Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V11_1/V11_159.ZIP/V11_159

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/Ua0S15200VcJACcE5G>;
          Sat, 17 Mar 90 01:59:17 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 01:58:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #159

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 159

Today's Topics:
     Re: Coilgun on a 747 - supplies to orbit at $20/lb?
        Re: What was Challenger really up to?
     Re: Coilgun on a 747 - supplies to orbit at $20/lb?
         Re:  U.S. Coast Guard GPS Broadcast
     Re: Coilgun on a 747 - supplies to orbit at $20/lb?
       Re: Shuttle escape systems, was Challenger's Last Words
             It was 64 years ago today...
               FMEAplus Product Release
              Re: Challenger last words
           Re: Artificial Gravity rephrased
          Re: Observations of STS 36 and its Payload
          Re: Teacher in Space - Wherefore?
                  Re: SR-71
              Re: Sandia Railgun
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 90 13:33:41 GMT
From: eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!hp4nl!philapd!ssp17![e-mail]  (Gordon Booman)
Subject: Re: Coilgun on a 747 - supplies to orbit at $20/lb?

In article <#$'#|[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Kasprzak) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Vincent Cate) writes:
>>
>> [speculations on the possibility of launching stuff to orbit with a
>>  747-mounted coil gun deleted]
>>
>>What are the hard parts of this type of approach?
>>
> Not wrecking the 747 in the process. Ever hear of recoil? ...

How about using a second coilgun firing at the same time as the first
in the opposite direction with an equivalent force (not necessarily
equal mass)?  This cuts your load to orbit in half, but at least the
747 may still be in one piece. (Wonder what it's like to fly through
the shock wave from the coilgun?)
--
Gordon Booman SSP/v2b25  Philips TDS Apeldoorn, The Netherlands  [phone]
domain: [e-mail]             uucp:  ...!hp4nl!philapd!gordon
--
Gordon Booman SSP/v2b25  Philips TDS Apeldoorn, The Netherlands  [phone]
domain: [e-mail]             uucp:  ...!hp4nl!philapd!gordon

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

Date: 16 Mar 90 19:44:46 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aristotle![e-mail]  (Peter Scott)
Subject: Re: What was Challenger really up to?

In article <[e-mail]), [e-mail]
(Arnold G. Gill) writes:
)
)      I heard the following story from a friend, and have absolutely no idea
) about the truth/fantasy involved, since it is all completely new to me.  It
) goes like this.
)
)      The real cause of the Challenger accident was not O-ring failure as we
) are all meant to believe, but rather due to an accidental discharge of the
) military laser being carried (illegally) up into orbit, which blasted through
) the shuttle and exploded the fuel tanks.  Proof of this is supposed to come
) from the fact that there was a military laser expert on board the
shuttle, who
) would have no purpose on the mission if no laser was included in the
manifesto.
) [...]
)  In addition, the fact that the cabin of the Challenger was
) not located for a month, even though it was in the shallowest water around.
) This was done to make sure that everybody on board was actually dead.  The
) O-rings were eventually blamed as part of the coverup.
)
)      If you ask me, this is a pretty wild story - something that the
Christics
) seem capable of.  Nevertheless, I would be interested in all refutations of
) the above line - but please, only serious refutations, nothing along the line
) of "That is too idiotic/impossible to be true".  I don't know enough to do it
) myself.

Sigh.  Just when you think you've heard it all...  That would have to be
one hell
of a cover-up, to forge the SRB casings so that the photographs published in
the Rogers Commission Report, and earlier in AW&ST would fool all material
scientists.  They clearly showed burn-through.  And those parts were recovered
quite rapidly.

But it sounds as though your friend is the type to believe whatever he wants
to, irrespective of rationality, so don't expect this or any other arguments
necessarily to work.

This is news.  This is your       |    Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech
brain on news.  Any questions?    |    ([e-mail])

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

Date: 16 Mar 90 14:47:44 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Coilgun on a 747 - supplies to orbit at $20/lb?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Vincent Cate) writes:

>Sounds like a coilgun on a high flying 747 should be a cheap way to
>get lots of supplies into orbit!!!!

A coil gun would be much too bulky to fly in a 747.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date:     Fri, 16 Mar 90 15:49:16 GMT
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail], Space Digest <[e-mail]>,
        NTP List <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  U.S. Coast Guard GPS Broadcast

Richard,

Goody, now can you join the chorus here, led by Rex Buddenberg, to get ONSCEN
an Internet splice?

Dave

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

Date: 16 Mar 90 21:32:35 GMT
From: agate!brahms.berkeley.edu![e-mail]  (Dmitry Gokhman)
Subject: Re: Coilgun on a 747 - supplies to orbit at $20/lb?

.... has anyone given much thought about a power source for the sucker?
---------------------------------------------------------------
- Mr. Gumby    * \oo7    Dmitry Gokhman
   says:        `/v/-*   Brahms Gang/University of Cauliflower/
MY BRAIN HURTS  J  L     Broccoli CA 94720
---------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 16 Mar 90 20:10:00 GMT
From: agate!earthquake.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (George William Herbert)
Subject: Re: Shuttle escape systems, was Challenger's Last Words

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (S Schaper) writes:
>>.... Might it not be, that with sufficient sensors to moniter this sort of
>>accident, the shuttle could be programmed to sep from the stack, with escape
>>rockets of some sort and do an RTLS? ...
>> Or are the dynamic pressures on the shuttle during the SRB ascent phase too
>>high for an RTLS to work?
>
>They are perhaps not high enough to make it impossible, but they *are*
>high enough to make it very difficult.  Separating two spacecraft at
>high speed within the atmosphere is a very tricky problem.  Military
>aircraft engineers get gray hairs solving such problems for missiles
>fired from aircraft... at much lower speeds, with no malfunctions
>involved, and with aircraft and missiles that are fairly durable and
>can be kicked apart fairly hard.  Add in the problem of keeping the
>fragile orbiter clear of the hot, violent, abrasive SRB exhausts
>afterward, and the difficulty of designing attachments that can
>separate cleanly when one part is accelerating much harder than the
>other (the orbiter is hanging on the struts throughout SRB burn,
>not even supporting its own weight), and it looks pretty daunting.

There are a couple of counterpoints to this belief:
    One is that while a missile or air-dropped plane by definition needs to
be fully functional after such an incident, as that is 'normal operation'.  If
the shuttle were to use this escape mode, it's already a vehicle-threatening
emergency; as long as the crew and hopefully the vehicle survive it's acceptable.
And all that needs to happen for the crew to survive is that the shuttle not
break up and be moving slowly enough for the crew to jump out after it reaches
subsonic...or preferably, it can be controled and flown back [or ditched...]
    Second; One particular advantage to the shuttle is that if it seperates
the rest of the stack [ET and SRB's] will protect it for a good while, as long
as they stay stable [i dunnow, are the srb computers smatr enough to try and
steer them straight?] and the ET doesn't break up [unlikely].
    Adding to this an [addmittedly unsubstantiated] rumor that NASA gave the
pilots a manual control override mode on the aerocontrols and the ET seperate
some time ago [" we're flying it out by the seat of our pants.." Heh? ] ...


*******************************************************************************
George William Herbert     JOAT For Hire: Anything, Anywhere: My Price
UCB Naval Architecture undergrad: Engineering with a Bouyant Attitude :-)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail]       |||||||||| "What do I have to do to convince you?"-Q
[e-mail]      |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| "Die."-Worf
[e-mail] |"Very good, Worf. Eaten any good books recently?"-Q

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

Date: 16 Mar 90 13:10:57 GMT
From: @decwrl.dec.com  (N = R*fgfpneflfifaL 16-Mar-1990 0816)
Subject: It was 64 years ago today...


        On this date (March 16) in 1926, Robert Goddard launched the
    first liquid-fueled rocket - the ancestor to most of today's modern
    boosters - from his Aunt Effie's property in Auburn, Massachusetts.
    The flight lasted no more than 2.5 seconds and sailed only a dozen
    meters (41 feet) into the air, but it was more than enough to change
    our future.

        Larry Klaes  [e-mail]
             or - ...!decwrl!wrksys.dec.com!klaes
                 or - [e-mail]
                     or - [e-mail]
                     or - [e-mail]

             N = R*fgfpneflfifaL

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

Date: 16 Mar 90 15:09:26 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!math.lsa.umich.edu!sharkey!cfctech!ttardis![e-mail]  (Chad Childers)
Subject: FMEAplus Product Release





Ford Motor Company has developed a PC-based software application called
FMEAplus (TM) that simplifies preparing and updating Failure Mode and
Effects Analysis (FMEA) reports. It features a friendly, menu-driven user
interface and on-line help. A unique split-screen display format maximizes the
amount of data presented on the screen. Data relationships between columns
are automatically maintained, making data insertion and deletion quick and
easy. Glossary, scratchpad and notepad features help organize ideas on the fly.
The output conforms to Ford FMEA report standards.

A free demo disk and additional information about FMEAplus can be obtained
by calling Adistra Corporation, [phone], ext 390.

Computer configurations: IBM PC, XT, AT, PS/2, or compatible; 512K RAM;
CGA, EGA, VGA, or compatible color display; hard disk drive (2 MB free
space), HP LaserJet Series II; DOS 3.2 or higher


"There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped the
chronicler's mind."

Chad Childers               UUCP: ...uunet!edsews!rel!ttardis!cbc
               CI$: 73615,543    Fido: 1:120/13    PLink: MTN-EER

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

Date: 15 Mar 90 13:16:48 GMT
From: eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!ukc!tcdcs!swift.cs.tcd.ie!ccvax.ucd.ie![e-mail]  (Brian J Haughey)
Subject: Re: Challenger last words

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Logajan) writes:
> I think it IS funny.  David didn't say he held ill will toward the poor
> victims of Challenger -- and there is no reason to assume otherwise.
>
> I'd laugh at my own death -- but I haven't figured out a way to do that
> yet. :-)
>

The Challenger explosion was a traumatic experience for me, too; in general
I am continuously amazed at the remarkable feats of engineering and human
endeavour on the parts of NaSA in general and the astronauts in particular.

And yet I feel no remorse about joking about this tragedy - sometimes humour
alleviates some of the anguish we feel. Perhaps it's because we here in
ireland have a very dry sense of humour, that we do tell these kinds of
jokes.

So, our version would be "Q: what were the last words to be heard over the
                             radio of the shuttle ?"
                         "A: And what's *this* red button for ?"

[I guess so as not to offend some pepl I better make the other jokes available
by email only :) ]

Regards, bjh

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

Date: 15 Mar 90 18:34:02 GMT
From: ddsw1!corpane![e-mail]  (John Sparks)
Subject: Re: Artificial Gravity rephrased

[e-mail] (Robert Casey) writes:

|If I was in that spaceship that was in _2001_, in the spinning section, seems
|that I could throw a baseball in such a way as to cancel the spin speed.  Then
|the baseball would seem to take a circular path thru the spinning section at
|the height from the floor where I threw it.  Then I better duck at one
|rotation! :-)  Seen from outside the spinning section of the ship, the
|baseball would be staying put in one spot.  So, the artifical gravity wouldn't
|grab the ball.  Make sense?

That would be some curve ball. more likely you would throw the ball against
the wall/floor of the cylinder.

--
John Sparks  | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps. Accessable via Starlink (Louisville KY)
[e-mail] <><><><><><><><><><><> D.I.S.K. ph:502/968-5401 thru -5406
My interest is in the future because I am going to spend the rest of my
life there.

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

Date: 16 Mar 90 14:31:38 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!sci.ccny.cuny.edu!phri![e-mail]  (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: Observations of STS 36 and its Payload


    How exactly does one track the shuttle, and what does one see?  My
understanding was that it does 1 orbit every 90 minutes or so; how do you
track something moving that fast (4 degrees of arc per minute of time)?
Are there clock drives that you can crank up that fast, or do you have to
hand track it?

    My back-of-the-envelope calculations say that an object about 100
feet long and about 100 miles up should subtend about a half a minute of
arc, on the same order as Jupiter, say.  With a 4 incher I can see bands on
Jupiter from a rooftop in Brooklyn (about the worst viewing conditions you
could imagine).  With a good scope under good conditions I would guess you
should be able to clearly see gross features on the shuttle (wings, tail,
maybe even if the cargo doors are open).  In fact, given that the shuttle
flies upside down with the doors open most of the time, I would guess one
might even be able to peek inside the cargo bay and see what they've got in
there if they had a big enough telescope.  If a spysat can read license
plates, why not the other way around?
--
Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
[e-mail] -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy
"My karma ran over my dogma"

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

Date: 16 Mar 90 16:47:14 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Teacher in Space - Wherefore?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>What happened to this?  Has the "Teacher in Space" project quietly been
>shelved?  ...

The "Citizens in Space" program, of which "Teacher in Space" was the first
installment, is on hold indefinitely.  NASA was never really terribly fond
of the idea of carrying passengers on the shuttle, and was happy to use the
post-Challenger safety hype as an excuse to post a "no hitchhikers" sign.
I believe that if you ask officially, you get some mumbling about "when
it's safe", but in practice the CiS program is not going to resume until
the President specifically orders NASA to do so.  (It was a direct order
from Reagan that got it started.)
--
MSDOS, abbrev:  Maybe SomeDay |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
an Operating System.          | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 16 Mar 90 16:38:38 GMT
From: dasys1![e-mail]  (Richard Newsome)
Subject: Re: SR-71


Now that the SR-71 is being decommissioned I'd like to know: are the
junked planes going to be for sale? Hell of an acquisition for a
vintage plane collector.

--
Richard Newsome
Big Electric Cat Public UNIX
..!cmcl2!hombre!dasys1!newsome

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

Date: 17 Mar 90 01:49:45 GMT
From: samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Sandia Railgun


See also _Scientific American_, April issue (I think, might be March.)

They highlight a design on a Hawaiian island (launch tube to start on
water, climb up mountain.)  Booster was a 100kg aluminum block with 100kg
of payload on it.  (Might have been 400kg).  It would carry a post-launch
booster for orbit insertion.  100km is small, yes, but says a launch could
go every 10 minutes -> more mass than shuttle?

Points out that there are several problems:
1) The object to be launched would reach almost-escape-velocity within
the atmosphere (before it has gotten very high.)  Mach 2 at sea level
is fine, Mach 30 at 100km up is fine, but Mach 30 at sea level creates
some serious problems incl. liquefaction of the air. (?)
2) The article quotes 10,000G's of acceleration; mil-spec electronics
can withstand 10G's at most.  (Allows bulk material only.)
3) Any slight contact between the launching tube and the payload
creates superheated plasma from the friction (do I remember this right?)
This requires very good targeting, i.e. SDI quality = $ N*1E6
4) Free sonic booms available every 10 minutes to all within 10km.

Looks like an interesting idea, but the limitation to bulk materials
is a _real_ problem.  It would essentially require an STS for delicate
material, so this could only be an add-on to the current STS system.

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #159
*******************