread that won't die.

There will be >>NO<< PARTY for software engineers on Jan 1 2000, because at
that point all of the old bad programmers will have to figure out how to fix
all the programs with 89 instead of 1989 as dates in data.  For them
at least the old milennia will end, and a new one ( a kinder gentler
more user-friendly one ) will begin.

"and the master programmer spake :  Now my son, you are truly enlightened."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trendy footer by:
            John Stevens-Schlick
            Internet?: [e-mail]
            7720 35'th Ave S.W. Seattle, Wa. 98126
            (206) 935 - 4384
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My boss dosn't know what I do.


P.S.  What the @#$%^&_ is this thread doing here anyay?

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

Date: 26 Dec 89 08:01:13 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!percy!parsely!bucket![e-mail]  (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Vacuum tubes in space, was Re: Techno-welfare

[e-mail] (Robert Casey;6282;3.57;$0201) writes:

>I once heard that in some R&D into Venus surface probes, they were considering
>using new vacuum tube technology to make the probes last much longer.  Because
>tubes don't mind the high heat found on Venus as much as semiconductors do.
>These tubes would be something like vacuum "intergrated circuits".

Sounds like TIMMS (Thermally Integrated Micro Modules or some such). They
were developed back in the 60's primarily because they were radiation "hard"
and wouldn't be much affected by EMP.

The "tubes" consisted of high temp ceramics and high melting point alloys. A
typical tube was was the size of a twist off cap on a pop bottle. The entire
assembly was heated to a dull red heat! (no heater filaments here!)

If you could keep out the pressure, Venus would be just about right for these,
say have them plus some sodium/sulfur batteries in a pressure vessel with
no insulation. After the heat kills the regular electronics, they ought to
be warm enough to work... :-)

The hard part would be getting the regular electronics to last long enough
for a graceful transfer of control...
--
Leonard Erickson        ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short

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

Date: 29 Dec 89 05:12:23 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: who's out there?

In article <71*[e-mail]> [e-mail] (bradley thompson) writes:
>What I would like to suggest is that for some of our more frequent
>contributors some consideration of a brief bio. being submitted be
>given. Emphasis being on relation to space programs, interests in
>this area etc...

Okay, I'll bite, although it doesn't sound like much beside Keith's...
Professional background in computer science, specializing as a Unix
systems programmer with sidelines in all kinds of things including
electronics.  Space is strictly a hobby with me, although a major and
long-standing one.  Founding member of the current Canadian Space Society,
member of assorted other space groups.  Started summarizing Challenger-
related news from Aviation Week to the net early in 1986, and it seems
to have become a permanent role somehow.  Gradual progression, in recent
years, from being a NASA cheerleader to considering today's NASA mostly
part of the problem rather than the solution.  Current major interests
launcher technology, long-term manned spaceflight, and lunar exploration.
--
1972: Saturn V #15 flight-ready|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1989: birds nesting in engines | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 30 Dec 89 20:43:18 GMT
From: crdgw1!sixhub![e-mail]  (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
Subject: Re: Antigravity

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mikel Stromberg) writes:

| There was a lot of interest in this area of study back in the fifties,
| but it was determined that the effect arrises from the interaction of the
| gyroscope and the methods used to measure it's mass.  There is no actuall
| mass loss.  I forget what the name of this principle is, but there was once
| an engine based on the effect called the 'Dean Drive'.

  I had a copy of the Dean patent, and it did not involve gyroscopes.
The device showed a loss of weight when measured on a *spring scale* but
this was due to the characteristics of the scale.

================ begin dump of old memory ================

  The Dean device exerted a downward force which, if integrated, would
equal the weight of the device. However, the device exerted a strong
force for a short time and a weak force for most of the time, not
conceptually unlike someone on a scale bouncing on their toes, but
rapidly. The fault lies in the fact the a spring scale is a lousy
integrator, and showed the weak force most of the time.

  The operation was interesting, in that there were weights moved in a
pattern which would normally be produced by a desmodromic cam setup, but
which was implemented in a four bar linkage. I first saw this in 1961 at
MIT, in a thesis by E.B.Griswald.

================ end dump ================

  The effect with gyroscopes is interesting, but I don't believe it's
ralated to the Dean device.
--
    bill davidsen - sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
[e-mail]        ...!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen

"Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon

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

Date: 1 Jan 90 19:16:31 GMT
From: att!hriso![e-mail]  (Michael L. Starr)
Subject: Re: The time thread that won't die.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Fisher) writes:
>
>**Slight drift on**
>Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not completely sure of this), but
>doesn't the new millennium begin on January 1, 2001?

This will be beaten to death for the next 11 years, but a millennium
is any 1000 year period, and can start and end at any point in
time (just like a fiscal year can start at any time of the year).
What ends on Dec 31, 2000 is the 20th century, with the 21th century
beginning on Jan 1, 2001.
----
 __/\__  ********************  __/\__   |       [e-mail]
 \    /  * Michael L. Starr *  \    /   |       att!hriso!starr
  |/\|   ********************   |/\|    |       attmail!starr

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

Date: 19 Dec 89 21:49 -0600
From: bradley thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: who's out there?

Hi. I have been reading this net more or less steadily for some years now
and have found it generally to be useful. It has proven to be a good place
to listen to alternative ideas and concepts, to hear reasonably up to date
gossip, and to find out who's out there. I have run into some people
especially in Canada, that I would not have run into otherwise. The expansion
of the number of participants has been also been gratifying. Some people
have cut their teeth on this net and moved on to do work in the space
R&D area.

Having said the nice things, I want to air a concern. I have a good idea
about where most of the participants come from on this net. I make it
my business to find out one way or the other. Who is saying something
is as important as what they are saying. I am not inviting or promoting
elitism, but especially when comments about agency policy are made for
example people need to know the source.

What I would like to suggest is that for some of our more frequent
contributors some consideration of a brief bio. being submitted be
given. Emphasis being on relation to space programs, interests in
this area etc. Immediate targets that come to mind are people
like Dietz, Neff, Spencer, and Szabo. Others [ are you there Dani? ]
who I have not seen as much of lately would be nice also.

Merry whatever holiday you celebrate this time of year.

Brad Thompson
Biotechnology Department

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

Date: 19 Dec 89 18:58:47 GMT
From: ibmpa![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Scientific value of Apollo (was Re: Motives)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kieran A. Carroll) writes:

>Also, as Henry has pointed out earlier, the cost of Apollo itself
>(i.e. developing the CM, SM and LEM, as well as the training facilities,
>and support facilities required for supporting men in space) was quite
>a bit less than the cost of (Apollo+Saturn). If a large number of >unmanned<
>missions had been sent to the moon, they would have required a launch vehicle
>too; maybe not as big as Saturn, but probably many more launches would have
>been required in order to accomplish what Apollo did in six missions.

And as I have pointed out, this reasoning is quite wrong.  Automated
missions use the same launchers everybody else (comsats, defense,
etc.) uses.  Manned missions require their own oversized, specialized
launchers that are useless for commercial activities.  The entire
development cost of Saturn certainly should be included in the
Apollo (including Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz) mission costs.   Only
a trivial fraction of the development costs of Titan et. al. need to
be amortized over the automated planetary missions, since the same
boosters have been used for hundreds of commercial and defense launches.

This also means that automated missions have a much greater potential
for spinoffs than manned missions, since the technology is correctly
scaled and can be directly applied to commercial activities in space.

>Do you attribute the cost of the launcher development to each program that
>used the launch vehicle?

Get a basic accounting textbook.  Look up "amortization."

>Sure, Apollo/Saturn was an expensive program. Too bad Congress decided to
>throw away all the infrastructure the program had developed

Congress, DoD, the scientific community, and the commercial sector, all
rejected Saturn as oversized, overpriced, and useless for any productive
activity in those communities.  They were right.

>it had been payed for; otherwise, follow-on manned missions could have
>been cheap enough to satisfy even Van Allen.

The recurring costs of Saturn missions would have been huge; probably
greater than for Shuttle missions since Saturn was not at all reusable.
There would have been no commercial customers, and only very limited
DoD use.  We would have a dozen Saturns sitting around rusting instead of
a couple.


************ These opinions are not related to Big Blue's ********

---------------------------
Nick Szabo
[e-mail]
uunet!ibmsupt!szabonj

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

Date: Wed, 20 Dec 89 10:50:10 PST
From: Peter Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Motives

ibmpa![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo) writes:

>The Japanese _love_ technology.  They have many more robots than the
>U.S. (does somebody have the latest figures on this?)  Vending machines
>are everywhere and serve everything (beer, sandwiches, shampoo, condoms,
>you name it).  You don't see people running around screaming about how
>robots are taking peoples jobs, robots aren't as intelligent as people,
>ad nauseum.  They realize machines can do some things and humans others,
>what machines can do and humans can do changes over time, and that who
>does what should be based on hard engineering and economics, not
>philosophy and fantasy.  They are, and I stress this is positive and
>even something we might profit by emulating, _animistic_ about material
>things and especially technology.  The weather speaks to them, it has
>a personality.  The Shinto rituals involving new babies, akin to baptism
>in Christianity, have been used when setting up robots in their factories.
>There is no division between "natural" and "artificial"; Japanese gardens
>are both natural and quite man-made, and quite a bit more beautiful than
>much of the non-human landscape.

Can you speculate from your experience why they also have the highest
suicide rate in the world?

Peter Scott ([e-mail])

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

Date: 19 Dec 89 22:49:13 GMT
From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!shadooby!sharkey!cfctech!teemc!mibte!gamma!towernet!pyuxp!pyuxe!nvuxr![e-mail]  (R McBurnett)
Subject: Re: Relative distances and sizes in the Universe.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (CUP/ASG, MLO5-2/G1 6A, 223-3283  12-Dec-1989 1233) writes:
>
>        Several weeks ago I posted a request for slide sets comparing the
>    relative distances in the solar system and the other stars:  It would
>    seem that slide sets of this scale system are rather hard to come by.
>    I sent out a request to several other computer networks, along with
>    calling a number of planetariums, museum stores, and searched through
>    various scientific catalogues, all without significant result.
>
>        I was able to use my resources and gather some information
>    from several friends on various types of relative celestial scales,
>    and have come up with some relevant information.
...
>        Larry Klaes  [e-mail]


The comparison I like best is from Larry Niven's Ringworld SciFi book
where he describes the ringworld.

Something like this:  If the distance from the Sun to the Earth is 1
inch, then a light year is 1 mile.  This gives me a very handy Real
World referent for *LARGE* distances.

-Roe

--
Roe D McBurnett III    Bellcore        |these are my own
[phone]     [e-mail]    |rantings not Bellcore's

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

Date: 21 Dec 89 18:45:59 GMT
From: thorin!cezanne![e-mail]  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Techno-welfare

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael B. Brooks) writes:
>My suspicion is that the pace of the IC industry growth benefited
>enormously from this  freedom, and that if IR&D had to fund the 4Mb DRAM
>antecedents and associated technology (rather than NASA & USGov.), we
>would not see these at this time.

    How do you explain the Japanese dominance in 4MB DRAMs with this
theory?  MITI and JASDF aren't subsidizing the >$1G investment Toshiba
and other companies are making in this area.
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])    __@/
    "A compact set can be controlled by a finite police force no
     matter how dumb." H. Weyl ca. 1938

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

Date: 22 Dec 89 14:30:14 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl!clyde![e-mail]  (Forrest Gehrke,2C-119,7239,ATTBL)
Subject: Re: space program goals

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve Emmerson) writes:
> [e-mail] (Kieran A. Carroll) analysed the goals of the
> Apollo program into three categories:
>
> ........deletes
>
> For the purpose of discussion (please note), I now hypothesize the
> following:
>
>     1) In retrospect, the national prestige goal was irrelevant.
>
This is easy to dismiss since we won that race.  But now that the
Russians have admitted they really were in that race and were
well along on a schedule projected to be a year earlier than
our landing (until they ran into some rocket engine difficulties),
what if they HAD been first?

The Russians were the first to reach earth orbit, unmanned and then
manned.  Until we were the first to land on the moon, those
accomplishments counted for quite a bit, as I recall.

Do you remember all those ignominious blown-up rockets on the
launching pad down at KSC in those early years when we were trying
to reach unmanned earth orbit?

That geo-political objective counted for much and was a good deal
responsible for the support for the moon landing program. All the
other results that came from the program, though looking more
important today, still owe their existence to this first objective.

Forrest Gehrke clyde!feg

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #366
*******************