Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v13_2/v13_239.txt

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 19KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.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/UbpS0Ie00WBw4KH05C>;
          Thu,  7 Mar 91 01:39:16 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu,  7 Mar 91 01:39:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #239

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 239

Today's Topics:
        [Something that got lost in the SPACE digest]
           Lockheed Bid on Commercial Launcher...?
            Re: liquid SCUBA -- possible?
        Re: Confusion regarding "Firm Fred Decisions"
             space news from Jan 21 AW&ST
                Floppy Almanac
               shuttle computer upgrade

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Mar 91 19:16:52 GMT
From: emanon.cs.jhu.edu![e-mail]  (Kenneth Arromdee)
Subject: [Something that got lost in the SPACE digest]

>...  I've
>never actually FOUND a defenition of life.  Biology doesn't seem to feel it's
>all that important, I guess.  I'd love to get any reference anyone can offer.

Never mind life, define "chair".

"A chair is something you sit in."  (Well, I sit on couches.  Are they chairs?)
"OK, a chair is something one person sits on."  (I've sat on stools, are they
    chairs?)
"OK, a chair is something with a back that one person sits on."  (Is a beanbag
    chair not a chair?)
"Change that.  A chair is something used as a seat for a person, and either
    has a back or permits a seating position that uses a part of the thing
    similarly to a back".  (Oh good, a set of steps is a chair?)
"Change that too.  A chair is something used as a seat for a person, either
    has a back or permits a seating position that uses a part of the thing
    similarly to a back, and was primarily intended for such use." (Well, I've
    seen "sample chairs" on display in stores, with instructions never to sit
    on them.  They are still chairs.)
"Hmm.  A chair is something used as a seat for a person, either has a back or
    permits a seating position that uses a part of the thing similarly to a
    back, and either was primarily intended for such use or is a member of a
    class of things most of which were intended for such use.", etc....

I hope you get the idea.

The same applies to life, and Gaia.  And to automobiles, for that matter.  The
term "life" (or "chair") is well-defined enough to apply to certain things,
but not to unusual cases, which can really be handled only by explicitly
including or excluding them.  You can always define life such that Gaia fits
it, but then I can always define life such that automobiles fit it too.

>>you also seem to suggest that sterile humans are not alive, since they cannot
>>reproduce.  (Of course, other humans reproduce, but then other machines build
>>cars....)
>I'm assuming that by attaching an adjective "sterile" to "humans" you are im-
>plicitly acknowledging a state of abnormality.  ...

If humans are alive, then it follows that sterile humans are alive, and thus
it follows that ability to reproduce cannot be an essential requirement to be
alive.  This is elementary logic.  You can fix it up by saying that life has
to "almost" be able to reproduce (almost meaning either it reproduces or other
similar things reproduce) but as I said other machines build cars....

>>>I.e.  you are what you eat.  Cars do not
>>>make spare parts out of gas and oil (food?)...
>>Sure they do.  Cars have many parts: doors, steering wheel, engine, gas tank,
>>battery, gas tank contents, stored energy within battery.  They cannot easily
>>replace the first five without the aid of symbiotic humans, but by consuming
>>gasoline they can replace the last two parts using material from their food
>>source.
>No, "They" don't.  "WE" do.  In no defenition of symbiote will one organism do
>the other organism's growing.  ...

Human beings cannot make food via photosynthesis either.  But once the plant
has produced the food, they can then take it into their bodies and later use
it to replace parts.  Similarly, cars cannot hook themselves up to gas tanks,
but once a human has hooked up and turned on the gas pump, the car can take
the gas into its body and later use it to replace parts (counting stored
energy within the battery as a "part").

The types of parts which automobiles can replace on their own are more limited
than the types of parts that people can replace on their own, but that does
not mean that the automobile cannot replace parts at all.
--
"This theory of yours -- that painful memories can be surgically removed..."
"I can't share details...  one of my colleagues might steal my idea."
        --Brenda Starr, 12/25/90

Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: [e-mail])

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

Date: 6 Mar 91 04:27:41 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Lockheed Bid on Commercial Launcher...?

Glenn, you asked this answer be posted in the general area
.
Hi Glenn,
   You asked in reference to:
>Reference new Korean comsats:
>>  Launch services competitors include Arianespace, McDonnell
>>Douglas, General Dynamics, Martin Marietta, and surprisingly,
>>Lockheed.
>
>Do you know how Lockheed is going to do this?  I didn't know they
>built any boosters.
>
   I compiled the article from a variety of industry sources, so I
don't have specific information on the Lockheed position (any
Lockheed folks out there in net-land?).  As I noted, this was
somewhat surprizing, since (as you also noted) Lockheed is not known
as a launch vehicle manufacturer.
   Two possible explanations quickly come into mind.  First, that
they were misidentified as a launcher bidder, rather than a
satellite manufacturer bidder.  A couple of messages ago in this
series I talked about Lockheed's new entry into the low-cost
satellite market, called "F-Sat" or "Frugal-Sat".  However,
that satellite venture is not targeted at communications satellites,
for which there is some differences in technology and operational
practise, rather than the DoD and LEO scientific satellite market
that venture was primarily targeted at.  So I would tend to rule out
this possibility.
  Secondly, Lockheed does have a very active program under way to
develop a small, all-solid ELV.  They won a USAF "Small ELV"
contract, and have been actively pursuing this area.  Recently,
they have been embroiled with the US government and some other Small
ELV manufacturers over their planned use of surplus Posiden  and
Polaris solid rocket motors for their launch vehicle (remember that
Lockheed's Space and Missile Company has developed and built all of
the solid-fuel submarine-launched ICBMs. The "discussion" between
the different parties is whether Lockheed's use of such motors is
essentially government subsidization of a single competitor in this
highly competitive market, or just disposal of surplus government
assets.  OSC, for one, is very strongly against this...)
   My guess would be that a Lockheed rep showed up at the bidder's
conference to investigate to see if they could enter the launch
market with their small ELV (since the Korean comsat was rumored to
be smaller than normal).
.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wales Larrison                  Space Technology Investor




--
Wales Larrison
Internet: [e-mail]
Compuserve: >internet:[e-mail]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 6 Mar 91 16:13:34 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!sarah!bingnews![e-mail]  (R. Kym Horsell)
Subject: Re: liquid SCUBA -- possible?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jon Edelson) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (R. Kym Horsell) writes:
>>I have read of at least one operation on a human patient where, for
>>reasons that do not _exactly_ remember, their lung (sic) was filled with
>>sterile, oxygenated water (I presume saline to cut down on osmotics)&
\\\
>There is a procedure where they `wash' a single lung at a time.  I
>presume that the patient is under general anesthesia with a breathing
>mixture pumped into the free lung.  Thus the problem of the diaphram
>getting tired would not be evident.  I don't think that a person would
>be very comfortable awake with the proper breathing/lavage tube in them.

I don't think the case(s) I read about was `lung washing'.  From what I
remember the problem in the case I read about was the patient only _had_ one
lung.  How do you remove, e.g. a cyst, from someone's lung when they
only got the one? I guess a heart/lung bypass was ruled out for some reason.
From my recollection of the article having the lung `inflated' with fluid also
helped whatever procedure was carried out. I'm also not sure whether the
patient was under general anastheasia either. It's probably no picnic
being (even partly) awake, your breathing supressed (I presume) with
drugs and a lung full of warm water. But then again, the `minor'
discomfort of, e.g. a laryngosopic (sp?) exam is not to be taken lightly
either, and that's pretty common (and, boy, you _are_ awake for that)!.

-kym

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

Date: 5 Mar 91 01:49:25 GMT
From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss![e-mail]  (Paul Blase)
Subject: Re: Confusion regarding "Firm Fred Decisions"


 CF> + However, you focus at length on the problems of cutting
 CF> +openings, not of putting airlocks in them.  Anywhere you can
 CF> +bolt a hatch you can bolt an  airlock instead, without any
 CF> +fundamental difficulties.
 CF> -
 CF>    ?? Really.... Would not hold pressure very long !   Airlocks
 CF> involve complex redundant labyrinth seals.    A bolted interface
 CF> is no good.

Only on the doors themselves.  For a bolted interface, an O ring would
work quite nicely, or some caulk.  How are the access hatches sealed now?

 CF> + As I may have mentioned before, the people working on the
 CF> +Gamma-Ray Imaging  Telescope concept have already sorted out
 CF> +the details of opening one of  the hydrogen-tank manholes and
 CF> +getting both men and equipment in through
 CF> + it.  No major problems, last I heard.
 CF> -
 CF>   Interesting.  Please tell us how they plan to install an
 CF> airlock.   Windows would be nice too.  Which of them volunteered
 CF> to be the first one to go through the airlock without a suit on
 CF> ?

You install the airlock first, then pressurize it, then test it, THEN
remove your suit.  The airlock is big enough to traverse with a suit on.


--- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR]
--
Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Mar 91 05:48:13 GMT
From: mintaka!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Jan 21 AW&ST

[A slightly light week, because AW&ST is preoccupied with other things;
it shouldn't be hard to guess what. :-)]

Igor Volk selected as commander of first manned Buran mission, still quite
some distance in the future due to funding shortages.

Ulysses's nutation [a wobble in its spin] has been stopped.  It is thought
to have been caused by uneven heating of the 7.5m axial boom, since it
started after boom deployment and was successfully eliminated after the
boom went completely into shadow.  Otherwise Ulysses is doing fine.
[Famous last words... but communications problems appear to have been
solved after some tense moments.]

The Vulcain oxyhydrogen engine for Ariane 5's first stage successfully
completed its first test series in December, including brief intervals
at full thrust.  Full-duration full-power runs planned later this year.

NASA decides that its own restructuring plans for the space station do
not go far enough, and a more drastic study -- like that recommended by
the Augustine commission -- is in order.

NASA will form a "special task force" with DoD to examine possibilities
for near-term heavy-lift booster development.

Iraq is still getting data from US weather satellites, despite this being
of some military use, both for weather planning and as a very crude form
of satellite reconnaissance.  NOAA has not been asked to do anything about
this yet, partly because shutting the satellites down during their passes
over the region would also deny weather images to friendly nations.

Soviets reveal details of their "Regatta" satellite project, intended
for near-Earth solar and magnetospheric science and using solar-sail
technology for attitude control and stabilization.  Basically it's a
fairly ordinary satellite with a very large skirt sticking out nearly
at right angles from the spaceward end, and several little rectangular
"solar rudders" mounted on the rim of the skirt for control.  The intent
is to provide an unusually clean environment for experiments by avoiding
attitude thruster firings.  IKI [the Space Research Institute], the
developers, are also offering it to the NOAA/electrical-utilities consortium
that wants a solar-storm warning satellite.

USAF missile-warning satellites are providing about 90s notice to Israel
and Saudi Arabia of incoming Scud missiles.  At least two of the satellites
have been maneuvered into position scanning the Gulf.  Generally accurate
impact-zone predictions can be made, although precision is limited by the
Scuds' short flight time.  The warning satellites were not designed for
use against short-range missiles; they were designed around the brighter
exhaust plumes and longer flight times of strategic missiles.  Earlier
experience with monitoring of the Iran/Iraq war and superpower missile
tests suggested a useful capability against tactical missiles, and the
90s warning is considered useful despite being undesirably short.  About
12s after launch, both satellites will have seen the plume and stereo
imaging for impact prediction is available.  Controllers at the USAF
station in Alice Springs are alerted by an automatic alarm and confirm
that the launch is real.  Meanwhile, the data goes by satellite to
Cheyenne Mountain.  Both Alice Springs and Cheyenne Mountain compare
the data against known Scud properties and predict the impact zone.
The satellites get several more looks at the plume as the missile climbs,
permitting some refinement of impact predictions.  Reasonably good impact
location predictions are available about 120s after launch, but it takes
another 3 minutes or so to get the information to the targets.  This
leaves 90-120s of warning time, enough to get people under cover [and
alert Patriot batteries, although this is not being mentioned yet].

The USAF had planned to cancel an Advanced Warning System satellite
project to save money, but that decision is likely to change.

CIA and USAF are maneuvering strategic-reconnaissance satellites to
give better battle-damage assessment coverage.  Small mobile ground
terminals are starting to give field commanders rapid access to spysat
data, the first time this has been done on the battlefield.

Extensive solar flare activity in December, producing some doubts about
the guess that the current solar cycle passed its peak a while ago.  If
this keeps up, significant communications disruption is possible.  USAF
Communications Command says the possible effects on military communications
are "too sensitive for comment".
--
"But this *is* the simplified version   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
for the general public."     -S. Harris |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 6 Mar 91 04:01:20 GMT
From: bywater!scifi!paladin![e-mail]  (Carmine Nicoletta)
Subject: Floppy Almanac

Does anyone know the phone to the US Naval Observatory?  The one I had
1 202 653 1079, does not seem to work.  I'm trying to get information on
1991 floppy almanac.  Does anyone have a copy the can email?

Thanks.

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

Date: 5 Mar 91 00:34:20 GMT
From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss![e-mail]  (Paul Blase)
Subject: shuttle computer upgrade

Item of misc. interest:
(from EE Times, Feb 25, 1991, p1)
NASA is finally upgrading the computers on the space shuttle,
the new computers will be introduced with the next launch of
the Discovery. The new AP101S computers use static RAM instead
of magnetic core, and offer a 3x speed increase.

Computer  Memory   Mips  Size      MTBF (hours)
AP101S    256k     1.2   10x9x18   20,000
(new)     x 32 bit       64 lbs
                         1 box
AP101B    104k     0.4   10x9x19   5,20
(old)     x 32 bit       120 lbs
                         2 boxes


A side column points out:
"NASA's style assumes that old technology is cheaper than new,
that reliability is expensive, that quality can be 'tested
into' parts and that redundant components are a reasonable
strategy for overcoming the residual unreliability of
components with 'tested in quality'....So I believe the most
important part of the Augustine Report [which suggests NASA
goals into the 21st century] is the funding of a major
revitalized technology program."  (Dr. Lewis Branscom, who
directed IBM's NASA computer-supply program in the 1980's,
speaking). Personal note: if NASA were to use commercial launch
vehicles, the manufactures would, via the profit incentive,
probably use more state-of-the-art technology - thus reducing
costs and increasing reliability.

--- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR]
--
Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #239
*******************