home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Space & Astronomy
/
Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso
/
pc
/
text
/
spacedig
/
v16_9
/
v16no936.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-08-02
|
26KB
|
664 lines
Space Digest Thu, 29 Jul 93 Volume 16 : Issue 936
Today's Topics:
11 planets
Cats in zero gee
Cryogenic Rockets
Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India (2 msgs)
DC-X
DC-X Delay?
DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Found your own dark-sky nation?
Karla
message from Space Digest
NASA, Space Advertising! PR Work is needed.
planet inside Mercury's orbit
Space Lawyer Jokes!
SPACE TRIVIA LIST - 24th July 1993 (2 msgs)
Super Gun for Satellite Launch!
Why I hate the space shuttle (3 msgs)
Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to
"space@isu.isunet.edu", 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 space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 28 Jul 93 11:06:08
From: Bob McGwier <n4hy@tang.ccr-p.ida.org>
Subject: 11 planets
Newsgroups: sci.space
There is no planet inside Mercury. It was hypothesized in the 1800's to
explain the precession of the argument of perihelion in Mercury's orbit
before General Relativity explained it. The planet even had a name, it
was called Vulcan. I believe it is about as real as humanoids with pointy
ears and no emotions.
Bob
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert W. McGwier | n4hy@ccr-p.ida.org
Center for Communications Research | Interests: amateur radio, astronomy,golf
Princeton, N.J. 08520 | Asst Scoutmaster Troop 5700, Hightstown
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 14:34:20 GMT
From: Keith Mancus <mancus@pat.mdc.com>
Subject: Cats in zero gee
Newsgroups: sci.space
tombaker@bumetb.bu.edu (Thomas A. Baker) writes:
>What was the original question here?
Someone made a remark about "swinging cats" in SSF... :-)
>But, I want to add, I think "not liking the Vomit Comet" is not the same
>thing as not liking zero gee. That plane supplies a two hour roller
>coaster type of thing, alternating between double gravity and zero gravity.
>I think a constant, gentle zero-gee would be much more enjoyable.
I don't doubt that. I'm pretty confident the Vomit Comet would
make *me* sick, and I'm a private pilot who's been flying for 20 years...
(I have friends who have volunteered for testing on the VC; their stories
afterward were, uh, interesting. :-)
--
Keith Mancus <mancus@pat.mdc.com>
N5WVR <mancus@butch.mdc.com>
"Black powder and alcohol, when your states and cities fall,
when your back's against the wall...." -Leslie Fish
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 08:13:29 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <davem@ee.ubc.ca>
Subject: Cryogenic Rockets
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <CAuyzB.19A.1@cs.cmu.edu> h.hillbrath@genie.geis.com writes:
>
>>The US maintained the Titan missiles up until maybe the
>> mid-80s when the last one was taken out of service somewhere
>> in the South (Alabama?)
>
>There was never any operational ICBM in Alabama, Titan or
>otherwise. There were some in Arkansas, but what the heck, they are
>pretty much the same dull, dreary sorts of places.
In the original post, the >'s imply that I wrote the comment about the
Titan missiles in Alabama. That remark was made by someone else.
Re: Cryogenic engines
So you're saying that the term "cryogenic engine" has been retroactively
applied to LH2/LO2 engines in the same manner as the term "expendable
launch vehicle" has been applied to conventional rockets in recent years?
Re: long term storage of LO2 in Atlas missiles
I'm surprised that long term storage of LO2 in an Atlas missile would
be viable. Wouldn't the boil-off rate be excessive? At least one can
insulate any storage tanks located at the launch site... Just curious.
--
Dave Michelson -- davem@ee.ubc.ca -- University of British Columbia
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 07:47:11 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
In article <22rg9d$q1k@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
>
>Of course, The real question to ask, is would Liquid fueled ICBM's
>be very useful given the significant advances in US and FSU technology.
>answer NO. Liquid fueled vehicles have such a poor readiness level,
>that I would venture that aany country relying entirely on
>liquid fueled vehicles would need some 10 times their actual
>use inventory in order to maintain readiness.
Since the most likely opponents for India are Pakistan and China,
US and ex-USSR systems are irrelevant to the discussion. For a
first strike weapon, the time required to bring the systems to
launch readiness is mostly irrelvant since the opponent isn't
shooting at them yet. Note too that the SCUD is liquid fueled,
yet the best efforts of US and Coalition forces were unable to
stop them being launched.
Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | |
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jul 1993 08:15:06 -0400
From: Pat <prb@access.digex.net>
Subject: Cryogenic Rockets - Controversy between U.S, Russia and India
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Actually, INDIA's primary target in a Nuclear exhchange is china.
china has nukes publically, and china and india fought a BIG bloody war.
the pakistani bit has never been more then a border skirmish in terms
of losses.
And the SCUDs were liquid fueled, but they were Mobile missiles
and they weren't running on cryogenics. Besides, at least some of those
Iraqi scuds were launching from "destroyed" fixed bases.
The allied bombing was far less thorough then it was painted.
pat
--
God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things. Right now,
I am so far behind, I will never die.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 12:58:36 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <aws@iti.org>
Subject: DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1993Jul27.153815.1@univrs.decnet.lockheed.com> sextonm@univrs.decnet.lockheed.com writes:
>> +----------------------90 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+
> ^^
>Hey Allen,
>Whats the deal? Has the schedual changed radicaly?
No, that's a bug in my update deamon. I fixed it last night so it shouldn't
crop up again. If all goes well, I'll change it to the first flight of
SX-2 soon.
>From Henry's post it sounds like the bunny hop is expected tomorrow. although
since I haven't seen anything I wouldn't be suprised if they slipped. They
are apparently having problems with range scheduling. I'll post when I
hear anything.
allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor: "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!" |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it." |
+----------------------9 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 08:45:08 GMT
From: Ward Paul <ward@agamit.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il>
Subject: DC-X Delay?
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1993Jul27.163944.11903@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>+----------------------90 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+
So what's the scoop?
--
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jul 1993 14:22:37 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1993Jul27.205537.23191@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>Yea and your implication is that spending another 800 million do do another
>>HST is "cheaper" than the repair mission.
>
>A valid one according to my research. We are now looking at TWO repair
>missions upping the total cost to well over $1B. If we assume that HST
>was a typical project, then according to the recent assessment done by
>NASA of their procuremnt, then another HST could be had for far less than
>$400M which causes launching on Titan with a new HST to win hands down.
Blessed are those who re-write history in order to suit their own agendas, for
they will find "facts" to support their arguements.
Hubble was designed to be repaired in orbit. Now how much of those "repair"
missions are regular maintenance? Certainly gyro replacement is. Some of
the other instrument replacements is expected wear and tear.
Perhaps you'd like to pull out what costs are not expected and put them on the
table?
Perhaps you'd also like to place a dollar value on the downtime between
launching replacments, since you have the magical mystical spreadsheet?
Perhaps, you could also establish how you could GUARANTEE that the money for a
replacement could be found?
Like it or not, and as you so agilely illustrate everytime you hit the panic
button for DC-X, it's easier to keep money flowing into an established project
than to find money for a new program start.
Your hindsight, as always, meets your agenda quite well...
January 1993 - John Scully embraces Bill Clinton.
July 1993 - Apple Computer lays off 2500 workers, posts $188
million dollar loss.
-- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < --
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 09:28:15 GMT
From: Frances Teagle <ft@nessie.mcc.ac.uk>
Subject: Found your own dark-sky nation?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology
In article <giese.743787150@k9.dev.cdx.mot.com> giese@k9.dev.cdx.mot.com (Bruce Giese) writes:
>>The deep, deep dark of an unlit Transylvanian village (Arkos, Brasov
>>county) is a revelation. So glad I had my binoculars with me.
>
> Just watch out for vampires.
I saw the bats all right, but at dusk. Only Jupiter was visible.
FT.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 08:04:20 GMT
From: Dave Tholen <tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu>
Subject: Karla
Newsgroups: sci.space
Pete Phillips writes:
> I have heard about a new body in space called Karla, but couldn't see
> anything about it in New Scientist. Could someone please mail me a
> bries summary and a reference ? I don't read this newsgroup, so mail
> would be appreciated.
I tried mail, but it bounced. Hope you check this newsgroup for a
response, even though you don't read it regularly.
You're speaking of 1993 FW, the official designation for an asteroidal
object believed to be more distant than Pluto. All we really know is
how bright it is. Estimating its diameter depends on the relfectivity
of the surface. If you assume the surface is dark, then it might be
nearly 300 km in diameter; assume it's bright, and it could be smaller
than 100 km.
Karla is unofficial. Names must be approved by the appropriate IAU
committee. Some astronomers are displeased that the discoverers are
using the name so freely, which will tend to get it entrenched, thereby
giving them no choice but to approve that particular name, even if it
contradicts established practice.
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jul 1993 08:22:45 -0400
From: Pat <prb@access.digex.net>
Subject: message from Space Digest
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <CAus8I.HE3.1@cs.cmu.edu> h.hillbrath@genie.geis.com writes:
>> Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1993 00:03:07 GMT
>> Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>
>
>writes:
>
>I subsequently read a very fascinating book on industrial accidents,
>("Major Chemical Hazards" by V. C. Marshall) and the author was quite
>interested in the relative safety of various "volatile" liquids, and he was of
>the opinion, though he could not get exact statistics, that hydrogen was
>greatly under represented in the accident history.
>
Even the CHallenger, did not detonate, rather there was a small
deflagration. the steam just looked real good.
Much as Gary Coffman worrries about DC-1's loaded with rocket fuel
crashing into CHicago after a failed OHare approach, I seriously
believe the risk is far less then that of a 747.
>It is also interesting that the government consumption of helium,
>gaseous or liquid, is no longer a dominant part of the market, either,
>so much for being on the cutting edge of technology.
Yes,
But the US Govt is the Dominant supplier of Helium,
having locked up some 85% of the North American reserves.
now some GS-15, sets the world price for helium.
pat
PS he makes a profit for the government (( I don't know if ti's an
acctg scam)
--
God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things. Right now,
I am so far behind, I will never die.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 13:39:31 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <aws@iti.org>
Subject: NASA, Space Advertising! PR Work is needed.
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1993Jul25.160959.22558@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Sadly, because I too would like to see massive space colonization in
>my lifetime, PR is not a viable approach. Space already has a massive
>PR presence for free thanks to science fiction and Startrek and activist...
That's only part of what a PR firm does. They also spend a lot of time
and effort figuring out what people WANT. What a PR firm could and
should do is find what people want from a civil space program. There
are some strong indications from sources like the Annenberg Study which
indicate NASA isn't providing what the public is willing to pay for.
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor: "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!" |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it." |
+----------------------9 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 93 08:44:56 CDT
From: R. H. Sparr <sparr@cssl.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: planet inside Mercury's orbit
<debbiet@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil> writes:
>Seems to me I've read there is a planet
>closer to the sun than Mercury. One which has an orbit which
>most of the time we earthlings can't see.
I remember reading something about a hypothetical planet, named Vulcan, inside
the orbit of Mercury. The astronomers searching for this planet were seeking
to account for the precession of Mercury's orbit by the gravitational
purtubations Vulcan would produce. The effect was eventually accounted for
very well by the Theory of Relativity and the Vulcan hypothesis was dropped.
(This was one of the early verifications of relativity.)
******************************************************************************
sparr@cthp1.jsc.nasa.gov I do not speak on behalf of LESC,
R. H. Sparr NASA, or the U. S. Government.
Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jul 93 11:57:27 GMT
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Space Lawyer Jokes!
Newsgroups: sci.space
What do you get when you mix LOX and a Lawyer??
Super Cold LOX.. (-66 degree Kelvin)..
===
Ghost Wheel - nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 23:24:12 EDT
From: Bob Coe <bob@1776.COM>
Subject: SPACE TRIVIA LIST - 24th July 1993
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> Nope, sorry again -- the burn was the previous day. The accident occurred
> just after a scheduled TV broadcast from the spacecraft, when Swigert was
> asked, quite routinely, to turn on the internal fans in the tanks because
> Houston had been having trouble getting good readings from the tank gauges.
Q: What quaint NASAese term did Swigert (I guess it was he) use to describe
the problem when reporting it to the ground?
A: He said, "We have a main B-bus undervolt."
Speaking of NASAese, what exactly did Frank Borman (again I suppose it
was he) say when told that the Apollo 8 spacecraft was cleared to leave
earth orbit and begin mankind's first journey to the moon?
A: "Roger, understand we are 'go' for TLI."
(For extra credit, what does the acronym "TLI" stand for?)
A: "Trans-Lunar Injection"
___ _ - Bob
/__) _ / / ) _ _
(_/__) (_)_(_) (___(_)_(/_______________________________________ bob@1776.COM
Robert K. Coe ** 14 Churchill St, Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776 ** 508-443-3265
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jul 93 10:30:32
From: Bob McGwier <n4hy@tang.ccr-p.ida.org>
Subject: SPACE TRIVIA LIST - 24th July 1993
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro,rec.radio.amateur.space,sci.space
You are just plain wrong. They burned BEFORE they got to Luna and returned
WITHOUT ENTERING ORBIT. I love it when some know it all jackass makes
a flat statement in your tone of key and the gets caught with his ass over
his shoulders.
Bob
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert W. McGwier | n4hy@ccr-p.ida.org
Center for Communications Research | Interests: amateur radio, astronomy,golf
Princeton, N.J. 08520 | Asst Scoutmaster Troop 5700, Hightstown
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jul 93 11:35:20 GMT
From: nsmca@ACAD3.ALASKA.EDU
Subject: Super Gun for Satellite Launch!
Newsgroups: sci.space
Space Gun/Super Gun: If I rememebr correctly the Iraqi "super gun" was based on
a design to put small satellites into orbit..
Any work being done to use it for its "original purpose", namely put small
satellites into orbit?
Also has anyoen read "King Davids Space Ship" by I think "Poul Anderson" about
a planet where they use a I think a recipricating bommb method to get itno
orbit..
Mainly shoot the space ship into the air, and once there, to drop bombs out the
ass in in a boom, boom, boom, boom, etc. method..
Is it possible and if so, anyoen doing any work on it?
===
Ghost Wheel - nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 93 08:11:31 CDT
From: Bret Wingert <Wingert@vnet.IBM.COM>
Subject: Why I hate the space shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space
In <2345unINNce1@rave.larc.nasa.gov> henshaw@hops.larc.nasa.gov writes:
>Well, not exactly. Triple redundancy is _one_ way they are made reliable.
>Another has to do with spaceflight certification. The three main shuttle
>computers are IBM processors, whose main design was around in the 1960s.
>(Read: VERY SIMPLE)....
>HALOE Data Processing
>
The current shuttle flight computers are Quad redundant with a fifth
computer as a backup. They are AP-101S machines and were designed in the
mid 80's. Relatives of this computer also fly on the B-1, F-8, AC-130,
B-52, etc.
As to space Certification, components and systems are subjected to
extremes of heat, cold, and vibration. They are also closely
scrutinized to make sure there is no loose anything that might float
around in micro-gravity.
Bret Wingert
Wingert@VNET.IBM.COM
(713)-282-7534
FAX: (713)-282-8077
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 13:17:52 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <aws@iti.org>
Subject: Why I hate the space shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <233gjg$ktq@voyager.gem.valpo.edu> mjensen@gem.valpo.edu (Michael C. Jensen) writes:
>Which is why I hope DC lives up to most of it's claims.. however, it would
>be unwise to make the same mistake of apollo and take an operational system
>offine BEFORE it's replacement is available..
Suppose you had a car which cost you $10 per mile to operate. It was so
expensive, that all your available funds went into maintenance and you
had little else for rent, food, and everything else. Would you make the
'mistake' of getting rid of this car and living without it until something
else could be bought? Or would you get rid of the car and live with the
discomfort while you get something else? I would choose the latter, how
would you choose?
Just because a vehicle exists doesn't mean it is a good idea to operate
it. Suppose Shuttle consumed 100% of the NASA budget? Would you still
say it should be flown until a replacement is available?
>that cost us Skylab, and a lot of public support..
Your putting the cart before the horse. It isn't that we lost public support
because we lost Saturn, rather we lost Saturn because we lost public support.
>The point is the more the claims get inflated, the harder time DC will have
>selling itself..
Agreed. However, DC claims are not inflating if you listen to the people
working the problem. The original claim was a vehicle which launches 20 to
24 thousand pounds to LEO, requires no more than 7 days for turnaround, has
an operational cost of $5 to $10 million per launch and a total cost of
roughly $5B to develop. That was the claim two years ago when it got
started and it is still the claim today.
>the DC-3 aircraft wasn't "pre-sold" as the end-all, be-all
>of air transportation,
Ah, but it WAS pre-sold as having some pretty advanced capabilities. You
might well have called those claims too optimistic at the time.
DC-1 isn't the DC-3 of space, but it could be the Ford TriMotor of
space.
>Yep.. but since 86, the shuttle can not be blamed for keeping private
>industry out of the manned space biz via subsidized rates.. that's how it
>is TODAY..
Not true. NASA still provides extensive subsidies for human activity
in space.
Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor: "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!" |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it." |
+----------------------9 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 14:37:47 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
Subject: Why I hate the space shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space
In <dieter-270793095216@ariane.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> dieter@informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Dieter Kreuer) writes:
>In article <230oht$afc@usenet.rpi.edu>, strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg
>Moore) wrote:
>> Actually only the ET id disposable.
>Hmm, the SRB's can be reused, but, has any SRB been used more than once
>ever? I have heard that even before the Challenger disaster NASA had
>not dared this, and I assume that this attitude has not changed since.
This has always been done routinely. Other than requiring a huge
amount of work to prepare the old casings (probably more than it would
cost to make new ones) and the fact that the casings tend to get
slightly out of round (they come down harder than they originally
planned?) there is really no problem with this.
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Info about old Diamant wanted
Message-Id: <7093207.36431.1853@kcbbs.gen.nz>
From: Russell Mcmahon <Russell_Mcmahon@kcbbs.gen.nz>
Date: 27 Jul 93 10:07:11 GMT
References: <1993Jul21.191742.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand
Lines: 21
Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU
Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Bill - could you pass this on when the originator turns up with an
address - I am a few thousand kms away and a day or 2 transmission
delay. (Scrap if better data comes to hand)
The following is from the STW toolworks encyclopedia CDROM and is
sourced by Kenneth gatland (no surprise).
Diamant is a 3 staged rocket that was the mainstay of the french
national space program between 1965 and 1973. The earlist version was
Doiamant A, 18.9 m tall weight 18.4 tonne, capable of pl;acing 79.4 Kg
into a 300 Km equatorial orbit. The 1st stage thrust was 66,000 lb for
93 seconds. The second and third stages were solid propellant based.
Diamant B had a new liquid fuel 1st stage and was launched from Kourou
in French Guiana. Payload = 254 lb.
Diamant BP4 increased orbital payload to 441 lb. Stage 1 thrust 77000 to
88000 lb, stage 2 was solid propellant usin a motor from the French
ballistic program and stage 3 used the same motor as Diamant B.
Hope this is of use. STW CDROM also has lots of other snippets on oldish
space launchers.
------------------------------
End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 936
------------------------------