Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_2/v15no248.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 33KB

Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 05:00:04
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #248
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 26 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 248

Today's Topics:
                a twist on dynamic structures (2 msgs)
                  Clinto and Space Funding (3 msgs)
                  Clinton and Space Funding (2 msgs)
                 Clintonomics and Space (non) Funding
                      Galileo Update - 09/24/92
                                Help !
                 Mariner Mark II vs smaller missions
                   New Information Service (update)
                         New Planet? (3 msgs)
       PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EA
               QUERY: Apollo/Landing Module operations
                     UTMB (University of Texas M
                              Waverider

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Sep 92 14:28:41 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: a twist on dynamic structures
Newsgroups: sci.space

Since the recent postings about Lofstrom Loops and such, I have been
thinking about various twists on the idea, and came up with one last
night...

How about fuel pellets being accelerated from a ground-based station
up into the 'nozzle' of a rocket ship in flight.  I imagine that the
acceleration of such pellets would have to be electromagnetic, and so
some amount of iron might want to be embedded in the pellets.  Based
on the descriptions of the Lofstrom Loop, I assume that a stream of
such pellets could comprise a 'stable' dynamic structure, and being
consumable would eliminate the start up/shut down problem.

I can certainly see some big problems with this, like how to
effectively direct this stream up into the nozzle of an operating
rocket engine, although up into the center of a cluster of engines
might work.  However, if the fuel is not placed directly into the
operating nozzle, how do you get it there?  These seem to be the
biggest problems I have been able to imagine.  Am I missing something
obvious?

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

Date: 25 Sep 92 15:37:21 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: a twist on dynamic structures
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>How about fuel pellets being accelerated from a ground-based station
>up into the 'nozzle' of a rocket ship in flight...

The idea has been proposed before, in the context of interstellar
propulsion (where energy storage is a severe problem and it's helpful
to have home base supplying the power).

I think you'd have trouble making it work from the ground because of
problems like air friction.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 12:17:14 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Clinto and Space Funding

> >Do you really think that it is a coincidence that
> >the military and space budget cuts coincide with the Japenese
gaining a
> >technological edge?
>

> Come on... They've had an edge for a *lot* longer than that!
>


Does not compute... The USA thoroughly trounced both of them in 1945;
Japan did not become technologically competitive (transistor radios
not withstanding) until the mid to late 1970's. The DOD budget has
been pushing technology since WWII (and more so after Keenan's famous
then-anonymous article calling for a policy of containment published
in Foreign Affairs in 1947(?) ); and US space program spending
started its' up turn in fiscal 1958, I believe.

Not that I don't agree with much of your statements. Just that this
one was incorrect.

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

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 12:32:48 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Clinto and Space Funding

> This is where that military money can and should be spent. However,
the typical
> Reagan/bushist freemarketeers are completely against this
government
> intervention in the marketplace, and, it seems from here, bury any
attempt at a
> US Industrial policy. The frequent cries that 'goivernment
intervention doesn't
> work' are plainly wrong. Look at Japan. Look at the EEC even, where
> technological programmes seem to be coming together.
>


Ah... I should have finished reading before I said I agreed. Japan
has done nicely because their companies have concentrated on consumer
items, and their economy has based itself on consumer items. The US
enforced constitutions both their and in Germany kept their defense
spending down so they both focused on civilian matters. The US, on
the other hand, took on the "american man's burden" of world defense,
and its' economy came to be greatly affected by defense related
matters. That warping of the market there is now being undone, but
not without a great deal of pain in the transition.

The Japanese acted as businessmen. In the 50's they built junk,
knick-knacks and such. Japanese made was synonmous with "cheap". In
the late 50's they discovered transistor radios. Still synonomous
with cheap. A tiny tinny sound, but every teen had one. In the 60's
they built their companies on the toehold in electronics, and got
into building cheap but reliable small cars, as did the Germans with
the Volkswagen. In the 70's they careful business approach began to
pay off, as the companies kept plowing profits back into R&D. And in
particular they adopted Deming and TQA at a very early level. They
were still largely copying technology, but going into the 80's they
picked up on the Video Tape Recorder and made it a household item. No
magic government intervention involved there. Just a lot of market
savvy and good quality at low prices.

Now as we go into the 90's, they are beginning to build off the base
of borrowed technology to become a net generator of new technology.
They may well succeed.

People who have idolized (or demonized as the case may be) MITI,
really don't understand what a minimal impact it has had.

And as for the Japanese government, it doesn't run an industrial
policy. It runs by which corporation or organized crime cartel has
most recently given it the most illegal loot.

And whatever did happen to the terrible threat of the 5th Generation
Computer initiative?

Or the US counter initiative that seems to have quietly died because
they couldn't keep up with Seymour Cray, a single genius in a private
company?

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

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 15:22:02 GMT
From: Doug Page <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinto and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
|> Someone said:
|>
|> >Contrary to popular belief, the majority of R and D money for the armed
|> >forced goes into communications, advanced IC technologies, computer
|> >technology, and various other non-lethal activities.  Sure some money does
|> >go into weapons research, but they are they ARMED FORCES aren't they.
|>
|> The problem then is that the military fight tooth and nail to keep these
|> developments *out* of the public arena until they have something better. Look
|> at the mess with encrypting GPS etc. etc.
|>
|> >Now
|> >don't get me wrong, I have no problem with reducing defense R and D spending
|> >as long as the money goes into other R and D activities and people don't
|> >lose their jobs.  Like it or not, the two main technology drivers for the
|> >last 5 decades
|>
|> (In the USA perhaps)
|>
|> >have been first the military and then the space program.
|>
|> Japan and Germany have relatively little military spending, and as a result
of
|> this they can spend more on government support of civilian R & D programs.
|>
|> >Do you really think that it is a coincidence that
|> >the military and space budget cuts coincide with the Japenese gaining a
|> >technological edge?
|>
|> Come on... They've had an edge for a *lot* longer than that!
|>
|> >Please don't spout off about cutting defense spending
|> >until there are valid places for the money to go.  This idea of cutting
|> >first and then trying to figure out what to do with the money later does
|> >nothing for the country except increase unemployment and sacrifice our
|> >technological edge.

Let's be careful how we define "technology".  Did the Japanese invent TV,
the automobile, VCRs, transistors, ICs, radio, computers,
microprocessors, microcomputers, microwave ovens, telephones, or even the
quality programs that they implement?  No, they did not!  Do they have a
technological edge in producing the products listed?  Yes, they do!  The
Japanese understand what the customer wants and then make it for them.  Are
they inovative?  Yes, but primarily in the areas of manufacturing and quality.
I work for a company that receives royalties from Japanese companies for
technologies that are often referred to as "Japanese" technologies.  Why, TI
even invented (and holds the US patent for) the so-called "Japanese" transistor
radio.  Not to mention that it is an American TIer who was awarded the
Japanese patent for the integrated circuit.

The problem in the US is that if a company gambles on a new technology and
loses, it can put a major dent in that company's financial condition (if not
break it).  As Dave Clements has pointed out above, Japan and Germany support
civilian R&D programs.  However, contrary to his claim, the so-called
"Japanese edge in technology" has happened SINCE NASA reached the moon and the
cuts in NASA's budget since then.  And this Japanese "technological edge" has
been achieved using primarily US inventions.  (I must point out at this
point that I DO remember the "inexpensive" (cheap is a more acurate word) cars
that Honda was trying to get the US to buy in the early 70s prior to the Arab
oil embargo.  These cars were neither technologically advanced, nor were they
very durable (if an owner got 50,000km service out of one they very felt
lucky).  The advantage that Japan has is that the government underwrites
gambles on technology and, thus, encourages long term thinking.  In the US
stockholders can sue the board of directors of a company for not addressing
short term profits.  Until this either changes or the US government returns to
the old way of underwriting the business risks of R&D (the development
side is where we are currently falling short) through a technology focus again,
be it space or military.  (BTW, I personally favor space over military
although each is important.)  A manned space program in particular has direct
benefits to "consumer technologies" since consumer products are used by humans.

[stuff deleted]

FWIW,


Doug Page


***  The opinions are mine and do not necessarily represent those of my  ***
***  employer.                                                           ***

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

Date: 25 Sep 92 15:00:53 GMT
From: "C. Taylor Sutherland III" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton

[e-mail] (Devon E Bowen) writes:


>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>> Sure he will tell you he supports space but his record indicates
>> that he simply doesn't care. for myself, I didn't vote for bush
>> in 88 but I will in 92.

>Now I'm no Henry Spencer but I'm a pretty big space nut. However, if
>your vote for Bush/Quayle over Clinton/Gore is because of the way they
>will treat the space program, I'd say you've got your priorities a wee
>bit out of whack. I, personally, vote for what I think is best for the
>society in general and not just my individual interests.

>[Yeah, I know this is old news but I'm still catching up in this group]

>Devon

Think of it this way.  If everybody votes for their personal interests
and many people end up having the same interests, it is called the
interest of society.

--
    We're not hitchhiking anymore.  We're riding!
        -the immor(t)al Ren & Stimpy
The Fly Boy  <| E-MAIL:  [e-mail] |>
+--<| My life is a math question with one equation and 42 unknowns. |>--+

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

Date: 25 Sep 92 13:58:49 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rob Healey) writes:
>    What I want to know is why everybody WANTS government involved
>    with ANY of the space exploration? Government is what generally
>    messes up perfectly good ideas. Doesn't matter whether it's
>    a Republican or a Democrat in office, space utilization suffers
>    because its at the spending whim of a government. B^(.
>
>    Government is OK at doing initial exploration, i.e. Christipher
>    Columbus, but things don't get rolling till private enterprise get's
>    involved, i.e. the colonies were usually paid for by investors who
>    expected the colonies to pay for themselves.
>
>    What we REALLY need to do is convince investors that starting
>    a colony on the moon in our time is as good of an idea as
>    starting a colony in the new world was back in the 17th
>    century.

Let's see, ole Chris landed in the New World in 1492, the first viable
colony landed in 1620. Apollo landed on the Moon in 1969. So we should
expect private enterprise to land a commercial colony on the Moon about
2097. Let's call it New Plymouth. In the meantime, I guess we'll have
to let the great navigators be funded by the government. The maps have
to be filled in in those spaces that now say "Here there be dragons."

Gary

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

Date: 25 Sep 92 16:25:53 GMT
From: Herman Rubin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clintonomics and Space (non) Funding
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tom) writes:

>> If this goof gets elected after all but promising to raise taxes $1.5E11
>> BEFORE the election, think of the things he'll do once he's in.  Brrr...


>And what is Bush going to do if he gets back in now he's sold his soul to the
>Fundamentalists like Pat Robertson????

A literal reading of the Bible can be used to not only justify but demand
movement toward manned settlement in space.  Many religious leaders can be
sold on this.  (Read the first commandment in Genesis, and replace "earth"
by "the physical universe.")
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet)
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)

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

Date: 25 Sep 92 15:10:09 GMT
From: Chris Kostanick 806 1044 <chris@kbsw1>
Subject: Galileo Update - 09/24/92
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Ron, could you give a brief explanation of the power bus imbalance
model?

Thanks!
Chris Kostanick

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

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 22:18:25 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help !
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>There is a terrifying article in the last issue of the French
>"Sciences et Avenir" - a really serious popularization review.
>They say that, on September 28, 2000, the Toutatis asteroid
>(diameter 1 kilometer) may hit the earth. They say that
>normally the distance would be the same as the Earth-Moon
>distance, but that there is a rather big uncertainty. They
>assure that their info comes from Nasa experts. This is the
>main article in this issue.
>

The comet will pass .074 AU from Earth in the year 2000, which is 3 times
farther than its closest approach coming up on December 8 (.025 AU).
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Quiet people aren't the
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | only ones who don't say
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | much.

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

Date: 25 Sep 92 09:10:31 GMT
From: Anita Cochran <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mariner Mark II vs smaller missions
Newsgroups: sci.space

There have been several articles lately discussing the demise of
Mariner Mark II class missions (almost gleefully in some cases)
and touting the "smaller, cheaper, faster" missions being discussed.
I will probably regret getting involved but I thought it worth pointing
out that the goals of these two types of missions are not the same.
Yes, you can fly a smaller spacecraft past Pluto and answer some of
the important questions.  By its very nature, fast flybys are
limited in what they accomplish and they are good for the first
reconnaisance of a body.  However, we have done this step for
the gas giants and just repeating that would not really accomplish
any new science.  So one has to ask what is the next logical mission
to a body such as Saturn?  Well, one could go back and study just the
satellites or the rings or the atmosphere but the most important
science comes from a study of the system as a whole -- the details
of the bodies and the interactions of the different parts.  Also,
once you are in the system, it pays to do a complete tour.  This
conclusion on the most important science was elaborated in a document
a number of years ago by the National Research Council's Committee
on Planetary and Lunar Exploration.  I should note that this is not
a NASA committee.

Well, if we agree that we want to study the system as a whole, this
puts certain requirements on the instrument complement.  It suggests
one needs an imaging instrument, IR and UV spectrometers, and
fields and particle experiments.  A probe for Titan's atmosphere
is a nice thing to have too, once you have a spacecraft going that
way.  So, add these together and what do you have?  You have
a Mariner Mark II class mission.  And once the spacecraft is going,
you might as well send a full spacecraft.

Well, can you do this mission with a discovery class mission or
even a $400M mission?  No, not if you want the systematics.  One
can build a smaller faster cheaper spacecraft if one wants to
study a single aspect.  But you just cannot do the systematics.

So does this make smaller cheaper faster an invalid concept?
Of course not.  There are many missions which are well suited
to discovery class (no more than $150M to launch+30 days and
no more than 3 years development) or moderate (~$400M) missions.
A perfect example is the NEAR (Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous)
mission.  This is projected as discovery class mission number 2.
It is under the direction of APL/JHU and they feel they can
pull if off.  It will, however, only carry 3 instruments (this
was said in a talk I heard this week by one of the APL Project
scientists).

Now, are we better off with many discovery class missions or one
Cassini?  Well, that is a matter of opinion.  Both can do first
rank science and only Cassini can do the systematics.  I think
it would be a tragedy if we only did discovery class missions.
But the day of frequent flagship missions such as Cassini is
over.  And that is really sad.  I know there are those of you
out on the net who think it is because of mismanagement or
scientist greed and there are some elements of that.  But
big missions are expensive.  There is no real way around that.
And the most efficient mission which accomplishes what Cassini
will accomplish is still going to cost $1B.

Disclaimer:  I am in no way connected with the Cassini mission.


--
 Anita Cochran  uucp:  !utastro!anita
                arpa:  [e-mail]
                snail: Astronomy Dept., The Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX, 78712
                at&t:  [phone]

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

Date: 25 Sep 92 09:51:34 GMT
From: Spacelink <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Information Service (update)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

Our organization "Spacelink" was unaware that there is another organisation
called Spacelink when we formed.  It is difficult to actually change our
name at this time but to make it easy to reconize us we are changing our
email address to [e-mail]   Thank you for your mail informing us
of Spacelink in America.

Spacelink is a Space Information Bureau based in New Zealand.  Our aim is
to supply answers to people's questions whether they be simple or complex
on the history of human accomplishments in space.

You can contact us through our Email address of [e-mail],
or by writing to Spacelink at PO Box 331402, Takapuna, Auckland 9, New Zealand,
(Please enclose an SASE), or by Fax on 64-9-8494282.

This is a free service for the curious, supplied by a team of voluntary
Spaceflight enthusiasts.

This Article is to put our Previous Posted Article right with regards to our
email address.
--
DOMAIN:  [e-mail]
SNAIL:   PO Box 331402, Takapuna, Auckland 9, New Zealand
FAX:     [phone]

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

Date: 25 Sep 92 08:30:19 GMT
From: Anita Cochran <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Planet?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jarle Brinchmann) writes:
> Now, this thing has been on the net ever since last weekend, is
> there anybody out there who know anything about new observations
> taken place ?

It is my understanding that Dave Jewitt and Jane Luu are on the telescope
this weekend and will follow up.  I also have an observing run this
weekend.  Mine is at McDonald Observatory.  I have already gotten
a pair of positional images tonight.  However, with the slow motion
of this object there is no "streak" on the image to confirm one
has observed it so no one will know until their data are reduced.
I will also try to observe it the next 3 nights (weather permitting).
Of course, you must understand that the "orbit" which has been derived
for this object so far is very uncertain.  Thus, it could be in a
substantially different position than predicted.  If that is the
case, I have a nice image of a field without an object and have not
observed the object.  Until we have a refined orbit, reliably
observing it will not be possible.

As for whether it is a "planet", it is a minor planet at best.
The current size estimate is based on a guess (from the orbit) of
where it is relative to the sun and a guess about how much light
it reflects (its albedo).  The largest size comes about if it
is dark.  The discovers assumed 5% albedo.  If it is as bright
as say Pluto, then it is a tiny object.



--
 Anita Cochran  uucp:  !utastro!anita
                arpa:  [e-mail]
                snail: Astronomy Dept., The Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX, 78712
                at&t:  [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 12:17:59 GMT
From: David Tonhofer <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Planet?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
writes:

>The following bulletin was posted last night on CompuServe's ASTROFORUM:
>
>Sb: #Object beyond Pluto
>Fm: SKY  TELESCOPE 70007,2762
>To: All
>
> There is some REALLY BIG NEWS just now breaking in the astronomical world.
> The IAU Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams has just issued IAU
> Circular 5611 to report the discovery of a faint object that seems to be
> outside the orbit of Pluto!
> [...stuff deleted...]
> Dan Green [...] says it could turn out to be a huge comet coming in.
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> It is now so far away that if it is a comet on a very elongated orbit it may
> take 30 years to reach perihelion.  Then it could well become the Comet of
> the (21st) Century!!

Ah! Looks like 'Lucifer's Hammer' to me... 8-)  Dammit!

--David

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

Date: 25 Sep 92 18:05:49 GMT
From: Matthew Sheppard <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Planet?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

[e-mail] (Jarle Brinchmann) writes:


>> Dan Green of the CBAT says they really don't want people to start  >calling this
>> thing "Planet X" or the 10th planet or anything like that.  It's
>>  just too soon
>>to say.  For example, he says it could turn out to be a huge comet >coming in.
>>It is now so far away that if it is a comet on a very elongated orbit >it may
>>take 30 years to reach perihelion.  Then it could well become the >Comet of the
>>(21st) Century!!--
>
>Well, I hardly would call it planet nr 10 anyway. Nobody expect it
>to be much larger than 250 km in diameter, and then it is a rather
>big piece of rock og on hell of a comet, but hardly a planet.

>Now, this thing has been on the net ever since last weekend, is
>there anybody out there who know anything about new observations
>taken place ?

>I heard there were plans to do some observing this weekend is this
>true ?

>Anyway, while we can, let's hope it is a comet !!

Time had a good two page article on the whole thing this month.

--
| Matthew Sheppard  CLARKSON UNIVERSITY  [e-mail] |
| I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.ANoN |
| I don't want a pickle. DoD#477 TEP#477 RIDE FREE (8^]..etcetera..    |

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

Date: 25 Sep 92 16:47:38 GMT
From: Alan Barclay <[e-mail]>
Subject: PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EA
Newsgroups: sci.space

In a previous message you said that mars' gravity was too light to hang on the
lighter gasses, thus the atmosphere is thin.  Titan, a moon of Saturn is
slightly smaller than mars and has an atmospheric density twice earths at the
surface.  How do you explain that? :)

Alan

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

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 07:11:56 GMT
From: Mike Smithwick <[e-mail]>
Subject: QUERY: Apollo/Landing Module operations
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Deane) writes:
>>     I _REALLY_ enjoyed "The Space Shuttle Operator's Manual"
>>  by Joels & Kennedy
>> (Macmillan 1983, Ballantine 1982). Ever since then I've wanted
>> something slightly
>> similar for Apollo and the LM. Does anyone know if such a thing
>> was ever published?
>
>Such a thing was never published.  (Though you have a neat idea, John.)
>
>I will leave it to Henry Spencer to tell you:
>
>1) Of the available literature, what comes closest, and
>2) What to read if you want to WRITE *The Apollo Operator's Manual*.
>
>
>Bill Higgins                      | "[Theatregoers], if they did not

The closest thing is the REAL thing, called "The Apollo Operations
Handbook". They came in two volumes for each spacecraft, the CM and LM.
Vol. 1 is spacecraft systems and vol. 2 covers the general operational
of the vehicles. These are not light reading, the CM manual, vol 1
alone is about 1000 pages, with the LM manual about 845 pages.

BTW, the Skylab manuals are much the same. The Gemini manual comes in only
a single volume, and is a mere 670 pages and the Mercury manual
is a slender 451 pages.

For entertainment purposes only the OFFICIAL "Shuttle FLight Operations
Manual" is around 20,000 pages at last count.

mike

P.S. Anyone have a Lunar Rover manual? I have a piece of one and
want to complete it.



--
"There is no problem too big that can't be solved with high explosives"-Rush

Mike Smithwick - ames!zorch!mike

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

Date: 25 Sep 92 15:49:04 U
From: "Patrick French" <[e-mail]>
Subject: UTMB (University of Texas M

                    EXECUTIVE OFFICE                          Date: 9/25/92
                    UTMB (University of Texas Medical_       Time:  3:51 PM
Just passing on some info to anyone interested ...

"UTMB (University of Texas Medical Branch) will be launching a 2 year Space
Medicine Fellowship beginning July, 1993.  We are about to recruit physicians
for the two openings available next year and in future years ... Applicants for
the Fellowship must be board-eligible or board certified physicians in a
medical, surgical or psychiatric specialty.  Salary is at a PG-IV level.
Fellows would actively participate in a program geared to train future space
biomedical researchers, and will have the opportunity to participate in the
Johnson Space Center's medical operations activities throughout the two years.
Fellows will also receive training from the U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace
Medicine.  This is a truly unique opportunity for young physicians interested
in space medicine.

If you know of any interested individuals (or are an interested individual),
please ask them to contact Dr. Tom Blackwell at 409 772-2654 to receive more
information."

Please contact the above if you are interested or me if you have any problems
getting ahold of Dr. Blackwell.

Patrick

_________________________________

Patrick M. French                            Phone: [phone]
Special Assistant for Strategic Planning     Fax:   [phone]
International Space University             e-mail: [e-mail]
955 Massachusetts Avenue, 7th fl.
Cambridge, MA 01239  USA

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

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 12:43:38 GMT
From: "Charles A. Lind" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Waverider
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>I attended an interesting lecture last night by Duncan Lunan (Bill:
>do you remember the guy in the kilt selling Halley's Whiskey at the
>PghL5 bid party at DC85?) of ASTRA, a Scottish space group. It was
>his first visit to Belfast.
>
I had the opportunity of meeting these guys at the

    1st International Hypersonic Waverider Symposium
            October 1990

This symposium was sponsored by both NASA and the University of MD and
was held at the University of MD.  We had THE experts and some amateurs
on hypersonic waveriders from across the world.

>His group, ASTRA, has been working on the Waverider idea for decades.
>The idea is that a concave lower aerodynamic surface traps the
>shockwave and lets the craft ride on it. They've done supersonic wind
>tunnel tests, small rockets to release models, theoretical work on
>meager computer resources...
>

I believe this work originated by Nonwieller for Caret wings.  In
additional many people have done work in this area.  Here at MD
we work on the design of optimized waveriders.  Generally  we
optimize for high L/D.  Recently we disigned an engine integrated
hypersonic waverider.  This was a fully optimized vehicle which
utilized a 1-D scramjet model for it's engine.

>He suggests the waverider as a great way for entering the martian
>atmosphere and flying about dropping of probes. Unmanned though. On
>Mars the touchdown speed would be 400 km/sec. He suggested he would
>not wish to be the first to touch down on a non-runway at that
>speed...
>
>He also showed ideas for a solar probe that used "aerogravity assist"
>to get in close to the sun. A waverider enters an atmosphere (not TOO
>deeply!) and uses it to make a driection vector change much larger
>than gravity alone could do.
>
>This requires a rather interesting maneuver. Since it is flying at
>higher than escape velocity, it enters UPSIDE DOWN and use
>aerodynamics to push it towards the planet. It then has to rotate the
>lift vector for escape.
>

I believe this information can be found in papers written by Mark J. Lewis
from MD and Jim Randolph from JPL.

>Sound a bit hairy to me...
>
>The middle of the lecture was punctuated by a non-sonic boom as the
>police forensics lab, a couple km distant, got blown up. No, it
>wasn't done by amateur rocket enthusiasts... Needless to say, the
>after lecture pub jokes were about hypersonic forensic labs and panel
>truck parts...
>

For more info on this concept look for papers by:

John D. Anderson, Jr.
Mark J. Lewis
Isaiah Blankson
Kevin Bowcutt
Stephen Corda
Thomas McLaughlin
Mary Kae O'Neill

These authors represent the core of the hypersonic waverider
technology in the past few years.


Charles Lind
Department of Aerospace Engineering
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20740
USA

Disclaimer:  These are basically my biased opinions.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 248
------------------------------