Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.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 ; Sun, 24 Sep 89 17:59:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sun, 24 Sep 89 17:58:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #69 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 69 Today's Topics: Charged Dark Matter Images of "the face" re: Private launch costs Re: Edgar Rice Quayle on Mars. Re: NASA Headline News for 09/12/89 (Forwarded) Re: Progress M-1 (new type of cargo craft) launched to USSR's Mir station RTGs (was Re: How is Voyager powered?) Re: Frequently asked SPACE questions Re: Hurricane Gabrielle GIF pictures from GEOS ISDC 91 Conference announcement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Sep 89 20:20:50 GMT From: rochester!dietz@louie.udel.edu (Paul Dietz) Subject: Charged Dark Matter I noticed the following abstract in the 9/89 Bull. APS: Charged Dark Matter S. L. Glashow, Harvard Uuniversity We introduce as dark-matter candidates massive stable singly-charged particles (CHAMPs). Relic champs and antichamps in equal numbers may provide critical density for the universe and be the non-baryonic component of galactic halos. Cosmological arguments constrain its mass to be between .1-1 million amu. The flux of champs incident upon Earth should be ~0.1 grams/cm^2 Gy. Its abundance by mass in the crust should be ~0.1 ppm, and in lunar material ~ 100 ppm. Champs mimic superheavy isotopes. At least half should appear as hydrogen, the rest should be bound to light nuclei. We advocate the search for isotopes in this mass range in unrefined terrestrial, meteoritic and lunar samples. This work done with A. De Rujula and Uri Sarid. While I had thought that massive hydrogen-like atoms had been ruled out at these densities by mass spec searches, it would be extremely interesting if these particles actually exist. If both positive and negative champs have accumulated in the crusts of the solid bodies of the solar system (the negative ones in light nuclei), they would form a readily storable matter-antimatter fuel for energy generation, rocketry and weaponry; the energy needed to dislodge a negative champ from its nucleus (and thus make it available for annihilation) would be on the order of 1 billionth of its rest energy. I note that at the hypothesized rate (1e-10 grams/cm^2 year), the earth is accumulating champs at the rate of 500 tonnes/year, which (if continuously annihilated) would liberate 1500 terawatts of energy. This exceeds the power of sunlight striking the entire earth. Renewable energy, indeed. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Sep 89 17:10 EDT From: Subject: Images of "the face" I caught the posting of some data of it, but it was lost in the bitbucket somehow. Could the person who posted the data send it to me at my e-mail address (or anyone who has it)? Thanks. Korac MacArthur K_MACART@UNHH.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Sep 89 10:46:54 PDT From: mordor!lll-tis!oodis01!riacs!rutgers!pnet01.cts.com!jim@angband.s1.gov (Jim Bowery) To: ucsd!nosc!crash!space@angband.s1.gov Subject: re: Private launch costs John Roberts writes: > Another problem: the USSR has just one "company" to supply all its launch > needs. If the US has 10 private launch companies, will it have to have 10 > times the USSR's launch volume for all the companies to have good economy > of scale? The Soviet government's effectiveness in space activities can, in general, be attributed to the fact that while our private sector is more effective than the Soviet public sector, our public sector is LESS effective than the Soviet public sector. Why this is so becomes obvious when you consider that the Soviet public sector has no private sector to tax -- any costs are born by itself, directly, whereas in the US (and other relatively free market economies) the governments have the luxury of becoming fat and lazy at the expense of the private sector. It is a simple matter of accountability, the US private sector is most accountable for its costs, the Soviet system is next most accountable for its costs and the US government is least accountable for its costs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Bowery Phone: 619/295-8868 PO Box 1981 Join the Mark Hopkins Society! La Jolla, CA 92038 (A member of the Mark Hopkins family of organizations.) UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!jim ARPA: crash!pnet01!jim@nosc.mil INET: jim@pnet01.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 89 19:10:30 GMT From: uccba!uceng!dmocsny@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (daniel mocsny) Subject: Re: Edgar Rice Quayle on Mars. In article <8909121607.AA03206@decwrl.dec.com>, klaes@wrksys.dec.com (N = R*fgfpneflfifaL) writes: > Vice President Dan Quayle, explained why the > United States should undertake a manned mission to Mars: "Mars is > essentially in the same orbit. Mars is somewhat the same distance > from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where > there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, there is > oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe." The two US presidents with the highest IQ's were, I believe, Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter. If Quayle ascends to the presidency, can we expect to enter an unprecedented time of prosperity? Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 89 13:33:57 GMT From: xanth!paterra@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Frank C. Paterra) Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 09/12/89 (Forwarded) In article <31762@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > NASA Headline News > Tuesday, Sept. 12, 1989 Audio:202755-1788 > ----------------------------------------------------------------- [stuff deleted] > Aerospace Daily says that NASA's international partners in the > space station freedom program remain disturbed over descoping > plans revealed last week. The publication reports that the > partners are concerned about not being included in the initial > descoping study and not being given options on proposed changes. > the Daily says if ESA, Japan and Canada remain dissatisfied with > changes proposed by a NASA-Langley review team they may invoke > dispute resolution procedures and request another meeting. The > trim back was prompted by probable congressional cuts of $400 > million from the Space Station program in the FY 90 budget. Does anyone have the poop on these "descoping plans"? Frank Paterra paterra@cs.odu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 89 16:21:25 GMT From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Progress M-1 (new type of cargo craft) launched to USSR's Mir station In article <2085@ibmpa.UUCP> szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: >>Was this wishlist based on an coherent, specific *plan*, or is it just all >>the projects you find attractive this week? > >No and no. Undiscovered nature and untapped markets are not coherent. They >do not have a "theme" or a "goal", and neither do my suggestions. This was >a general list of stuff space scientists and industrialists have desired >for a several years... In other words, it's all the projects *they* find attractive this week. Our lack of complete knowledge about the solar system means that plans may have to be modified in the light of new information, but it does *not* make it impossible or undesirable to *have* a plan. So long as each mission is conceived in isolation, each will have to fight for funding by itself, follow-ons to successful missions will be rare, and the pace of exploration will be slow. It doesn't have to be that way. >>I don't see any mention of >>Venus, not much of Mars, very little on asteroids, not much on the Moon, > >Lunar Polar Orbiter, Mars Observer 2, Asteroid Rendesvous, asteroid surveys, >and Lunar/Martian/Asteroid sample-return missions to Antartica... *One* mission apiece to the Moon and Mars. CRAF is Asteroid Flyby, not Asteroid Rendezvous. The missions to Antarctica return meteorites that *might* be from the Moon/Mars/asteroids, but are so poorly documented and have so many complicating factors that they are not much use as samples. A program which is *planned* knows where it's going. That means that one successful mission is followed by another. (For that matter, an unsuccessful mission is followed by another try, because if it's worth doing then it's worth persisting with. If you want a real nightmare, think about what happens if Galileo fails.) That means that missions are planned to support each other. That means you know what the second mission will be before you launch the first. Where are the follow-ons? >Starprobe is not high on my list either, but may be on other's. I'm easy >(as long as you don't propose spending $tens of billions!!!) The underlying >reasoning is: "if you want oil, drill lots of wells." Not one garganguant dry >hole at LEO. On the whole, I agree, but I draw very different conclusions. One mission per planet is not "lots of wells". We need smaller, less ambitious missions in much greater numbers. It's not impossible. In the mid-60s, there was a period of 18 months in which NASA launched *TWELVE* unmanned lunar missions. They could do this because they had a plan -- Apollo -- and those missions were a necessary part of it. >>And of course, assuming that killing the space station will free up that >>money to be spent on "worthier" space projects is ridiculous. > >It's not ridiculous to expect that we'll get a lot farther in space if >we get our priorities straight. It's not ridiculous to expect NASA to alter >its budget proposals to give more to space science and industry... It *is* ridiculous to expect Congress to allocate more money to areas that it has made it clear it doesn't care much about. Congress has little hesitation in altering NASA's budget proposals when it likes projects that NASA isn't funding adequately. -- V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 89 07:17:37 GMT From: emcard!wa4mei!kd4nc!wd4oqc@gatech.edu (John DeArmond) Subject: RTGs (was Re: How is Voyager powered?) szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (nick szabo) writes: >The >strontium RTG's presumably suffer from neither of these disadvantages. >I would like to see how they plan to protect customers from the radiation, >and how they plan to dispose of depleated RTG's. Radiation protection from Strontium is a simple matter. Sr-90 emits only a fairly energetic beta which is easily stopped by an inch or so of low-Z material. If the Sr-90 is encased in a high-Z material like stainless steel, Bremsstrahlung X-rays become a problem. The common practice is to encapsulate the isotope in a low-Z material like ceramic which are low Bremsstrahlung producers and which are in turn hermetically sealed in multiple, concentric stainless steel capsules. In terms of disposal, I'd hope that this would consist of refilling them with new Sr-90 capsules and redeploying! There is little to go wrong on these machines. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | Manual? ... What manual ?!? Radiation Systems, Inc. Marietta, GA | This is Unix, My son, You ...!gatech!kd4nc!wd4oqc **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!! ------------------------------ Date: 13 Sep 89 01:39:32 GMT From: ginosko!usc!csun!psivax!quad1!ttidca!sorgatz@uunet.uu.net ( Avatar) Subject: Re: Frequently asked SPACE questions In article <8909101100.AA29483@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> eugene@AMELIA.NAS.NASA.GOV (Eugene Miya) writes: +This list does change. + +1) What happen to Saturn V plans? What about reviving the Saturn V +as a heavy-lift launcher? + +Possible but very expensive -- tools, subcontractors, plans, facilities +are gone or converted for the shuttle, and would need rebuilding, +re-testing, or even total redesign. + Excuse me, but I take exception your having posted this as if it were a cast-in-concrete fact. Ever since STS this has been the NASA party-line on the subject. Not everyone is so sure of this, Eugene. A partial reason for my reaction is the current breakdown of the NASA budget; go look at a copy if you are unsure...the real heavy costs have nothing whatsoever to do with anything like tools or parts...the real costs involved in doing anything at NASA (but especially anything that looks like WORK! ;-) ) involve having at least 3 levels of management! The facts are: 1) There are 3 semi-complete Saturn V units available for reverse-engineering. 2) Engineers (not MANAGERS!) could, in a matter of months, cut new NC/CNC tapes for a majority of the required structural components. 3) The electrical sub-system could be re-engineered using modern PC-based circuit emulator packages; the harnesses could be built and tested in any number of wire-houses (most of which are in Mexico, BTW!) that now supply such complex wiring looms for major computer manufacturers, at about 1/2 the cost of the orignal wiring looms! 4) Rockwell's Rocketdyne Div. CAN STILL SUPPLY F-1 ENGINES. Too costly? Not compared to the Shuttle! People keep pointing to the Soviets and mumbling about BigDumbBoosters...cripes! We HAD this down to a fine, science long ago..we could do it again, and it's not as expensive as the NASA party line would have you believe. The real reason that everyone in management at KSC keeps spouting this lie is to keep a lid on the fact that they all GOOFED when we went to STS, and that their fat-ass salaries chew up most of the damn budget. No :-)'s here, check it out.... -- -Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY +-------------------------+ Citicorp(+)TTI *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 * 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2973 +-------------------------+ Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun,philabs,randvax,trwrb}!ttidca!ttidcb!sorgatz ** ------------------------------ Date: 12 Sep 89 18:23:03 GMT From: cica!ctrsol!IDA.ORG!roskos@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Eric Roskos) Subject: Re: Hurricane Gabrielle GIF pictures from GEOS Phil forwarded to me a question someone asked about how these pictures were produced. Unfortunately the posting in which the question appeared has not arrived here, so I will follow up to the original posting. Note, incidentally, that the pictures are not from GEOS, they are primarily from the NOAA TIROS-N satellites. The equipment used to produce these pictures is as follows: - Dressler ARA-800 active antenna - Kenwood R-5000 with internal VC-20 VHF converter - A&A Engineering WEFAX demodulators - PC/AT clone - My own software to produce the raw data - FBM to produce the GIF images The R-5000 unfortunately does not have adequate bandwidth for the satellite pictures, which is the reason for the snow in some of the whitest and blackest portions of the picture. -- Eric Roskos (roskos@CS.IDA.ORG or Roskos@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL) -- Eric Roskos (roskos@CS.IDA.ORG or Roskos@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Sep 89 10:58:41 CDT From: richard@pemrac.space.swri.edu (Richard Murphy) Subject: ISDC 91 Conference announcement In keeping with its international flavor, the Space Development conference is held each year in a prominent U.S. city. In 1988 it was Denver, with its magnificent snow-capped mountains; 1989 is Chicago, the gate-way to the Great Lakes; and 1990 will find us in Los Angeles, the show-biz capital of the world. The year 1991 will be no exception. We will meet in multi-cultured San Antonio, Texas, the 9th largest city in the United States. A city of festivals and the historically famous Alamo. A city . . . Where strolling along the Paseo del Rio (riverwalk) is a unique experience - a way of life for residents and visitors alike, Where roving mariachi bands provide dancing in the streets, and Where savoring the mouth-watering flavor of a real taco is not to be missed. Plan now to attend this exciting conference in a truly exotic and fun place. You will be updated by experts on NASAUs status, the Russian space program, and other international space activities. Don't delay . . . 1991 will be here before you know it. Return the following form along with your $50.00 registration fee by May 1, 1990, after which time the price will be increased. This will ensure your participation in what promises to be a fantastic conference and will support conference preparation. Cancellation must be made four (4) weeks before the conference. There is a $15.00 non-refundable handling fee. Send registration to: Beatrice Moreno Southwest Research Institute P.O. Drawer 28510 San Antonio, Texas 78228-0510 To obtain further information: Carol A. Luckhardt Southwest Research Institute P.O. Drawer 28510 San Antonio, Texas 78228-0510 (512) 522-3823 or 340-1290 Internet: isdc-91@pemrac.space.swri.edu Usenet: convex!pemrac!isdc-91 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #69 *******************