Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_3/v9_320.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/gYA943y00UkZI4wU4p>;
          Wed, 29 Mar 89 03:17:08 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 89 03:16:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #320

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 320

Today's Topics:
             Re: CDSF Celebration
   Re: Discovery's return-to-flight photographs record many firsts
                 NASA Select
     Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
   Re: Discovery's return-to-flight photographs record many firsts
                 ISF Tortures
     Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
     Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
     Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
     Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
     Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
     Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 89 23:28:45 GMT
From: thorin!zeta![e-mail]  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: CDSF Celebration

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Baxter) writes:
>Many of us later celebrated our successful efforts to kill the NASA
>Space Station.  Now we can get on with a real space program.

    I believe you're sadly mistaken in assuming political manuevering
is somehow relevant to a "real space program." This is the same trap
L5/NSS fell into in the early 80's and never escaped.

    There's something very amusing in seeing people who regularly
castigate the space shuttle and virtually every other aspect of NASA,
pushing a man-tended facility which requires the shuttle.
--
    Jon Leech ([e-mail])    __@/
    "Totally bounded: A set that can be patrolled by a finite number
     of arbitrarily near-sighted policemen."    A. Wilonsky, 1978

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

Date: 27 Mar 89 02:00:36 GMT
From: mailrus!shadooby![e-mail]  (Bill Wisner)
Subject: Re: Discovery's return-to-flight photographs record many firsts

>1)  The Great Wall *IS NOT* the only man-made object visible from orbit. [...]
>From tankers dumping oil at sea to cities themselves (such as Moscow, Rome,
>New York, and a personal favorite of the astronauts:  Houston)

Er, these don't count as objects, do they?

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

Date:         Sun, 26 Mar 89 21:37:45 EST
From: Lou Surface <[e-mail]>
Subject:      NASA Select

I got a chance to watch the NASA select channel coverage of the
shuttle launch and an Air Force Delta launch.  I was
of course impressed with the coverage, especially the isolated
camera views of the shuttle launch. I was suprised to see the
amount of coverage on the Delta, considering its payload was an
SDI package. My question is why were there no cabin views during
the launch? Come to think of it, I don't recall cabin views at launch
on any mission - from Apollo to STS. Is this due to G-force limits
on operating cameras? - that would be suprising. Or is there some
classified ritual that occurs at T minus 0?

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

Date: 26 Mar 89 07:17:15 GMT
From: amdahl!nsc![e-mail]  (andrew)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?


It's a nice twist that Palladium is named after the Greek hero Pallas, whose
image was held as the safeguard for Troy. The fate of Troy is infamous...

However, a palladium actually means "a safeguard" which might come in
useful (at a level appealing to the subconscious) when we need to deal
with the no-nukes lobby! It's maybe a safeguard against OURSELVES
trashing our environment - just in time?

Terrorists, using the freebee neutrons plus spent uranium might however see
the resultant plutonium as their own safeguard...

At least an asteroid is named after Pallas, and, if we can't use fusion
to get more Pd, this will encourage the space mining program no end.
(Jerry Pournelle's "A Step Farther Out" gives a good quantitative intro.
on energy/ cost estimates).

It must be clear to everyone, if this turns out to be for real, that this
is rather bigger than the discovery of fire - it's the hardest test of the
maturity of our species that we've yet had. Excuse the hyperbole - but I
wasn't trying to be dramatic.
============================================================================
    DOMAIN: [e-mail]
    ARPA:   nsc!logic![e-mail]
    USENET: ...{amdahl,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,sun}!nsc!logic!andrew

    Andrew Palfreyman                408-721-4788 work
    National Semiconductor    MS D3969        408-247-0145 home
    2900 Semiconductor Dr.
    P.O. Box 58090                    there's many a slip
    Santa Clara, CA  95052-8090            'twixt cup and lip
============================================================================

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

Date: 27 Mar 89 03:40:31 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Discovery's return-to-flight photographs record many firsts

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Wisner) writes:
>>1)  The Great Wall *IS NOT* the only man-made object visible from orbit. [...]
>>From tankers dumping oil at sea to cities themselves (such as Moscow, Rome,
>>New York, and a personal favorite of the astronauts:  Houston)
>
>Er, these don't count as objects, do they?


Nope, they don't.  Not only is the Great Wall visible from orbit, the
CERN accelerator, (in Geneva?), as well as the Fermilab accelerator, is
visible.  When the SSC is done, that, too, will be visible.


MATTHEW THOMAS DELUCA
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!ccoprmd
ARPA: [e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Mar 89 06:25:18 GMT
From: agate![e-mail]  (William Baxter)
Subject: ISF Tortures

United States Congressional Record
Hearings of the HUD Independent Agencies Committee, Subcommittee on
Appropriations, April 19, 1988

Testimony of James Fletcher, NASA Administrator

  Mr. FLETCHER.  CDSF has two modes, and we have to be careful to
differentiate between those two modes.  There is the attached mode, in
which there is a great interest at NASA in using it.  That is when it
is attached to the Shuttle, either without the extended duration
capability or expecially with the extended duration capability.  We
can do a lot of microgravity research in that mode.

  The other mode is the free flying mode.  For that there is more
commercial interest, because they want to try out the kinds of
payloads that they may be facing on the Space Station in that free
flying mode.  As far as I can see, NASA is very interested in the
attached mode and the commercial sector is more interested in the free
flying mode...

  Mr. BOLAND.  We included $25 million to initiate the ISF in last
year's appropriation bill.  The Administration jumped on our band wagon
and actively endorsed the concept.  NASA, which I must admit it did not
come as a complete surprise, responded by saying "NASA itself has no
requirements for the particular capability that ISF is proposing in the
1991-1995 time frame." ...

  As you know, we wrote the Science Committee and indicated that we
would not proceed with this program and that we would rescind the $25
million until they authorized it.  Now whether or not the ISF is
ultimately authorized is an unknown at this particular time.  We
understand that while you have been testifying in support of the ISF,
or at least testifying to some degree of support, some of the NASA
Space Station contractors have been actively working against it.  That
is par for the course.  Frankly, I think it is kind of sad because if
we do lose ISF, this country could be left without any microgravity
capability beyond the modest level we have from our Shuttle-constrained
Spacelab.  We will be left without any capability for many, many
years...

  Let me ask you, Mr. Administrator, and Jim Rose--I assume that in
view of the fact you have requested no funding for the program in 1989,
you would have no objection to our rescinding the $25 million in 1988.

  Mr. FLETCHER.  Mr. Chairman, we are in a complicated situation right
now.  I would have no objection if you rescinded it...


----

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

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

Date: 27 Mar 89 01:33:37 GMT
From: pdn!rnms1![e-mail]  (0000-Alan Lovejoy(0000))
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Nonsense.  Supplying artificial gravity using centrifugal force is no big
>deal, although getting the radius long enough to avoid inner-ear problems
>is certainly a nuisance.  People have designed current-technology Mars
>missions which have artificial gravity.

I'm not a spececraft engineer, so I won't debate you on the practicality of
designing centrifugal gravity craft.  I had heard that this was not so simple
as all that, however.  Perhaps I have heard wrong.  Any spacecraft engineers
care to comment?

>You've also forgotten at least two other ways out of the problem:  better
>space propulsion to cut down the lengths of the missions, ...

Yup. Missed that one.  Don't think it likely in the short term (30 years).
Anyone know better?

>...or just being
>patient and persistent with unmanned missions (the main penalty of not
>having on-site intelligence for asteroid mining is that any serious mistake
>means that operations stop until replacement hardware arrives).

Such unattended operations have never been attempted on this scale.  It is
far from proven that it is ECONOMICALLY workable.  But you're right:  I didn't
list it as a possible solution, even though it clearly might be.  Satisfied now?

>It is also an unproven conjecture that advanced biotechnology will be
>needed to deal with the immune-system problem.  There might be some
>simple fix.

But will we know what that fix is without advanced biotechnology?  We still
haven't cured the common cold or AIDS, both of which may have simple fixes
as well.  How long have we had the technology to do what the people at the
University of Utah have claimed to do?  They stumbled on their alleged
effect essentially on a hunch that they admit was a million-to-one longshot
(speaking figuratively)!

Alan Lovejoy; alan@pdn; 813-530-2211; AT&T Paradyne: 8550 Ulmerton, Largo, FL.
Disclaimer: I do not speak for AT&T Paradyne.  They do not speak for me.
__American Investment Deficiency Syndrome => No resistance to foreign invasion.
Motto: If nanomachines will be able to reconstruct you, YOU AREN'T DEAD YET.

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

Date: 27 Mar 89 17:23:07 GMT
From: trantor.harris-atd.com!x102c![e-mail]  (ferguson ct 71078)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
             <much stuff deleted>
>Be careful with platinum around hydrogen : if any oxygen gets mixed in,
>the mess will explode do to platinum's catalytic properties, says CRC.

The world has plenty of experience in handling high-pressure,
hydrogen-rich gasses in the presence of platinum.  Look at a catalytic
cracking unit in any oil refinery.  You just purge them real good and
the operating pressure tends to prevent further air encroachment.

Chuck Ferguson             Harris Government Information Systems Division
[phone]             MS: W1/7732  PO Box 98000  Melbourne, FL 32902
Internet:                  ferguson@[e-mail]
uunet:                     uunet!x102a!x102c!ferguson

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

Date: 27 Mar 89 16:27:35 GMT
From: amdcad!crackle![e-mail]  (Prem Sobel)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes:
>>You've also forgotten at least two other ways out of the problem:  better
>>space propulsion to cut down the lengths of the missions, ...
>
>Yup. Missed that one.  Don't think it likely in the short term (30 years).
>Anyone know better?

Unless I have slipped a decimal point. It is under 1.6*10^9 miles round
trip to/from the asetroid belt. This is a distance of:

    D=5280*1.6*10^9 feet

which if one went at 1g until half way then at 1g to slow down would take:

    D=0.5*g*t^2, g=32ft/sec/sec

    t=sqrt(5280*10^8) ~= 73*10^4 sec ~=200 hours ~= 9 days

Allowing a few days for mining activities it is only 2 weeks total.
Since the object is to get an energy source and one is getting far more
than one uses this should be reasonable.

Prem

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

Date: 27 Mar 89 21:39:22 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes:
>>You've also forgotten at least two other ways out of the problem:  better
>>space propulsion to cut down the lengths of the missions, ...
>
>Yup. Missed that one.  Don't think it likely in the short term (30 years).
>Anyone know better?

The Soviets are talking nuclear-electric propulsion for a manned Mars
mission circa 2005-2010.  Soon enough for you?

I agree that it's not likely in the US unless changes are made.

>>...or just being
>>patient and persistent with unmanned missions (the main penalty of not
>>having on-site intelligence for asteroid mining is that any serious mistake
>>means that operations stop until replacement hardware arrives).
>
>Such unattended operations have never been attempted on this scale.  It is
>far from proven that it is ECONOMICALLY workable...

It's not the approach I'd choose, but with enough patience and enough
replacement hardware it would work.  How economical it would be depends
on a lot of assumptions.

>>It is also an unproven conjecture that advanced biotechnology will be
>>needed to deal with the immune-system problem.  There might be some
>>simple fix.
>
>But will we know what that fix is without advanced biotechnology? ...

Plain, ordinary medical research may well suffice.  Note, I'm not saying
that it *will*, just that it is an exaggeration to say that we *need*
advanced biotechnology for it.
--
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Mar 89 22:34:43 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Prem Sobel) writes:
>which if one went at 1g until half way then at 1g to slow down would take:
>
>    t=sqrt(5280*10^8) ~= 73*10^4 sec ~=200 hours ~= 9 days
>
>Allowing a few days for mining activities it is only 2 weeks total.
>Since the object is to get an energy source and one is getting far more
>than one uses this should be reasonable.
>
>Prem

     A few problems here...

     I don't have the figures to work it out available at this moment, but
to accelerate a spaceship for 4.5 days at 1 gravity and then decelerate that
same ship for another 4.5 days would take astronomical amounts of fuel,
measured in the hundreds of thousands of tons, if not millions.  Of course,
since the object of the mission is to get asteriod ores (not fuel, by the way),
the fuel for the return trip must be carried on board, and this fuel must be
sufficient to accelerate and decelerate the loaded ship.  WE're looking at
fuel requirements in the tens of millions of tons.  I don't see this kind
of capability with forseeable technology anytime in the next thirty years.

MTD



--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!ccoprmd
ARPA: [e-mail]

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

Date: 28 Mar 89 01:44:56 GMT
From: csli![e-mail]  (John Kallen)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

I've been reading the postings about R.T. fusion with interest, and I
am wondering: why are neutrons so undesirable in a nuclear reaction?
Aren't protons and neutrons of the same energies just as bad? Or does
the Coulomb repulsion of a proton by the nucleus play a role here?
[I've forgotten all my nuclear physics :-) ]
_______________________________________________________________________________
 | |   |   |    |\ | |   /|\ | John Kallen
 | |\ \|/ \|  * |/ | |/|  |  | PoBox 11215             "Life. Don't talk to me
 | |\ /|\  |\ * |\ |   |  |  | Stanford CA 94309        about life."
_|_|___|___|____|_\|___|__|__|[e-mail]___________________________

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #320
*******************