Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_2/V16NO281.ZIP/V16NO281

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 23KB

Date: Sat,  6 Mar 93 05:20:43
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #281
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat,  6 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 281

Today's Topics:
                      Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Spac
                   Indian Air-Breathing Rocket Test
           Need the SEDS student space organization address
                       Regulation Space Tosses
                       Shuttle budget (2 msgs)
                        Spy Sats (Was: Are La
     unnecceary violence (was: Nobody cares about Fred?) (2 msgs)
                    Wireless Power notes (3 of 3)

    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: 5 Mar 93 13:52:00 GMT
From: Roland Dobbins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Spac
Newsgroups: sci.space

M >
M >From: [e-mail]
M >Newsgroups: sci.space
M >Subject: Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Spacecraft
M >Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
M >Date: 1 Mar 93 17:24:25 -0600
M >
M >     The ZERO/REDUCED-Gravity Chamber described below has obvious p
M >applications for Chemistry, Biology, Biophysics, Biochemistry, Medi
M >Research, etc., allowing experiments which now can be done ONLY on
M >Shuttle, AT GREAT EXPENSE!
M >
M >
M >                       Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Air/Spacecraft
M >                         or ZERO/REDUCED-Gravity Chamber
M >
M >               NASA should build an experimental spacecraft based o
M >          U.S. Patent #3,626,605 [at least $3.00 per complete copy
M >          U.S. Patent Office, 2021 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington,
M >          22202; correct 7-digit patent number required.  Or try ge
M >          it via your local public or university library's inter-li
M >          loan dept..], titled "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING
M >          SECONDARY GRAVITATIONAL FORCE FIELD", awarded to Inventor
M >          Henry W. Wallace on Dec. 14, 1971.
M >
M >               In the patent, Figs. 7A and 7B are basically side vi
M >          of a gravity-NEUTRALIZING FLYING SAUCER, or, if anchored
M >          the ground, a ZERO-GRAVITY CHAMBER [which could have MANY
M >          possible GROUND-level applications for science, medicine,
M >          manufacturing, etc.].  Each oval diagram shows a motor
M >          spinning a central disc at a very high speed, about 28,00
M >          RPM, and also rotating two other discs sandwiched around
M >          first disc, via gears, at a much slower speed, perhaps 2,
M >          RPM, in the opposite direction.  The two outer discs have
M >          extensions [counter-balanced via off-center axis] that, a
M >          they rotate, alternately make contact with two wide
M >          extensions from opposite walls of the spacecraft.  The
M >          central disc should have shallow spiral-shaped grooves on
M >          both sides for air-bearings, to allow the needed very clo
M >          contact with the two outer discs.
M >
M >               I should clarify that each of the two outer discs ha
M >          ONLY ONE [counter-balanced] extension, each one pointed
M >          opposite (180 degrees) the extension of the other disc.
M >
M >               VERY CLOSE CONTACT must be made as the disc extensio
M >          slide past the wall extensions in order to conduct the
M >          "Kinemassic" Energy (term coined by the Inventor) from th
M >          discs to the walls in an ALTERNATING CIRCULATION.
M >
M >               The most important factor making it work is that the

M >          discs, extensions, and outer walls of the spacecraft MUST
M >          made of any material(s) in which a very large majority of
M >          atoms are of isotopes having "half integral atomic spin",
M >          such as copper (3/2).  All other parts, etc., should have
M >          minority of such atoms.  [See the appropriate column of t
M >          table of isotopes in the latest edition of "The Handbook
M >          Chemistry and Physics."]
M >
M >               Experimenters should use one motor to spin the cente
M >          disc, and a 2ND SEPARATE motor to rotate the two outer di
M >          so their relative speeds can be varied to establish the
M >          needed conditions for PROPULSION of the spacecraft via
M >          "NEGATIVE WEIGHT" (with the spacecraft's "Kinemassic" fie
M >          PUSHING AGAINST the earth's gravitational field, etc.).
M >
M >
M >               If we have to put up a space station, establish Moon
M >          bases, go to Mars, rendezvous with comets, etc., WHY DO I
M >          THE HARD WAY?!
M >
M >               Your favorite university or research company could m
M >          a big name for itself by making a small model of this wor
M >
M >
M >               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
M >          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.
M >
M >
M >                                        Robert E. McElwaine
M >                                        B.S., Physics and Astronomy
M >
M >

That's nuts . . .
---
 . Orator V1.13  .  [Windows Qwk Reader Unregistered Evaluation Copy]


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

Date: 04 Mar 93  21:04:02
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Indian Air-Breathing Rocket Test
Newsgroups: sci.space

Josh Hopkins writes:
>The most recent "Space News" reported on tests by ISRO of air
>breathing solid engines.  They were apparently launched as the
>second stage of sounding rockets and acheived velocities up to Mach
>23 (which SN then goes on to explain means 23 times the speed sound
>
>As usual, SN just printed enough to arouse my curiosity.  While I
>realize that part of the reason is because the data simply isn't
>available, I'd like to know more.  I'm envisioning an AMROC "rubber
>rocket" with a Japanese LACE engine on top, but that seems a little
>more advanced than ISRO could handle in a tiny project.  I can
>imagine other, simpler ideas but I can't convince myself that they
>could get off the ground.  Anybody want to explain the design
>fundamentals for an air breathing solid booster?

Ahem....
   I pulled the UPI International News Wire report on this ("India
Reports Breakthrough In Rocket Technology", January 26, 1993 by
Brahma Chellaney), and a shorter article in Space Daily ("India
Successfully Tests New Air-Breathing Rocket", January 26, 1993) and
would like to point out a couple of differences from the Vol4 No.8
Space News article (22-28 Feb 93).
  An air-breathing propulsion system named the ABR-200 was tested
twice on two sounding rocket flights from the Sriharikota launch
site along the southeastern Indian coast, according to a report from
a Manoranjan Rao, who was reported to head the team working on air-
breathing propulsion technology at India's Vikram Sarabhai Space
Center.
   Accrding to Rao, the ABR-200 achieved a maximum speed of 2.3 Mach
during the trials, and was launched as the second stage on the
sounding rockets.
   Furthermore, according to the UPI report, the ABR-200 is based on
the principle of ejector Ram jet (and the article specifically
differentiated this from a Scram-type jet propulsion method).

   From the articles, I gather the system is essentially a solid-
fuel Ram engine.  The first stage of the sounding rocket is used to
get the ABR-200 up to where the air flow is high enough to keep the
engine burning.  Then the air is used as the oxidizer in the engine,
and the fuel is provided by the solid propellant.
   I note both articles, derived from different sources, state the
engine achieved supersonic flight (mach=2.3) but not hypersonic
flight.  I conclude the mach=23 number in Space News is a
typographic error.  (Other data in the SN article, such as claiming
engine burn time was only 15 seconds, tends to corroborate this.)

    It apparently has nothing to do with supersonic combustion, nor
with a LACE "Liquid Air Collection and Enrichment" engine.  I would
not be surprized if Indian engineers and scientists are not looking
or analyzing SCRAM or LACE engines (considering folks in Japan, the
US, Europe, China, and Russia are also doing the same - and Indian
scientists and engineers are quite capable), but these pieces of
ABR-200 flight hardware do not appear to be flight examples of such.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                           Space Technology Investor


--- Maximus 2.01wb

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

Date: 5 Mar 93 15:16:02 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need the SEDS student space organization address
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>I saw the SEDS mailing list address in the faq but I copied it down wrong.
>
>Could someone re-post it please??

Here's an excerpt from the administrator's advice on signing up, by H.
Alan Montgomery.  Note that you can substitute "SEDSNEWS" for "SEDS-L"
if you want to get the list that carries NASA press releases, etc.
(essentially the same as sci.space.news).

The House Telecommunications Subcommittee  |
has scheduled a hearing on the issue for   | Bill Higgins
next Wednesday, featuring advocates of     | Fermilab
tougher regulation as well as Shari        | [e-mail]
Lewis, host of a children's show on public | [e-mail]
television, and her sock puppet Lamb Chop.  --*N.Y. Times*, 4 Mar 93, p. A9

-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-
If you are on BitNet and wish to sign up, just type:
   TELL LISTSERV at TAMVM1 sub SEDS-L   Your Name
If you want to signoff, do this:
   TELL LISTSERV at TAMVM1 unsub SEDS-L

(the keyword TELL is different on VAX's, so look  in  the  user's  guide
for your local computer to make sure I am correct)
-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-
If you are on InterNet(ARPA):
1) Invoke your mailer with the address:
   [e-mail]
2) Do not fill in a name (Let it default to blank)
3) Do not fill in a subject (let the E-mail go out subjectless)
4) In the body of the letter, just put one line:
   SUB SEDS-L   Your Name
5) Make sure your return address is:
   [e-mail]
6) Send out the mail.
-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-=<*>=-

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

Date: 5 Mar 1993 21:08:15 GMT
From: "grungy (John F. Gladu" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Regulation Space Tosses
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Brian A.Laxson) wrote:

> Does anyone know what/where to find any regulations that exist for
> astronauts passing objects around in space?  Do they just avoid doing it
> as much as possible?
>
> I could use information for both inside a shuttle/station and outside (EVA
> activites).

During EVA *everything* that can be is tethered.  There is no 'tossing'.
There's enough space junk as it is.  I don't know what the actual reg is...

From what I can tell, anything goes when indoors, though.

bcnu - grungy (John Gladu) former ILC and Boeing Aerospace suit tech
Systems Support Center -- Baylor College of Medicine
INTERNET: [e-mail]  | VOICE: [phone]
 US MAIL:  One Baylor Plaza, Houston, Texas  77030
.opinions are just that.obviously.

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

Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 20:25:31 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle budget
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes:
>> [NASA vs. Congress]
>
>This sounds to me like only one more reason why NASA should be reaplced
>by some kind of private system, which has to answer only to it's
>contributors or stockholders, rather than Congress.

It's a nice idea, but where's the profit margin in exploring Jupiter?

Some of the things NASA does could be privatized easily enough -- it
really shouldn't be running a space trucking business, for example --
but R&D and exploration are not so easily turned into profit-making
ventures.  High-risk technology R&D, for example, is an area that is
practically tailor-made to be done by the government:  it needs lots
of money in one place, it's very good for the economy in the long run,
it doesn't show a profit in the short run.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 6 Mar 93 04:35:54 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle budget
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John S. Neff) writes:
>>Some of the things NASA does could be privatized easily enough -- it
>>really shouldn't be running a space trucking business, for example --
>
>Congressman Walker talked about getting NASA out of the space transportation
>business, and focused on pure R&D at a hearing I attended about five years
>ago. It sounded like a good idea until one stated to look at problems like
>insurance and setting priorities. Who would be in charge of the Space
>Transportation Authority? The Department of Defence, the Department of
>Commerce, or the FAA?

???  I don't understand.  Why does there have to be a Space Transportation
Authority?  Government regulation of commercial rocketry was sorted out
a long time ago, with the Office of Commercial Space Transportation,
which is in place and functioning and has been for years.

What do you mean by "setting priorities"?  Who "sets priorities" for
the airlines?  Answer:  the airlines do.

What insurance problems are you thinking of that aren't already being
dealt with for commercial space launches?

Are you under the impression that launches of, say, Atlas, are still
being run by the government?  If so, you are badly out of date.  If you
want an Atlas launch, you talk to General Dynamics, not NASA or DoD.

>...The commercial prospects seem to be limited to communications,
>earth resources, GPS perhaps, and survellance services to third world
>contries with big, well armed, and potentially hostile neighbors...

What does this have to do with space transportation, which is the business
I suggested NASA get out of?  There is already vigorous commercial activity
in space transportation.

>... DOD has just spent a lot of money
>developing a new set of launch vehicles so they would oppose the creation
>of a Space Transportation Authority.

Which launch vehicles are you referring to?  The only launch vehicle that
DoD owns these days is Titan IV.  If *they* want an Atlas launch, they
too get to talk to General Dynamics about it.  (And no, they weren't
especially happy about the law that required this.)
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 5 Mar 93 13:52:00 GMT
From: Roland Dobbins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Spy Sats (Was: Are La
Newsgroups: sci.space

DA>
DA>Newsgroups: sci.space
DA>From: [e-mail] (Dean Adams)
DA>Subject: Re: Spy Sats (Was: Are La
DA>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
DA>Date: Wed, 3 Mar 93 14:02:47 GMT
DA>
DA>[e-mail] (Roland Dobbins) keeps writing:
DA>>Date: 2 Mar 93 08:44:00 GMT
DA>
DA> >DA>involved.  KH-11 orbits are not all that much higher than the
DA> >DA>would make an intercept pretty tight, and besides the optics a
DA> >KH-11 is neither the latest nor the greatest "real-time" platform
DA>
DA>[e-mail] (Roland Dobbins) keeps writing:
DA>>Date: 2 Mar 93 08:44:00 GMT
DA>
DA> >>>KH-11 is neither the latest nor the greatest "real-time" platfo
DA> >DA>The ADVANCED KH-11 is... we currently have 2-3 of them up.
DA> >DA>OR, are you talking about Lacrosse or Aurora?
DA>
DA> >Yes, among others . . .
DA> >Although those two are primarily ELINT/SIGINT.
DA>
DA>NO, they aren't... and WHY do you keep reposting these same message
DA>over again every day?  How many replies do you want?  This is about
DA>the forth or fifth time I have seen it.  What is the problem??
DA>

A.  If they aren't, I am, of course, mistaken.

B.  My blinker was broken.  I _think_ it's fixed now.
---
 . Orator V1.13  .  [Windows Qwk Reader Unregistered Evaluation Copy]


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

Date: 5 Mar 93 14:38:24
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: unnecceary violence (was: Nobody cares about Fred?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

   >>Exactly where in NASA's charter is the part about serving as a
   >>welfare agency for engineers and MIS managers?
   >>that page.

   >Go work the numbers.  So what are you supposed to do with these people, have
   >them flip burgers?

   Every night I drop to my knees and thank God that you are alive today
   instead of in the days of Henry Ford. I can hear you say: "I'm sorry
   Mr. Ford, but you can't be allowed to build your auto factory. You
   would displace too many buggy whip makers and we can't have that".

   My solution would be to have them work in a larger self sustaining
   space economy.

This would be ideal, the problem is the transition, a lot people
can't hang around for 3-5-10 years until the funds diverted have
bootstrapped a new system, instead they go get an MBA and start
pushing paper, and then you have to train a new group and recover
all the lost expertise (you can't recall the x-engineers, they
now have mortgages around financial centers and probably can't
take the paycut...).
    Rather than the buggy-whip analogy, consider the idea of
disbanding the armed forces including reserves during peacetime,
after all they're not actually carrying out their mission then,
and it's certainly not a jobs program, so why not fire them
and get new recruits if you need them later.
    Even some companies, especially those who operate under
different accounting rules than the latest US version, try to
hold together a trained workforce through rough times in anticipation
of needing them for future work.

|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
| [e-mail] |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

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

Date: 5 Mar 1993 23:05:18 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: unnecceary violence (was: Nobody cares about Fred?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>>Exactly where in NASA's charter is the part about serving as a
>>>welfare agency for engineers and MIS managers?
>>>that page.
>
>>Go work the numbers.  So what are you supposed to do with these people, have
>>them flip burgers?
>
>Every night I drop to my knees and thank God that you are alive today
>instead of in the days of Henry Ford.

Oh?  Did Mr. Ford talk to you lately?  I understand God is too busy giving
advice to some guy down in Waco Texas these days.

I'm flattered, however, that you think so highly of me. :)

> I can hear you say: "I'm sorry
>Mr. Ford, but you can't be allowed to build your auto factory. You
>would displace too many buggy whip makers and we can't have that".

The United States government is not Henry Ford.  You KNOW this, yet you
persist in perpertrating the mythos of "Government can be run like private
industry."

It can't. It doesn't.

Every time I mention that you have less lobbying money to lobby against Shuttle
than Rockwell and Lockheed have to lobby FOR STS, you refuse to address
the issue.

Period.

>My solution would be to have them work in a larger self sustaining
>space economy.

There ain't no such thing.  Your fantasies, Nick's fantasies, and Bowery's
fantasies combind cannot change that.

About the only "self-sustaining" part of the space economy are comm sats, with
future growth in remote imaging.  Even remote imaging is somewhat subsidized by
government interests.

Over the near-term, it's likely to remain that way.



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1993 20:20:40 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wireless Power notes (3 of 3)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>... COMSAT would
>buy power (in space) today if it were available...
>Satellites have battery problems and even though new
>batteries are being developed, it will a long time before
>satellite manufacturers will take the chance and use those
>new types. Satellite owners would pay $0.5M for half hour of
>one sun light when they really need it! ...

Note, though, that this probably is not a market for *microwave* power
transmission in particular.  People are talking seriously about the
idea of illuminating solar arrays with lasers, which has the huge
advantage that the satellites already have the receiver hardware.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 281
------------------------------