Return-path: <ota+space.mail-errors@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from holmes.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 </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/oYD4Gsy00UkZEDq05g>;
          Fri,  7 Apr 89 01:18:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <kYD4Ggy00UkZMDoE5O@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri,  7 Apr 89 01:18:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #344

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 344

Today's Topics:
	       POssible confirmation of nuclear fusion?
		       Re: Deuterium extraction
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #331
	 Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
		Re: Success with cold fusion reported
		       Re: SPACE Digest V9 #322
		 Re: Solid State Fusion for Launchers
	Rosen named Acting Associate Administrator (Forwarded)
 Re: Soviet Phobos II probe fails just before final approach to moon
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 89 16:29:28 GMT
From: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu  (Matthew T. DeLuca)
Subject: POssible confirmation of nuclear fusion?


From today's New York Times:                       

"Two Hungarian scientists have reportedly reproduced an experiment in which
researchers said they created nuclear fusion at room temperatures, the Hungariannews agency, MTI, said today."
.
.
.
"The agency said Dr. Gyula Csikai and Dr. Tibor Sztaricskai of the Experimental
Physics Department at Lajos Kossuth University at Debrecen conducted their 
experiment March 31.  But the agency did not say how much power had been
produced."

Hmmm...

This public service announcement brought to you by...


Matthew DeLuca                      :
Georgia Institute of Technology     : Remember, wherever you go, there you are.
ARPA: ccoprmd@pyr.gatech.edu        :

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

Date: 2 Apr 89 23:49:27 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Deuterium extraction

In article <Added.EYBTt7y00Vs142oE8l@andrew.cmu.edu> K_MACART@UNHH.BITNET writes:
>        Apparently, all you have to do is electrolysis.  The heavy water stays
>longer, so you stop when you have 1/1000 your initial volume...

Actually this is an inefficient way to make heavy water; it was used in
early experiments, and is still used for final purification, but there
are more efficient (although more complex) ways to do the early stages.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

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

Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1989 12:40-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #331

> Rockefeller of Standard Oil used to cut prices in local areas to kill
> off small competitors, then raise the prices again. The Japanese

Please verify. According to some authors this is a myth that is
unsupported by actual hard data from the period. Not having seen the
data either way, I will not claim which side is right, only point out
that it is not a proven statement.

> Americans are not anxious to lower American wages to the levels found
> elsewhere in the world, though the current trade policy leaves things

Too true. In a truly competitive world economy wages and prices world
wide would be driven to a median. The overly low would rise to meet the
overly high. So obviously, those who HAVE will use the government to
keep it at the expense of those who HAVE NOT. It is as true of the big
aerospace companies as it is of the typical mill worker. Management and
labor both wish to use the power of government to hold or enlarge their
peice of the pie at the expense of others who are not so fortunate.
Can't let those <fill in your favorite slur> get on the first rung...

> unless its prices are competitive. A very common practice in Japan is for
> a new business to be protected within the country by steep import
> tariffs,

And as long as the Japanese are willing to subsidize my purchase of
goods, fine. Their loss improves my living standard by allowing me to
purchase more goods and services for the same dollars than I would have
otherwise. Thus I get my stereo AND some other goods as well. Everyone
gains except the people who supply the subsidy. And if it is indeed a
case where the particular business gets a foothold and kills off it's
competition, then I suggest that you buy stock in the winner and invest
your profits in space business. You CAN buy from the Tokyo Exchange,
although not a lot of individuals do so. Of course I would also like to
totally discontinue all defense expenditures on their behalf. That
would put our economies on a more equal footing.

>business!  Mafia tactics rule in the US Government's economic policies.

I agree totally. The US subsidizes industries massively. Some are
blatant like the way the american farmer uses government to ripoff the
public. Others are not so blatant, as in the massive defense spending
used to support uncompetitive aerospace firms. Others are almost
criminal, as in the quota structures set up on behalf of particular
industry lobbies, usually by the method of buying a congressman and
getting him to log roll with other bought congressmen. Yes, certain
PARTICULAR subsidies may be less that elsewhere, but when you toss in
the sneaky ones, our government ain't no better than the Japanese. If
not worse.

Once a government grows past a small Jeffersonian size, it becomes a
status quo institution whose sole purpose is to make sure those
currently on top stay there. This is the reason why laissez faire never
had a chance here or anywhere else. Those who have would rather not
have to work (to societies benefit) to keep it. Not even a monopoly is
bad if they know their business is at risk if they don't provide fair
service and fair prices. Governments provide the service of insuring
that such competition is kept down "at gunpoint".

Speaking of monopolies. I'm gleefully visualizing the collapse of all
the public power utilities if this fusion technique pans out. "Natural"
monopolies are a figment of the imagination.

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

Date: 30 Mar 89 06:59:47 GMT
From: tektronix!percival!bucket!leonard@uunet.uu.net  (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <5849@pdn.nm.paradyne.com> alan@rnms1.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes:
<There is also a device called the "fusion torch," which can transmute 
<elements (platinum from mud, if you like).  Of course, this requires
<very advanced controlled-fusion reactors...

Actually at *much* lower temperatures, *all* molecules break down and 
*any* material fed into the torch will be "totally" ionized. Feed 
anything in, run the plasma thru a *giant* mass spectrograph and get
ISOTOPICALLY PURE elements out. (He3 and H3 have diufferent masses
as do all the other "same weight" isotopes)

Room te,p superconductors would help, but aren't *neccessary*. I like
this gizmo because it solves a lot of waste problems. Any chemical waste
is no problem, and nuclear wastes can be concentrated to pure elements
which can either be used in isotope generators or buried somewhere safe.
(after all, what percentage of most radioactive waste is *really* 
radioactive? Most is just "contaminated".)

Even if this sort of thing required a plant so large that we could only
have one per state it would still be useful. It isn't practical now due
to energy costs. But if cold fusion is practical.... wow!

-- 
Leonard Erickson		...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short

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

Date: 2 Apr 89 19:01:20 GMT
From: shelby!csli!cphoenix@decwrl.dec.com  (Chris Phoenix)
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

In article <291@fylz.UUCP> fyl@fylz.UUCP (Phil Hughes) writes:
>In article <8328@csli.STANFORD.EDU>, cphoenix@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Chris Phoenix) writes:
>| In other words, we could compensate for all the energy 
>| we use by covering a relatively small part of the earth's surface with
>| mirrors to reflect all the heat back out into space.  
>
>The way I read this, you said we should build cheap fusion reactors to
>supply our energy needs and they build mirrors to reflect an equal amount
>of energy back into space to keep the earth from heating up.  Richt?
>
>Might I suggest that it would be easier and cost less if you just built
>the mirrors to reflect the energy into a collection system and used that
>energy.  Or is this too low tech?
>
This is a lot harder to do.
For one thing, for a collection system the mirrors have to track the sun,
and reflect all the energy to one point.   With a reflective system they 
just have to get it anywhere above the horizon.
A collection system may not put the energy where we want it, and will require
storage facilities.

Assuming fusion reactors are easy enough to build to be useful at all, it
will be a lot easier to put a reactor where we want the power and the
simple mirrors where there's a lot of sun and unused land, than to try to
build and use a solar power plant.

In response to some earlier questions:  The greenhouse effect would not 
reflect the light back down to earth.  It reflects heat generated when 
light is absorbed by the earth.  If light hits mirrors, it will be broadcast
as light instead of heat.  This is the crucial difference.

Obviously, there would be environmental problems with coating a lot of the 
earth with mirrors.  But I don't see how they could be worse than those 
caused by our present fossil-fuel system.  We probably wouldn't need to 
coat all that much to make the difference--almost certainly less land area
than would be covered by water if the ice caps melted.

I'm not saying that this would necessarily be a good idea to do, just that
it would be a good idea to consider.  If I actually propose doing it, then
you can flame me for destroying the environment.

Chris Phoenix
cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu

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

Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1989 13:18-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #322

> but the government hasn't been overwhelmed with requests from companies 
> desiring to build AND FINANCE entire launch systems (including launch pads 
> and recovery facilities) on their own.

Hawaii
Florida
Australia.

And AMROC is building their own facility at Vandenburg because it is
too costly to get through the GOVERNMENT approval process for setting
up a launch range. The insanities of environmental impact statements
and risks to Hysterical Landmarks at VAFB (General Curtis LeMay's
summer cottage no less) make such construction difficult and costly
even on an existing range.

> Still, it doesn't mean that the US is always in the wrong and can't do 
> anything right, which is what you regularly appear to be saying.
> Lighten

If they are doing anything right, I'd love to know what it is.

> at times.  As a result, we often don't do things in the best way we could,
> and policies sometimes result that no one is perfectly happy with.

Reference: See "The Unexpurgated Grace Commission Report" for concrete
examples of the above decision making process.

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

Date: 2 Apr 89 17:34:51 GMT
From: rochester!dietz@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu  (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Solid State Fusion for Launchers

henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>>The second possibility is to use a smaller fusion reactor to preheat
>>fuel and/or oxidizer before injection into a conventional chemical
>>engine.
>
>I doubt the practicality of this.  Existing oxyhydrogen rockets already
>run fuel-rich partly to *cool* the exhaust a bit (and thus reduce thermal
>dissociation of water into oxygen and hydrogen).

So, a fusion preheated chemical rocket would be even more fuel rich.
In the limit, no oxygen is used at all, and the system is a purely nuclear
rocket.

I can also imagine a nuclear scramrocket.  A fusion NERVA rocket is used
as a fuel injector into a supersonic airstream, which serves as a thrust
augmentor.  This might be a better use of a nuclear rocket, since
peak power required is lower.

>If the power densities
>stay low, the big use will probably be as a power source for electrical
>propulsion in space.

I have a feelin that power densities can be increased markedly.  For
example, go to thinner pieces of Pd.  If lithium is involved in the
reaction, use purified Li6 (boosts the power density by a factor of
5).  Boost the amount of deuterium in the lattice by upping the
current density.  Try DT instead of D.

I've heard a report that the reaction doesn't work at high enough
temperatures, though.  Time to look for a better metal.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

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

Date: 30 Mar 89 21:40:11 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Rosen named Acting Associate Administrator (Forwarded)

Mary Sandy
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     March 30, 1989


RELEASE:  89-41

ROSEN NAMED ACTING ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR


     NASA Administrator Dr. James C. Fletcher today named Dr. 
Robert Rosen as acting associate administrator for aeronautics 
and space technology (OAST), effective April 2.  Rosen has served 
as deputy associate administrator OAST since March 1986.

     Rosen replaces acting associate administrator Dr. William F. 
Ballhaus, Jr. who returned to his permanent position as director 
of NASA's Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif.

     In his new position, Rosen will be responsible for the 
direction of NASA's aeronautics and space technology programs as 
well as for the institutional management of NASA's Ames Research 
Center, Langley Research Center and Lewis Research Center.

     Rosen joined NASA Headquarters in April 1985 as the 
director, propulsion, power and energy division, OAST.  Prior to 
coming to NASA, Rosen held key positions in private industry, 
including Rocketdyne, Canoga Park, Calif., 1979-1985, and 
McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company, Huntington Beach, Calif., 
1968-1979

     Rosen received a bachelor of science degree in 1960 from the
University of Miami, Coral Gables, Fla; a master of science 
degree in 1962 from Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill.; a 
mechanical engineering degree in 1966 from the California 
Institute of Technology, Pasadena; and a Ph.D. in 1968 from the 
University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

     A New York City native, Rosen and his family are residents 
of Vienna, Va.  He is married to the former Gail Brock and they 
have two sons.

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

Date: 2 Apr 89 09:51:03 GMT
From: unmvax!polyslo!jmckerna@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: Soviet Phobos II probe fails just before final approach to moon

Friday's LA Times had some interesting speculation as to the underlying causes
of the problems with the Phobos probes. They said the probes were the first of a
new type manufactured by a government contractor independent of the scientists
at the "Soviet Space Research Institute". The Times said that these basic probes
(to which the various experiments and other unique hardware are added)
have poor communication and computer facilities, and little redundancy, and
that they are the cause of the phobos problems. Appearantly the USA is not the
only country which has problems with lowest bid hardware from independent
government contractors.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #344
*******************