Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Received: from po5.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Sat, 30 Jul 88 04:09:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 30 Jul 88 04:06:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Sat, 30 Jul 88 04:05:46 EDT Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06405; Sat, 30 Jul 88 01:05:25 PDT id AA06405; Sat, 30 Jul 88 01:05:25 PDT Date: Sat, 30 Jul 88 01:05:25 PDT From: Ted Anderson Message-Id: <8807300805.AA06405@angband.s1.gov> To: Space@angband.s1.gov Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #304 SPACE Digest Volume 8 : Issue 304 Today's Topics: Annother British space first Re: Ramscoop engine Spy satellites flames Space Station Alternatives Required Re: Unethical National Space Society election Re: Von Braun quote Re: Space Suits Delta launch complex transferred to Air Force (Forwarded) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Jul 88 16:57:46 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!etive!bob@uunet.uu.net (B Gray) Subject: Annother British space first Continuing a long line of similar scientific firsts for this and previous Governments, the British Government yesterday announced they were ending funding for research on HOTOL. This makes them the first Government to scrap all research on spaceplane type launch vehicles, an area which other countries are showing increasing interest in. After having spent the magnificent sum of one and a half million pounds supporting research by British Aerospace and Rolls Royce, the Government decided that it was too costly, and that there were no prospects of any immediate profits. BAe and RR, it suggested, should find international partners to help fund any further research. They now face the prospect of trying to sell the idea to other countries which have already been offended by the attitude expressed by the Minister for science and technology at the ESA meeting at the end of last year. (No manned spaceflight, no new rockets, no more research, no more money: no profits). The problem is further complicated by the research being classified under the official secrets act. This present Government is paranoid about breaches of the Official secrets act. (They have already spent over 3 million pounds, by one estimate, trying to stop publication of "Spycatcher"). Would you put money into an idea which the British Government won't give ANY sort of backing to, and which you can't find out anything about? Oh, sorry, not quite true. They will back it to the extent that they say they would like it to be developed by private companies. Notice also, the announcement was made at the same time as a major surprise re-organisation of the department responsible for more than half of Government spending. This will help to keep any debate to a minimum. In its desire to re-introduce "Victorian Values" to Britain, the Government first seems to be trying to bring back Victorian Technology. Bob. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 88 18:13:10 GMT From: pyrnj!dasys1!tneff@rutgers.edu (Tom Neff) Subject: Re: Ramscoop engine (Re: ramscooping at 1G clear to Andromeda in 25 years shiptime) Several people have pointed out that you would accelerate most of the way to "c" while you were still inside this galaxy... so that lots of intergalactic gas for continued acceleration would be unnecessary. There are two problems with this objection. First, one of the "neat" aspects of the 1G acceleration was that you would get normal "gravity" on ship for the whole trip. If you stop accelerating at 1G past the galactic boundary, what do you do for gravity? You certainly lose the luxury of building a non-spin ship. Second, 'most of the way to c' isn't good enough for time dilatation purposes. You need ALL of that 12-13 ship years' acceleration in order to avpurposes. You need ALL of that 12-13 ship years acceleration in order to get there quickly. If you try to coast between galaxies you are going to be at it for a LONG time from the ship's standpoint. I did receive some encouraging numbers about intergalactic density though, which I'll pass along in a summary next week. -- 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: 16 Jul 88 02:50:13 GMT From: snowdog@athena.mit.edu (Richard the Nerd) Subject: Spy satellites Ralph Marshall (marsh@linus.uucp) writes (a few articles back): > I don't know whether or not the orbits are really considered >classified, and I seriously doubt that the Russians don't know where >they are, but if in fact the orbits _ARE_ classified the fact that you >discovered them on your own still does not give you permission to >distribute the information. It is still classified. Oh, I am pretty sure the Soviets are following it. It is a little difficult not to notice a thing as bright as Sirius crossing the sky! That's why I can't really understand why NORAD keeps them classified...which at least to my best knowledge they do. >I'm merely commenting on the fact that guys from the NSA with >absolutely NO sense of humor might not view it with quite the same >liberal viewpoint, making your venture costly in terms of the >harassment you could get. Well, thanks for the warning. To tell you the truth, I had no idea that such a relatively idle thing had the potential for causing so much commotion. I dunno...among amateur satellite observers the orbits of most US spy satellites are pretty common knowledge, and no one has bothered us yet... -Rich ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jul 88 11:30:29 MDT From: dbirnbau%nmsu.csnet@relay.cs.net Subject: flames Any comments that you wish a reply to will be have to sent directly to me as well as to the newsgroup, as I don't see the digest until it is almost a month out of date. Oh, the magic of electronic mail as it trickles through the networks.... This is in reference to the editorial placed several days ago. David Birnbaum VTIS001@NMSUVM1.BITNET Programmer, Small Systems dbirnbau@nmsu.edu New Mexico State University <-- they pay my bills, but they don't Las Cruces, New Mexico USA write my opinions.... ------------------------------ Reply-To: mordor!rutgers!trout.nosc.mil!pnet01!jim Date: Fri, 15 Jul 88 19:55:59 PDT From: mordor!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim (Jim Bowery) To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: Space Station Alternatives Required In recent talks with a very pro-space congressman the local chapter of the National Space Society has voiced its concern that if the space station is cancelled there won't be any U. S. space facilities available. This congressman, who has supported full funding for the space station every time it came up, is certain that, for political reasons, the space station WILL BE CANCELLED. He shares our concern. We ask the help of all pro-space people in ensuring that there are alternatives to the space station just in case. Jim Bowery PHONE: 619/295-8868 PO Box 1981 La Jolla, CA 92038 UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 88 22:49:28 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!orchid!gmwalma@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Michael Walma) Subject: Re: Unethical National Space Society election In article <1221@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: >Am I the only one who is getting increasingly weary of NSS airing its >dirty laundry on the net? > >Phil No. Michael Walma gmwalma@orchid.waterloo.edu ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 88 08:00:06 GMT From: voder!apple!winter@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Patty Winter) Subject: Re: Von Braun quote In article <3330@charon.unm.edu> ee2131ac@geinah.unm.edu.UUCP (SEDS-UNM) writes: > >Hmmmm. I wonder if that Phil is really a computer... Phil <-> Hal ??? I'll vouch for Phil. He is definitely human. Not a computer. Not even an android. (I don't care *what* Tasha said about Data. Besides, that was hundreds of years from now; androids aren't nearly that good yet.) Trust me. :-) :-) Patty ------- Patty Winter N6BIS [44.4.0.44] DOMAIN: winter@apple.com UUCP: {decwrl,nsc,sun,dual}!apple!winter ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 88 21:21:33 GMT From: att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!db.toronto.edu!hogg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Hogg) Subject: Re: Space Suits In article <8807112314.AA12967@diamond.tamu.edu> bruce@DIAMOND.TAMU.EDU (Bruce D. Wright) writes: >The important issue here may be that it takes about 3 psi (160 mm Hg) >oxygen partial pressure to maintain about 100 mm Hg oxygen partial >pressure in the alveoli of the lungs. Below this partial pressure the >blood does not saturate with oxygen while passing through the lungs. >Trying to hold 3 psi pressure in your lungs relative to the pressure >outside of your body would probably cause an embolism to occur, not to >mention that breathing extreme positive pressures like this would be >REALLY exhausting. > >Also, breathing pure oxygen at such low total pressure causes >atelectasis to occur. This is alveoli collapse caused by the oxygen in >the alveoli being absorbed into the blood. The carbon dioxide >remaining in the alveoli doesn't have enough pressure to withstand the >blood pressure outside of the alveoli, thus, they collapse. Coughing >can reinflate them, but this seems like a really stressing environment, >not to mention the constant worry about the vacuum causing boils to >raise in your skin in all those hard to cover places and the hassle >(and health risks) of necessary decompression for every EVA. Adding >good old inert nitrogen will alleviate these health risks, although it >adds its own problems. These are certainly problems that have to be addressed in an SAS design, but they also crop up in traditional ``airtight bag'' designs. Current suits are run at about 4 psi, and the pressures for an SAS would be similar. Thus, the problems with atelectasis would be no greater than at present. With respect to embolisms, remember that there *is* a pressure vessel in the system: it's the user's skin, backed up by the fabric. Inside the skin the pressure stays at a comfy .25 atm. The SAS system doesn't involve positive pressure breathing. The crudest design involves the chest being squeezed by fabric in the same way as the rest of the body. This means that neither inhalation nor exhalation intrinsically involve working against a pressure differential, although various departures from the ideal mean that this won't be true in practice. The developed SASs had a ``breathing bag'' wrapped around the chest within a non-elastic Nomex torso portion of the suit. When the user breathed in, the bag collapsed just as much as the chest expanded, and the reverse occurred on exhalation. Thus, no work had to be done against the material. (I oversimplify a bit, but not much.) >There is always a measure of trade-offs in any engineering design. Loss of >mobility is a drag, but maybe the health risks are worse in a 'skin suit'. If >it was me up there, I would want a full pressure suit that was engineered for >whatever mobility was possible, then make up the difference with good tools. If somebody told me, ``You have two weeks to build a suit which you will then wear in vacuum'', I would go for a bag myself. However, given a bit more time and a small (five-figure) budget, I would give an SAS a *very* close look. Mind you, I wouldn't destroy the tooling for today's garments while I was doing so... John Hogg | hogg@csri.toronto.{edu,cdn} Computer Systems Research Institute| uunet!csri.toronto.edu!hogg University of Toronto | hogg%csri.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net (arpa) | hogg@csri.utoronto (bitnet) ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jul 88 18:40:08 GMT From: yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Delta launch complex transferred to Air Force (Forwarded) Jim Cast Headquarters, Washington, D.C. July 15, 1988 George Diller Kennedy Space Center, Fla. Captain Marty Hauser U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. RELEASE: 88-99 DELTA LAUNCH COMPLEX TRANSFERRED TO AIR FORCE After 143 Florida launches of the Delta expendable launch vehicle, NASA has officially transferred custody of Launch Complex 17 and East Coast Delta launch operations to the U.S. Air Force. Under an agreement signed by NASA Administrator Dr. James C. Fletcher and Air Force Secretary Edward C. Aldridge, Jr., formal handover of the two-pad complex, located at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla., was effective July 1. Accountability of Delta production tooling and mission checkout equipment also was transferred under the agreement. The first successful NASA Delta launch from Complex 17 took place 28-years ago in August 1960. Its payload, Echo-I, was a 100-foot-diameter, reflective communications balloon which became a familiar orbital sight to a world-wide audience of nighttime sky watchers. NASA's final Delta launch from Complex 17 occurred earlier this year, on February 8, when a Strategic Defense Initiative Organization payload was successfully placed into orbit. Under Air Force stewardship, Complex 17 will continue to be used to launch Delta medium class vehicles. The Air Force has procured 20 new Delta IIs for DOD payloads. The first launch is scheduled for later this year. In addition, at least eight commercial Delta IIs will be launched by McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company, Huntington, Beach, Calif., from Complex 17 between 1989 and 1992. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V8 #304 *******************