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/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Thu, 30 Nov 89 01:28:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 30 Nov 89 01:28:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #288 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 288 Today's Topics: Re: Why NASA wants to go to Mars Area 51 RE: Looking down, was; HST resolution Galileo Astronauts Honored at JPL Thiokol / Grand Jury Space Station Power (was Re: space news from Oct 2 AW&ST) Re: Antimatter Drives and Area 51 Re: Antimatter Drives and Area 51 What's an 'aerospike' booster configuration? NASA Headline News for 11/29/89 (Forwarded) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Nov 89 08:14:32 GMT From: norge!jmck@sun.com (John McKernan) Subject: Re: Why NASA wants to go to Mars In article <5567@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> goldader@uhccux.UUCP (Jeff Goldader) writes: >In article <5096@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> dhp@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (douglas.h.price,45261,ih,6x203,312 979 3664) writes: >>$400 billion applies if we continue to use 'standard' chemical rocket >>technology to get to Mars. If I invoke the nuclear propulsion >>technologies (eeek! the dreaded 'N' word!) the cost drops quickly to >>about $150 billion with our current understanding of the life support >>issues and the launch of all mass for the mission from earth. >And at that price, even *I* would say, "GO!" Anybody with a clear view of NASA's past and present would say "NO" at any price. Putting four people on Mars to take a quick look around and then leave is exactly what we accomplished with Apollo. Ie we put on a big show and showed what we are capable of, but we didn't actually end up with anything solid after all our effort and expense. I think EVERYBODY'S goal in manned space is the colonization of the solar system. NASA even mentions this goal buried amongst a dozen other conflicting "goals". But given this goal, all of NASA's manned space efforts are hopelessly misguided. The goal of moving millions of people into space requires substanstial technological advance in a number of areas. The most efficient way to do this is to fund lots of independent R&D efforts in the same way NSF projects are financed. NASA should simply be dismantled as inappropriate for the curent task, with the exception of things like JPL which already follow an NFS type model. John L. McKernan. jmck@sun.com Disclaimer: These are my opinions but, shockingly enough, not necessarily Sun's ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 1989 09:22:50 EST (Wed) From: Ralph Hartley Subject: Area 51 In the spirit of your posting. > There were less than 300 pounds of element 115, and probably less now. > Samples were tested in various university and government labs, including > mine. You wouldn't by any chance still have any still lying around, would you? I have been trying to obtain a small sample of 115, which is required for my research, for some time - so far without sucess. Apparently very little of this material seems to still exist in pure form (115's well known bizarre chemistry may have something to do with this). A few grams would be plenty. > You might remember the big *Popular Mechanics* article about it. There is no such article. However *Popular Science* had a short write up on the subject just as the excitement was starting to die down. You may have gotten the publications confused. >>This fuel is used to drive waveguide-type gravity amplifiers which >>are the FTL drive components of nine alien spacecraft > >Eight. One crashed during tests in August 1981. Three of the remaining >eight have now been dismantled. Could you point me to any references that give details of the 1981 crash? The roumor in AW&ST was that the crash was caused by catastrofic failure of an O ring in the SRM (Sewage Recovery Module), but this has never been confirmed. Ralph Hartley hartley@aic.nrl.navy.mil PS my work on this subject is so secret that even I dont know about it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 89 20:23:28 From: Michel van Roozendaal ECD Subject: RE: Looking down, was; HST resolution From: Michel van Roozendaal Darmstadt, 29-11-1989 19:45 GMT sfn20715@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu mentions: >Just a second here. I agree that the HST would have a resolution on >earth of ~6 inches, but dont DoD Spysats have a resolution of about >2 inches? Why dont we just tell the DoD to point one of em at whatever >astronomers want to look at? Besides other aspects, like pointing accuracy and the different wavelengths in which the HST and a Keyhole satellite observe, there is one aspect which makes it rather difficult to compare both systems: The orbit of both satellites. The reason why a KH-satellite reaches a resolution in the order of centimetres (OK,I cant resist: why using these stone-age @!*&!# inches??) is that it is in a rather low orbit. Whereas the HST is at 590 km, the KH satellites are at one third of this altitude, even lower in some cases. This aspect also plays a role for civil remote sensing satellites: The best western remote sensing system, the French SPOT satellite, reaches a resolution of 10-20 meters.(panachromatic versus multispectral) The Russians sell pictures (Sojuzkarta, 45 Volgogradskij pr., Moscow 109125 USSR) with a resolution of about 6 meters. SPOT is in an orbit at 835 km, while the Kosmos vehicles the Russians are using are at about 225 km, which explains much of the difference. (Not everything, since the Russians are using return capsules, and chemical films, like the former generation of KH satellites did. BTW, the Russians might soon come with even better resolutions than 6 meters.) ************************************************************************* * Michel van Roozendaal * In order to write compact * * European Space Operations Centre * you need to know many words * * Robert Bosch strasse 5 * * * 6100 Darmstadt RFG ************************************* * (0)6151-886376 * * * (0)6151-595725 (Until 20-12-89) *Don't tell my boss I wrote all this* * EARN: esc1759 at esoc * * ************************************************************************* End of Message ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 89 21:04:50 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Galileo Astronauts Honored at JPL The crew of the STS-34 Space Shuttle Mission was honored today at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The major objective of the STS-34 flight was the deployment of the spacecraft Galileo which was accomplished last October 18th. The ceremony occurred at noon in the JPL mall area. Dr. Lew Allen, the director of JPL, presented each of the astronauts with a personalized plaque commemorating the Galileo deployment. Don Williams, the commander of STS-34 and mission specialists Ellen Baker were then introduced and each gave a speech in front of the JPL personel. Time was then set aside for the JPL employees to chat with the astronauts and to get their autographs. Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov Jet Propulsion Lab M/S 301-355 | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov 4800 Oak Grove Dr. | Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 89 17:51:44 GMT From: bfmny0!tneff@uunet.uu.net (Tom Neff) Subject: Thiokol / Grand Jury I respect the usual dictums regarding posting headlines-of-the-moment to the newsgroup ("Ike Still Dead", etc), but I don't know whether this is going to get a lot of play, and readers should be aware of the basics. A federal grand jury convened Wednesday (29-Nov-89) to investigate the claims of Dan Joos, a quality control engineer for Thiokol Corp., who says some equipment used on the post-Challenger shuttle flights was improperly inspected, so that up to 50% of the data measured on these flights may be inaccurate. "We could lose another shuttle today," he is quoted as saying. From the descriptions it sounds like this is the specialized testing equipment added to the SRMs for the first three resumption flights. Joos says he sent a memo to his superiors about the improper inspection procedures, and that they forwarded it to NASA. Thiokol has been asked to provide information to the grand jury, which is expected to complete its work by Friday. Joos has been subpoenaed to appear before it. I presume AvWeek will be on this one in spades. More as we hear it... -- "NASA Announces New Deck Chair Arrangement For \_/ Tom Neff Space Station Titanic" -- press release 89-7654 \_/ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 89 23:09:28 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!venera.isi.edu!rogers@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Craig Milo Rogers) Subject: Space Station Power (was Re: space news from Oct 2 AW&ST) In article <4300@helios.ee.lbl.gov> mikec@ux1.lbl.gov (Mike Chin) writes: >Why is 20 kHz bad? I vaguely remember an article in Powertecnics describing >this system, but I wasn't aware of any controversy. (begin unsubstantiated opinion mode) Electric circuit components tend to vibrate and couple acoustically to the air at 20kHz much more than at 400Hz or 60Hz (or DC). 20kHz is within the "normal" human hearing range. Without *lots* of special design and fabrication attention, the proposed 20kHz design would "shriek" like an television monitor (horizontal retrace frequency of about 16kHz) or an FM stereo receiver lacking a good stereo pilot signal (about 18kHz ?) filter. Most adults I've met can no longer hear this high, but this doesn't mean that continuous, high-intensity exposure to these frequencies won't have a physiological effect on them. Some, such as I, retain the ability to hear this high; this is one of the reasons I avoid television and cheap stereos. A 20kHz acoustic vibration might, in turn, affect the results of biological or microgravity experiments aboard the station. (end unsubstantiated opinion mode) Does anyone out there know whether the team(s) that propose and evaluate power supply designs for the space station receive input from an operations team (for the medical effect of power supply configurations on the stationauts) or the science teams (for the effects of the power supply on the proposed scientific payloads)? Craig Milo Rogers ------------------------------ From: gateh%CONNCOLL.BITNET@vma.cc.cmu.edu Date: Wed, 29 Nov 89 08:47:35 EST X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (6.4 2/14/89) Subject: Re: Antimatter Drives and Area 51 > From: W.T. Higgins > > >This fuel is used to drive waveguide-type gravity amplifiers which > >are the FTL drive components of nine alien spacecraft > > Eight. One crashed during tests in August 1981. Three of the remaining > eight have now been dismantled. Huh? Being a casual reader of Space digests, the seemingly off-handed discussion of alien spacecraft drives being examined and tested has me expecting my alarm clock to go off any second now. Either that or I must be in line at the supermarket checkout |-). Unless such information is generally accepted to be fact (in which case I'd appreciate knowing where I can get model kits of these babies ;-), would it be too much to ask that such statements be prefaced with adjectives like "alleged" or "supposed"? I really enjoy following this digest and on the whole I find it extremely educational, but postings like the above can be somewhat confusing and disillusioning, especially for us laymen in the crowd. Gregg TeHennepe | Minicomputer Specialist gateh@conncoll | Connecticut College, New London, CT August '81: News flash - Big Foot dies in freak accident while test piloting alien spacecraft. Hoffa's body found in the wreckage. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 89 21:52:48 GMT From: bbn.com!ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) Subject: Re: Antimatter Drives and Area 51 In article <8911291347.AA08026@mvax.cc.conncoll.edu> gateh@CONNCOLL.BITNET writes: >> From: W.T. Higgins >> >This fuel is used to drive waveguide-type gravity amplifiers which >> >are the FTL drive components of nine alien spacecraft >> Eight. One crashed during tests in August 1981. Three of the remaining >> eight have now been dismantled. >Huh? Being a casual reader of Space digests, the seemingly off-handed >discussion of alien spacecraft drives being examined and tested has me >expecting my alarm clock to go off any second now... >Unless such information is generally accepted to be fact [...] would it >be too much to ask that such statements be prefaced with adjectives like >"alleged" or "supposed"?... Ah, come on son, they're funnin' ya. Being as this isn't alt.conspiracy or some such nut.net, are such adjectives *really* necessary when discussing these things. (Now it's a different question as to whether the joke has outlived it's useful lifetime... ). >Gregg TeHennepe | Minicomputer Specialist >August '81: News flash - Big Foot dies in freak accident while test piloting >alien spacecraft. Hoffa's body found in the wreckage. Case in point. ;) NICHAEL | Nichael Lynn Cramer | "'Light Years' only has a few pictures. | | -- Nichael@BBN.Com | 'UFO...Contact from the Pleiades' is a | | -- NCramer@BBN.Com | better photo album." -- Rick Wilson | ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 89 17:54:30 GMT From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekig5!philj@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Phil Jansen) Subject: What's an 'aerospike' booster configuration? Hi. I heard that an 'aerospike' rocket configuration would work out to be fairly efficient, and eliminate the need for rocket nozzles. What is an 'aerospike' anyway, and how does it work? Thanks. -- If you repeat things often enough, they become true. Phil Jansen If you repeat things often enough, they become true. philj@tekig5.pen.tek.com If you repeat things often enough, they become true. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Nov 89 18:46:01 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA Headline News for 11/29/89 (Forwarded) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, Nov. 29, 1989 Audio: 202/755-1788 ----------------------------------------------------------------- This is NASA Headline News for Wednesday, November 29th...... A federal grand jury convenes today in Birmingham, Alabama to investigate allegations that some parts used on space shuttles were not properly inspected. The charges were made by a Thiokol Corporation quality control engineer in a memo written to his superiors, who forwarded it to NASA. The Thiokol engineer claims up to 50 percent of the data measured on shuttle flights may be inaccurate. At Kennedy Space Center...technicians today are installing a communications satellite into the space shuttle Columbia's cargo bay, which will be deployed during next month's STS-32 mission. Tomorrow, a two-day countdown-rehearsal test gets underway. the high-light of the 10-day, Christmas-time mission, will be the retrieval of the Long Duration Exposure Facility that's been in orbit since 1984. A launch date for Columbia will be set following completion of the two-day flight readiness review scheduled for next Monday and Tuesday at KSC. Officials say the space shuttle Discovery came through its five-day military mission in excellent condition. Tip Talone, Discovery's processing manager, says initial inspections show fewer than 10 thermal tiles will have to be replaced. He also said the orbiter's brakes are in good condition. Discovery's next mission is to carry the Hubble Space Telescope into orbit late next March...and Talone said, "the bottom line is, we think we've got a really good start...to get the Hubble out next March." James Hansen, a researcher at NASA's Institute for Space Studies, says major climate changes predicted from global warming are being delayed due to less use of chloroflorocarbon gases. Hansen says in an article in the Journal of Geophysical Research, that if CFC production had not been cut sharply beginning in 1974, the heating of the Earth from the greenhouse effect would occur in 20 years rather than in 40 years as most theories now predict. ********** ----------------------------------------------------------------- Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events on NASA Select television. All times are Eastern. Thursday, Nov. 30..... 11:30 A.M. NASA Update will be transmitted. Friday, Dec. 1........ 6:00 A.M. Coverage begins of the concluding 6-hours of the STS-32 countdown demonstration test. All events and times are subject to change without notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------- These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon, Eastern time. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A service of the Internal Communications Branch (LPC), NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #288 *******************