Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v10_3/v10_397.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 16KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/YZeYi1m00VcJ024U51>;
          Tue,  9 Jan 90 15:37:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue,  9 Jan 90 15:36:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #397

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 397

Today's Topics:
               Re: Antigravity
         Re: Chris Robertson's "Henry bio" (
       Re: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles
            Japanese Lunar Mission
                  Re: SR-71
         Re: The time thread that won't die.
           Payload Status for 01/04/90 (Forwarded)
         NASA Headline News for 01/05/90 (Forwarded)
       Re: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Jan 90 17:41:17 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!mntgfx![e-mail]  (Mike Butts)
Subject: Re: Antigravity

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Greg Wageman):
> Opinions expressed are the responsibility of the author.
>
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head       ) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Ray) writes:
>>>>   Is it relavistic effects that make the gyroscopes get lighter? [heavier]
>>>        not even close. at 12000 rpm, a small gyro is many orders
>>>        down from c at its periphery to explain the massive effect
>>>        in this manner.
>>
>>Still, I like this question.  Has anyone tried to spin something
>>massive REALLY FAST?
>
> Yes.  General Motors (among others) did studies years ago with
> flywheels spinning in a vacuum.  I read about it in one of their
> corporate publications, probably a stockholder's report.  Sorry I
> can't be more specific.
>
> The research was directed at finding a means to store the energy
> normally wasted in braking a vehicle.  The system worked by using the
> vehicle's momentum to spin up the flywheel during braking (which
> helped slow the vehicle). Conversely, the the flywheel's momentum was
> used to help speed up the vehicle during acceleration, slowing the
> flywheel.
>
> They did destructive studies of various materials to see how they
> behave.  I recall that the internal forces generated by difference in
> linear velocity across the radius of the wheel in all cases eventually
> overcame the cohesive force of the material at some (quite finite and
> non-relativistic) RPM, causing the wheels to fragment into strips and
> self-destruct.
>
> If the edge *had* approached relativistic speeds, this effect would be
> increased, as its increased mass would load down the section of lesser
> radius even more, thus further increasing the internal stress in the
> material.
>
>
> Copyright 1990 Greg Wageman    DOMAIN: [e-mail]
> Schlumberger Technologies    UUCP:   {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!greg
> San Jose, CA 95110-1397        BIX: gwage  CIS: 74016,352  GEnie: G.WAGEMAN
>  Permission is granted for reproduction provided this notice is maintained.

There was a burst of activity on using flywheels, mobile and stationary, for
energy storage, during the late '70s and early '80s.  Last I heard the best
devices were made of high tensile strength carbon fiber composites, not metal,
because their ability to take high RPMs more than offset their lack of mass.  I
believe the optimal shape had a taper that decreased with radius.  While I'm
sure there were publications in serious journals, all I remember were articles
in Popular Science, Co-Evolution Quarterly, and such.

--
Michael Butts, Research Engineer       KC7IT           503-626-1302
Mentor Graphics Corp., 8500 SW Creekside Place, Beaverton, OR 97005
!{sequent,tessi,apollo}!mntgfx!mbutts         [e-mail]
Opinions are my own, not necessarily those of Mentor Graphics Corp.

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

Date: 4 Jan 90 23:45:00 GMT
From: primerd!ENI!RELAY![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Chris Robertson's "Henry bio" (


> does everyone have this experience with Henry?

I found him in the row/seat directly behind me at Noreascon 3 (the
worldcon; I was there, since I live on the block it was on, Pru
Center in Boston -- I wanted a con near me, and, after 15 years, it
came to me :-). At the Payload Systems talk, of course ... what track
would you expect to find him on?

He was quite polite when I asked him (seeing Toronto on his badge
after "Henry Spencer"): "are you *the* Henry Spencer? UToronto
Zoology? *Then* he ignored me ... (no, not really).

In hindsight, I expect he gets that sort of question often ... :-)

In the 80's we had Elvis sightings ... now we have Henry sightings ...

(fortunately for us, and even more for him, there is a crucial
difference ... :-)

Rob Ullmann

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

Date: 5 Jan 90 09:38:06 GMT
From: tank!cps3xx![e-mail]  (Usenet file owner)
Subject: Re: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles

Here in Michigan, the "dreaded N-word" may not be as dreaded as
elsewhere, but still. If the primary visible roadblock is the nuclear
core and special-interest group reaction to it (I've received several
responses, all flagging that reason) my question is, "so what?"

It seems unfortunate that just the mere threat of heat is citied by
professionals as valid cause to flush our potentially _best_ option.
Ok, not cited as a "reason" but more as "the reason," as if it were fate.
Certainly, press abuses (case in point the extensive coverage given to
the incredibly minor group of people protesting Galileo's powercell) in
the name of "news" haved given considerable power to reactionary
minorities. But this secondary problem should stay just that,
secondary.

It would seem more like a social-engineering problem than anything else.
Consider the enormous success of anti-smoking campaigns. Likewise,
strategically placed mass media campaigns have shown that public
attitude on _reasonable issues_ ("Your electricty has been nuclear for 15
years, and your daughter has cleaner air for it. Thanks, from all of us.")
can be swayed pretty quickly.

Maybe Bush's Today-show-featured space speech will be the start off.

Terry Conklin
[e-mail]
uunet!frith!conklin

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

Date: 5 Jan 90 21:03:16 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Japanese Lunar Mission

Aviation Week is apparently reporting in Monday's edition that the
Japanese are set to launch a lunar mission, THIS month -- the first
since the Luna 24 sample return in 1976.  Is there any American
participation on this?

Also Japanese engineering firms are SERIOUSLY researching lunar
colonies, like how to make concrete.

We taught 'em, folks.  Maybe they'll rent us a module if we're nice.

--
Annex Canada now!  We need the room,    \)      Tom Neff
    and who's going to stop us.         (\      [e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Jan 90 01:12:50 GMT
From: orc!mipos3!omepd!mipon3.intel.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: SR-71


> Michael T. Sullivan writes on SR-71 retirement:

> But not before doing a few flybys over the Lockheed plant in Burbank where
> it was built, tying up traffic for miles.  Wish I was there.  Sigh.

I agree. But, cheer up. Check out AW&ST's new SR-71 Video. Also,

Check out AW&ST Dec 18, 1989 pg 42. ... Just read it. :)

Larry Smith

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

Date: 4 Jan 90 04:59:51 GMT
From: nis!viper![e-mail]  (David Messer)
Subject: Re: The time thread that won't die.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jacob Hugart,134E LC,[phone],) writes:
 >From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]
 >
 >> This will be beaten to death for the next 11 years, but a millennium
 >> is any 1000 year period, and can start and end at any point in
 >> time (just like a fiscal year can start at any time of the year).
 >> What ends on Dec 31, 2000 is the 20th century, with the 21th century
 >> beginning on Jan 1, 2001.
 >
 >If this is true (it is!), then doesn't the last decade of the 20th Century
 >(i.e., the "Nineties") begin on January 1st, 1991?  Or will we have an eleven
 >year decade on our hands?

Obviously, the "Nineties" begins on January 1st, 1990.
However, the 200th decade doesn't begin until 1991.  Unless we
chose to use the system that astronomers use which maps 1 BC to
year 0, 2 BC to year -1 etc.  Then we have just entered the
200th decade and the third milleneum will begin on January
1st, 2000.

On the other hand, I prefer to think of this year
as 20 YML (Year of Our Moon Landing).
--
Remember Tiananmen Square.           | David Messer       [e-mail] -or-
                                     | Lynx Data Systems  ...!bungia!viper!dave

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

Date: 4 Jan 90 21:58:25 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Status for 01/04/90 (Forwarded)

Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 01-04-90


- STS-31R HST (at VPF) -

Aft shroud cleaning/inspection followed by MLI installation was
worked yesterday and will continue today.  MUE installation
will continue today in parallel with the HST aft shroud work.

- STS-32R SYNCOM (at Pad A) -

Battery conditioning was in work yesterday and will continue
today.  CNCR, FEA and PCG experiment off line operations are
continuing daily.

- STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at O&C) -

Spacelab activation was completed and sequence 4, 5, 6 (MMU
load), and 12 (PRLA check out) were completed yesterday.
NSI rework on FOP IPS is complete and will begin in the morning
with the ASTRO-1 NSI R&R.  Level 4 argon dewars removal from
test stand 4 is complete.  Will continue with cite testing today.

- STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) -

Gas component test stand prep & validation continues.  Rack 3
& rack 7 structural mods worked yesterday.  Protection cap
work was completed on rack 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 & 12.  Eddy
current checks for rack 3 are scheduled for today.

- STS-42 IML (at O&C) -

Installation of rack transfer box lid is complete.  Installation
of the standard cable tie struts on rack 9 were worked in the
morning.  Rack 9 back panel installation was completed in the
afternoon.

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

Date: 5 Jan 90 17:24:36 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Headline News for 01/05/90 (Forwarded)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, January 5, 1990                       Audio: 202/755-1788
-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is NASA Headline News for Friday, January 5.....


The countdown for the STS-32 mission is underway.  The count
began Thursday afternoon at 4:00 P.M., Eastern time.  Arrival of
the five-member crew Friday afternoon is another milestone in the
countdown aimed at a Monday morning launch.  The launch window
opens at 8:10 A.M., Eastern time, with the exact liftoff time to
be determined 12 hours before depending on the orbital elements
of the --LDEF--the Long Duration Exposure Facility.
After deployment of the SYNCOM communications satellite,
Tuesday...the Columbia will go through a series of complex
orbital maneuvers to rendezvous with the LDEF...grapple it with
the 50-foot long robot arm and place it in the Columbia's payload
bay.

Following completion of the LDEF retrieval on Thursday, the crew
will settle down for a week of science and engineering
experiments.  Columbia is scheduled for an early morning landing
at Edwards Air Force Base on January 18.

A series of mission briefings is scheduled for Saturday beginning
at 10:00 A.M.  The Sunday pre-launch news conference has been
slipped to 11:30 A.M.



Aerospace Daily says the U.S. Planetary Society and the
Spacecraft Design Center of the Soviet Space
Agency...Glavcosmos...have established a joint study center to
review designs and missions for the balloon probe part of the
Soviet Mars 94 mission.  Society Executive Director Lou Friedman
told the publication the goal of the study is to improve balloon
reliability and eventually improve U.S and Soviet relations that
will lead to more complex joint missions.


The Daily also reports that a European consulting firm says the
United States will maintain dominance in the world's commercial
space market through the 1990s.  The "World Space Industry
Survey" projects that General Dynamics, Martin Marietta and
McDonnell Douglas along with Arianespace will dominate the
commercial launch market.



                       *         *        *





-----------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events on NASA
Select TV.  All times are Eastern.


Saturday, January 6.....

     9:00 A.M.      Launch countdown status followed by a series
                    of briefings beginning at 10:00 A.M.


Sunday, January 7....

    11:30 A.M.      Pre-launch news conference


Monday, January 8.....

     3:30 A.M.      Near continuous coverage of the STS-32
                    mission begins.

The launch window opens at about 8:10 A.M. exact liftoff time to
will be determined Sunday evening.

Here is a schedule of major TV events contingent on a Monday 8:10
A.M. liftoff.   Times are approximate.

                        *       *        *

Tuesday, Jan. 9  11:30 A.M.  Video tape replay of SYNCOM deploy

                 11:00 P.M.  Replay of day 2 activities

Wed.,  Jan.10    10:00 P.M.  Replay of day 3 activities

Thurs., Jan. 11   9:25 A.M.  LDEF retrieval

                 11:25 A.M.  LDEF photo survey

                  11:00 P.M. Replay of day 4 activities.

All events and times are subject to change without notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon,
Eastern time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A service of the Internal Communications Branch (LPC), NASA
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

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

Date: 5 Jan 90 15:59:53 GMT
From: snorkelwacker!usc!cs.utexas.edu!execu!sequoia![e-mail]  (John K. Gibbons)
Subject: Re: March 1990 ANALOG article on self-refueling vehicles

The self-fueling nuclear propulsion scheme certainly sounds attractive, and
something like this may indeed be necessary for large scale manned missions,
but the safety problems are a bit more than those involved in the RTGs.
A reactor is not only larger but physically more complex (moving parts,
plumbing) than an RTG, and putting in safety margins to keep the whole
structure intact in case of catastrophic launch failure seems (to a layman)
like a significant problem.  If it _can_ be solved, great.  I don't see
what difference it makes that the reactor is not operational until after
departure, unless the fuel elements are launched in special protective
containers and only installed in the reactor in orbit, and that would
complicate design quite a bit, too.

Personally, I'd be glad to take my share of the minute additional risk of
cancer to get such a program going even with a slightly less comprehensive
safety margin than RTGs have, but I don't feel justified in imposing such
a risk on others that have different priorities.
If we could get the fuel out into deep space safely, how about using
Orion-style propulsion for the really major missions?  Not near Earth,
of course...

John Gibbons       UUCP:...!cs.utexas.edu!execu!jkg

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #397
*******************