Message-ID: <0YBjwzy00UkZ0FLU4f@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Mon,  3 Apr 89 00:21:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #332

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 332

Today's Topics:
		     space news from Jan 30 AW&ST
  Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)
			    out the window
			   Re: Cold Fusion
	  Re: Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
	    Need lunar and planetary surface-features data
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 89 23:39:36 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Jan 30 AW&ST

US antimatter research (notably for space propulsion) is being affected
by a shortage of antiprotons.  CERN, the only major source at present,
dedicates its supply to basic research [and also has political reservations
about involvement in anything that hints of military applications, even
fairly innocuous ones like space propulsion].  DoD considers it urgent
to develop a domestic antiproton source; modification of the SSC is being
looked at.

Interior Dept's Bureau of Land Management is evaluating use of Geostar
to track its own aircraft in flight.

China's first polar-orbit metsat, which failed after 39 days in flight,
may have died because of attitude-control problems.  (It is also known
to have had overheating problems in its imager, but image quality was
nevertheless good.)

Future of SDI deployment uncertain under Bush.  He is thought likely to
take treaty compliance more seriously than Reagan did, and the limited
usefulness and high price of a treaty-compliant system will probably
scuttle it.

Arianespace hopes to launch 13 payloads on 9 Arianes this year, to help
clear its growing backlog.  Tentative FY88 financial results for Arianespace
show it making a profit of about $17M on revenues of $612M.  Formal signing
of contracts for the 50-unit production batch of Ariane 4s is imminent.
There is slight disappointment at managing only 7 launches, rather than
the planned 8, in 1988, but the performance was still credible.

Britain is reconsidering the idea of taking a limited role in Ariane 5,
despite its earlier complete rejection of the program.  The possible
limited role would be through a bilateral deal with France rather than
direct participation at the ESA level.  This would give British industry
Ariane 5 contracts without compromising the rejection of a direct role
for the government.

SEP [which builds Ariane engines] will test-fire an uncooled high-temperature
composite nozzle on an Ariane third-stage engine.  The carbon / silicon
carbide composite retains strength up to 1800C, eliminating the complexity
and mass of the cooling system needed for metal nozzles.  This is strictly
a technology testbed; no application to production Ariane third stages is
planned at present.

GOES-West's imager fails, putting the US back to one Clarke-orbit metsat
again.  GOES-East is being shifted to a more central position to give
better coverage of winter storms; it will be shifted back somewhat in
spring for hurricane monitoring.  The outer fringes of the coverage areas,
notably Alaska, Hawaii, and the eastern Caribbean islands, will see
reduced warning time for serious storms.  The failure was expected, as
GOES-West was beyond its rated lifetime and the encoder lamp that failed
is a known trouble spot with the old GOES design.  GOES-East has enough
fuel to operate until mid-1990, when the first next-generation GOES will
be launched.

QM-8 SRB firing on Jan 20, the low-temperature test, was successful.
This officially concludes the SRB redesign program, although plans are
in the works for ongoing tests on a more relaxed schedule.  The only
test specifically planned yet is one in spring 1990 to qualify the use
of ammonium-perchlorate oxidizer from Pacific Engineering's new plant.

Coverage of the decision to replace Discovery's oxygen turbopumps.
There was some consideration of postponing the mission, since the pad
absolutely had to be clear by March 14 to avoid delays for Magellan,
but not launching TDRS-D would have threatened postponement of the
Hubble telescope launch, which NASA preferred to avoid.

Last Intelsat 5 went up on Ariane Jan 26.

DoT sets insurance minima for commercial launches:  Martin Marietta and
McDonnell Douglas must buy $80M of insurance for commercial Titan and
Delta launches, General Dynamics $75M for each commercial Atlas.  These
numbers are for damage to government property; third-party liability
insurance will also be required, but this will be set individually for
each launch for now.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

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

Date: 30 Mar 89 00:20:15 GMT
From: ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Rick Wojcik)
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)


    Henry Spencer has been arguing that (1) it is currently possible to send
manned missions into space at a profit,  (2) the Soviets are already doing so,
and (3) there is nothing wrong with sending up nontechnical passengers, as
long as they can pay for their passage.  In particular, he believes that we
ought to consider broadcasting entertainment spectacles such as rock concerts
from the space shuttle.  We both probably agree that space should be developed
commercially, but we disagree on how to go about that now.  I prefer to limit
manned missions almost exclusively to scientific and professional personnel
who can make the most efficient use of these extremely expensive missions.  I
consider media events such as rock concerts to be a frivolous waste of
precious technology.

Henry Spencer responds to a previous posting of mine:
> What on Earth (or in space :-)) are you talking about?  [The Soviets] don't
> need to have the "appearance" of routine space flights -- they have routine
> space flights, and have had them for years.

I suppose that we could quibble over how to interpret the word 'routine'.
There is little question that the Soviets have been exploiting their
consistency for propaganda value, as you yourself admit.  They have timed some
events to embarrass us.  I wish that Congress would get more embarrassed, but
they seem to have pretty thick skins.  As I understand it, the main mission of
Soviet manned flights is to explore the effects of long stays in space on the
human body.  The Soviet government has given the impression that it is willing
to sell space on missions--to our embarrassment, since we 'capitalists' don't
have any missions to sell.  That's neat propaganda, which you seem to have
taken at face value.

> I don't deny that they are exploiting it for all the political gain they
> can get.  However, it is a mistake to assume that they're subsidizing it.
> I've previously posted a back-of-the-envelope calculation showing that,
> at their current prices, it is almost impossible for them to be losing
> money on it.  I, for one, think they're making a real, cash profit.

"Back-of-the-Envelope?"  I'm not familiar with that accounting software.  :-)
Did you count development costs on the back of your envelope?  Did you place a
value on displaced scientific research?  Well, perhaps it is the 'back-of-the-
envelope' method that has turned the Soviet economy into such a roaring
success.  ;-)

> Don't you think...knowledge is likely to be expanded by flying a wider
> cross-section of people than athletic professional astronauts?

How, pray tell?  Why would we learn more by sending up poorly-trained people
who are less cost-effective at carrying out the missions?  If you are
concerned about the physical fitness of astronauts, I'm sure that we could
find a few flabby scientists to send up.  :-)

>>... There is
>>always the danger that space flight will be ended permanently because we can
>>no longer afford the resources to sustain it.
>Nonsense.  Spaceflight consumes an utterly negligible fraction of the
>world's resources, especially when it is done economically and efficiently
>(not a US specialty).  What is dangerously low is not resources, but will.
>In the US, that is.

Sorry for the lack of clarity on my part.  I meant budgetary resources.  Space
research and development is tremendously expensive.  It is a strain on both us
and the Soviets.  There is constant pressure to cut back on it.  Given that
our priorities are constantly shifting, scientific research in space--which
has no immediate, tangible return--is a tempting target for budget cutters.
The environment is already noticeably out of whack.  I think that we are going
to be diverting major resources into our own survival in a couple of decades.
We may need the space technology to solve some of those problems, but it will
be harder to scrape up the money resources in the future.

>...Remember that [the Soviet] treasury and their economy are one and the
> same, so they can count up indirect benefits as well as direct ones.

Sorry, but I don't know what it means to say that their treasury and economy
are one and the same.  They are subject to the same economic laws that we are.
What benefits do they count up that we don't?  

[on calling up the Soviets to verify Spencer's 'facts']
> The [Soviet] embassy could probably refer you to the right place:  Space
> Commerce Corp. in Houston, the US representatives for most Soviet space
> services. 

Gosh.  Space Commerce Corp.  You wouldn't be confusing manned missions with
satellite missions, would you?  I don't deny the profitability of putting up
unmanned satellites.  That is much less expensive and difficult than manned
missions.  The fact that the Soviets advertise the availability of manned
space flight doesn't mean that they intend to sell it to all comers or that
they are making a profit on it.  I imagine that they take a very close look at
who gets to go up in the limited number of flights that they can afford each
year.  Unlike you, I believe that propaganda value is the sole criterion for
selling flights to nontechnical people. 

>>The idea of getting people to "take over" our space
>>program, operating it as a commercial venture, went out the window because it
>>was impractical.  It was dreamed up by people who thought that the free
>>market was the answer to everything...
>Yes, ridiculous uncommercial people like Boeing.  And it went out the
>window because NASA wasn't interested in relinquishing control, despite
>a few encouraging noises early on.

I would be interested in clarification here.  Do you mean that Boeing, or some
other aerospace company, wanted to 'take over' our manned space flight
program?  I'm not sure that any company, or consortium of companies, has any
such desire.  What for?  They are working with the government, which is the
only conceivable customer for manned space flight right now.  Who was that
stubborn, hidebound NASA supposed to relinquish control to?  There ain't
nobody there.  That's why I called the idea impractical.  Only governments can
afford to fund this kind of scientific research right now.


-- 
Rick Wojcik   csnet:  rwojcik@atc.boeing.com	   
              uucp:   uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik

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

Date: 31 Mar 89 16:55:24 GMT
From: uflorida!haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdb.jhuapl.edu!jwm@g.ms.uky.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: out the window

In article <607281503.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
}>... My question is why were there no cabin views during
}>the launch? Come to think of it, I don't recall cabin views at launch
}
}I have seen two different films with out of the window pictures during
}launch.
}
}Both were quite impressive.

I saw a film taken during re-entry.  Looking out of the window into an
orange glow MUST cause some interesting feelings...


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck

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

Date: 30 Mar 89 23:23:18 GMT
From: salt.uucp!dan@uunet.uu.net  (Dan Williams)
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion


	Just saw an Associated Press story claiming that James Fletcher
will be returning to the University of Utah to Head the states efforts to
cash in on the cold fusion breakthrough.  How about that for a cold fusion
space Tie in?   
	The Governor of Utah is trying to break loose $5 million for this
program.  Sounds a little light to me but they sure are acting fast.
	Also it looks like someone at the March 23 news conference stole
all the diagrams illustrating the process.  Look for news organizations
with exclusive diagrams. 

 _______________________________________________________
|   Fusion is a reality.  Just ask the Governor of Utah |
|   Dan Williams 		 uunet!salt!dan		|
|   MCDONNELL DOUGLAS 	 Denver CO			|
|   Any opinions expressed by me are not the 		|
|   opinions of McDonnell Douglas.			|

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

Date: 30 Mar 89 19:46:16 GMT
From: jarthur!jokim@uunet.uu.net  (John H. Kim)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature Fusion - possible indication?


In response to a few statements made on this subject:

Sifting through other other newsgroups, mainly sci.physics, sci.research
and sci.chem provides a wealth of additional information on this subject.
Anyone *really* interested in this (like me) should temporarily subscribe
to these groups (and any others you find).  Here the answers to a few
questions brought up in this newsgroup.

The little gizmo has (reputedly) put out 4W for 1W put into it for
>100 hours.

The reason for the disclosure to the (inaccurate) public press is that
someone leaked it.  The two original guys had planned to keep it under
wraps until the April or May edition of Nature (yes, they submitted it
and it was accepted).

A recent posting in sci.chem described the gizmo in detail.  I don't
know what the info source was but you should check it out if you're
following this.

:-) I can just see me in my old age:  "Grandpa, what was the world like
before we had energy from fusion?" :-)

JK
-- 
John H. Kim                 | (This space to be filled when I
jokim@jarthur.Claremont.EDU | think of something very clever 
uunet!muddcs!jarthur!jokim  | to use as a disclaimer)

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

Date: 30 Mar 89 13:54:48 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <2182@cpoint.UUCP>, alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes:
}power sources).  Nuclear and radioactive are extremely emotionally laden
}words with great camera appeal.

Yeah, that's why Nuclear Magnetic Resonance is now called Magnetic Resonance
Imaging.

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
			Disclaimer? I claimed something?
	You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.

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

Date: 30 Mar 89 22:47:50 GMT
From: mcdchg!ddsw1!karl@rutgers.edu  (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <2182@cpoint.UUCP> alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes:
>In addition, I expect the government to try to limit the use (if it works)
>to utility use only for two reasons.  First, there will be political pressure
>to protect the structure of utilities, despite the reality that we would
>be better off putting one of these in everyone's home and eliminiating the
>power grid.  

This I agree with whole-heartedly.  But the cat is now out of the bag, as it
were, and they'll NEVER stuff it back in should this technology pan out --
especially if it can be done with other, more common metals!

I wish the government good luck in trying to stop people from utilizing this
technology -- on just what grounds could they possibly manage to pull THAT
one off?

>Second, the US government tries to restrict access to heavy
>water, one of the reasons that heavy water reactors (which cannot melt
>down) are illegal for commercial (even utility) use in the US (they are
>standard issue in Canada).

Why is this so?  What in the dickens is so wonderful or terrifying about
heavy water (outside of this obvious application)?  Heck, it's present in 
SEAWATER -- no, not in high quantities, but it's there.  Nearly anyone who 
has the money and equipment should be able to extract it from the sea; I 
can't understand why they would not want it available..... perhaps I've 
missed something important here.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910]
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc.

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

Date: 31 Mar 89 15:52:17 GMT
From: ecsvax!dukeac!tcamp@mcnc.org  (Ted A. Campbell)
Subject: Need lunar and planetary surface-features data


I am currently engaged in work on a crude space-flight simulation 
program.  At this point the program can depict the earth as seen from 
particular orbits, utilizing earth surface-feature data from the 
"Micro World Database" which has been distributed publicly.  

I would like to have similar data on the moon and planets (at least 
planets about whose surface features much is known).  If anyone on 
the net has access to this sort of information (legitimately 
available, I'd be greatly interested).  Some parameters follow: 

(a) I can translate a number of different data formats, 
but I will eventually want the data in ASCII-readable form, 
since it will be utilized on both Unix-based and PC-style 
computers, with significant differences in their binary data
formats.  

(b) I am looking for mappings of surface features such as maria,
craters, large-scale mountain ranges, rilles, and the like.  

(c) The data needs to be indexed according to latitude and 
longitude coordinates.  

(d) The data should preferably take the form of l-l coordinates 
for points to be connected in lines, with some form of code 
indicating what type of surface features the lines indicate.  

(e) For my purposes, I need rather low-resolution data.  
The earth coordinates I use include only continental and 
island coastlines, and amount to about 2000 l-l points.  
Large-scale databases would have to be scaled down, and 
so some form of prioritization of coordinates would be 
helpful in larger databases.  

I'd also be interested in knowing if other similar projects
are underway (or have been completed).  I'll appreciate 
any help or advice.  

Ted A. Campbell
Duke University
Durham, NC

...!{ethos,ecsgate}!dukeac!tcamp
...!{ethos,ecsgate}!dukeac!numen!tcamp[A[A[B[B
tcamp@dukeac

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #332
*******************