Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_0/V16NO039.ZIP/V16NO039

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 25KB

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 05:00:18
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #039
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 13 Jan 93       Volume 16 : Issue 039

Today's Topics:
                       *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
                Anti-atoms (was Re: Making Antimatter)
                            Delta Clipper
                         future space travel
                           Goldin's future
                             ISU (2 msgs)
      Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
                   Mars Observer Update - 01/08/93
                           polar meteorites
  Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific) (3 msgs)
          SNC-Meteorite source (was Re^2: Cheap Mars Rocks)
          Subjective Safety Measure(Re: man-rating) (2 msgs)

    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: 12 Jan 93 11:02:52 GMT
From: Magnus Olsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Michelson) writes:
>"There appears to be only one weak link in the whole enterprise: no one has
>yet found isolated free quarks!"

[...]

>At present, theorists conjecture that quarks are confined in colourless
>clusters (hadrons) but this has not been *proved*.  It seems possible that
>free quarks may exist.

Possible, but *extremely* unlikely. Basically *all* experimental
evidence points toward confinement; there are only a handful of
experiments that seem to indicate free quarks, but so far none of
these have been repeated.

And as a QCD theorist, I strongly object to the word "conjecture"
above; even though it's not been proved yet, confinement is _much_
more than mere conjecture.

What is more interesting is the possibility of having charged,
meta-stable particles of more exotic kinds, such as "strangelets"
(colour-neutral lumps of large number of s quarks), supersymmetric
particles, and so on.

The word meta-stable means that the particles don't really have to be
stable to catalyze fusion. I don't know the latest status of
muon-catalyzed fusion, but muons may be just long-lived enought to do
it.

              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: Tue, 12 Jan 93 15:59:37 MET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Anti-atoms (was Re: Making Antimatter)

>I was vague because I was in a hurry.  Looking at the reference more
>carefully (H. Poth, "Antiprotonic, Hyperonic, and Antihydrogen Atoms,"
>*Proceedings of the First Workshop on Antimatter Physics at Low
>Energy*, Fermilab, 1986-- it may not be the definitive source of
>information, but had the advantage of being on the shelf in my
>office), I see that Poth says the delay between capture of a p-bar
>into an atomic orbit and its annihilation is less than 1E-10 seconds
>in most solids and liquids. (B. Higgins, 11 Jan 93 16:08:55 GMT)

It seems that antiprotons can live inside matter far longer than was
initially thought. In 1947, Fermi and Teller calculated a 10^-13 seconde
value ( 0.1 picosecond). But from bubble chambers experiments with
negative pions and kaons, it was inferred that the real time could be
100 picoseconds (which is the value quoted by Bill Higgins). Now, first
at the KEK Japanese laboratory, and then at CERN, it has been shown
that, inside liquid helium at 6 atm. pressure, 4% of the antiprotons
live several microseconds. If the helium is "contaminated" with a
small amount of hydrogen (0.04 %) this time is divided by about 10.
Such an effect had been predicted in 1964 by G.T.Condo (Oak Ridge).
According to him, the quantum numbers of some of the exotic helium
atoms built in this way could prevent the immediat release of the
second electron. In this case, according to Pauli's exclusion
principle, deep collisions of the exotic atom with its neighboring
ordinary atoms would be prevented, and the anti-proton would "fall"
slowly towards the nucleus via successive electromagnetic transitions.
However, it is not clear that this explanation is the good one.
Many questions remain, in particular is this a specific property of
helium.

J. Pharabod

Reference:"Antiprotons refractaires a l'annihilation", Courrier CERN,
June 1992.

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

Date: 12 Jan 93 14:28:05 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] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>>the DC-Y goals are 20,000 pounds to LEO (10K to polar) with an operational..
>
>>I think we need to be a bit more specific about *which* LEO we are
>>talking about.
>
>I disagree. The point is that it decreases cost by one to two orders
>of magnitude. If it takes two flights, so what? It's still a hell
>of a lot cheaper than anything on the market.

You answered too quick. If you'd read a little further, what I wanted
to know was *how high* is the LEO they are talking about. The difference
between say 100 nm and 150 nm is important for payload comparison
purposes.

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: 12 Jan 93 09:47:56 GMT
From: "Hugh D.R. Evans (ESA/ESTEC/WMA Netherlands" <[e-mail]>
Subject: future space travel
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary
Coffman) writes:
|>We like to think that life is infinitely adaptable, but what it
|>adapts
|>*into* may not be recognizably human or even terrestrial under extra-
|>terrestrial conditions. A long term space habitat could clarify the

With all of the talk recently about saving endangered species, why not
create a few from
scratch?  Sure there will be mutations from the Homo Sapiens norm, much
as the various
races on Earth have adapted (in minor ways such as skin tint), but these
mutations will
allow the evolving species to survive easier in its new "natural"
environment.

So, if we decide to send man into space to live, don't expect him to
come back looking
as he did when he left.  Besides, if we can't find another intelligent
species in the neighborhood,
we may as well make one.

Hugh

--
InterNet -    [e-mail]

 "Alcohol is very important for young people because it provides a sort of
  'liquid adulthood.'  If you are young and you drink a great deal it will
  spoil your health, slow your mind, make you fat - in other words, turn you
  into an adult."
    P.J. O'Rourke - Modern Manners, Etiquette for Rude People

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:01:38 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Goldin's future
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

A source of mine was at a breakfast meeting with a number of people this
morning. Among the people present was Goldin who made the following comment
(roughly):

"Yes, there are a lot of decisions which need to be made soon but
I won't be here to make them".

Now this was not an anouncement as none has been made yet but the source
did feel that a message was being sent. Things are looking worse and worse
for the prospects of reform at NASA (especially since Nelson is the front
runner for the job). If you are putting off writing to help Goldin, please
do it today.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------102 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 12 Jan 93 10:11:17 GMT
From: "Odd Bolin, Royal Inst of Tech, Stockholm, Sweden" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISU
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Michelson) writes:
>Where can I find out more about the International Space University?
>A site that I could FTP some files from would be great.  What about
>application forms? :)
>
>I've heard that the 1993 session will be held at the University of Alabama
>at Huntsville but not much else... yet.  Thanks in advance.
>
>--
>Dave Michelson
>[e-mail]

Contact:

International Space University
955 Massachusetts Ave., 7th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02139-3180
USA

Ph. 617 - 354 1987
Fax: 617 - 354 7666

You can also try E-mail: [e-mail]

The last date to apply for the '93 session is *very* soon. I would suggest that
you call them today.




Odd Bolin
Department of Plasma Physics, Alfven Laboratory
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Ph: +46 - 8 - 790 7701    Fax: +46 - 8 - 245431
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Jan 1993 11:01 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: ISU
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Michelson) wri

>I've heard that the 1993 session will be held at the University of Alabama
>at Huntsville but not much else... yet.  Thanks in advance.
>
>--
>Dave Michelson
>[e-mail]
>

Dave you better get on the stick because Friday of this week is the last day
to put in your resume for it. I do not know who to call. Irwin if you are out
there could you post Abrams address to this guy? ISU will indeed be at the
University of Alabama in Huntsville this year. We are looking forward to this
event here.  Also to be in Huntsville this year will be the NSS ISDC 93
conference in May, The American Radio Relay League national conference in
August, as well as the Students for the Exploration  and Development of Space
(SEDS) national conference, also in August. We also have every year the
Wherner Von Braun Memorial Dinner and program, which is in October. So folks
this is what we are doing in our little town to support space, hope many of you
can come.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville.

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

Date: 12 Jan 93 14:30:48 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>>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.
>
>>The *redesign* (yet again) of Freedom required for it to be launched
>>by Energia would very likely cost more than any launch cost savings
>>that might be achieved.
>
>An internal NASA group examining that posibility a year ago came fo the
>opposite conclusion. They concluded that assembly costs could be cut
>in half if the orbit was changed to 51 degrees and Energia was used.

But how do assembly costs compare to *redesign* costs Allen? That's
the point I was raising. I'm *sure* assembly costs would be reduced
if less assembly were necessary. That's almost axiomatic.

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: 12 Jan 1993 06:45 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 01/08/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve Collins) writes...
>
>KaBLE is an engineering experiment to evaluate using Ka band to communicate
>to deep space spacecraft. It can potentially support much higher data rates
>than the X-band we currently use on MO. I don't know much about the details,
>but the transponder on MO can receive and return the signal under the
>right circumstances. There is a short window where we are on the High gain
>antenna but are close enough to have the link-margin to do the experiment.

Because of the higher data rates that can be provided with Ka band, it
will be used in future deep space missions such as Cassini.  Mars Observer
simulates Ka band by multiplying its X-band frequency by a factor of 4.
Currently, there is only one antenna in the Deep Space Network that can receive
Ka band, DSS-13 in Goldstone.  The signal is received at DSS-13 and then
relayed to DSS-14 for analysis.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | a day in your life.

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:19:35 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: polar meteorites
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Re. finding meteorites...

>>
>>Why has no one looked in Greenland?
>
> Over 100 feet of ice pack has formed since 1944 in Greenland. The P-38s
> recently recovered there were buried under 100 feet of ice. Anything
> that falls there quickly becomes buried deeply in the ice. In Antarctica,
> there are large areas where the annual snowfall is measured in fractional
> inches. So meteorites that fall there are easier to find without extensive
> drilling.
>
> Gary
>
> --
> Gary Coffman KE4ZV

Seems to me I remember a childhood reference which stated that Peary found
a rather large meteorite (multiton) that had been mined by the local residents
for some time (decades/centuries/millenia???).  In any case, I think he took it
back to the US.  The picture still in my mind (or maybe imagination) is of
a rocky barrens.  In such a place, the same logic as Antarctica would
apply, I suppose.

John Garland
[e-mail]

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

Date: 9 Jan 1993 19:58:50 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>Let's see, NASA should sell Shuttle and it's support facilities at cost,
>lease them back from the buyer at a profit to the leasing agency, and
>then they'll save big bucks. What's wrong with this picture? Airlines
>use lease back arrangements because of the *tax* advantages the arrangement
>offers. The leasing company profit is less than the taxes saved so everybody
>but the average taxpayer wins. NASA doesn't pay taxes, they spend them.
>

Um, gary unless you buy airplanes for fun,  there are few tax advantages.
Corporations get depreciation, just like leasing agencies.  Individuals
lease cars because the lessor gets an advantage the individual doesnt.

Airlines often lease aircraft, because they wish to reduce risk.  They
dont want to tie up precious capital into equipment they may not
wish to keep.  It's leverage.

The government leases likes private industry, because it spreads costs
from one year to several.  The idea behind leasing is that also the
lessor may have lower costs then the organic entity.

FOr instance, I lease electric power(ok, buy)  rather then make it myself.
The government buys airline tickets for employees, because the market
is much more efficient then their own system.  Sure, the DOD has a big
aircraft fleet, and most every agency has a couple jets,  but
these are for executive transport or emergency stuff.

The idea behind having a leasing company take over shuttle ops, is maybe
(BIG IFF) they can have more effeciency then NASA.  I dont really
think so,  but from a political point of view, by eliminating the
political base inside nasa, it does open up more activities
in space.

>Ok, let's try it another way. NASA sells Shuttle and it's support facilities
>at cost to Rockwell. NASA then buys a *ticket* when it needs a launch on
>Rockwell Spacelines, about 8 times a year. Rockwell Spacelines sells them
>the tickets at about 1.5 times current Shuttle flight costs, got to recoup
>the investment and turn a profit. The poor taxpayer takes it in the neck.
>
AH,  but wha tif NASA, starts telling other people, we will pay
big money for launch services and starts procuring them.  suddenly
Northwest DC-1 starts offering tickets at0.9 times shuttle costs.
Allens point is that a market will be more effecient then NASA,
and IF we can be capitlaist abou;this,  then maybe we will win.

>One more time. NASA sells Shuttle and support facilities at scrap prices
>and writes off development costs as a bad investment. This is what Allen
>wants. Rockwell Spacelines buys the scrap and begins operating it. Sells
>NASA, NASDA, Hughes, and anyone else who wants one a ticket. Using commercial
>operating practices, Rockwell Spacelines makes money, NASA et al get reduced
>launch costs, and everyone but the poor abused taxpayer wins. (he always
>loses anyway)
>
Well, considering the taxpayer is bleeding 4 billion dollars out the ass
every year, we cant lose any more.

>Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary


And what if NASA auctions off it's facilities,  and leases them so we
recover the market fraction???  Hell that's how your company got started.
You bought surplus scrap Eastern equipment  and re-oriented the business.
By your analysis, eastern should have been doing this and made a fortune.
why didn't they?  because they couldn't.  some organizations are incapable
of reform.

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:21:36 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

>In particular do people contend that say the Kuiper Observatory
>should be put on a AA flight rather than a NASA owned Starlifter?

If AA can do it cheaper, yes. If putting is on AA will encourage
competition (which will lower costs) then yes.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------102 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 12 Jan 93 14:55:51 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Ok, let's try it another way. NASA sells Shuttle and it's support facilities
>>at cost to Rockwell. NASA then buys a *ticket* when it needs a launch on
>>Rockwell Spacelines, about 8 times a year. Rockwell Spacelines sells them
>>the tickets at about 1.5 times current Shuttle flight costs, got to recoup
>>the investment and turn a profit. The poor taxpayer takes it in the neck.
>
>How about this: NASA seels the Space Shuttle to Rockwell and negotiates
>a long-term contract at the same time.  The contract calls for NASA to
>purchase 8 flights a year, with penalties for nonperformance, at the same
>price NASA pays now.  This would be a no-profit contract if Rockwell
>spent as much to launch the Shuttle as NASA does, but Rockwell turns
>out to be surprisingly innovative, finds ways to bring costs down,
>and makes a tidy profit.
>
>Since NASA has found it can reduce by contracting out many
>other operations to private companies (the workforce at KSC
>is mainly contractor these days, not NASA), why should the
>Shuttle itself be an exception?

This is basically the final scenario that I listed. NASA writes
off development costs and sells the hardware at depreciated
value. *Then* private operation can reduce costs enough to
turn a profit at current pricing, or less. At worst, NASA
breaks even, and the operations nightmare is off their
plate. The scenario you quoted didn't allow write offs and
depreciation because it sold *at cost*. The scenario you
deleted and recreated does allow these write offs which makes
profitable operations possible.

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: 12 Jan 93 14:36:09 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: SNC-Meteorite source (was Re^2: Cheap Mars Rocks)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joe Cain) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> writes:
>>Nobody knows for sure how the SNC came from Mars to Earth,
>...
>>Sure enough, SNC's don't fall on Antarctica more often than on other
>>continents. But unless you see it fall, Luna- and Mars-Meteorites are hard
>>to distingush from terrest.rocks.
>
>Why has no one looked in Greenland?

Over 100 feet of ice pack has formed since 1944 in Greenland. The P-38s
recently recovered there were buried under 100 feet of ice. Anything
that falls there quickly becomes buried deeply in the ice. In Antarctica,
there are large areas where the annual snowfall is measured in fractional
inches. So meteorites that fall there are easier to find without extensive
drilling.

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 1993 20:01:08 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Subjective Safety Measure(Re: man-rating)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Turner) writes:
>
>Isn't the elevator considered the safest mode of transportation meeting both the
>"if I get in, I get out" and "deaths per passenger mile".
>

a
Ah, this guy has never heard of elevator accidents?
While kinda uncommon they do occur.  mostly due to improper door opening.

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

Date: 12 Jan 93 16:12:08 GMT
From: James Michael Sambrook <[e-mail]>
Subject: Subjective Safety Measure(Re: man-rating)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Turner) writes:
>
>Isn't the elevator considered the safest mode of transportation meeting both the
>"if I get in, I get out" and "deaths per passenger mile".
>

Believe it or not, yes!!!  Also, it is the most widely used form of mass
transportation there is!!!

Besides, would Aerosmith ever sing a song called "Love on an Escalator?" :^)

                    James

*******************************************************************************
*                                                                             *
*                              This Space For Rent                            *
*                        Call 1-800-FOR-RENT for details                      *
*                                                                             *
*              James Michael Sambrook, Aerospace AND Nuclear Engineer         *
*                  "Are you nuts?"           "Nope, just insane!"             *
*                                                                             *
*******************************************************************************

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 039
------------------------------