Date: Sun, 24 Jul 88 01:06:17 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8807240806.AA25259@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #292

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 292

Today's Topics:
			   Re: OZONE cont.
			 Re: Ramscoop engine
			 Re: Ramscoop engine
		      Re: Space cities--replies
	     Moon landing (used to be RE: New Holiday ?)
			Hubble Space Telescope
			 Re: Ramscoop engine
    Resolution regarding unethical National Space Society election
			 Re: Ramscoop engine
		Re: Elements for Soviet space stations
		  Elements for Soviet space stations
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 88 17:35:23 GMT
From: vrdxhq!daitc!csed-1!zweig@umd5.umd.edu  (Jonathan Zweig)
Subject: Re: OZONE cont.

Wanna know a place where ozone isn't a problem? SoCal! Just try to get a
suntan in Pasadena and you'll find out what I mean. It can't be done --
the smog is a terrific absorber of UV with all those nitrogren compounds
and ozone in it.

So it seems to me that the polution destroying the UV protection in the
upper atmosphere is providing even better UV attenuation in the lower
atmosphere. Plus, if you die young because of the smog or crime in the
big city, you won't live long enough to suffer from the skin cancer you
might get on your trips to the country.

(WINK!)

Johnny Zweig

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

Date: 8 Jul 88 23:17:39 GMT
From: phri!dasys1!tneff@nyu.edu  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Ramscoop engine

Whenever ramscoops come up, somebody always mentions that you could get
to the Andromeda Galaxy in 25 years, ship time.  This has always struck
me as nonsense.  Where are you supposed to find the fuel between the two
galaxies to continue that 1G acceleration?
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)

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

Date: 8 Jul 88 13:24:07 GMT
From: mcvax!kunivv1!hobbit!ge@uunet.uu.net  (Ge' Weijers)
Subject: Re: Ramscoop engine

In article <74700090@p.cs.uiuc.edu>, carey@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
> One more question I can think of off the top of my head -- what happens
> to heat dissipation as time slows down?  As the fusion reactor approaches
> light-speed, would its heat dissipation also slow down, thus causing
> a meltdown?

Fusion would be slower too. Time is only observed to slow down in the spacecraft
by a 'stationary' observer. In the spacecraft nothing is noticed. 
-- 
Ge' Weijers, Informatics dept., Nijmegen University, the Netherlands
UUCP: {uunet!,}mcvax!kunivv1!hobbit!ge

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

Date: 8 Jul 88 10:18:00 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk!william@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: Space cities--replies


Very interesting.  Only one quibble ...

In reply to John Turner's contribution, is it true that spin gravity 
is not similar to real gravity?  This city would have to be some
miles in diameter (I assume - I didn't get the original posting)
so I would have thought the variation in the effective gravity would be
minute over small movements.  

As (I think!) the effective gravity is proportional to the distance
from the centre, a 10cm head-nod on a 5km radius ring would cause
a force variation of 2e-5.  Could a human detect this change?
Of course, if you had a small radius and used a long cylinder then 
you would definitely get some effect.

			... Bill

************************************************************************
Bill Witts, CS Dept.     *
UCL, London, Errrp       *       Don't believe everything you hear,
william@uk.ac.ucl.cs(UK) *       or anything you say.
william@cs.ucl.ac.uk(US) ***********************************************

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

Date: 9 Jul 88 07:35:41 GMT
From: aplcen!jhunix!ins_ackg@mimsy.umd.edu  (Choon Kiat Goh)
Subject: Moon landing (used to be RE: New Holiday ?)

In article <8807071447.AA04166@angband.s1.gov> GEOS21@UHUPVM1.BITNET (Jonathan C. Sadow) writes:
>
>For the sake of future reference, the official time at which Neil Armstrong
>first stepped on the lunar surface is 02:56:20 UT on 21 July 1969, and the
>EVA lasted 2 hours and 31 minutes.
>

 Just a fast query...whose chronometer were they using? I suppose Neil
had the final say in the matter because he was there. Mission Control
would have a slightly off time because of the delay between Earth and
the Moon in radio communications. Is it true that Michael Collins
didn't hear Neil's moon address?

   --- Ian ---
(ins_ackg@jhunix)

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

Date: 9 Jul 88 07:22:11 GMT
From: aplcen!jhunix!ins_ackg@mimsy.umd.edu  (Choon Kiat Goh)
Subject: Hubble Space Telescope


   On Nova, there was a show on spy machines and their development
and so forth. One thing they said was that the next generation of
spy satellites will be like the Hubble Space Telescope (their graphics
showed a stunning look-alike) except that it'd be pointed downwards
instead of up. How feasible would it be for the current HST to be
turned around and pointed downward, just for a quick scan to test
out the optics? Is the HST the next step in reconnaisance technology?
Is it possible for the HST in its existing form to be used as a 
"spy" satellite?

   --- Ian ---
(ins_ackg@jhunix) <== no mention of ironic situations please!

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

Date: 8 Jul 88 18:36:05 GMT
From: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III)
Subject: Re: Ramscoop engine

In article <5362@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) writes:
>In article <74700090@p.cs.uiuc.edu> carey@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>>
>>The ramscoop engine idea is used in larry Niven's books.  I don't know if
>>he "invented" it.
>
>I believe the "interstellar ramjet" was first proposed in the 60s by
>Bussard.  Someone has walked off with my reference, however.  The first
>place I read about it was in an article by Ben Bova about 1965.
>
If I'm not mistaken, Niven even referred to it as a "Bussard ramjet".

>There's a Poul Anderson novel published both as _Tau Zero_ and _To
>Outlive Eternity_ (I think) about passengers on a runaway Bussard ramjet
>that just keeps accelerating.  Presumably they wind up at the restaurant
>at the end of the universe.

Good book!
		--Rod

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

Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!trout.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 88 10:52:34 PDT
From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim Bowery)
To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Resolution regarding unethical National Space Society election

Please obtain access to a copy of the National Space Society's
ballot for the board of directors election and look for two
things:

1) An endorsement of some of the candidates by the Nominations
Committee which is placed in a position of prominence outside 
the space reserved for other such endorsements for each 
candidate.

2) The lack of "NO" vote boxes.

The bylaws of the Naitonal Space Society allow for the publication 
of endorsements of candidates and these endorsements could even 
include one made by the Nominations Committee itself.  There is
a place reserved for each candidate in the ballot mailing for
statements of such endorsements and these statements are limited
to 400 words.  It is not appropriate for endorsements to appear
outside of these statements -- and it is particularly unethical
for the Nominations Committee to use its position of trust and
authority to place its own endorsements.  

Also, the bylaws provide for negative votes as well as positive
votes.  There is no preference given to positive votes over
negative votes in the bylaws.  Given the exceptionally 
controversial situation during this election it is particularly 
important that negative voting be placed on an equal par with 
positive voting.  It is not appropriate that negative voting be 
treated exceptionally on this, or any, year's ballot.

If you find that the Nominations Committee has acted inappropriately 
in this situation, please consider mailing the following resolution 
in to National Space Society headquarters.

======================================================================


WHEREAS Mark Chartrand, the co-chairman of the Nominations Committee
of the National Space Society, has expressed his opposition to
the National Space Society bylaw that gives members of the society 
the right to vote in the election of directors; and 

WHEREAS Mark Chartrand has expressed his preference for the old
National Space Society governance system (a system underwhich the 
directors had the sole power to elect directors); and

WHEREAS Mark Chartrand has participated in the formulation and
implementation of a plan to use corporate funds to advance the
candidacy of some candidates to the Society's board of directors,
to the disadvantage of other candidates; and

WHEREAS the Nominations Committee authorized the implementation
of the aforementioned plan; now, therefore, be it


RESOLVED that _________________ does hereby find and declare:
1) That Mark Chartrand, because he is opposed to the democratic
election of National Space Society directors, should not be and 
should not have been put in charge of the democratic election of 
directors; and 
2) That the use of corporate funds to advance the candidacy of
some candidates to the society's board of directors, to the
disadvantage of other candidates, consititutes an undemocratic
and unethical use of coroprate funds.

RESOLVED further that _________________ does hereby condemn 
Mark Chartrand for having participated in the formulation and 
implementation of an antidemocratic and unethical plan to use 
corporate funds to advance the candidacy of some candidates to 
the Society's board of directors, to the disadvantage of other 
candidates.

RESOLVED further that _________________ does hereby call on the 
Nominations Committee to accept its responsibility to disapprove 
of undemocratic and unethical plans in the future.

RESOLVED further that _________________ does hereby recommend
that the bylaws of the National Space Society be ammended to expressly 
prohibit the use of corporate funds to selectively advance the 
candidacy of some candidates to the Society's board of directors.


UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim
ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil
INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com

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

Date: 10 Jul 88 01:12:34 GMT
From: killer!tness7!tness1!nuchat!sugar!peter@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Ramscoop engine

In article <5407@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
> Whenever ramscoops come up, somebody always mentions that you could get
> to the Andromeda Galaxy in 25 years, ship time.  This has always struck
> me as nonsense.  Where are you supposed to find the fuel between the two
> galaxies to continue that 1G acceleration?

Overdesign?

Let X be the ratio of the density of the Intersteller medium to that of the
Intergalactic medium (multiplied by fudge factors).

Design the thing so that it can generate up to X gees in the ISM, and 1 gee
in the IGM. Then run it at (100/X)% in the ISM, and crank it up as you
leave the galaxy...

Remember that your efficiency goes up as you speed up (more swept volume
per unit time), so a system that can generate 1 gee at 1% of light will be
able to generate lots more gees at 90% of light, so you're going to have to
throttle down as you get up to speed in the galaxy anyway.

So, what's the value of X?
-- 
-- `-_-' Peter (have you hugged your wolf today?) da Silva.
--   U   Mail to ...!uunet!sugar!peter, flames to /dev/null.
-- "Running DOS on a '386 is like driving an Indy car to the Stop-N-Go"

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

Date: 9 Jul 88 22:18:00 GMT
From: a.cs.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@ee.ecn.purdue.edu
Subject: Re: Elements for Soviet space stations


Those who are planning Spaceweek activities should note that there are
very fine passes of Salyut 7 over most of the continental US during
that period, and the Spaceweek people may want to publicize the fact.
I hope to have a table of apparitions over US cities shortly (one line
per apparition), and will post it once I have it together.

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

Date: 9 Jul 88 22:16:00 GMT
From: a.cs.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny@ee.ecn.purdue.edu
Subject: Elements for Soviet space stations


Two-line elements for Salyut 7   
1 13138U          88187.83286141 0.00002889           10066-3 0  1489
2 13138  51.6105 199.6452 0000799 174.7263 185.3648 15.33011317354942

Object: Salyut 7   
NORAD catalog number: 13138
Element set: 148
Epoch revolution: 35494
Epoch time: 88187.83286141 (Tue Jul  5 19:59:19 UTC)
Inclination: 51.6105 degrees
RA of node: 199.6452 degrees
Eccentricity: 0.0000799
Argument of periapsis: 174.7263 degrees
Mean anomaly: 185.3648 degrees
Mean motion: 15.33011317 revs / day
Mean motion acceleration: 0.00002889 * 2 revs / day**2
B* drag term: 1.0066e-04

Derived figures:
Semimajor axis: 6844.68 km.
Perifocal radius: 6844.13 km.
Apogee height: 467.077 km.
Perigee height: 465.983 km.
Mean longitude at the epoch: 3.4861 degrees.
Magnitudes of short-period perturbations of the second harmonic:
	Radius vector magnitude: +/-0.99 km.
	True anomaly: +/-0.0114 degrees.
	RA of node: +/-0.0251 degrees.
	Inclination: +/-0.0197 degrees.
Secular perturbations of the second harmonic:
	Argument of perigee: 3.6118 degrees/day
	RA of node: -4.8327 degrees/day
	Mean anomaly: included in published mean motion.
Long-period perturbation of the third harmonic: X=-1.613e-03, Y=-8.564e-04

Two-line elements for Mir        
1 16609U          88187.82011286 0.00025402           17818-3 0  2939
2 16609  51.6163 331.6369 0003340 114.9553 245.1661 15.74022174136766

Object: Mir        
NORAD catalog number: 16609
Element set: 293
Epoch revolution: 13676
Epoch time: 88187.82011286 (Tue Jul  5 19:40:57 UTC)
Inclination: 51.6163 degrees
RA of node: 331.6369 degrees
Eccentricity: 0.0003340
Argument of periapsis: 114.9553 degrees
Mean anomaly: 245.1661 degrees
Mean motion: 15.74022174 revs / day
Mean motion acceleration: 0.00025402 * 2 revs / day**2
B* drag term: 1.7818e-04

Derived figures:
Semimajor axis: 6725.25 km.
Perifocal radius: 6723.01 km.
Apogee height: 349.355 km.
Perigee height: 344.862 km.
Mean longitude at the epoch: 5.7903 degrees.
Magnitudes of short-period perturbations of the second harmonic:
	Radius vector magnitude: +/-1.01 km.
	True anomaly: +/-0.0118 degrees.
	RA of node: +/-0.0260 degrees.
	Inclination: +/-0.0204 degrees.
Secular perturbations of the second harmonic:
	Argument of perigee: 3.8392 degrees/day
	RA of node: -5.1391 degrees/day
	Mean anomaly: included in published mean motion.
Long-period perturbation of the third harmonic: X=-1.641e-03, Y=-8.717e-04


Source: NASA Goddard via TS Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M'

NOTE: Apogee and perigee heights are referred to a mean equatorial radius
      of 6378.145 km, and not to the local radius of the geoid.
      All derived quantities are calculated using the NORAD SGP model of
      Hilton and Kuhlman.

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

End of SPACE Digest V8 #292
*******************