Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v09_4/v9_443.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/cYQas5u00UkZI3FE47>;
          Thu, 18 May 89 03:17:26 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 18 May 89 03:17:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #443

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 443

Today's Topics:
              Sun Exploding (?)
            Re: Sun Exploding (?)
  Truly selects Keller as Associate Deputy Administrator (Forwarded)
             Re: heavy launchers
        Re: funding large scale space hardware
       Re: Private spending for space science (summary)
            Re: New Orbiter Name Announced
                 re: viruses
             NASA SW Frequencies
                 re: viruses
          Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 May 89 17:56:45 GMT
From: cfa!cfa250![e-mail]  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Sun Exploding (?)

From article <Added.0YP8iTe00UkTM=[e-mail]>, by
[e-mail] (I am Beatrice):
> And I don't THINK blowing up the sun is possible, I KNOW it is. Give me
> all the extra-sun mass in the solar system, and time to get it accelerated
> to a decent speed, and I'll get rid of that nasty sun.
> [...] we've reason to believe that the
> sun operates on nuclear fusion, and if we can add enough energy to it, it
> will go out of "control" (as if its in control:{), and explode.

This will come as a surprise to those who study stellar interiors.
The Sun is non-degenerate throughout, so current theory rules out a
fusion explosion.  If you can show otherwise, the Astrophysical
Journal will be delighted to accept your paper.  (You are in good
company, though.  Asimov makes a similar mistake in _The Gods
Themselves._)

You could perhaps destroy the Sun by dumping enough kinetic energy
into it.  However, essentially all the energy for disruption would
have to come from whatever you used to accelerate your projectile,
not from the Sun's fusion.  (To a factor of decent approximation, the
energy required is the number of atoms in the Sun times Boltzmann's
constant times the average temperature.  You might want to work out
the requisite speed for, say, Jupiter to acquire this much energy.)
It is not at all clear whether this method would work, though, since
the projectile might just go through without stopping.

Another method for destroying the Sun might involve using the tidal
force of a large black hole.  (Destruction of stars in this manner
has been suggested in quasars.)  You would presumably need one with
at least several times the Sun's mass, and the result probably would
not be an explosion anyway.

Stars with degenerate cores are another story entirely.  They really
can explode as novae or supernovae.
--
Steve Willner            Phone [phone]         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 16 May 89 20:42:36 GMT
From: unmvax!indri!aplcen![e-mail]  (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Sun Exploding (?)

>This will come as a surprise to those who study stellar interiors.
>The Sun is non-degenerate throughout, so current theory rules out a
>fusion explosion.  If you can show otherwise, the Astrophysical
>Journal will be delighted to accept your paper.  (You are in good
>company, though.  Asimov makes a similar mistake in _The Gods
>Themselves._)

In _The Gods Themselves_, Asimov postulates the leakage of physical laws
from another universe into ours.  If you're allowed to change the laws
of physics, it's not wrong to say the sun can be made to blow up.
--
"Do you know what this is????"  "No, what?"  "I don't know either..."
  -- Who said it, what story?

Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!ins_akaa; BITNET: g49i0188@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: [e-mail]) (please, no mail to arrom@aplcen)

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

Date: 16 May 89 21:26:34 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Truly selects Keller as Associate Deputy Administrator (Forwarded)

Jeff Vincent
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                       May 16, 1989


RELEASE:  89-75

TRULY SELECTS KELLER AS ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR


     Acting NASA Administrator Richard H. Truly today named
Samuel W. Keller to be associate deputy administrator, the third-
ranking position at NASA.  In doing so, Truly moved quickly to
address what he called his "first and top priority," filling
vacant leadership positions at NASA Headquarters and field
centers.

     Truly called Keller "one of NASA's best professionals.  He
has a depth of experience and is just the kind of leader and
decision-maker that NASA needs."

     Keller has served as deputy associate administrator for
space science and applications since December 1977.  He succeeds
Dr. Noel W. Hinners, who recently resigned.

     Truly made the announcement in a televised address to all
NASA employees, his first official remarks as head of NASA.  He
became acting administrator yesterday, and his nomination as
administrator is expected to be addressed for confirmation by the
Senate in coming weeks.  He noted that several top NASA officials
recently have left the agency, many because of uncertainty over
new post-employment laws and the failure of a proposed pay raise.

     "I will be filling other top jobs as quickly as I can," he
said.  "I intend to do all that I can to ensure that NASA
continues to maintain and attract a team dedicated to
excellence."

     Truly also addressed fiscal issues, saying that "a
particularly difficult battle" is being waged over NASA's fiscal
year 1990 budget request.  "We are fighting potential cuts that
could delay, trim down or even kill Space Station Freedom," he
said.  "I want to assure you that I plan to fight those cuts all
the way."

     "We can't afford to short-change Space Station Freedom or
any other major program," Truly said.  "To do so would be to deny
our own future as a nation.  And I don't believe that President
Bush or the American people want that to happen."

     "We have great challenges ahead for the remainder of this
century and well into the next," Truly told the NASA-wide
audience.  "We've proven time and again that we can meet great
challenges, and we will continue to move our country forward in
space technology and aeronautics."

     Before coming to NASA Headquarters in 1975, Keller served as
director of administration and management at Goddard Space Flight
Center, Greenbelt, Md.  He also held other management positions
at Goddard and previously worked at the Applied Physics
Laboratory and the Naval Research Laboratory.

     He received a bachelor's degree in engineering from the
University of Maryland and a law degree from George Washington
University.  He was born in Grafton, W.Va., and is married to the
former Carroll Williams.  They have two children.

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

Date: 16 May 89 10:27:07 GMT
From: unmvax!polyslo![e-mail]  (Dr. Dereference)
Subject: Re: heavy launchers

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>You've missed my point slightly, I fear.  Note the date I gave.  This
>particular decision was made long before the shuttle was seriously looked
>at, and long before any serious post-Apollo planning was done.  The fateful
>decision was made in the middle of Apollo, over NASA's strenuous objections.
> [deleted]
>Many people date the decline of the Saturn V to NASA's post-Apollo decision
>not to retain Saturn V launch capability.  This is wrong; the original
>Congressional decision to terminate production after 15, made much earlier,
>was the real killer.  The loss of production capability made the inability to
>launch the last two Saturn Vs a relatively minor issue.

I believe I understood the point you were making Henry. My points, right or
wrong, were:
1. Congress (for whatever reasons) rarely funds a long production run for an
   expensive item. Thus while it was certainly both desirable and possible
   for congress to fund a true production line, it's not surprising that
   congress only funded 15 Saturns.

2. While congress refused to fund a true Saturn production line, it was
   certainly possible for congress to restart Saturn production when post
   Apollo launchers were being considered.

3. Given that the Saturn was expensive, the idea that moving to a reusable
   launcher would save money in the long run had some theoretical merit.
   Congress would very likely have funded only a short production run again,
   and with reusable launchers you only need a short production run.

I don't think these points are strictly wrong, but I now agree with those who
have posted that abandoning an already proven and capable technology for one
difficult to develop was a very bad idea. That bad decision has done immense
damage to the US space effort.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems
before it butts in with tomorrow's.

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

Date: 16 May 89 23:38:13 GMT
From: microsoft![e-mail]  (Bob Allison)
Subject: Re: funding large scale space hardware

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>
>> Boeing will
>> *not* start full development of a new airliner purely on speculation; it
>> wants to see contractually-committed customers first.
>
>I wasn't aware of this.  Does this mean that the 7J7, which is currently
>under development (or has it gotten to flight tests?) already has some
>committed customers?  This seems unlikely, given the recent rush by the
>airlines to order current models.
>

In fact, the 7J7 project has been canceled for over a year now, because the
airlines could not decide what they wanted and Boeing wasn't willing to
risk trying to make up their minds for them.  Lower fuel costs also reduced
demand for a new-generation fuel-efficient aircraft.  This is one of the
reasons for rampant speculation over Boeing's $4B cash reserves, which are
no longer immediately needed to fund new aircraft development.  Also, given
record orders of existing aircraft types, the company probably is not
overly motivated to design a new model which might obsolete existing (and
profitable - each type has now paid itself off) types.

Bob Allison
uunet!microsoft!bobal

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

Date: 16 May 89 03:40:17 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!mtgzz![e-mail]  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science (summary)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
> >Actually, such a project has already been funded, and points up the
> >problems with private efforts.  The Spacewatch telescope in Arizona
> >was (is?) getting funds from the Planetary Society...
> Credit Where Credit Is Due Dept.:  it is all too seldom acknowledged
> (especially by the Planetary Society!) that private funding of this effort
> was started by the World Space Foundation, with the Planetary Society
> joining later.

I would like to point out the the departed L5 Society also contributed a
modest amount to this effort. However, the Asteroid Search was origianlly
and continues to be mainly funded by WSF & NASA. Basically, the private
$$$ received here were peanuts and only supported a model level of
effort.

There are many problems with private funding of space effort, including
the simple fact that is much more socially respectable to contribute
to the UNITED WAY or MACRCH OF DIMES than to an "asteroid search."

I think a private space probe could could be done,
but only with the help of several wealthy contributors.

Dale Skran
(not Amon)

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

Date: 15 May 89 06:06:48 GMT
From: ginosko!infinet!ulowell!hawk![e-mail]  (Roger Levasseur)
Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Scott) writes:

>According to _Ad Astra_, "Endeavor" will be an alternate spelling.  I'm not sure
>whether this means that they will be given equal time in press releases, or
>whether one name will be painted on one side and one on the other, or why on
>earth they felt it necessary to use non-American spelling at all...
>

Captain James Cook who explored the Pacific Ocean in the late 1770's,
and charted Alaska and Hawaii sailed in ships named HMS Resolution
and HMS Endeavour.  If the shuttle is named after it, it would certainly
be silly to use another spelling.

As a side note, it was the school children who picked the name, but
from what I gather (and I haven't seen the material that was distributed
by NASA) it would seem that the material made the name "Endeavour"
rather attractive for the kids to pick.

    -roger


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Roger Levasseur
University of Lowell
[e-mail]

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

Date:        TUE 16 MAY 1989 16:24:00 EDT
From: Robert Nelson <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: re: viruses

I also recall the War of the Worlds account which had the -aliens-
dying from a bacteria common to Earth, common to man.  I do not know
how that would affect any -real- aliens, though.

Rob

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

Date: 15 May 89 23:32:00 GMT
From: ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: NASA SW Frequencies


Just before the last shuttle liftoff, someone posted a list of frequencies
used by ground controll/tracking/etc used by NASA that could be recieved
using a short wave radio.  Could someone out there who saved this repost
it or mail it to me?  How about anyone out there who reguluarly uses a
SW radio to listen to NASA related activities telling me some interesting
frequencies.  (The more answeres I get the better!)

Please either post here or mail to [e-mail]; thanks!
(PS, the sooner the better!)

:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:

             //-o-\\                Keep your shields up!
      ____---=======---____
  ====___\   /.. ..\   /___====
//        ---\__O__/---        \\   [e-mail]
\_\                           /_/   s norton/honors/cerl

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

Date:        TUE 16 MAY 1989 15:26:00 EDT
From: Robert Nelson <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: re: viruses

I noticed that someone commented on waht would happen if we had contact
with ETs, and if we could get a virus from them or perhaps something
from -us- could affect them.  I turn your interest to the book/movie
_The_Andromeda_Strain_.  It depicts a scenerio that has a meteor landing
and there is a virus of sorts on it, actually I think that it is some
form of bacteria, which breaks down carbon compounds like plastics...
any comments?

Rob

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

Date: 16 May 89 08:41:33 GMT
From: unmvax!indri!polyslo![e-mail]  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST

In article <246da016@ralf> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John McKernan) writes:
>> With 20/20
>>hindsight a big dumb booster made with relatively low performance parts was
>>probably the way to go.
>
>Compared to the Shuttle, the Saturn *is* a BDB  [deleted]
>Why, oh why do we have to throw away proven hardware before the new technology
>proves itself (or is even available, for that matter)? [deleted]

The Big Dumb Booster idea was not formulated as relative to the shuttle.
When it was built the Saturn used a lot of very advanced technology for its
time. It was a very complicated and high performance system. The BDB idea is
to make a booster using only a moderate level of technology with as few parts
and as simple a design as possible. This reduces performance but should
reduce cost and improve reliability. This idea has merit.

I stated in a recent posting that the major principle NASA violated in
developing the shuttle was developing new technology when existing technology
(Saturn V) was well suited to their needs. Indeed, since the BDB is an idea
that has not been developed, probably the best thing NASA could have done was
to continue work on the Saturn V. The shuttle project has resulted in immense
damage to the US space program.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems
before it butts in with tomorrow's.

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #443
*******************