Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_3/v9_354.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 19KB

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/YYE5HVy00UkZIK904k>;
          Mon, 10 Apr 89 03:16:50 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 89 03:16:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #354

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 354

Today's Topics:
             space news from Feb 13 AW&ST
     Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
     Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
            NASA tank reuse fiasco
               Re: Re: Babies in Space
        Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)
        Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)
               Re: SPACE Digest V9 #344
  Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)
             Re: DSN mission launch dates
        A brief history of Soviet Mars probes.
              Re: Hubble Space Telescope
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 89 02:56:52 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Feb 13 AW&ST

Construction of the mobile service tower for the Titan 4 pad at
Vandenberg may be delayed due to incorrect fasteners:  some of the
one-inch-dia. bolts are too small for the nuts, causing stripping
of threads.  Martin Marietta and the USAF are trying to decide what
to do.  [Uh, change bolt suppliers?]

NASA FY90 budget gets bipartisan support at its first Senate subcommittee
hearing.

Phobos 2 enters Mars orbit Jan 29.  [I'll skip the details, since we
all know that Phobos 2 is now dead.  They really should have launched
three of them.]

Discovery launch preparations continue, with replacement liquid-oxygen
pumps about to arrive at KSC.  Data from the #3 engine on Atlantis
shows that its cracked bearing was present at launch -- vibration levels
were higher than usual, although within operating limits for the engine.

Inmarsat decides to investigate using its satellites for land-mobile
communication, in addition to their maritime and aviation roles.

Test-firing of Pegasus third-stage engine is imminent [went fine].
The test will be run by a Pegasus flight computer in a blockhouse.
A second-stage motor firing will follow in late March, and a first-
stage motor in April.  Only one test of each motor will be done
before first flight.  Hercules has started construction on the
first flight motors.

The first Pegasus is still on schedule for launch in late July.
Scaled Composites [Rutan's company] has finished the top half of the
wing and is finishing the bottom half.  Subcontractors are starting
to deliver flight hardware.  A captive flight test on a B-52, using
an inert model now under construction, will occur in late June.
Two captive flight tests of the first Pegasus will be run before it
is launched.  Launch will be off Vandenberg.  Assuming success, the
second Pegasus goes up in September.

The B-52 being government-owned, OSC is evaluating proposals from a
number of aircraft cargo and leasing companies to provide either a
Lockheed Tristar or a Boeing 747 for commercial Pegasus launches;
OSC's studies showed these aircraft to be preferred.  A 747 would
carry Pegasus under its wing the same way the NASA B-52 will; a
Tristar would carry it under the belly, with Pegasus's tail sticking
up into the unpressurized cargo hold through a slot.  European and
Japanese companies, in addition to US ones, have offered aircraft
leases on "interesting" terms.
--
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Apr 89 00:47:37 GMT
From: pyrnj!dasys1![e-mail]  (Tom Betz)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

Quoth [e-mail] (Mike Van Pelt) in <[e-mail]>:
[ "April Fool!" >SFX of four legs breaking< deleted ]

|There is, however, a rather large fly in the ointment.  There are two
|places on this planet you can get platinum-group metals in quantity.
|Both of these countries could become the super-OPEC of the 21'st
|century.
|
|One of them is the Soviet Union.
|
|The other is South Africa.
|
|We *really* need access to the asteriods, which have plenty of platinum-
|group metals.
|--
|Mike Van Pelt                 Video 7              ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp

Mike, you raise a good point... but can some more experienced
folks here figure out how hard it would be, given a starter
supply of Palladium and some other, more available elements, to
recombine those more available elements and come out of it with
Palladium?  I mean, with a fusion plant, this shouldn't be >too<
difficult.

And of course, this will play >hell< with those who promote a
return to the Gold Standard!  ;^)



--
     "Still I sing bonny boys, bonny mad boys,       | Tom Betz, 114 Woodworth
            Bedlam boys are bonny,                   | Yonkers, NY 10701-2509
   For they all go bare, and they live by the air,   |     [phone]
 And they want nor drink nor money." - Steeleye Span |    [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Apr 89 01:33:00 GMT
From: pyrnj!dasys1![e-mail]  (Tom Betz)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

Quoth [e-mail] (0000-Alan Lovejoy) in <[e-mail]>:
|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, ...

And, of course, if you keep your acceleration (a fusion powered
drive would seem to be just the ticket for this) at a pretty
constant 1 G, you can avoid the effects of 0 G pretty much
altogether.  Of course, to keep your v below c, you may have to
be decelerating at 1 G almost as much as you are accelerating at
1 G, with brief spurts of 0 G while you're turning the ship
around... and this doesn't help with the problem of guys out
mining the asteroids.  Perhaps they could sleep in ships doing
the grand tour at 1 G to and from where they work.





--
     "Still I sing bonny boys, bonny mad boys,       | Tom Betz, 114 Woodworth
            Bedlam boys are bonny,                   | Yonkers, NY 10701-2509
   For they all go bare, and they live by the air,   |     [phone]
 And they want nor drink nor money." - Steeleye Span |    [e-mail]

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

Date: 7 Apr 89 06:07:21 GMT
From: amdahl!nsc![e-mail]  (andrew)
Subject: NASA tank reuse fiasco

I was horrified to read that more than $8B has already been junked by
discarded fuel tanks; about $300M per tank. Over the next 10 years, with
10,000 tons of tankage to be *nearly* put into orbit, the loss of 30 ton
tanks would amount to a cool $100B more. That's $100,000,000,000.
Each empty tank weighs more than the total shuttle payload!

How is it possible for rational men to continue such a profligate policy
for such a long time? That's MY money, you know (and yours).
It's dubious that anyone associated with such a scandal could dare call
himself a manager, much less an engineer; I have a much better word.
Perhaps a stint assisting with the education of America's homeless
millions would jerk these jerks back to reality.

Wouldn't it be so nice just to attach a parasitic mini-thruster and
control system to all tanks, just to go that last ten yards?
They would be so useful to have around; unlike NASA "technical managers".
    Despairingly,
=====
Andrew Palfreyman         USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew
National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090,
Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788         there's many a slip
                            'twixt cup and lip

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

Date: 6 Apr 89 17:10:09 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpcllla!hpcllmv![e-mail]  (Jeff Caldwell)
Subject: Re: Re: Babies in Space

>There  are  a  great  many  differences  between  avian  &  reptilian, and
>mammalian  embryology, one of the most critical being the mode development
>from the egg stage.
>
>Mammals,  on  the  other  hand  produce  a  tiny  egg,  which  upon  being
>fertilised, goes on to multiply many times (about 2^55 generations, taking
>into account cell death) along with considerable RNA synthesis.
>
>I fully agree that bird eggs make  a  much  easier model to work with than
>any placental animal, but this does not make them a  *suitable* model from
>the  point of view of ever being able to apply the  results  to  non-avian
>systems.  Besides, how  can  you  completely allow for all the differences
>between the experimental and control groups such that micro-gravity is the
>*only* variable.  You really need fertilisation  and normal gestation time
>in  a  micro-gravity  environment.   Embryological experiments should wait
>until Freedom is operational.

Here Here!  I think we should send up a dozen pregnant women on the next
shuttle.  Let's write a letter to NASA.

-Jeff Caldwell
 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
| Disclaimer: He without a claim has nothing to disclaim. |
 -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

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

Date: 7 Apr 89 14:35:12 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)


Ignore my last posting...I misread unmanned for manned...

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Certainty is the lot of those who
ARPA: [e-mail]        :           do not question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 6 Apr 89 21:58:47 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl![e-mail]  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: more on Liberty Bell 7 (and other s'craft)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom [Chris] Murphy) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stuart Warmink) writes:
>>
>>plutonium-powered thermionic generator of Apollo 13's LEM.
>>
>HUH?  All American (and probably all Soviet) manned spacecraft use
>fuel cells for electrical generation.  The U.S. doesn't make much use
>at all of nuclear-powered satilites, except for deep-space probes.

The generator in question was to be used to power (and heat) the instruments
left on the Moon. Wasn't it called "SNAPS" or something? I guess my
original statement was somewhat misleading.

(By the way, other than the new shuttle, the Soviets have always used solar
power and/or batteries for their manned spacecraft.)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Captain, I see no reason to stand here  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
 and be insulted" - Spock                | [e-mail] (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------

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

Date:    Fri, 07 Apr 89 13:21 PDT
From: Pete Nielsen                         <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #344

Please remove me from this list. My addresses are:

CSMSPCN@UCLAMVS  (Bitnet)
[e-mail]

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

Date: 7 Apr 89 21:52:18 GMT
From: vygr![e-mail]  (Mike Ekberg, Sun {GPD-LEGO})
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Philipson) asks Henry:
>>   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?

Henry is AW&ST_compress(1). Isn't that enough {:_>)?


#mike (sun!mae), M/S 8-40
#"There's nothing human that's alien to us." - A. Einstein

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

Date: 7 Apr 89 21:01:21 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl![e-mail]  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Re: DSN mission launch dates

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter Scott) writes:
> [interesting list of potential launch dates]
> DFS-1            5/5/89    (but maybe 3/31 or 4/4 depending on Ariadne
                                                                      ^^^^^^^
"Ariadne" is the (pseudo-) collumnist in "New Scientist". You probably mean
"Ariane", I hope!
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Captain, I see no reason to stand here  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
 and be insulted" - Spock                | [e-mail] (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------

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

Date: 7 Apr 89 14:07:49 GMT
From: mtwain.dec.com![e-mail]  (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283)
Subject: A brief history of Soviet Mars probes.


         Although the Soviets certainly have not had the best of luck in
    exploring the planet Mars with unmanned space probes - particularly
    in comparison to their Venus missions - they have had at least one
    completely successful Mars mission, with a number of partial successes,
    and a few firsts at the Red Planet.

         The only completely successful Soviet Mars probe was MARS 5,
    launched in 1973 and began orbiting Mars in February of 1974.  Together
    with its sister probe, MARS 4, the orbiter took sixty photographs of
    the planet's surface, comparable in quality to the photos taken by the
    United States' MARINER 9 probe, which had studied Mars two years earlier.

         The rest of the unmanned space vehicles identified as Mars probes
    have not been as fortunate, but something was learned and achieved
    on all those missions.  During the period from 1960 to 1971, there
    were also at least nine Mars attempts which did not even make it past
    Earth orbit, and these were never officially identified by the Soviets
    as Mars probes.

         The first announced unmanned probe to Mars was launched in
    November of 1962:  MARS 1 got as far as 53 million kilometers from
    Earth before radio contact was lost in March of 1963.  It did
    eventually pass Mars at a distance of 193,000 kilometers, but no
    data was ever returned.

         There was a nine-year gap between MARS 1 and the next "official"
    Mars missions, MARS 2 and 3.  Both launched early in 1971, MARS 2
    reached the planet in November and went into orbit, dropping a lander
    to the surface in the process.  Though the lander apparently crashed
    instead of soft-landing as intended, the probe does hold the distinction
    of being the first human-made vehicle to reach Mars' surface.  The
    problem was blamed on the huge dust storm enveloping the planet at
    the time, which was also affecting the observations being made by
    MARINER 9, already in orbit, and MARS 3, which also placed a lander
    on the surface the next month.  This lander did reach the planet intact,
    but only transmitted some useless data for twenty seconds before going
    silent.  The MARS 3 orbiter did function well, but it and its sister
    probe only returned a few poor photos of the dust-shrouded planet.

         The next "gap" in Soviet Mars exploration was far shorter and much
    more ambitious:  Four unmanned vehicles were sent to Mars in 1973 - two
    orbiters (MARS 4 and 5) and two flyby/landers (MARS 6 and 7), all
    arriving at their destination the next year.

         MARS 4 went into a solar instead of Martian orbit when its
    breaking rockets did not fire as planned.  The probe did manage
    to send back a few surface photos before passing its target into
    interplanetary space.  MARS 5 was discussed above.  MARS 6 sent a
    lander to the surface as the main bus flew past, but the lander
    signals ceased just a few seconds before touchdown.  The lander did
    return information on the thin Martian atmosphere while it was
    descending.  MARS 7 was not able to aim its lander properly, and it
    missed the Red Planet by 1,300 kilometers, sailing off into solar
    orbit.

         No doubt discouraged by the results of the MARS series, the
    Soviets did not send another unmanned probe (not even an unofficial
    attempt) until 1988, with the launchings of PHOBOS 1 and 2.  Their
    unfortunate demise is well-known to USENET readers.

         This may come off as a bit naive, but perhaps these difficulties
    will encourage the Soviets to cooperate even more with the U.S. and
    other space-faring nations in planetary exploration.  With our combined
    technologies, studying the other worlds and eventually sending humans
    to them should become a far easier task, and perhaps also ease political
    tensions through friendly cooperation.

         Larry Klaes

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

Date: 7 Apr 89 15:59:11 GMT
From: uflorida!haven!uvaarpa!hudson!astsun1![e-mail]  (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope

In article <[e-mail]> (Philip Verdieck) writes:
#
#What are the capabilities for rotating this baby and using it for
#spying purposes???

Not much, since the detectors are sensitive enough to burn out. A
KH-11 or KH-12 will do the job for you though.

-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      [e-mail]
 UUCP:        ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #354
*******************