Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V11_5/V11_563.ZIP/V11_563

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/0aV5BNC00VcJQcJ04t>;
          Sun, 24 Jun 1990 01:44:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 1990 01:44:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #563

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 563

Today's Topics:
              Re: HST crazy idea
         Re: Aim For The Moon - model rocket contest
         Re: Aim For The Moon - model rocket contest
               Re: 10 psi overpressure
              Galileo Update - 06/20/90
              Re: Saturn Rockets
     Immune system depression: Isolation or microgravity?
                (none)
          NERVA & other fission-heated steam engines
                  GIF files
             Rockets to the Moon.
            Prize for Rocket to the Moon.

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Jun 90 03:38:48 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: HST crazy idea

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Cookson) writes:
>... How about
>putting Hubble in a porlar orbit that follows the terminator,  that way it
>would always be in sunlight.

Nope, sorry, won't work -- the Earth-Sun axis rotates once a year, and you
can't make the orbit go with it.  You can come close with a sun-synchronous
orbit, which gets short eclipses about two months of the year.  That's a
popular orbit for sky-survey missions like IRAS and COBE.  Unfortunately
it cannot be reached by the shuttle from KSC, which is a problem with a
satellite like HST, which has specific plans for in-orbit servicing and
new instruments already in the works.
--
As a user I'll take speed over|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
features any day. -A.Tanenbaum| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 21 Jun 90 19:01:08 GMT
From: sam.cs.cmu.edu![e-mail]  (Vincent Cate)
Subject: Re: Aim For The Moon - model rocket contest



Tony Cunningham:
>    Given the current concern over the amount of debris already in
>earth orbit shouldn't people be giving some consideration to what
>happens to the payload after launch? Obviously the orbit will decay and
>the payload will re-enter but after how long?

I would not expect any of the rockets to go into orbit around the earth.
They will either go up and back down, hit the moon, or escape the earth's
gravitational field.  The ones that come back down should do so after a
rather short time and so have much less chance of running into something
than the garbage that is orbiting for years.

   -- Vince

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

Date: 22 Jun 90 17:37:50 GMT
From: clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!quiche!calvin![e-mail]  (Mark SOKOLOWSKI)
Subject: Re: Aim For The Moon - model rocket contest


    When somebody talked about the Scout's capacity in a recent post
(around 200 kg in LEO), I would like to show a calculation I did about
a manned spacecraft fitting in this weight category. First of all
it is possible to build a mercury like capsule having this mass, complete
with a thermal shield and controls. The simple requirements are for me
to go in there without a space-suit. For the other figures:

    - Me, 67 kg

    - The aluminium body, sustaining a 1 athm pressure
      (In practice, 0.3 athm. of pure O2), 100 kg

    - The attitude engines + main deceleration engine (Class N
      engine), 10 kg.

    - The survival unit (O2 for a few hours, climatization), 10 kg

    - A computer + interfaces, communication electronics, my
      walkman, 3 kg.

    - Parachute, 10 kg

    Of course, don't expect to much luxury aboard. 1/2 m^3 of
practical space (and inexistant bathroom). But I expect good sized
windows (a little like for gemini) to admire the view. And I won't be
afraid to go in it, even at the cost of being arrested afterwards (at
least in Canada) for sending a rocket of more than 500 grams into the
air! By the way, does anybody know where I can buy a Scout booster?
I'm starting the construction of my capsule at the end of this summer,
then I'll proceed to a space trip next year, after buying the booster
(ideally) or building one myself (Less preferable, since I don't have
much practical experience, but I'll do my best...). I guess this will
be a good start for Venus. Any comments???

Mark S.
-------

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

Date: 19 Jun 90 13:03:00 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!pacbell!sactoh0!unify!csusac!csuchico.edu![e-mail]  (Ralph Reid)
Subject: Re: 10 psi overpressure

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Carl Gooch) writes:
>>...The force of the explosion was, I'm pretty sure, what
>>destroyed the Orbiter; it wasn't designed to take the stress of a
>>detonation wave hitting its bottom surface.
>
>Sorry, wrong; there was no explosion.  The external tank fell apart,
>and the fuel burned, but there was no detonation and the orbiter was
>not particularly damaged by the fire.  It was destroyed because the
>tank breakup threw it violently out of control in a Mach 3 slipstream,
>and its structure simply isn't strong enough to take that.  It flies
>forward just fine, but flying sideways is out of the question even for
>jet fighters, and they are much tougher than shuttle orbiters.
> . . .


As I remember, at some point a signal was sent to blow up what
remained of the shuttle to keep large pieces from falling into
populated areas.  No doubt this contributed to the ultimate
destruction, although the shuttle may have been in several pieces by
the time the destruct signal was sent.

--
Ralph.
ARS: N6BNO          Compuserve: 72250,3521
email: [e-mail]

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

Date: 21 Jun 90 16:28:33 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!forsight!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update - 06/20/90


                     GALILEO MISSION STATUS
                          June 20, 1990

     The Galileo spacecraft is 95 million miles from Earth today;
round-trip light time is 17 minutes.  Since launch, Galileo has
logged almost 422 million miles in solar orbit, and is currently
traveling at about 55,570 mph.

     Activities on the spacecraft continue to be routine and
performance is excellent.  Operations are now directed by a new
software sequence transmitted June 8.  This sequence will control
the spacecraft until late October, and includes planned
opportunities for two more trajectory-correction maneuvers.

     Preliminary reports of Galileo scientific observations of
Venus from last February's flyby are scheduled for the Committee
for Space Research (COSPAR) conference next week in the
Netherlands.  The reports are from the imaging and near-infrared
mapping spectrometer teams and are based on sample data sent back
using an experimental procedure soon after the encounter, when
the available data rate was too low for normal playback.  The
full Venus science data will be played back in late November when
communications conditions permit a higher data rate.
       _   _____    _
      | | |  __ \  | |       Ron Baalke           |  [e-mail]
      | | | |__) | | |       Jet Propulsion Lab   |  [e-mail]
   ___| | |  ___/  | |___    M/S 301-355          |
  |_____/ |_|      |_____|   Pasadena, CA 91109   |

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

Date: 21 Jun 90 17:37:41 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!milano!peyote![e-mail]  (Bob Mosley III)
Subject: Re: Saturn Rockets

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
> From that point on, Nova
> rapidly receded into the dim post-Saturn future.  Von Braun and his crew
> at Marshall had more or less written Nova off as an Apollo booster a bit
> earlier, which is why they didn't object to the choice of Michoud.

...I had wondered about the use of the Michoud facility for constructing
Novas, considering that some of the models I've seen appeared to be
two or three S-I's clustered together with the 5 engine configuration
on each. Others were essentially "fat Saturns" with more than 5 engines.
At that time, there wasn't really a facility available to build such a
vehicle from keel to topdeck (to mix metaphors in a weird way3-) :-))

...but as for Nova "receeding into the dim post-Saturn future", when I
first came across the references to the booster (late '67) the impression
given was that the planned mission was for both Earth-Mars shots and
lobbing orbital space platforms into high orbits. At what point was this
plan finally scrapped?

...finally, what design for Nova came the closest to approval? As I
recall, the one that was more publicized (if you could call it that) was
the one that Gerry Anderson based his ficticious "Phoenix" launch vehicle
on in the film _Journey to the Far Side of the Sun_ (_Doppelganger_ to you
Brits3-) :-)), which was the "fat Saturn" design. As we've seen, the
most popularly publicized concepts don't always make it to the real world
(just look at the F-19..er..F-117A concepts!), so I'm curious as to what
the closest approved version for Nova actually was.

> At that point, Nova was still a generic term for a wide range of big-booster
> concepts, and nobody had really settled on anything specific.  The closest
> anybody came to a detailed post-Saturn-V design was the Saturn C-8, with
> eight F-1s in the first stage, which was either an enlarged Saturn or a
> junior Nova depending on your point of view.

...was the decision to keep the booster size down to the actual C-5 used
based on the Michoud size situation, or was it due to the abandonment of
the direct flight approach? Also, can you cite sources for the C-8 that
might supply conceptual diagrams of any sort? The same would be appreciated
for the C-3 and C-4 variants as well.

                            OM

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

Date: 22 Jun 90 19:10:28 GMT
From: vsi1!hsv3![e-mail]  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Immune system depression: Isolation or microgravity?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Russ Cage) writes:
>Muscle atrophy and calcium loss from bones are a serious problem
>for people living in zero-G.  Exercise and measures which stress
>the bones alleviate this somewhat.  Immune function is also
>depressed in microgravity (which means it is an excellent place
>to do research on immune system function).

I read an article some time ago which stated that the immune system
depression might be the real show-stopper for long term life in
microgravity.  However, I recently heard that researchers in Antarctica
also show immune system depression during the long periods of isolation
during the south polar winter.  The theory I heard is that this is due
to the isolation; new bugs aren't being constantly introduced to keep
the immune system on its toes.

Is there any evidence that the immune system depression experienced by
the MIR cosmonauts is greater than that experienced by Antarctic
researchers?  Maybe this isn't due to zero-g after all.
--
"A people who expect to be ignorant        Mike Van Pelt
 and free expect what never will,          Headland Technology
 and never can, be."                       (was: Video Seven)
         -- Thomas Jefferson               ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp

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

Date: 22 Jun 90 18:54:00 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!rpitsmts![e-mail]  (Commander Krugannal)
Subject: (none)


   >Also... has anyone heard about the mysterious circles appearing in the fields
   > of farmers in England, with no scientific explanation available?  These are
   > PERFECT circles, by the way.  Not something that could occur by any natural
   > means, and there are NEVER signs of any sort of human activity.  Witnesses
   > usually claim seeing bright orange lights and hearing whining noises.
   > Scientists are starting to get VERY serious about these things recently.  It
   > was on the CNN World Report yesterday.  It made me start thinking... are we
   > REALLY ready for extra-terrestrial contact?

   I am amazed at times when people claim that nature is not capable
   or creating perfect circles or straight lines.  Granted, you
   don't usually see many, rivers don't tend to be too straight...
   But fracture lines on some rocks can be straight.  Also, as for
   circles or spheres, if you don't have chaotic forces operating on
   the object, they are MORE likely!  Think of a drop of water falling.
   If it weren't for air resistance, it would be spherical (unless of
   course it is so large you get gravitional tides...)
     Hmm, bright orange lights and noises.  Ever been in a swamp at
   night and see those things of mystical magical origin that lead
   travellers to their deaths.  They're called willo-wisps.  Oh wait,
   you mean they have a natural cause? Gas? wow! what a concept.
   I suspect that perhaps something similar to this is behind the
   circles.  When they start cutting perfect copies of the Mona
   Lisa into the hay, then it'll be interesting.

   BTW, speaking of stuff like this, can anyone offer a good
   explanation for spontaneous human combustion?

   [e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Jun 90 20:00:42 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!watdragon!watyew![e-mail]  (Brian or James)
Subject: NERVA & other fission-heated steam engines


    I'm sure most folks are familiar with the NERVA program
[if program isn't overstating]. Were there any other rockets
designed or tested that used a similar idea [heat a reaction fluid
up with a fission power source]? Kingsbury once wrote an article on
something he called 'Dumbo' but he's the only person I seen discussing
any 'fisssion thermal' design other than the NERVA.
                        JDN

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

Date: 20 Jun 90 09:02:29 GMT
From: peregrine!ccicpg!felix!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Rick Ellis)
Subject: GIF files

Any machine with a program and hardware that will handle GIF format.


 SRH>   2.) Where can I find the programs to display GIF files.

For PC compatables you can find the software one SIMTEL, and at a BBS near
you.


--
uucp:     Rick Ellis
Internet: [e-mail]
BBS:      714 544-0934   2400/1200/300

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

Date: 22 Jun 90 20:03:22 GMT
From: usc!samsung!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!maven![e-mail]
Subject: Rockets to the Moon.

Rockets to the moon.

What a wonderful concept.  I have several things to add.
First :  For those who are serious, and ARE U.S. Citizens, the phone
number for DOT OCST where you need to get your lisence is
(202) 366 - 2929.  It can take (according to the guy I just talked to)
a minimum of 6 months for approval from them, and in many cases longer.

second: the guarenteed pledge is very good.  However I would like to give a
trial run of the insurance concept to offer a prize to the first rocket to
within 10,000 miles or so of the moons surface.  I will try to call LLoyds
of london later today to see how shocked they get at the idea.  I think that
a $50,000 to $100,000 prize should not cost too much to fund provided that
we take out the policy only for a rocket that accomplishes the goal in 1992.

Anyone out there want to help donate seed prize leverage money?

BTW:  You can count me in for the $1.00 for every rocket within 100,000 miles.
this is a good cause.

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

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

Date: 22 Jun 90 20:44:24 GMT
From: usc!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!maven![e-mail]
Subject: Prize for Rocket to the Moon.

The prize for the rocket to the moon looks real good.
I contacted my local LLoyds of London representative this morning.
They told me that TYPICALLY for the type of "PRIZE INDEMNIFICATION"
insurance we want on this unlikely event, the premium is about %10.
That means in real terms that for $5,000 we can offer a $50,000 prize.
If we get each of the rocket motor vendors to chip in for the prize money,
( the KNOW that they will make it back in publicity, and motor sales for the
event), and get the NAR to kick in some, and some of us actually donate
some money, then we have a pretty good start.  The more money we raise
initially, the greater the prize can be.  However before I personally
put up a lot of up front money for a prize, I want to know 2 things :
WILL anybody actually attempt to claim it...
Do they stand a chance.

It is all well and good to offer the prize, but I want someone to stand
a GOOd chance of claiming it.  ( The insurance co on the other hand wants
exactly the opposite...)

So, when we see some real designs start to appear, I will probbly go and
buy this policy.
Any potential helpers on this?  Send me mail.

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

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #563
*******************