From ota Wed Jun 8 03:07:26 1988 Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09869; Wed, 8 Jun 88 03:07:12 PDT id AA09869; Wed, 8 Jun 88 03:07:12 PDT Date: Wed, 8 Jun 88 03:07:12 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8806081007.AA09869@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #247 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 247 Today's Topics: Re: Antimatter propulsion questions Night launch Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST (ejection seats) Re: Vocabulary lesson #7: Expendable launch vehicles Space Technology Aids Vision Re: Night launch Re: A Soviet strategy for domination in space Re: Night launch Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 15 May 88 20:14:15 CDT From: sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu (Steve Abrams) Posted-Date: Sun, 15 May 88 20:14:15 CDT Subject: Re: Antimatter propulsion questions In V8, #221 of Space Digest, tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!mbutts@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mike Butts) writes: "1) If particle accelerators are used to create the antimatter fuel in the first place, on a production basis, would there be any advantage to siting them in space, driven by solar power and taking advantage of the natural vacuum? Would solar wind, cosmic rays, etc. interfere with the process? If so, could reasonable shielding deal with that?" If you are considering a toroidal accelerator, I should think that the solar wind would be deflected perpendicularly to the plane of the accelerator via the Lorentz force. Does anyone know the average velocity of particles in the solar wind at 1AU? I shouldn't think it would be great enough to overcome the high magnetic fields of the accelerator, but I could be wrong. Cosmic rays, on the other hand, are very energetic and (I believe) isotropic. they might be a greater hazard. Perhaps a much larger shield can be used to stop the primary rays down to the less energetic secondary radiation that could then be handled by the magnetic fields of the accelerator. I would worry more about interplanetary dust -- much more massive and not as easily deflected -- interfering with that "natural vacuum." Steve Abrams ARPANET: sedspace@doc.cc.utexas.edu c/o Graduate Office CompuServe: [70376,1025] Dept. of Physics (512)480-0895 University of Texas at Austin OR Austin, TX 78705 c/o Students for the Exploration and Development of Space "The rate of increase of P.O. Box 7338 the entropy of the 358 Texas Union universe reaches its University of Texas at Austin maximum value in my Austin, TX 78713-7883 immediate vicinity." (512)471-7097 ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 88 05:08:11 GMT From: sonia!khayo@cs.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) Subject: Night launch (May 14, 9:00 pm PST) I just saw a fabulous sight - most likely a launch from VAB. My windows are facing +/- North, facing the canyons of Santa Monica Mountains. A luminescent white cloud was trailing behind a very bright object which moved due West about 4 times as fast as a commercial jet (there were a few in the area, on approach to LAX - those people must have had a view...); of course the geometry of the whole thing makes velocity comparisons meaningless. The shining "ghost", which took up about 25 degrees of the horizon when it was largest, was caused by thin clouds/fog hanging over the coastal area (I saw another Vandenberg launch on a cloudless night and it wasn't as spectacular as this one). What puzzled me was that it continued to shine brightly for about a minute after the vehicle left the cloud layer, and only a faint glow of the exhaust was visible through a spotting scope. It looked as if a very strong reflector was pointed from the ground towards the rocket (at first I thought that it was just that, maybe some rocket modellers, but judging from the distance/apparent size it was something on a much grander scale). Could it be ionized air? or what? I hope to read something about it in tomorrow's paper. Eric ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 88 22:16:03 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST (ejection seats) >... Why don't they install explosive-powered >ejection seats on the shuttle... It's been thought about; in fact that's what the pilots had for the first few flights. The trouble is that ejection seats are heavy and bulky. There isn't room to provide a full crew with ejection seats. A secondary problem is that ejection seats introduce their own safety hazards, since they are dangerous explosive devices. (People who have to work around them treat them with great respect.) -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 88 22:12:13 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Vocabulary lesson #7: Expendable launch vehicles > ... can be gotten rid of when they become politically > inconvenient - or heaven forbit! Inexpensive. Since there is no chance of the latter while the US government is running the show, it need not be mentioned. Despite some of the nonsense one hears from the more rabid anti-shuttle factions, current US expendables are just as expensive as the shuttle. Actually, my definition would be something like: "a class of space launchers which clearly are not considered expendable, based on the vast manpower and expense devoted to every single launch". (Case in point. Delta is derived from the Thor IRBM. Thor specs said launch in 15 minutes with crew of 9. NASA Delta launches required three months with a crew of 2000. Yes, the Delta is more complicated, and the payloads need more attention... but three orders of magnitude?!?) We will not have cheap space transportation until we can treat space-launch failures like airliner crashes: lamentable, to be avoided, worthy of careful investigation... but not usually cause for grounding the vehicle. -- NASA is to spaceflight as | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the Post Office is to mail. | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 88 01:26:11 GMT From: nbires!isis!scicom!embudo!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (markf) Subject: Space Technology Aids Vision NASA NEWS - Space Technology Aids In Improving Low-Vision Eyesight NASA and the Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute, Balitimore, Md., will use space technology to develop a device designed to improve the sight of millions of people with low vision. Scientists at NASA's National Space Technology Laboratories (NSTL), Miss., and Wilmer scientists plan to adapt technology used for computer processing of images from satellites and head-mounted imaging systems originally developed for NASA Space Station projects to enhance vision. According to officials in NASA's Technology Utilization Program, the new collaborative project is expected to run at least 5 years and cost a minimum of $5 million in its first phases. The project will be carried out for NASA by NSTL's Earth Resource Laboratory, the installation's research and development organization. The planned device, the Low-Vision Enhancement System, will resemble "wraparound" sunglasses and will custom-tailor images of the outside world for low vision patients. A version of the enhancement system is expected to be available to patients through clinical tests in a few years. Approximately 11 million Americans have visual defects that cannot be corrected medically, surgically or with glasses. Severe impairment that causes disability, called low vision, affects 2.5 million Americans, according to Eye Institute officials. The transfer of NASA's technology will make it possible to improve the visual capability of low-vision patients by appropriately enhancing and altering images to compensate for the individual patient's impaired eyesight. When the device is worn, the patient will see the world on two miniature color television screens where the lenses of eyeglasses usually are located. Lenses and imaging glass fibers will be embedded on each side of the "wraparound" section where the front and ear pieces join. The lenses will form images of the scene in front of the patient on the surface of the fibers. The fibers, similar to those used to carry long- distance telephone signals, carry pictures back to miniature solid- state television cameras carried in a belt or shoulder pack. The images are processed by a small, battery-powered system in the pack and, finally, displayed on the television screens. As planned, the device will be lightweight and confortable. The outside of the television screens will be similar to mirrored lenses in sunglasses. The system is expected to benefit patients who have lost their peripheral or side field of vision, such as those suffering from glaucoma, an increase of fluid pressure inside the eye that damages the optic nerve, and from retinitis pigmentosa, a progressive degeneration of the retina, the delicate light sensitive nerve layer lining the eye. The system also is expected to benefit patients with central vision loss, the part of vision normally used for reading. These patients may have macular degeneration associated with aging, or diabetic retinopathy, in which diabetes causes swelling and leakage of fluid in the center of the retina. Ongoing Wilmer research supported by the National Eye Institute will provide information on how images must be altered and enhanced for the low-vision patient. --------------------------------------------------------------------- NASA News Release 88-57 April 27, 1988 By James Ball Headquarters, Washington, D.C. and Myron Well National Space Technologies Lab., Miss. Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 16 May 88 13:17:15 GMT From: cfa!cfa250!mcdowell@husc6.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) Subject: Re: Night launch >From article <12267@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, by khayo@sonia.math.ucla.edu (Eric Behr): > (About Trident launch..) Boston Globe reports Trident launch from submarine along Western Test Range at 2050 PDT May 14. This is the first submarine launched ballistic missile test from the West Coast that I've heard of (for about twenty years - there were a couple in the sixties..) Have there been others? I presume it was a Trident I since I think Trident II is still in flat pad testing at Canaveral.. If its the first to be done from WTR that explains why it looked unusual to people.. Usually SLBM launches are done on the ETR from subs about 100 mi E of Cape Canaveral; every SSBN ballistic missile sub launches a couple for crew training in initial checkout and after each refit. Maybe they decided there would be fewer Soviet fishing trawlers off Point Mugu? Jonathan McDowell ------------------------------ Subject: Re: A Soviet strategy for domination in space Date: Tue, 17 May 88 18:57:02 -0400 From: Fred Baube Jim Bowery writes: > The Soviets appear to be onto a really clever strategy for becoming > the dominant space civilizaton: > [Work with NASA, letting it take the credit while they do the > yeoman's share of the work.] > Oh, but this couldn't work because NASA bureaucrats would NEVER > take credit for the accomplishments of others and, of course, the > Soviets are too short sighted to let us have even a decade or two of > feeling good about ourselves in exchange for the solar system. ;-) Silly me, I *honestly* thought the Soviets would be *idiots* to work with NASA and let it take much more credit than is its rightful due. But when you put it *that* way .. talk about an unholy alliance ! If the moon is made of cheese, Mars will turn out to be borscht. #include ------------------------------ Date: 16 May 88 18:55:22 GMT From: mtxinu!rtech!llama!wong@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (J. Wong) Subject: Re: Night launch In article <12260@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> khayo@MATH.ucla.edu (Eric Behr) writes: >(May 14, 9:00 pm PST) >I just saw a fabulous sight - most likely a launch from >VAB. [description deleted] >I hope to read something about it in tomorrow's paper. > Eric I believe the papers said it was a Trident missle launch from a submarine just off the coast. J. Wong sun!rtech!wong ucbvax!mtxinu!/ **************************************************************** S-s-s-ay! ------------------------------ Date: 16 May 88 18:51:32 GMT From: mtxinu!rtech!llama!wong@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (J. Wong) Subject: Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST From: sun!rtech!llama!wong (J. Wong) Message-Id: <8805132107.AA17267@llama.rtech.UUCP> To: mbunix!marsh Subject: Re: space news from April 11 AW&ST Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle In-Reply-To: <31710@linus.UUCP> References: <1988May9.004935.49@utzoo.uucp> Organization: Relational Technology, Inc. Alameda, CA In article <31710@linus.UUCP> you write: >I'm willing to look really stupid... Why don't they install explosive-powered >ejection seats on the shuttle. I don't know enough about the technology, >but there has to be some way for the pilot to get out of a SR-71 that >should be close to useful, and require little effort on the part of the >human. What's the story ? Ejection seats have a numerous problems, the worst being that they are just dangerous (as is any high-explosive.) Ejection seats have exploded on the ground, killing any technicians or pilots who are nearby. They have also exploded improperly in the air. Also, canopies have failed to come off resulting in the occupant being crushed when the seat ejected. Passengers have been known to lose various pieces of their bodies when ejected (like fingers, hands, arms, legs.) Tom Wolfe relates some incidents in his book, "The Right Stuff." Apparently, if you were in a bad situation it was 50/50 whether to eject or to try and ride the plane down. -- J. Wong sun!rtech!wong ucbvax!mtxinu!/ **************************************************************** S-s-s-ay! J. Wong sun!rtech!wong ucbvax!mtxinu!/ **************************************************************** S-s-s-ay! ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #247 *******************