Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V10_4/V10_400.ZIP/V10_400

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/0ZeYyO:00VcJQ2P05q>;
          Tue,  9 Jan 90 15:54:54 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue,  9 Jan 90 15:54:13 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #400

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 400

Today's Topics:
            Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space
          Re: Low frequency radio astronomy
         Re: Chris Robertson's "Henry bio" (
     Amended Geoscience and Remote Sensing Society Meeting Notice
               Re: Simpler space suits?
               Re: Simpler space suits?
     Re: Chris Robertson's "Henry bio" (was Re: who's out there?)
             Solar power vs RTGs
                 Iraqi Rocket
            Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space
            Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space
            Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space
            Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Jan 90 21:47:47 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Maroney) writes:
>... But then the military wouldn't have any excuse to go testing
>RTG's in space, and this vital component of SDI technology would
>languish.

It sounds like "The Nation" has made a mistake common among the ignorant
and prejudiced:  confusing RTGs and reactors.  They are completely different.
RTGs are largely useless to the military, as their power output is not
high enough.  Furthermore, there is no need for "excuses" to test RTGs,
since they are well-proven technology, in use for both military and civilian
space applications for two decades now.

Incidentally, most current work on concentrator-equipped solar arrays is
being done by the military.
--
1972: Saturn V #15 flight-ready|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1990: birds nesting in engines | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Jan 90 14:40:10 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!prls!philabs!briar.philips.com![e-mail]  (Robert Casey;6282;3.57;$0201)
Subject: Re: Low frequency radio astronomy

I vaguely remember, about 10-20 years ago, reading about a satellite
with very long antennas that was to study very low frequency radio astronomy.
Don't know if it ever actually was flown.

aim stuff to sci.astro

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

Date: 6 Jan 90 06:50:28 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Chris Robertson's "Henry bio" (

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>> does everyone have this experience with Henry?
>
>He was quite polite when I asked him (seeing Toronto on his badge
>after "Henry Spencer"): "are you *the* Henry Spencer? UToronto
>Zoology? *Then* he ignored me ... (no, not really).
>
>In hindsight, I expect he gets that sort of question often ... :-)

Ah, someone hits the nail on the head. :-)

There are a lot of people who know my name.  Unfortunately, it's not
automatically mutual.  (Even, sometimes, when it should be -- I'm not
good with names and faces, I'm afraid.)  I'm always happy to say hi,
but for anything longer, two constraints have to be met:  I can't
be in a serious rush to be somewhere else for some specific reason, and
there has to be something to talk about.  The former is a problem
since at Usenixes and Worldcons I average about six hours of sleep a
night and would often like to be in two or three places simultaneously,
and sometimes there are commitments I just can't defer or talks I just
can't pass up.  The latter is a problem because I'm not good at starting
conversations, so if you say "hi" and then wait for me to say something
awe-inspiring :-), I'm likely to assume that you just want to say hi.
Try asking me what I think of US space policy :-) -- if that doesn't
produce a ten-minute diatribe, it's because I've really got to be
somewhere else!

Apologies to anyone who feels himself unjustly ignored; it's not deliberate.
--
1972: Saturn V #15 flight-ready|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1990: birds nesting in engines | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Jan 90 01:07:04 GMT
From: pioneer.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter Paluzzi- ZeroOne)
Subject: Amended Geoscience and Remote Sensing Society Meeting Notice



         January Meeting and Technical Presentation

                 Santa Clara Valley Chapter
         IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Society

                        Ozone Holes

                       Dr. Brian Toon
                 NASA Ames Research Center

                 Thursday January 18, 1990


                     Dinner at 5:45 pm
      Sundance Mine Company, 1921 El Camino, Palo Alto

                  Presentation at 7:30 pm
          Stanford University, 450 Durand Building
                 (NOTE CHANGE IN LOCATION)



     During the past decade springtime ozone amounts have
steadily declined over the Antarctic continent leading to
the formation of the "Ozone Hole."  Over the northern hemi-
sphere a smaller, but still significant, high latitude
decline in ozone has occurred.  The Thursday, January 18,
meeting of the Geoscience and Remote Sensing Society will
present Dr.  Brian Toon discussing theories for the ozone
loss.  The 1987 and 1989 aircraft expeditions to study Arc-
tic and Antarctic ozone will be described.  The effect of
our continuing use of chlorine containing chemicals on ozone
levels over the next century will be outlined.

     Dr. Toon is an associate fellow at NASA's Ames Research
Center, and is one of the originators of the nuclear winter
theory.  He has investigated the factors causing the climate
of Mars to vary through time, the materials composing the
clouds of Venus, the effects of volcanic eruptions on the
terrestrial climate, and the environmental implication of
dust clouds caused by dinosaur killing asteroid impacts.

     Recently Dr. Toon proposed that clouds of nitric acid
formed in the Antarctic stratosphere have contributed to the
development of the ozone hole.  He served as deputy project
scientist for NASA's 1987 airborne Antarctic ozone project
which investigated the reasons for the formation of the
ozone hole.  He was also the DC-8 flight scientist for the
1989 airborne Arctic stratospheric expedition that investi-
gated the processes of ozone loss in the northern hemi-
sphere. His presentation and theories on ozone loss are
based primarily on these two expeditions.

     The meeting will be preceded by a dinner at the
Sundance Mine Company.  NOTE THAT THE MEETING PLACE HAS BEEN
CHANGED FROM THAT GIVEN IN THE GRID.  The meeting will be
held in the Durand Building at Stanford University.  Enter
the Durand Building from the front main entrance as all oth-
ers will be locked.

     Reservations for the dinner should be made with the
IEEE Council Office at [phone]


Peter Paluzzi, Sr. Graphics Analyst, Sterling Software, ZeroOne Group
Advanced Computing Facility, NASA/Ames Research Center, Mail Stop 233-3
Moffett Field, CA  94035
[e-mail]                            [phone]

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

Date: 8 Jan 90 02:26:35 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Simpler space suits?

What about the other extreme -- capacious balloon or rigid suits
within which the astronaut can move freely.  (To scratch, adjust
controls, go #1m or #1f or #2 etc.)  They don't solve the lunar
surface problem, but they might be better in free fall.  I used
to read all sorts of fanciful concepts for these, but haven't
heard anything for years.  Wonder if anyone's still knocking the
idea around.
--
"Of course, this is a, this is a Hunt, you   |*==|  Tom Neff
will -- that will uncover a lot of things.   |===|  [e-mail]
You open that scab, there's a hell of a lot
of things... This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky
that we have nothing to do with ourselves." -- RN 6/23/72

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

Date: 6 Jan 90 19:32:11 GMT
From: hpfcso!hpfcbig![e-mail]  (Tim Mikkelsen)
Subject: Re: Simpler space suits?

I know that the early suits were all custom.  I thought that the current
shuttle suits were modular.  I remember seeing a program talking about
various shuttle aspects including the suits.  I think they had modular pieces -
torso, arms, legs, helmets.

Of course, the questions and comments that were made are still valid.

Tim Mikkelsen

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

Date: 6 Jan 90 19:47:00 GMT
From: vsi!mtndew![e-mail]  (Steve Friedl)
Subject: Re: Chris Robertson's "Henry bio" (was Re: who's out there?)

> >... and had the chance to be ignored in person.
>
>    Hmm.  Does _everyone_ have this experience with Henry?  Because, the same
> damn thing for me, at WorldCon - Boston, the end of August...

Yup, me too, and a couple of other rude net.personalities too.
My first Usenix was *most* depressing.

     Steve

--
Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY   /  Consultant   /   Tustin, CA  /  3B2-kind-of-guy
714 544 6561 voice /  714 544 6496 fax  / uunet!mtndew!friedl / [e-mail]

"PostScript wizard in training." - me

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

Date: 7 Jan 90 20:23:50 GMT
From: thorin!grover![e-mail]  (David Becker)
Subject: Solar power vs RTGs

In article Christopher Neufeld writes:
"In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Maroney) writes:
">
">[ RTG vs. solar power and where the R&D $$ went]
">
"   Just to pick some nits, what about the rupture of arsene or silane tanks
"on trains or at the plant which is making the solar cells? Remember Bhopal?

To pick a nit:
The article was on solar concetrators, not necessarilly photovoltics.
The pork barrel Freedom has had thermal generators designed in and out a
couple times.  They should get more power per pound but the R&D cuts Tim
described means it is untried techonology.  As nits go, some designs
have concentrators pointing at solar cells rather than something thermal.

" Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  |

David Becker  [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Jan 90 07:20:45 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Iraqi Rocket

A few weeks ago, it was reported that the Iraqis had tested a rocket of
advanced design.  Can anyone provide details please?  Also, I remember
hearing that Argentina also was working on an advanced missile.  Can
anyone report on the status of that program?

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

Date: 6 Jan 90 06:03:00 GMT
From: clyde.concordia.ca!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (SERRE GLENN) writes:
>While we're on the subject of nuclear reactors, does anyone out there know
>what happened to the Air Force's SP-100(?) project (the goal was to build
>a small, ~100kw, orbiting nuclear reactor)?

The project still exists, but it is very unclear whether the result will
ever fly.  Indeed, recent funding cuts caused deletion of ground tests of
a complete power system; now the closest it will officially come to
service is test runs of the core.  The problem is that there is really
only one big customer -- SDI -- and a lot of people who are automatically
opposed to any project done for said customer.  NASA and others would be
interested in using an off-the-shelf design, but long ago zeroed out their
own R&D funds for such things.
--
1972: Saturn V #15 flight-ready|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1990: birds nesting in engines | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 7 Jan 90 18:11:21 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!physics.utoronto.ca![e-mail]  (Christopher Neufeld)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Maroney) writes:
>
>Nuclear power in space is done for military reasons, not technical
>reasons.  Since there are alternatives, it must be considered an
>unacceptable risk.  There is no worst-case scenario in which a failure
>of a CSA-powered vehicle could kill thousands.
>
   Just to pick some nits, what about the rupture of arsene or silane tanks
on trains or at the plant which is making the solar cells? Remember Bhopal?
It's not a CSA-powered vehicle which fails, but that makes no difference to
the people breathing the gas. Granted similar arguments could be made for
plutonium plants, but let's not believe that solar cells grow on trees.
They are very messy to make; the manufacture of solar cells puts out some
pretty nasty chemicals (sorry, I don't have the article listing them here).
   With space funding being cut so often, it appears space scientists had
to choose between developing RTGs and developing solar cells. RTGs work in
some places where solar cells do not. Certainly the fantastic success of
the Voyager missions would have been impossible with solar cells instead of
RTGs. Hipparchos is in an orbit which will result in the rapid destruction
of the solar cells, and satellites which are sent there deliberately cannot
rely on solar cells for more than a year or so.
   Another reason space scientists might have concentrated on RTGs is that
there are few earth-based markets for such devices, whereas there are for
solar cells. You can then leave the research into solar cells to private
companies which would do it for profit, and concentrate on something the
private companies are not likely to develop.
   I find it difficult to believe that nuclear power was chosen solely for
military reasons. There are some places where nuclear power works much
better than solar power, and there are some where solar power works better.
Orbiting the earth outside of the radiation belts is a place where solar
power usually works better. Orbiting in Jupiter's radiation belts with a
solar radiation of only 4% that at the earth's orbit is a place where RTGs
work better than the solar cells which existed at the time Galileo was
planned.

   OK, now some questions of my own.
   We all hear of the famous lunar base to be built some day. Would it be
unreasonable for a uranium powered breeder reactor to be built there
eventually? RTGs really are useful in many situations. Surely nobody would
object to launching a few hundred kilograms of uranium fuel for the
reactor. RTGs would be useful for medium to long range lunar rovers which
have to drive through a two week night. If NASA is really serious about
planetary exploration there will be some demand for RTGs in the decades to
come. Earth based groups would be hard-pressed to get support for
opposition to RTGs which never get within 400000km of them.
   So, how bulky would be such a reactor, and is there some treaty which
forbids it?

>--
>Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, [e-mail]


--
 Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  |
 [e-mail]              | The meek can have the
 [e-mail]                    | earth, I want the stars.
 "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |

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

Date: 8 Jan 90 06:05:30 GMT
From: netnews.upenn.edu!cps3xx![e-mail]  (Usenet file owner)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space

You might consider reading the aforementioned March Analog article,
since it details heating the gases (for propulsion) with a reactor in
the 2K-3K Kelvin range.

There's _no_ way solar cells could generate that kind of power. In the
same vein, nuclear power will remain strong and reliable regardless of
distance from the sun.

On another note,  how would a "cold" reactor kill thousands? My "worst
case" doesn't manage this much.

Terry Conklin
[e-mail]
uunet!frith!conklin
The Club [phone]  3/12/2400

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

Date: 8 Jan 90 14:14:50 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!shadooby!umich!itivax!vax3![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Maroney) writes:
>>It sounds like "The Nation" has made a mistake common among the ignorant
>>and prejudiced:  confusing RTGs and reactors.  They are completely different.

>No, they consistently use the phrase "generators".  If there is an
>error, it's mine.  And yours; there are obvious similarities between
>conventional reactors and RTGs.  "Completely different"?  Sure, sure.

Outside of the fact that both use similar fuel I don't see much similarities.
Perhaps you could educate us and explain how both work and how they are
so similar? Similar fuel doesn't cut it. A Saturn V and my Coleman lamp
both use the same fuel. I have never considered using a Saturn V to light
my campsight or used a Coleman lamp to travel to the moon.

>As for your personal attacks, a hearty fuck you in return.

I see your writing is just as eloquent here as other gropus.

   Allen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Allen W. Sherzer                    |  Is the local cluster the result   |
|  [e-mail]                        |  of gerrymandering?                |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #400
*******************