Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_0/V16NO030.ZIP/V16NO030

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 26KB

Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 05:00:03
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #030
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 10 Jan 93       Volume 16 : Issue 030

Today's Topics:
                Anti-atoms (was Re: Making Antimatter)
                            Delta Clipper
   Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguement (3 msgs)
                           New Pegasus News
                          new Shuttle toilet
       Should NASA operate shuttles (was Re: Shuttle a researc
        Space Plasma Physics Summer School on the Volga River.
                             Sun Vs Pile
                UPCOMING on the ParaNet UFO CONTINUUM

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Jan 93 09:58:53 GMT
From: Magnus Olsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Anti-atoms (was Re: Making Antimatter)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (nathan wallace) writes:
>> Presumably the "cold" AP mentioned in the recent Sci Am article would
>> be part of such a system.
>
>The U. of Washington ion traps are suitable for keeping only small
>numbers of antiprotons, or other charged particles, so far as I know.

I quote from the Sci. Am. article (Gabrielse: Extremely Cold
Antiprotons, December 1992):

"In this way, during one hour, more than 100,000 cold antiprotons have
been stacked, or added to one another, in the trap. We estimate that
our current apparatus is capable of capturing and cooling up to one
million antiprotons"

One million antiprotons isn't a big lot; the total energy released
when they annihilate with protons is on the order of 0.1 millijoule.
By comparison, the kinetic energy of a two-ton space probe travelling
at the modest speed of 10 km/s is 100 gigajoules. We're talking about
fifteen orders of magnitude even in this very conservative estimate -
hardly a Trivial Matter of Engineering...

[...]

>Well, I would apply the word "antimatter" to any antiparticle, but I
>understand what you mean:  matter made of neutral anti-atoms has not
>been fabricated.  H. Poth and collaborators have done work on
>antiprotonic atoms, where a negative antiproton orbits a positive
>nucleus for a short time (it's a nice probe of nuclear physics).

And to clarify a little: "A short time" in this context is very short
indeed. I don't know the lifetime for an antiproton-proton system, but
the analogous electron-positron system, the positronium "atom", only
lives for about a microsecond before the electron and positron
annihilate each other.

>They
>would like to make antihydrogen (positron plus antiproton), but as far
>as I know they haven't managed it yet.

I quote again from the Sci. Am. article:

"Antihydrogen production is an ambitious and difficult undertaking
that will take some time to realize. Estimated production rates are
very low."

"Very low" means in this context that they'll be lucky to produce even
a single antiatom within the next five years or so.

>If somebody is
>planning to do this, it's certainly at CERN's Low Energy Antiproton
>Ring, where the action is in this field.  Fermilab has no facilities
>for work with "cold" antiprotons.

Yes. Gabrielse specifically mentions moving his experiment to CERN
from the States for that reason.


NOTE: I'm *not* dismissing antimatter as an energy source for
spaceships. I'm only saying that it will take a very long time before
it becomes even remotely practical.


              Magnus Olsson                | \e+      /_
    Department of Theoretical Physics      |  \  Z   / q
        University of Lund, Sweden         |   >----<
 [e-mail], [e-mail]  |  /      \===== g
PGP key available via finger or on request | /e-      \q

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

Date: 9 Jan 93 17:08:08 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Delta Clipper
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Allen Markley) writes:
>
>>Does anyone have the design goals for the Delta Clipper program?
>>Specifically I'd like to know what performance they hope to acheive and
>>by when.
>
>the DC-Y goals are 20,000 pounds to LEO (10K to polar) with an operational
>cost of $1 to %10 million per flight and one week turnaround of the
>vehicle (three days in an emergency). In addition, there is a crossrange
>requirement for a single orbit mission and some delta-V on orbit.

I think we need to be a bit more specific about *which* LEO we are
talking about. As Wales points out from time to time, capacity to
LEO is considerably different between 100 nm and 150 nm for the
same vehicle. Has MacDD said what they *mean* by LEO?

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv![e-mail]

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

Date: 9 Jan 93 18:07:39 GMT
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguement
Newsgroups: sci.space

>It wouldn't take a crippling accident to ground the Shuttle fleet
>for several months.  History has shown that.  It could be something
>as simple as a crane running into the side of the orbiter stack
>or a problem with the APUs.

   I can think of only one incident during which this happened,
   that being the May-September, 1990 problems with Atlantis and
   Columbia. Neither Orbiter was spaceworthy at that time, for
   two unrelated causes. Bear in mind that Discovery was entirely
   flightworthy at the time but was being held back to meet the
   October, 1990 launch window for Ulysses.

   A crane running into the side of the orbiter stack would result
   in only that particular orbiter being unavailable. The other
   three orbiters and the other KSC launch pad would be uneffected.
   There are many spare APUs in addition to the three installed in
   each orbiter. A problem with one caused a delay in the launch of
   STS-2, and again with STS-31, but only for about two weeks each.
   A flaw in the External Tank could conceivably bring down the
   fleet, but after fifty-two successful flights, this seems unlikely.
   A bad landing would most likely be an 'act of God' accident, not
   a design flaw that would shut down the fleet for years.
   The propulsion systems seem to me the only real threat to the
   system, and these would cause a crippling accident, beyond the
   realm of this discussion.

>If an orbiter hits one of the wild pigs, which live just yards from
>the Shuttle runway,  it could put the vehicle out of action for more
>than a year, resulting in delays or cancellations of many payloads.

   Sure, and an earthquake could open a canyon in the runway after
   de-orbit burn. Pegasus could pitch-up and smash into the NB-52,
   Titan IV could explode on ignition and wipe out Complex 41, DC-X
   could go wild and splatter itself on Alamagordo... When was the
   last time a 767 ran into a wild pig at Orlando International,
   another runway surrounded by marshland? How about a 747 hitting
   a stray dog at you-name-it suburban airport? Let's stick to the
   probable, please.

>And when (not if -- given enough Shuttle missions, it will happen)
>there is another fatal accident, Congress and the White House will
>shut the program down for at least another two years *if not permanently*.

   I disagree. Congress and the White House will either kill Shuttle
   completely or get it flying again within the year. I don't think
   ANYONE will sit still for another 32-month standdown. If Freedom
   were up and operating, I think the standdown would be a minimum.

   Let's just hope the next accident happens when we have a good
   replacement system well along in the development phase.

   -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
[e-mail]                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 9 Jan 93 18:08:26 GMT
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguement
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>Of course Shuttle *already* has this infrastructure, and it's paid
>>for whether Shuttle continues to use it or not.
>
>Not using that infrastructure for the Shuttle would allow you to use
>it for a rebuilt Saturn V, Russian-built Soyuz or Energia boosters,
>etc.  There are alternatives.

    There is no reason we couldn't build and launch a Saturn 5 from
    KSC if we want to. The VAB has *four* High Bays only two of which
    were remodeled for Shuttle. The other two were never equipped at
    all, and that space is being used for SSME maintenance, I think.
    SSME maintenance could be moved to another site and those two
    bays equipped for Saturn 5.
    Despite what the FAQ file says, I don't think the mods at KSC were
    that severe. We'd have to build the Mobile Service Structure again
    and reconstruct a Mobile Launch Platform for Saturn 5 (or stretch the
    Shuttle's Fixed Service Structure to do the same job from a slightly
    different position and distance... no big design problem).
    By the way, there is one complete Saturn Launch Umbilical Tower
    sitting in storage at KSC... four were built, two were converted
    for Shuttle, one was scrapped, and one is in storage. Maybe the
    MSS is there somewhere, too.
    The KSC Launch Control Center similarly has two empty Firing Rooms.
    Most everything else (Crawlers, the pads themselves, tanks farms,
    tracking stations, etc.) are still in place and would need little
    mods to work for Saturn as well as Shuttle (a new RP-1 tank, maybe...)
    They'd probably modify Saturn to use modern electronics and the
    TDRS system instead of all those downrange tracking stations.

    But what would be the point in this? We can do better with a new
    design, and almost as fast with a big Shuttle-derived booster
    using almost the same facilities and suppliers as Shuttle.

>>Currently there aren't that many missions needing heavy lift, seven
>>people on orbit, remote manipulation, long duration experiments, or
>>payload return. Shuttle does it with less than 8 launches a year. DC
>>may put Atlas, Delta, Titan, and Pegasus out of business, but it doesn't
>>have the capacity to match Shuttle or a true HLV for the times they're
>>needed.

>Can you give an example of a mission that needs *all* of those
>things, on a single vehicle?
>
>Of course, the Shuttle does it with less than 8 missions a year,
>because at Shuttle prices, that's all anyone can afford.

     If Endeavour flies on Wednesday, that will be the ninth Shuttle
     mission in the past 365 days (January 22, 1992 - January 13, 1993).
     Of course, NASA spent alot of last year preparing a new Orbiter for
     maiden flight and Discovery spent the year in its hangar.

>Why does this have to wait for Freedom?  We could do that right now.
>In fact, we'd save money launching Freedom on Energia instead of Shuttle.

    But Freedom is not a Salyut/Mir station, it's going to need *alot*
    of assembly... I don't think Soyuz could handle it in terms of
    orbital staytime and payload handling.

    -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
[e-mail]                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 9 Jan 93 18:09:50 GMT
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguement
Newsgroups: sci.space

>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>
>>  Are you saying that they had not even started production of
>>  Pegasus No.2 in April, 1990? Maybe this is true, but it seems
>>  a very strange way for OSC to be operating.
>
>They might have had a second, or even a third Pegasus under
>construction when the first one flew.  But a typical aircraft
>might fly 400 times before it's declared operational.  How
>long would it take to build and launch 400 expendable rockets,
>even if you could afford to?

    I'm lost... what were we talking about here?

    But for the record, how long will it take DC-1 to make four
    hundred flights? Much less than an expendable, I'm sure, but
    also alot longer than the 777 will.

    -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
[e-mail]                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:14:16 GMT
From: Jeffrey J Bloch <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Pegasus News
Newsgroups: sci.space

I have gotten word second-hand that the next Pegasus launch is delayed
once again. As mentioned in this newsgroup already, last tuesday the
B-52 with Pegasus under its wing took off from Edwards to go to the
east coast for the Brazil-sat launch. Shortly after takeoff the
rudder on Pegasus began to flutter +/- 40 degrees. It was supposed
to be locked in a null position for transport. The B-52 returned to
Edwards and the rudder was removed and as far as I know the failure
hasn't been identified. Weather, and the upcomming shuttle launch
may cause further postponements. The Brazil-sat launch, with its
modified first stage nozzle (modified because after they finally
took apart the 1989 ground static test firing article they found
that the first two flights could have been very Challenger-like)
and another nose fairing separation test (The fairing separation
mechanism was modified due to contamination and reliability
concerns) are the two milestones that have to be successful before
the fourth Pegasus flight carrying the ALEXIS satellite can happen.
Possible delays in the fairing test might push the ALEXIS launch
into the mid-March or early April time frame.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are my own and not those of    |    Jeff Bloch
the DOE or LANL.                |    LANL

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

Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 13:41:16 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: new Shuttle toilet

-From: [e-mail] (Michael F. Santangelo)
-Subject: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet
-Date: 7 Jan 93 05:11:01 GMT
-Organization: University of Maryland, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory

-Well, it occured to me after being subjected to a little CNN Headline News
-peice this evening regarding the new $23 MILLION DOLLAR toilet that will
-be flying aboard the shuttle Endeavour (GAO is somewhat concerned about
-this btw) that no mention has been made regarding this sort of thing
-with respect to the proposed manned, operational Delta Clipper program.
-Since DC-1(,2,3...) will have the ability to stay in LEO for at least
-some days with astronauts aboard, one wonders what kind of accomodations
-they will have while not engaged in flight activities (i.e. sleeping, eating,
-and what comes as a result of eating).  A great deal of time, effort, and money
-has been spent on STS to accomodate humans living in space during
-week long missions in this regard.

That *does* sound pretty expensive, doesn't it? I understand that this price
includes the development and verification of the design as well as construction
of the first model. Additional copies should be "cheaper" (if you can call it
that).

A few mitigating factors that might be considered:
  * I understand the pre-Shuttle toilet facilities took around an hour
    to use (for solid waste). Depending on how you do the accounting,
    we pay something like half a million dollars per astronaut-hour
    in orbit. (This would be particularly applicable on a Spacelab mission,
    for example, where human activity is the main point of the mission.)
    An hour or more per astronaut per day using a more primitive system
    represents considerable waste of an expensive resource.
  * The new Shuttle toilet is supposed to be considerably better than the
    earlier model, particularly for use on long-duration missions. It can
    be operated in several modes, and thus should be less likely to fail
    completely, making it less likely that the astronauts would have to
    resort to baggies. In addition, it doesn't have to be removed from the
    orbiter between missions, which could help with processing time and costs.
  * The same design is supposed to be usable on SSF, and I suppose could
    be adapted to DC-1. (There are no immediate plans to replace the toilets
    on the other three orbiters.)
  * The baggy system is not as sanitary as the toilet, and the health of
    the astronauts is a valid concern. A sick astronaut can't do as much
    work as a healthy one, and it would be a shame to have to cut short
    a long-duration mission due to health problems.

I watched part of the NASA Select press conference, and taped the rest.
I'll try to find the time to watch the entire press conference.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 9 Jan 93 18:09:08 GMT
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Should NASA operate shuttles (was Re: Shuttle a researc
Newsgroups: sci.space

>This would be more than enough to get several companies working on SSTO
>and numerous other alternatives. Soon, Shuttle could no longer survive
>the new cheap competition and it would be replaced.
>
>But this can't happen now since NASA will use Shuttle no matter what.

   Although its not the way NASA wanted it, they launched SAMPEX on
   a Scout-D, EUVE on a Delta II, GEOTAIL on an Atlas II, and
   TOPEX/Poseidon on an Ariane. SeaStar is scheduled for a Pegasus.
   This doesn't sound like "Shuttle no matter what" to me.

   -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
[e-mail]                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 9 Jan 93 13:32:29 GMT
From: Bo Thide' <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Plasma Physics Summer School on the Volga River.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.math,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.electronics

This is an update version of the second announcement:


Bo
 ==============================================================================

                Second announcement

        International Summer School on Space Plasma Physics

                Organised by
     Radiophysical Research Institute, NIRFI, Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia
                    and
     Swedish Institute of Space Physics, IRFU, Uppsala, Sweden

                 to be held
     Onboard a Cruise Ship on the Volga River, 1--10 June, 1993


The purpose of the school is to give an introduction to the problems
of linear and non-linear space plasma physics, ionospheric modification,
the use of the ionosphere as a space plasma laboratory, as well as to
discuss current topics in astrophysics and ionospheric, solar, and
stellar plasma physics.


           Preliminary list of lecturers and lectures

o Prof C E Alissandrakis, Greece, Emissions From Solar Flares.

o Prof T Chang, USA, Electromagnetic Tornadoes in Space---Ion Cyclotron
  Resonance Heating of Ionospheric Ions; Lower Hybrid Collapse, Caviton
  Turbulence, and Charged Particle Energization.

o Dr C Chiuderi, Italy, Alfven Waves in Nonuniform Media: Propagation
  and Dissipation.

o Dr F Chiuderi-Drago, Italy, Radio Emission of Active Regions of the
  Sun and Stars.

o Prof G Dulk, USA, Radio Methods For Investigating the Solar Wind
  Between Sun and Earth.

o Prof Lev Erukhimov, Russia, Space Plasma Laboratories.

o Dr J Foster, USA, Scattering in the Ionosphere.

o Dr C Hanuise, France, Coherent Scattering in the Ionosphere.

o Prof M Hayakawa, Japan, Terrestrial Electromagnetic Noise Environment.

o Prof A Hewish, UK, Mapping Interplanetary Weather Patterns.

o Prof M Kelley, USA, Weather in the Earth's Ionosphere.

o Prof Yu Kravtsov, Russia, Polarisation and Wave Propagation Effects in
  Inhomogeneous Plasma.

o Prof J Kuijpers, Holland, Magnetic Flares In Accretion Disks.

o Prof M Nambu, Japan, Plasma Maser Effects in Space Plasma Physics.

o Prof V Petviashvili, Russia, Vortexes in Space.

o Prof V Radhakrishnan, India, Pulsars--The Strangest Radiators in the Sky.

o Prof H O Rucker, Austria, Planetary Radio Emissions.

o Prof R Schlickeiser, Germany, The Theory of Cosmic Ray Transport and
  Acceleration and Astrophysical Applications.

o Dr K Stasiewicz, Sweden, Auroral Kilometric Radiation.

o Dr B Thide, Sweden, Controlled Generation of Radio Emission in the
  Near-Earth Plasma by Wave Injection from the Ground.

o Prof V Trakhtengertz, Russia, Alfven Masers.

o Prof V Zaytsev, Russia, Solar Plasma.

o Prof V V Zheleznyakov, Russia, Cyclotron Resonance in Astrophysics.


General and topical lectures will be mixed with seminars and poster
sessions.  The lecture notes and reports of new results will be
published in "Radiophysics and Quantum Electronics".  The definitive
list of lecturers and lectures will be included in the school programme
that will be mailed to all participants.  Applications for attendance
must be submitted before 1 March, 1993, to either of:

Lev M. Erukhimov                      Bo Thide'
Radiophysical Research Institute      Swedish Institute of Space Physics
603024 Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia       S-75591 Uppsala, Sweden
Fax: [+7] 8312-369902                 Fax: [+46] 18-403100
E-mail: [e-mail]               E-mail: [e-mail]

There will be an excursion to Vasil'sursk where the NIRFI ionospheric
modification facility ``Sura'' is located.  The cultural program of the
school includes sightseeing in interesting old Russian towns on the
upper Volga, art exhibitions and other activities.

The total cost for full board an lodging on the ship for the school is
estimated at between USD300 and US5D00, depending on type of cabin.
--
   ^   Bo Thide'----------------------------------------------Science Director
  |I|        Swedish Institute of Space Physics, S-755 91 Uppsala, Sweden
  |R|    Phone: [phone].  Fax: [phone].  IP: 130.238.30.23
 /|F|\          INTERNET: [e-mail]      UUCP: ...!mcvax!sunic!irfu!bt
 ~~U~~ ----------------------------------------------------------------sm5dfw-

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

Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1993 18:02:10 -0600
From: Hugh Craig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sun Vs Pile
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>
>> Not good enough, alas.  The pressure at the *center of the Sun* produces
>> only the most sluggish hydrogen reaction -- one that will take billions
>> of years to consume the Sun's hydrogen supply.

 TC> I understand that a pile of human bodies (still alive somehow)
 TC> as large as the sun would have about the same mass, but would
 TC> produce more heat!!
 TC> --
 TC> Thomas Clarke
 TC> Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
 TC> 12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826


But undoubtably would not produce as much light.....as in shed light
on...




LONDON

... A Smith & Wesson beats four aces.
___ via Silver Xpress V3.01

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

Date: 9 Jan 93 01:46:07 GMT
From: Michael Corbin <[e-mail]>
Subject: UPCOMING on the ParaNet UFO CONTINUUM
Newsgroups: sci.space

 * Forwarded from "ParaNet UFO Echo"
 * Originally by Michael Corbin
 * Originally to All
 * Originally dated 8 Jan 1993, 18:45

Here is the schedule for the next two weeks on ParaNet's UFO radio show:

Sunday, January 10 9:00 PM Mountain/11:00 Eastern
        Guest:  Jim Speiser
                Founder of ParaNet and UFO researcher in Arizona.

Sunday, January 17 9:00 PM Mountain/11:00 Eastern
        Guest:  David Jacobs
                Author of Secret Life concerning the abduction phenomenon.

The show is heard over Galaxy 6, Channel 17, 7.5 MHz Audio.

Be sure to tune in with your satellite receiver and call in over our toll-free lines to speak to the guests.

--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 030
------------------------------