Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v10_4/v10_431.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 10KB

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/sZgg4dK00VcJEDMk4x>;
          Tue, 16 Jan 90 01:37:30 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 90 01:37:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #431

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 431

Today's Topics:
              booster pollution
              Re: Electric Car from GM?
            Re: Greenhouse effect
            Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space
            Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space
            Re: Galileo Update - 01/12/90
                 help
             Re: Airlocks & Life support
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Jan 90 16:49:39 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: booster pollution

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian or James) writes:
>    On a slightly different note, does anyone know of research into
>the effects of chemical boosters on the atmosphere? I dimly recall something
>about this being discussed in the mid '70s...

There was some concern about upper-atmosphere effects of SRB exhaust if the
shuttle really started flying at the frequencies NASA was talking about then
(e.g. weekly).  That, um, has not come to pass.  To put it mildly.

The main problem is that solid rockets put out all kinds of garbage, some
of it with enough chlorine content to possibly be an ozone issue.  The fix,
should the problem become noticeable, is to use liquid-fuel rockets instead.
(Which is a good idea for several other obvious reasons...)
--
1972: Saturn V #15 flight-ready|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1990: birds nesting in engines | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 15 Jan 90 20:16:02 GMT
From: m2c!wpi![e-mail]  (Tom [Chris] Murphy)
Subject: Re: Electric Car from GM?

In article <[e-mail].> [e-mail] writes:
>>Organization: Ciba Geigy ZIT (Central Engineering) Basel, Switzerland
>
>
>    This isn't exactly space, but since we were
>talking about batteries...  Does anyone know anything
>about this new electric car that GM announced a couple
>of days (week?) ago?  Particularly how they solved the
>power storage problem?  I understand this model has
>substantially better performance than earlier attempts.

I have yet to see specifics about the GM Impact (the car's name I believe)
but I have heard that they used experience from their Sunraycer that won
the 1987 World Solar Challenge race across Australia.  That vehicle used
silver-zinc batteries for storge.  I don't have the data on them handy,
but we are using them here for our own solar car project.  They have one
of the highest power-densities commercially available, although there are
better types in the works.

Tom Murphy
WPI Sunrayce team

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas C. Murphy                  Worcester Polytechnic Institute CAD Lab
         Internet:   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
             BITNET:     TMURPHY@WPI           BIX:  tmurphy
                          CompuServe: 73766,130

If the Universe is constantly expanding, why can't I ever find a parking space?

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

Date: 15 Jan 90 08:35:39 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma![e-mail]  (Andy Clews)
Subject: Re: Greenhouse effect

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (John Roberts):
> Ha! I knew it! Everybody's worried about the greenhouse effect, and we
> could be heading for another ice age! Here in Maryland, our last two
> summers were significantly cooler than usual (though nobody but the
> meteorologists believe it), and this past December was the coldest on record.

Our last two UK winters (i.e.  last one and this-one-so-far) have been
generally very mild, and the European Alps have been low on snow.
Summer 1989 in the UK was one of the warmest and driest on record.  In
parts of the south of England we still have an official drought order
because water levels are so low. Sounds like a case of "swings and
roundabouts" to me. But we mustn't forget that it's sunspot maximum time
and that does have an effect on the weather.



--
Andy Clews, Computing Service, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QN, ENGLAND
JANET: [e-mail]   BITNET: [e-mail]
Voice: [phone] ext.2129

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

Date: 15 Jan 90 10:01:51 GMT
From: vsi1!v7fs1![e-mail]  (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Maroney) writes:
>In various newsgroups, I've frequently made clear my negative opinions
>about the Christic Institute, Jermey Rifkin, and similar know-nothings
>and publicity hounds.  van Pelt's attack is objectively false; I do
>not oppose everything with the "N-word" attached.

I'm very glad to hear it.  Some of your messages in this group which
backed away from what seemed at first to be a completely knee-jerk
anti-nuclear position appeared at this site after I posted my message.
Anything else you've posted on the subject of Christics and Rifkins has
probably been in talk.something, which this site does not get.

Earlier in your message, you said

>I never said anything which would support such condemnation of
>my views as knee-jerk anti-nuclear.

You have posted a wide variety of wildly inaccurate assertions about
nuclear power on spacecraft, and nuclear materials in general, the
untruthfullness of which have been quite ably pointed out by Henry
Spencer and others.  Your response has been to denounce simple
statements of physical fact as personal attacks and/or evidence of
involvement in some bizarre "Nuclear Conspiracy".  This sounds
remarkably like paranoiac know-nothings and publicity hounds like the
Christics and Rifkins.  It looks and quacks like a duck.  A different
species of duck, maybe, but still a duck, by all the evidence I've seen
so far.

It is worth noting that in all the messages I've seen in which you
would agree to the use of nuclear power on spacecraft, the conditions
you would impose are such as to prohibit any such use until years or
decades in the future.

>van Pelt is the brand of right-wing twit whose reaction to all his
>ideological opponents is this sort of knee-jerk denigration.

I'll resist temptation this time, except to say that, from you,
this is shameless flattery.
--
Mike Van Pelt          | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
Headland Technology    | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
(was: Video Seven)     | sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp | can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry

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

Date: 15 Jan 90 19:45:31 GMT
From: vsi1!daver!lynx![e-mail]  (Neal Woodall)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Reactors in Space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Leonard Erickson) writes:

>>>which you you rather be hit by, a bunch of fast neutrons or a bunch of beta
>>>particles?

>>As if there was a difference.

>.........the beta particle deposit their energy and that's that.
>But since your body is mostly water which is good at slowing neutrons,
>the neutrons are liable to end up by creating radio-isotopes inside
>you. And then you have to worry about them decaying.

The main reason to be more wary of fast nuclear particles (like neutrons) is
that they can actually interract with the nucleus of atoms in your body, thus
changing the atoms to different elements or isotopes, whereas the beta
particles can at worst break the chemical bonds of the molicules in your body.
Admittedly, this is bad, but not nearly as bad as the potential which fast
neutrons have to actually change the nucleus, possible creating radioactive
isotopes as Mr. Erickson said.




Neal

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

Date: 14 Jan 90 18:23:58 GMT
From: mtndew![e-mail]  (Steve Friedl)
Subject: Re: Galileo Update - 01/12/90

With the talk of the power problems on Galileo, a question came
to mind.  Let's say that they found some problem with the craft
that would render its mission to Jupiter useless (say, all the
cameras died).  If the control and propulsion systems were
working, is there any way that the craft could be directed to
enter Earth's orbit on its next flyby and get picked up by the
Shuttle?  I know that this thing is gonna be going pretty fast,
but anything seems plausible.

     Anybody?  Followups to sci.space.

     Steve

--
Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / Software Consultant / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy
[phone] voice   /   [e-mail]   /   {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl

"PostScript wizard in training." - me

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

Date:     Mon Jan 15 17:59:05 1990
From: Armando Brusco G <[e-mail]>
Subject:  help
To: <[e-mail]>

help

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

Date: 15 Jan 90 22:40:13 GMT
From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hp-pcd!hpcvia![e-mail]  (Steven_Tenney)
Subject: Re: Airlocks & Life support

oops! hit the wrong button, sorry!

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #431
*******************