Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V13_3/V13_324.ZIP/V13_324

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 15KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.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/8bx3ILC00WBwQRSk4c>;
          Sat, 30 Mar 91 01:49:59 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 91 01:49:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #324

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 324

Today's Topics:
              Re: JPL spacecraft
             Magnetic projectile launcher
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #260
          Re: Space shots on CDROM for AMIGA
            2nd CFV:  sci.geo.meteorology
              Re: Space Profits
              Re: MANY QUESTIONS
              Re: More cost/lb. follies
      Re: Observation report (or, "Is The Nuke Plant That Way?")

Administrivia:

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

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

Date: 26 Mar 91 18:52:04 GMT
From: porthos!cellar![e-mail]  (Doug Davey)
Subject: Re: JPL spacecraft

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
> >
> >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
> >
> >>....JPL is the only one to send spacecraft to all of
> >>the planets except Pluto.
> >
> >Not only that, but JPL has been _first_ to every planet, and their
> >Explorer probe also discovered the Van Allen belts (without which discovery,
> >we would have had some toasted astronauts).
> >
>
> I hate to disagree with you on this one, but Pioneer 10 made it to
> Jupiter first, and Pioneer 11 was first at Saturn, paving the way for
> Voyager 1 and 2.
>

Similarly, Sputnik (which was not a JPL probe) was the first spacecraft
to either flyby or orbit the third planet from the Sun.  JPL does teriffic
work, but I think you are stretching things a bit.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Doug Davey   bellcore!bae!ddavey   [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 91 13:45:01 EST
From: "S.K. Whiteman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magnetic projectile launcher

In the March 1991 issue of NASA Tech Briefs on page 48 there is a
discription of a Superconducting magnetic projectile launcher.
Interesting technology 8-).

Sam
Indiana University - Purdue University at Fort Wayne
Fort Wayne, Indiana USA

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 91 17:48:29 EST
From: Tom McWilliams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #260

Subject :  Chemical Rockets

So, Nick, since chemical rockets are too costly and stretched to their limits,
in terms of cost/kg and technical capability, what do you propose as a fuel
for getting anything, people or frieght, to LEO?

Anything nuclear would cause environmental damage beyond acceptability, and
the low ISP devices that I've actually seen designs for would only work on a
later stage, at best.

Is there something I've missed?  Maybe you know of some propulsion system that
could replace chemical rockets?

Tommy Mac
18084tm@msu
Michigan State U.
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

Date: 26 Mar 91 18:27:32 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Space shots on CDROM for AMIGA

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Watshine - Extension Id) writes:
>
>    I am thinking of purchasing a CDROM player for my AMIGA computer, and am generally interested in puchasing the Voyager pictures (and others if they are
>available) to view on my Amiga.  What stuff is available on CDROM from NASA, and does anyone know if these CDROMs could be read from an amiga compatible CDROM
>drive (say XETEC, or CDTV).
>    I've heard of the Voyager shots being in a format called VICAR.  Is
>there a viewer available for the AMIGA computer?  Or is it just for the IBM.
>Could someone port the viewer to the AMIGA?  I've also heard that some of the
>CDROMs have pictures that are in condensed format.  Would I be able to
>uncompress them on my AMIGA?
>

The Voyager CD-ROMs should be compatible with an Amiga.   The Voyager images
are compressed on the CD-ROM, and the source file to decompress the images
is on the CD-ROM itself.  The file is called DECOMP.C, and it has been
successfuly compiled and run on IBM PC, Unix and VAX platforms - I don't
see any problems with it running on the Amiga.  The images are NOT stored
in  VICAR format; however, the decompression program gives you the option to
decompress the images into either VICAR, FITS, PDS or raw image formats.
The only real difference between the VICAR, FITS and PDS formats is that
the headers are different.  You will, however, have to provide your own
viewer, or convert the uncompressed images to IFF format (the Amiga format).
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab |
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | Change is constant.
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 |
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      |

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

Date: 26 Mar 91 02:05:17 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!csn!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi![e-mail]  (Jason J. Levit)
Subject: 2nd CFV:  sci.geo.meteorology

After some dicussion and many people urging me to put this to a vote,
I hereby call for the vote on the newsgroup sci.geo.meteorology.
Once again, here is the charter:

NAME: sci.geo.meteorology

CHARTER: Discussion of meteorology and related topics.

MODERATION STATUS: Unmoderated

PURPOSE AND JUSTIFICATION: Our lives are effected daily by the
weather.  However, this is not new news.  In the past few years,
meteorology has fast become a cutting-edge science.  Scientists are
now optimizing the way forecasts are made; supercomputers are studying
chaos theory and its relation to the atmosphere; fascinating research
is taking place on severe weather and tornados, with research on new
types of radar; microbursts and wind shear are being studied heavily;
of course global warming, hurricane research, lightning...the list
goes on and on.

I believe interesting discussion could take place in this newsgroup.
It would be a benefit to professionals in the field, students, and the
general public by the exchange of information on the various topics of
the atmosphere.

*********************** VOTING PROCEDURE ****************************

Please vote in this format:

If you wish to vote yes, send a message to:
[e-mail], with a "I vote YES" in the subject line
and a "I vote YES for sci.geo.meteorology." in the contents of the
letter.

If you wish to vote no, send a message to: [e-mail],
with a "I vote NO" in the subject line and a "I vote NO for
sci.geo.meteorology" in the contents of the letter.

Any other messages that clearly state a vote for one way or the other
will be counted.

Any comments or questions can be sent to me, Jason J. Levit,
[e-mail].

The voting period will last from March 18th, 1991 through April 13th,
1991 (27 days).  Any votes received before or after this period will
not be counted.

As always, this group must receive 100 more YES votes than NO votes
and the YES votes must be 2/3 of the majority.

I will have at least one mass acknowledgement during the voting period.

--
Jason J. Levit       Tornado Chaser Extraordinaire       [e-mail]
  Boing...boing...boing...boing...listen to all that bouncing mail out there!
         A good planet is hard to find; let's save this one!

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

Date: 26 Mar 91 09:09:25 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Space Profits

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Blase) writes:
>
>I suppose that you've never heard of gasoline,

Sure.  Regular, unleaded, various octane levels under various names,
sometimes with "anti-knock" and other miscellaneous additives.  New cars
sold in U.S. disallow regular.  Sold by the gallon or liter (or is that
"litre"?).


>Ethernet,

Disturbingly enough, more people use X.25 and (shudders) SNA.


>VME bus,

ISA, EISA, MCA, dozens of others.....


>...
>the telephone system,

What buttons do I push to dial out?  To call long distance?


>...
>or the IBM PC?

EISA, ISA, or MCA?  DOS, OS/2, or Unix (SCO, ISC, Coherent, OSF/1, ....)?


>All of these are more-or-less international standards.

Usually less, alas.


>Industry WILL
>adhere to standards  if it clearly in their best, commercial, interest.

One can wish.  In the case of lunar LOX, it is not at all clear that
spending $100's of millions, or perhaps even $billions, on refueling
fittings for new satellites and upper stages, is in the best commercial
interest.


> NS> Operational life is based on quite a bit more than
> NS> stationkeeping fuel. This would involve further redesign
> NS> towards materials that last longer in space, greater lifetime
> NS> for circuitry, etc. etc.
>
>Most of the reconnasaince and communicaton satellites fail because they
>run out of stationkeeping fuel.

Yes, but the other components are also designed around this general
lifespan, not for a significantly greater lifespan.


>As the various Pioneer and Voyager probes
>demonstrate, well designed electronics can last for quite a long time.

True, if they are explicitly designed to do so.

I am not arguing against refueling in principle, of course.  The point
is, the expected cash flow (after taking into account risk factors)
from LOX must be high for current launch rates to be pronounced
economical.

I suspect extracting LOX and other molecules from small captured comets
will be far cheaper than lunar LOX, and could provide the quantum price
leap needed to go to refueling, as well as a full suite of volatiles
for industrial and life-support purposes.




--
Nick Szabo            [e-mail]
"If you want oil, drill lots of wells" -- J. Paul Getty
The above opinions are my own and not related to those of any
organization I may be affiliated with.

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

Date: 22 Mar 91 22:15:12 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!csn!ub!dsinc!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss![e-mail]  (Paul Blase)
Subject: Re: MANY QUESTIONS

to: [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)

>>5. on the lighter side...are there any shuttle missions planned that call for
>>carrying the external tanks into leo? ...   i quess i really want
>>to know why this isn't being done already.

 HS> The Gamma Ray Imaging Telescope project has looked at the idea,
 HS> although I don't believe it is scheduled to fly any time soon.
 HS> Putting the tank into orbit costs payload, it will come down
 HS> quickly due to air drag unless precautions are taken, space
 HS> debris will puncture it quickly, and its own insulation will
 HS> crumble and create more debris, so nobody is going to put up a
 HS> tank until there is a specific project that wants it and can
 HS> invest enough effort to deal with the problems.

Actually, from what I've read, it would actually ADD cargo capability.
The shuttle now has to do a complex manuver to dump the tank.  Keeping
the tank would avoid this maneuver, which costs fuel. It would also be a
simple matter to add a small (solid) booster onto the tank to boost it
into a higher orbit once the shuttle has seperated.

--- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR]
--
Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Mar 91 19:54:06 GMT
From: sun-barr!newstop!exodus!concertina.Eng.Sun.COM![e-mail]  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: More cost/lb. follies

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>
>Unfortuneately, the cube/square law refers to volume/surface area,
>not mass (fuel, structure, and payload).  Scaling a rocket up or down
>does not signficantly change the fuel/payload or fuel/structure ratios,
>upon which my argument is based.  There is little, if any, economy of
>scale based on size.

Huh?

This is like saying that there is no advantage to building larger dirigibles
because scaling them up doesn't change the lifting volume/structural mass
ratios.

Either I missed your point, or (liquid fuel) rockets and zeps follow
different physical laws.


--
------------
  The only drawback with morning is that it comes
    at such an inconvenient time of day.
------------

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

Date: 26 Mar 91 16:15:35 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu![e-mail]  (Ed Otto)
Subject: Re: Observation report (or, "Is The Nuke Plant That Way?")

[e-mail] (Brian Rice) writes:

>At around 11 p.m. EST yesterday (March 24) a group of friends
>and I were outside of my Chapel Hill, N.C., apartment.  Since
>this posting is being made to sci.space, you have probably
>surmised that someone looked at the sky and said, "Jeezis,
>look at that," and you are quite right.

What you saw was the Aurora Borelias (sp?) caused by the recent solar activity.

Nothing more, and nothing less.

(Spectacular, wasn't it?  It was GORGEOUS here in central Ill after midnight -
then the clouds came in...)

And should be spectacular for the rest of the week, too - as long as the weather
stays clear!
--
********************************************************************************
*                             *  Netmail addresses:                            *
*  Edward C. Otto III         *    [e-mail]                  *
*  University of Illinois     *    [e-mail]                 *

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #324
*******************