Return-path: 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 ; Tue, 11 Apr 89 00:19:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Tue, 11 Apr 89 00:18:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #356 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 356 Today's Topics: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update) Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update) General Aviation and Space Flight (gov't intervention) Asteroids and Pd fusion Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications? Re: A brief history of Soviet Mars probes. Re: Apollo [non] Fire Re: UFO/Shuttle Re: Aliens and the law Reply to the message about general science boredom ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Apr 89 08:05:15 GMT From: att!alberta!ubc-cs!van-bc!sl@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update) In article <530@qvax2.UUCP> jerry@qvax2.UUCP (Jerry Gardner) writes: }In article <1989Apr3.174529.1476@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: }>the current shuttle program is enough to make you cry. The dream may be }>alive, but not at NASA headquarters. }I'm curious, how's the Canadian space program doing these days? At least we don't delude ourselves into thinking we have one. Who's the bigger fool: Canada for realizing that it can't afford one, or the US for totally mis-managing their's. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca uunet!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax) ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 89 21:25:57 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update) In article <11002@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes: >... In particular, he believes that we >ought to consider broadcasting entertainment spectacles such as rock concerts >from the space shuttle... Not precisely right; what I believe is that we should consider not *forbidding* others from doing so, provided they can pay a fair price for it. This is supposed to be the "free world", remember? Where most commercial activity is undertaken by individuals, not by the government, and usually without having to beg permission first? >... 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... Who defines "most efficient"? Given that these missions *are* very costly, especially on US launchers, should not some weight be given to the ability of the would-be launchee to pay for it? Don't you think that public support for the shuttle would be higher if there was some chance that a mere mortal could get to fly on it? (The old idea of a "shuttle lottery" had merit.) Should "most efficient" be defined the democratic way -- popular vote -- or by Mama Knows Best? (If the latter, who gets to be Mama?) >I consider media events such as rock concerts to be a frivolous waste of >precious technology. Yeah, isn't it dreadful how much money goes into silly media events, money that could go into some truly *worthy* cause? "Worthy" as defined by us, of course. Who defines what's a "frivolous waste" and what isn't? >...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. Yeah, isn't it dreadful how that propaganda is being taken at face value by gullible people like France, Britain, Austria, Japan, Indonesia, ... all of whom are negotiating to take the Soviets up on the offer. And by India, which is paying for commercial launches on Soviet boosters. And by Payload Systems, which is paying for launch of a microgravity payload to Mir in a few months. Amazing how convincing that propaganda is; it seems to have convinced the Soviets too. >> 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... > >Did you count development costs on the back of your envelope? Did you place a >value on displaced scientific research? What development costs? The hardware is 20 years old and long since paid for. What displaced scientific research? Soyuz can hold either two or three crew; almost certainly paying passengers will simply go up as a third crewman on a flight that would normally have carried two. (I greatly doubt that the Soviets are so hungry for cash that they'll displace missions they would have flown anyway.) >Well, perhaps it is the 'back-of-the- >envelope' method that has turned the Soviet economy into such a roaring >success. ;-) Perhaps it is the 'back-of-the-envelope' method that has turned the Soviet space program into such a roaring success. It certainly seems to work better than the US's 'paperwork-by-the-kiloton' method. >>... 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... Again I say: nonsense. Space activity is a minute fraction of the US government budget, far less expensive than many other activities. Again I say, more explicitly: what is lacking is not resources, but will. The US could triple its spaceflight funding without measurable impact on the budget, if the will was there. It's not. >> 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? Nope. SCC is the US marketing rep for unmanned launches, Soyuz launches, space on Mir, tours of Baikonur, you name it. Almost everything except Soyuzkarta earth-resources images. >>>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... > >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? ... In a word, yes. Look up the history of Astrotech, for starters. It wasn't the only one, either. As I recall, there were two bids that got as far as formal proposals (which NASA sat on until they died) and several informal expressions of interest (including at least one from Boeing, which has wanted to get into the spaceflight business for a long time). >...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... So what? You can make lots of money selling services to the government, even services nobody else would buy. Ask any defence contractor. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 89 21:20:24 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@apple.com (MacLeod) Subject: General Aviation and Space Flight (gov't intervention) In article <1989Apr3.174529.1476@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Aircraft capable of carrying useful passenger loads were more expensive >than you think, especially compared to the purchasing power of the fledgling >airlines. The fact is, airlines which tried to make money carrying >passengers and ordinary freight consistently went broke in the early years. >The US airline industry, and its aircraft suppliers, were kept alive by >lucrative government air-mail contracts. No equivalent for spaceflight >has yet appeared. Airlines are still going broke, and the survivors are often hurting. Under government regulation, "the trains ran on time"; after decades of doing "business" in this way, one might expect it to take a decade or more to convert over to an unregulated system. Unfortunately the airlines are such vital services that the public won't stand for much in the way of chaos; I suspect the carriers are closer to re-regulation than they realize. Part of the blame for the chaos goes to the *non*-deregulation of gate slots at airports - _Reason_ magazine had a good article about this recently. I hope that the same thing doesn't happen to the US space program - i.e., years of operation as a state-operated and regulated monopoly, losing money and remaining noncompetitive - then a catastrophic deregulation that follows creating an even bigger problem. Michael SLoan MacLeod (amdahl!drivax!macleod) ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 89 01:53:06 GMT From: amdahl!nsc!andrew@apple.com (andrew) Subject: Asteroids and Pd fusion The following quantifies the use of the stored energy from P&F Pd to get to the asteroid belt, for which a deltaV of 7 Km/s is required. It's assumed that the heat energy is used, stored at about 1e9 J/Kg of Pd. The existence of a heatsink at 3 degK should be a great help for the engine design. I am assuming no use of fusion particle byproducts and am neglecting the weight of deuterium required. If is the mass of the (non-exhausting) Pd fuel and the asteroid mass returned, the available energy is 1e9.m, and the energy required for the return trip is 0.5(dV**2)(M + 2.m). Thus for a positive energy budget, M < 40m. Since it is unlikely that Pd ore is present at 2.5% richness, the fuel weight will exceed the mined weight of Pd - unless mining is done _in situ_. In any case, iron, nickel etc. will be capable of being returned in the raw ore state in quantities about equal to the fuel weight, assuming 3% ore quality. Taking 5% of the current annual Pd supply as fuel (reasonable for a major global undertaking like this) or (3.5/20) Moz ~= 5000 Kg. I am at a loss to specify the power available, which would allow the calculation of the total trip time - any data, anyone? ===== Andrew Palfreyman USENET: ...{this biomass}!nsc!logic!andrew National Semiconductor M/S D3969, 2900 Semiconductor Dr., PO Box 58090, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 ; 408-721-4788 there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 89 20:40:19 GMT From: sgi!daisy!wooding@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Mike Wooding) Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications? In article <9217@dasys1.UUCP>, tbetz@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Betz) writes: > And, of course, if you keep your acceleration (a fusion powered > drive would seem to be just the ticket for this) at a pretty > constant 1 G, you can avoid the effects of 0 G pretty much > altogether. Of course, to keep your v below c, you may have to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > be decelerating at 1 G almost as much as you are accelerating at > 1 G, with brief spurts of 0 G while you're turning the ship Is there a missing smiley? Remember 186000mps is not just a good idea; IT'S THE LAW! m wooding ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 89 16:11:31 GMT From: tank!eecae!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1!lusgr@handies.ucar.edu (STEVE ROSEMAN) Subject: Re: A brief history of Soviet Mars probes. In article <8904071407.AA05539@decwrl.dec.com>, klaes@mtwain.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) writes: >... > There was a nine-year gap between MARS 1 and the next "official" > Mars missions, MARS 2 and 3. >... > Larry Klaes Thanks for the interesting article, Larry. I did find 1 omission, though. On November 30, 1984, Russia launched Zond-II, "soon noticed that the power supply of their spacecraft was only half of what is should have been. ..several weeks later the power supply of Zond-II dropped to zero; the spacecraft was useless." (From Willy Ley, 'Rockets, Missles, and Men in Space') I would not have even noticed (or cared), if I hadn't had the book on my desk to return to the library today. -- Steve Roseman Lehigh University Computing Center LUSGR@VAX1.CC.Lehigh.EDU ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 89 17:16:33 GMT From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Apollo [non] Fire In article <2668@epiwrl.EPI.COM> parker@epiwrl.EPI.COM (Alan Parker) writes: >There was no electrical fire. A tank ruptured... Close but no cigar; there was a fire *inside* the tank -- degraded Teflon insulation burning (!!) in supercritical LOX -- which raised the pressure enough to rupture the tank. It was not an electrical fire except that a spark from the tank heater's contacts presumably set it off. >... I suspect that the time >of that transmission, that is exactly all they knew; that "we have a >problem". What they knew was that (a) they'd heard a loud noise and felt a bump and (b) they were starting to see indications of electrical problems. "We have a problem" was a reasonable thing to say, given that they didn't understand what was wrong yet but knew it looked serious. Remember that test pilots are trained to be calm and factual in a crisis. (The first trouble call from Apollo 1 was not "help!" or "fire!" or "get us out!" but "fire in the spacecraft!", an unambiguous report of what was wrong.) -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 89 00:22:35 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@apple.com (MacLeod) Subject: Re: UFO/Shuttle In article <3074.2438CE46@stjhmc.fidonet.org> Jim.Grubs@f1.n234.z1.fidonet.org (Jim Grubs) writes: >I have been following the thread of stories about the alleged UFO sighting >during STS-19. I am relieved (?) to discover there is a topic for dispute more >stupid than the Code War. Rage on, guys, I love it!!! I did the original posting, and I have checked back on ParaNet Alpha (1-303-431-1343) to see if there has been any further information. The original poster noted that immediately after he announced the incident on Compuserve that discussion group crashed for about 15 minutes, which he claims "never happens". As I have said, my rule in fringe stuff like this is, "read everything, believe nothing." Michael Sloan MacLeod (amdahl!drivax!macleod) ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 89 23:13:40 GMT From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@apple.com (MacLeod) Subject: Re: Aliens and the law In article <8904032324.AA20569@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes: ::what equipment would you take to an alien encounter?. How are the astronauts ::not equipt to handle an encounter with aliens?. : :Among other things, the body of law is not ready for such an encounter. I :believe I read somewhere that if intelligent aliens were to land in the :US, they would be legally classified as animals (and a non-native species :without an import license at that). I will have to dig out the reference, but I have seen a federal legal citation that makes civilian contact with aliens a rather serious felony, with a provision to hold the contactee indefinitely without any recourse. It may have been a hoax, but it looked real. Michael Sloan MacLeod (amdahl!drivax!macleod) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Apr 89 02:04 EDT From: John Taylor Subject: Reply to the message about general science boredom >Date: Mon, 3 Apr 89 20:58 CST >From: Scott Hess >Subject: Bored public >The main thrust of the masses today is away from knowledge of technology, >and towards use of it. American masses; you can't say this about the Japeneese, and several other countries, for that matter... >Else, why was everyone so freaked about Three Mile >Island? This annoys me also. The whole accident was simply a recirculating pump failure; it was blown *way* out of proportion. >They don't think its [technology is] 'magic', but it is close enough that >there is no difference. This is everywhere; Crystal Gayle was on the Tonight Show last week with her Crystals that "vibrated at the same frequency as water." She seemed to think that this was benefical because, hey, she's mostly water anyway. {sigh} >I guess mayhaps most of this doesn't belong here, [...] And maybe it does. This board is used for discussion of lots of things not pertaining directly to Space; this is so, presumably, because alot of 'things not pertaining directly to Space' must be changed before there is more than a meager flow of "discussionable" material. You're not the only one who worries about the scientifically vacuous public; they're the key to getting what we all want: lots of US space activity. Let's hope President Bush does, in fact, become "The Education President" so the next generation won't have to deal with these problems. >Scott Hess ------------ John Taylor -- SUNY at Buffalo Bitnet : v131q5cg@ubvmsc Internet: v131q5cg@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #356 *******************