Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V11_0/V11_012.ZIP/V11_012

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 9KB

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/UZnayVS00VcJA9J05F>;
          Tue,  6 Feb 90 01:33:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue,  6 Feb 90 01:32:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #12

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 11 : Issue 12

Today's Topics:
              metric vs. imperial units
      Let's get it together. (was: SPACE ACTIVIST ALERT)
               Re: SPACE Digest V11 #9
        NASA Seeks Men Who'll Sleep On The Job
         Space tech digest Space tech digest repeats
          Re: Spacecraft drives and fuel efficiency
             Re: SR-71 BLACKBIRD
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Feb 90 02:17:22 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!wrgate!mrloog![e-mail]  (Dan Tilque)
Subject: metric vs. imperial units

[e-mail] (John H. Kim) writes:
>
>But there's a point you're missing.  I'm sure a NASA Ph.D. rocket
>scientist could easily go back and forth between nautical miles (nmi)
>and km.  But nmi's are used mainly by sea and air traffic.  Trying to
>convert them from nmi to km is pretty much a lost cause.  Most of
>these navigators only understand that plugging this and that number
>into this formula will spit out nmi.  Trying to force km onto them
>is going to cause a lot of confusion.  There's a really big difference
>between messing up a unit conversion on land and on sea.  On land, you
>say oops, find the next road sign, fill up at a gas station, and drive
>an extra hour or so.  On sea, you look around, see no land anywhere,
>take some navigational readings, wonder if you won't make the same
>mistake, wonder if you'll have enough fuel, panic, and if you're
>unlucky, die after drifting for a few weeks.

And in the air, you auger into the side of the mountain you didn't expect
to be there.

More points you didn't make:

1. The Shuttle pilots have thousands of hours flying, every one of
which was done using nm and feet.  These units are ingrained into their
bones.  Switching to km and meters would be disastrous.

2. All the support equipment for lauch and landing are calibrated in nm
and feet.  A lot of it is standard aviation equipment like radar.
Converting this would be an unholy mess as well as pointlessly
expensive.

---
Dan Tilque    --    [e-mail]

"The Mars mission won't be cheap -- the cost is currently estimated at
$400 billion, not including reality -- but the potential benefits are
enormous.  For openers, we will earn as a nation, more than 500 million
Frequent Flyer miles."    -- Dave Barry

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

Date: 5 Feb 90 19:25:07 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!gvgpsa!gvgspd![e-mail]  (Brion Johnson)
Subject: Let's get it together. (was: SPACE ACTIVIST ALERT)

On a slightly different tack, I sense the need for an organization
to be formed or recognized that would combine everyone's efforts
to explore and colonize space.  I am somewhat aware of several
addressed on the net and elsewhere, but I see no clear central
depository and acting agent.  Periodically I receive mailings from
this or that group, (National Space Society, Challenger Memorial
Fund, etc.) and I would like to contribute funds and or effort,
but I do not want to dilute my effort or place it in places where
I will see no long term benefit to the above stated goal: to
explore and colonize space.

A plea to the net:  Is there one existing organization that I
have missed that fulfills this goal?  If not, what organizations
do exist, how do they relate to each other, and how can they
work together to achieve this goal?

One more thought - is it absurd to even think about asking the
National Geographic Society to take up this task?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Brion

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

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1990 16:18-EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V11 #9

Just a brief transatlantic hello. I see the same flames are going on
without me. If I can ever get someone over here to give me a courtesy
account, I'll be a regular again. Much more bureaucratic. Anyway, I'm
in Belfast North Ireland now, my friend. I'll be in touch. Hope noone
nukes SD. There are nice beaches there...

I've hopes that we'll see more attention towards space now that world
peace is at hand. Only a matter of time before the miltary is out of
work, particularly if the Bush-man wants re-elected again...

later. this is xDcostly at 1200 Baud...
                        Dale Amon

PS: NO, I've not seen any gunfire. :-)

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

Date: 6 Feb 90 00:54:46 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!jarthur!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: NASA Seeks Men Who'll Sleep On The Job



USA TODAY, FEB. 5

"NASA TEST SEEKS MEN WHO'LL SLEEP ON THE JOB"

"Space researchers here (Houston) are looking for a few good men
who can spend up to a month in bed and sleep through almost
anything."

USA reports Dr. David Cardus, a physiologist and cardiologist
with the Baylor College of Medicine, is working on a NASA grant
to test a sleep chamber designed to help astronauts battle
rubbery muscles or "space legs" caused by the lack of gravity in
space.

The paper reports Cardus says he needs 20 healthy men ages 20 to
40 to take part in the testing.  In the tests, volunteers will be
put to bed for two weeks to a month to decondition their
muscles.  Then they'll start sleeping at night in a chamber,
called the Artificial Gravity Sleeper, atop a platform rotating
18 to 20 times a minute to create a gravitational pull equal to
Earth's.  Cardus says if the device works as expected, the
volunteers should be able to reclaim muscle power.

 Ron Baalke                       |    [e-mail]
 Jet Propulsion Lab  M/S 301-355  |    [e-mail]
 4800 Oak Grove Dr.               |
 Pasadena, CA 91109               |

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

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 90 09:17 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Space tech digest Space tech digest repeats

Hiho and greetings from Madison.  I have noticed a problem with my space tech
subscription and have decided that now is as good a time as any to tell
you about it since the system seems mostly online but not totally debugged.
you about it since the system seems mostly online but not totally debugged.
(I typed it twice for humor reasons)
I checked one case of this (two copies of 449) and found one addressed
quite clearly to "GEORGE K. OTT [e-mail]"
and the other apparently addressed to you.
What's pulling off here?
As I type this I realize that I should have collected more info.(cases,
mailing dates etc.) to assist in describing the problem but... what the
heck mayhap you already have enough info. for a diagnosis.
If not, just ask, I'll collect more bits.
THanks,

George
p.s. I enjoy reading the digests very much :)

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

Date: 5 Feb 90 19:06:00 GMT
From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!apollo![e-mail]  (Steve Rehrauer)
Subject: Re: Spacecraft drives and fuel efficiency

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>If you want really high exhaust velocities, antimatter is better.  The
>idea of antimatter rockets is now being taken very seriously.  We
>(probably) know how to make antihydrogen cheaply enough to make them
>viable.

A question or three.  Given all the flack aimed at NASA, who is "we"?
And roughly what would be "cheaply enough"?  "Viable" means "doable for
one program", or "an alternative to conventional propulsion for evermore"?

(The above is absolutely positively not a flame or sarcasm.  In this
group I know better...)

--
>>"Aaiiyeeee!  Death from above!"<< | Steve Rehrauer, [e-mail]
   "Flee, lest we be trod upon!"    | The Apollo System Division of H.P.

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

Date: 5 Feb 90 17:29:53 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma![e-mail]  (Nick Watkins)
Subject: Re: SR-71 BLACKBIRD

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Smith) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:

>Hmmm, maybe we should hire the USAF to build copies of the F-1.

The what? F-1 was (US) designation for the SS9 Scarp ICBM as a launcher.
Very roughly equivalent to Titan II (Martin would probably rebuild them if
you paid them enough ...:-) )

G-1 (US) or N1 (USSR) = old moon rocket. Was this the one you meant ?

Nick

--
Nick Watkins, Space & Plasma Physics Group, School of Mathematical
& Physical Sciences, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton, E.Sussex, BN1 9QH, ENGLAND
JANET: [e-mail]   BITNET: [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #12
*******************