Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_3/v9_346.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

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/AYD8fTy00UkZMEHU51>;
          Fri,  7 Apr 89 06:18:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri,  7 Apr 89 06:17:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #346

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 346

Today's Topics:
  Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)
                 Bored public
    Re: Soviet Launch Sites (was Re: space news from Jan 16 AW&ST)
             Re: Primordial Hydrocarbons
               Re: SPACE Digest V9 #332
       Reactions described in the Pons seminar summary
     Re: Reactions described in the Pons seminar summary
               Re: Cold Fusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 89 17:45:29 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Philipson) writes:
>> ... Airlines got started back when airflight was also risky and uncommon.
>
>   True, but aircraft could be bought in quantity by single companies with
>the express intent of making a profit.  Space flight has taken considerably
>larger investment to get going, with a large percentage of it coming from
>public funds...

Aircraft capable of carrying useful passenger loads were more expensive
than you think, especially compared to the purchasing power of the fledgling
airlines.  The fact is, airlines which tried to make money carrying
passengers and ordinary freight consistently went broke in the early years.
The US airline industry, and its aircraft suppliers, were kept alive by
lucrative government air-mail contracts.  No equivalent for spaceflight
has yet appeared.

>Perhaps we haven't let private companies jump into space,
>but the government hasn't been overwhelmed with requests from companies
>desiring to build AND FINANCE entire launch systems (including launch pads
>and recovery facilities) on their own.

There has been ample interest, but a distinct lack of cooperation from the
government.  Remember the proposals for privately-financed shuttle orbiters?
NASA basically "considered" them until they died.  Amroc *wanted* to set up
their own launch facility, as I recall, but ran into so many government
obstacles that they gave up and are building a launch pad at Vandenberg
instead, under the government's thumb (precisely where the government
wants them, of course).

>> ... NASA, which prefers professional astronauts (who are *not*,
>> repeat *not*, scientists -- ask a scientist).
>
>   Tell *that* to Taylor Wang at JPL.  If he's not a professional scientist,
>who is? ...

I'm not familiar with Wang's status -- is he a mission specialist, or just
a payload specialist?  (The latter will fly damn seldom under NASA's post-
Challenger policies:  only when NASA can't find any excuse to avoid it.)
If he's a career astronaut (mission specialist or pilot), he will probably
find it impossible to maintain an active scientific career -- that's been
the experience of others.

>... "Seafaring" as a noun is defined "a mariner's calling". "Spacefaring"
>could thus be defined as an astronaut's calling.  The US has career
>astronauts, we have been sending them into space for some two and a half
>decades, and we continue to do so.  Perhaps we don't do it at the rate
>that the Soviets do, but does that mean it isn't happening? ...

One did not call a nation "seafaring" because it occasionally sent out
a small ship on a brief voyage.  That term was applied only when the
nation was persistently active on a considerable scale, so that the
nation and its people had routine access to the seas for any purpose
that appeared worthwhile.  The US does not have routine access to space
(the shuttle program specifically promised it, and failed to deliver).
It has occasional, brief, extremely expensive access to space for a few
people.  Take a look at the backlog of payloads if you doubt this -- and
those were the payloads that had already fought their way through the
enormous bureaucracy that surrounds the shuttle.  Then talk to the
US microgravity experimenters who are booking payload space on Soyuz
flights to Mir because they can't get it on the shuttle.

>  [re: the last flight of Challenger and the Teacher In Space program]
>
>> Really?  I detected no signs of such great excitement at the time.
>> "Another shuttle flight?  Yawn.  Oh, the teacher is going up on this
>> one?  Must be thrilling for her students.  Yawn."
>
>   If you had read the papers at the time, or watched TV news, you might
>have noticed that her students were cheering wildly at launch...

I'd probably be cheering at the launch too, if my sister were going up.
So what?  I was talking about general public interest, not that of a handful
of people with indirect personal involvement.

>   Citizens in this country can, and do, work to get more support for
>space activities, but we work within the constraints of our system.  You
>seem to be upset with us for not doing enough.  So what are YOU doing to
>promote space exploration?

For one thing, I keep trying to prod people into looking at the situation
in the US and realizing just how bad it really is.  Never mind the really
optimistic predictions; merely looking at the predictions made early in
the current shuttle program is enough to make you cry.  The dream may be
alive, but not at NASA headquarters.
--
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon,  3 Apr 89 20:58 CST
From: Scott Hess <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bored public
Original_To:  BITNET%"[e-mail]"

To you who wonder if its really the public bored with things, or if its
the execs at NBC (fill in your favorite station here), where've you been!
The main thrust of the masses today is away from knowledge of technology,
and towards use of it. Else, why was everyone so freaked about Three Mile
Island? There was such a small chance of explosion there that it was almost
unworthy of talking about. Since nuclear is associated with bomb, tho, we
have to live with it.

I'm an undergrad right now, and I see it all the time (tendency away from
technology). Most of my friends are in the sciences, but I'd be willing to say
that those not in the sciences aren't too interested in them, in general. This
is not to say things are black and white. Anything having to do with physics,
computers, or math is viewed with distaste by many, many people. The fear of
math is going to kill us. People think its great that we have birds flying,
but they don't understand what is happening. I'd bet that most people couldn't
name Newton's laws. They don't think its 'magic', but it is close enough that
there is no difference. I'll admit, I don't understand biology, but I can
follow the basics. Same with most other subjects. But most poly sci majors
probably wouldn't get far in physics ... same with much of the social sciences.

I guess mayhaps most of this doesn;t belong here, but I hope everybody reading
thinks about how things are out there. One cannot really judge what everybody
thinks of his area of work by listening to those he hangs around with the
most. The people you hang with are those who have similar interests, and they
will only enforce your own biases.

Anyway,
Scott Hess
<[e-mail]>

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

Date: 3 Apr 89 15:27:25 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Soviet Launch Sites (was Re: space news from Jan 16 AW&ST)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Glen Overby) writes:
>If I recall correctly what was said in James Oberg's _Red Star in Orbit_,
>the city of Baikonur doesn't even exist!  It was a cover-up...
>
>Now my question: where is the true place that the Soviet shuttle (and other
>space shots) is launched from?

The Baikonur Cosmodrome.  That is its official name.  The name is indeed
a relic of a deception attempt, since the town of Baikonur -- which does
exist -- is far away and has nothing to do with the Cosmodrome.

>I seem to recall hearing one time about two locations.

The other major Soviet launch site is Plesetsk; the traffic is split
about 50-50.  Plesetsk is primarily military and has been very highly
secret until quite recently.
--
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 3 Apr 89 18:36:56 GMT
From: mcvax!kth!draken!chalmers!tekno.chalmers.se![e-mail]  (Mikael Lerner)
Subject: Re: Primordial Hydrocarbons

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
> <Thomas Gold, an astronomer/geologist, has suggested that there are plenty of
> <hydrocarbons on Earth that are _not_ due to metamorphosis of dead plant
> <and animal matter.  Having heard him speak on this topic, I can say that
> <he makes a convincing case.  Some outfit in Sweden is digging for some of
> <his "primordial" hydrocarbons on the rim of an ancient meteor strike.
>
> As luck would have it, last night's NOVA episode was on exactly
> this topic.  The outfit in Sweden found methane, but not enough
> to make the well viable at this time.  They said that the gas
> had been verified as being of non-biological origin, but they
> didn't explain how they had verified this.

    Please, notice the word 'digging'! The drill hasn't stopped
    yet! Almost a kilometer of drilling remains. The goal is
    7500 m, where the large amounts of gas is thought to be found.

    Anyway, the methane concentration has increased steadily
    with increasing depth. And the latest news I have read,
    says that the bottom of the hole is filled with oil, and
    preliminary analysis shows that this oil is of the same
    type found in small amounts on other places in the neighbor-
    hood.

    So ... We keep our fingers crossed.


Mikael Lerner                               "This is the way the world ends,
[e-mail]                 not with a bang, but a whimper."
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden                      T.S. Eliot

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

Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1989 17:58-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #332

> I would be interested in clarification here.  Do you mean that Boeing, or some
> other aerospace company, wanted to 'take over' our manned space flight
> program?  I'm not sure that any company, or consortium of companies, has any

Where have you been the last decade? There have been at least two
efforts to commercialize the shuttle that had sufficient financial
backing to do it. NASA filibustered them both because NASA had no
INTENTION of letting go.

The first venture was with William Sword and FEDEX. The second was
Astrotech with Willard Rockwell. I am an acquaintance of the former
president of Astrotech (he was my "big name" co-chair for the 1987 SDC)
and was at one point told by him that the shuttle launch costs would
drop by half on the day they took over. Unfortuneately they never got
the chance to try. I suspect that the death blow to their effort was
the fact that Jim Fletcher went back to NASA. He had been on their board of
directors here in Pittsburgh and it would not have looked good...

> nobody there.  That's why I called the idea impractical.  Only governments can
> afford to fund this kind of scientific research right now.

Bullshit.

ON ANOTHER FRONT:

>    Just saw an Associated Press story claiming that James Fletcher
> will be returning to the University of Utah to Head the states
> efforts to

I had not heard, but not surprising. My old address book listing for
him says:

    OLDREF:        University of Pittsburgh
            (Whitehead Professor Of Energy Research and
            Technology (84-3/86))

So why not?

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

Date: 3 Apr 89 14:58:34 GMT
From: beta![e-mail]  (William Johnson)
Subject: Reactions described in the Pons seminar summary

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Timothy K Reynolds) writes:
> >            No 2.45Mev neutrons were detected.  He speculated that these
> >            neutrons may be consumed by reaction with Li:
[...]
>     Neither of these equations is balanced --[...]

Apparently the posting you cite was garbled, because you are obviously right.
However, I would like to point out that the most mystifying thing about the
Fleischmann-Pons experiment -- and many things about it are mystifying -- is
that *none* of the nuclear physics makes sense.  I say this not implying that
F&P don't know what they are talking about, but rather that many things about
the experiment -- notably the enormous dearth of neutrons observed relative to
the energy allegedly released -- fly in the face of what we *think* we know
about (d,d) reactions.  Until we have a better idea of just what is happening
in this experiment, I would take any and all postings dealing with reaction
mechanisms with a large grain of salt.

>     My other question is:  these people used a cell with palladium and
> platinum electrodes and heavy water.  Where would the lithium come from?  I
> didn't hear any mention of lithium in the electrodes or in the solution
> before this article that I am replying to.

This one is a lot easier.  The lithium was added (as deuterated lithium
hydroxide, 0.1 molar solution) before the start of the experiment, probably
to make sure that the solution was a nice, highly-conductive electrolyte.
(Distilled water, remember, isn't very good at carrying a current.)  Whether
the lithium participates from a nuclear point of view -- i.e., is required
for the cell to work -- is completely unclear to us kibitzers; it would be
interesting to hear the F&P viewpoint on this.

--
"One thing they don't tell you about doing    | Bill Johnson
experimental physics is that sometimes you    | Los Alamos Nat'l Laboratory
must work under adverse conditions ... like    | {!cmcl2!lanl!mwj}
a state of sheer terror." (W. K. Hartmann)    | ([e-mail])

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

Date: 3 Apr 89 19:29:49 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Reactions described in the Pons seminar summary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Johnson) writes:

>However, I would like to point out that the most mystifying thing about the
>Fleischmann-Pons experiment -- and many things about it are mystifying -- is
>that *none* of the nuclear physics makes sense.  I say this not implying that
>F&P don't know what they are talking about, but rather that many things about
>the experiment -- notably the enormous dearth of neutrons observed relative to
>the energy allegedly released -- fly in the face of what we *think* we know
>about (d,d) reactions.

Everyone has been assuming that the neutrons are coming from catalyzed
dd reactions.  If, instead, some exotic fusion reaction was occuring
-- say, Li6 + d -- we'd expect some neutrons anyway.  First, a fast
charged fusion product would occasionally break up a deuteron before
stopping.  Second, deuterons would occasionally be scattered and fuse
with another deuteron.

Some proposed experiments:

(1) Measure the ratio of neutron rate/power density as the density
   of d atoms increases.  It should increase if this model is true.

(2) Measure the neutron spectrum -- it should differ considerably from
   that of cold dd fusion.

(3) Try to detect energetic fusion product nuclei by mixing the Pd
   with beryllium and observing the neutron flux.

(4) Try to observe fusion products directly by using a low energy deuterium
   ion beam to saturate a very thin target of Pd.  Turn off the beam
   and observe any charged particles emitted.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1989 17:34-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion

A quick look at E. Brit. came up with two methods of D2/H2 separation.

There earliest one is electrolysis. H2O splits easier than D20 so
electrolysis gradually enriches the solution. This was the earliest
technique used.

A slightly later technique uses liquid hydrogen/deuterium and relies on
a slight difference in boiling points.

It was mentioned that there were more modern cost effective methods,
but no other details were given.

I also applaud the way in which F&P made their announcement. If this
technique is for real, there are trillions of dollars at stake, massive
international redistributions of wealth and power...

By giving out the essential details to the entire world in a surprise
press conference, they prevented any attempts at applying the
"Born secret" farce that is applied to things nuclear (in what I
consider a gross violation of the first amendment).

They may also have done it to insure their safety. There is real money
involved here. Not to mention the potential collapse of OPEC, some of
whose members are not known for their 20th century civilization.

------ IF ------- this is for real. I keep expecting to wake up.

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #346
*******************