Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.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 ; Sat, 13 Apr 91 01:26:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4c1dNxG00WBwIGQE5D@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 13 Apr 91 01:26:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #399 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 399 Today's Topics: Re: At what time and date does the shuttle Atlantis land ? Re: Space technology Re: SPACE Digest V13 #364 Teflon (Was Re: Space technology) Re: Teflon (Was Re: Space technology) Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits Re: anniversary Re: anniversary Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits Re: SPACE Digest V13 #344 Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Apr 91 19:16:41 GMT From: usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!iago.caltech.edu!irwin@ucsd.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth) Subject: Re: At what time and date does the shuttle Atlantis land ? In article <2800BDEE.14156@ics.uci.edu>, rschaad@ics.uci.edu (Rene Schaad) writes... > >I know that the shuttle is supposed to land at Edwards AFB on wednesday. >But when exactly? I would be glad if someone knowing the time could >post it here. > >rene schaad >-- >Rene Schaad >Theoretical Neurobiology Facility, UC Irvine, California >rschaad@ics.uci.edu The shuttle will be landing at approx. 7:35 a.m. PDT on Wednesday. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Irwin Horowitz |"Suppose they went nowhere?"-McCoy Astronomy Department |"Then this will be your big chance California Institute of Technology | to get away from it all!"-Kirk irwin@romeo.caltech.edu | from STII:TWOK ih@deimos.caltech.edu | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 12 Apr 91 22:45:32 GMT From: eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) Subject: Re: Space technology In article <1991Apr11.221904.16361@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> rwmurphr@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert W Murphree) writes: >>I like what Carl Sagan said, if you want to develop non-stick frying pans >>you're better off funding a program for developing non-stick frying pans >>99% of the time(rather than a program for sending box cars with men in them >>to space). Justifying the space program on the basis of spinoffs does not cut it. I know this because I've been to Capitol Hill. The problem is simply that you cannot justify funds in this country solely on the basis of the unknown. I have an objective X, call it going to the moon, Mars, Jupiter, what ever. Justifying that travel on the basis of spinoff Y simply clouds the issue of X. Let's say I'm going to discover Y tomorrow. If I don't know what Y is, there are limits, Y is a diversion from X. It becomes promoting Y. NASA despite ideas to the contrary, is not a research organization. It is at best a "systems integator." That's not my term, but it is what I am told again and again. We just happen to have "Research Centers" and a little gets done. The NSF is where most basic research gets funded in this country (or DARPA if you hear the Japanese). Teflon (trademark duPont) was not developed for or by the space program. Similar compounds are used in Uranium diffusion. This is a fallacy perpetrated by some well-meaning supporters of NASA. --e.n. miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers {uunet,mailrus,most gateways}!ames!eugene ------------------------------ Date: 12 Apr 91 21:37:53 GMT From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!aurora.physics.utoronto.ca!neufeld@ucsd.edu (Christopher Neufeld) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #364 In article <1991Apr10.132025.1@dev8a.mdcbbs.com> rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs.com writes: >in article <2708@ke4zv.UUCP>, gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >> In article <9104052023.AA24719@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> space+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU@msu.edu writes: >>>Re: E.T.'s > >>>Another problem is; What if the guys you find don't think of us as enemies, or >>>even potential slaves, but FOOD? No thanks! >>>There is the argument, tho, that since we have now advertised our presence to >>>the surrounding 60 ly sphere in space (TV started in 1936), we should at least >>>find out if we are attracting unwanted attention that we should prepare for. >> >Recall who the star of the very first TV broadcast was? Adolph Hitler, opening >the 1936 Olympics. > Have we been reading Carl Sagan's science fiction books? I believe that if you reread the text you'll see that Adolf Hitler did appear in the highest power transmission to that date, though I hesitate to use science fiction as a historical reference. It was not claimed that he appeared in "the very first [public?] TV broadcast." Anyway, think about it. Television was developed in the USSR and in the United States, so it seems unlikely that the first public broadcast took place in Germany. I've got some vague memory that the Nazi party went to considerable pains to see that televisions were relatively common around Berlin for the propaganda value when the world's people came to see the Olympics. This 'fact' might also be from Sagan's book, though. -- Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student | Flash: morning star seen neufeld@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca Ad astra! | in evening! Baffled cneufeld@{pnet91,pro-cco}.cts.com | astronomers: "could mean "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" | second coming of Elvis!" ------------------------------ Date: 12 Apr 91 09:10:18 GMT From: unmvax!nmt.edu!nraoaoc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Daniel Briggs) Subject: Teflon (Was Re: Space technology) In article okunewck@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Phil OKunewick) writes: > Teflon probably wouldn't even have been invented if NASA hadn't >needed a slippery, heat-resistant, abrasion-resistant, non-conductive >material. Matter of fact, the government spending millions of dollars >to develop a non-stick frying pan would most likely have been labeled >a huge waste of taxpayers money; thus the program would have probably >been killed after a few million had been spent, but before there were >any usable results. But once the material was developed, it became >clear that the uses for this stuff were endless. Hmmmm. While I agree with much that has been said about spinoff technology, perhaps the example of teflon isn't a good one. I was under the impression that teflon was one of the great serendipitous discoveries of modern science. Unfortunately, I don't have a written source for this fact, as I heard it in a public lecture given by Glenn Seaborg. His credentials are pretty good, but it's been a decade or so since I heard it. If anyone can post a hard reference to the story, I'd love to see it! As I recall, Seaborg brought up the story to illustrate the benefits of careful work, and recognizing the unusual when you see it. The lab where the stuff was discovered was in fact involved with the synthesis of unusual materials. In the course of this, it used a great many canisters of some gas. (I think it was oxygen, but the memory is dim.) In the course of normal record keeping, it was revealed that one expended canister weighed more than it should. This indicated that some sort of contamination leading to a reaction has taken place in the canister, and presumably corrupted it. Normally, such a canister would simply be tossed out and written off. Apparently a researcher on his own initiative probed the thing and got a sample of the goo that had formed in it. It seemed interesting, and he tested some of its properties in the lab after hours. When the breakdown temperature proved to be very high, he got interested and did a full analysis. It was indeed teflon, and they were very interested in making more of it. Unfortunately, tracking down the reaction that had produced it turned out to be quite difficult, and for a while they weren't sure they could do it. The critical factor finally turned out to be the presence of the silver gasket in the original canister. (Yes, that's what he said.) By a really unlikely coincidence, this was the catalyst that was needed to make the reaction happen at reasonable temperatures. Now this maybe should go in sci.physics.folklore, since I could well have hashed most of the details, but I think the fact is that the discovery of teflon was largely an accident by some chemist types who kept their eyes open. Even if the lab turns out to have been a NASA one, it probably wasn't a substance produced on demand according to NASA specs. Even though non-stick frying pans are often used as an example of spin-off technology, maybe teflon itself isn't such a good example. Anyone with more details care to correct me or give the full poop on the story? -- This is a shared guest account, please send replies to dbriggs@nrao.edu (Internet) (505) 835-2974 Dan Briggs / NRAO / P.O. Box O / Socorro, NM / 87801 (U.S. Snail) ------------------------------ Date: 12 Apr 91 18:49:07 GMT From: eagle!mars.lerc.nasa.gov!banerj@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Amitava Banerjea (KSU)) Subject: Re: Teflon (Was Re: Space technology) In article <1991Apr12.091018.22122@nmt.edu>, nraoaoc@nmt.edu (Daniel Briggs) writes... >In article okunewck@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu > (Phil OKunewick) writes: >> Teflon probably wouldn't even have been invented if NASA hadn't >>needed a slippery, heat-resistant, abrasion-resistant, non-conductive >>material. > >perhaps the example of teflon isn't a good one. I was >under the impression that teflon was one of the great serendipitous >discoveries of modern science. >If anyone can post a hard reference to the >story, I'd love to see it! Glad to oblige! From C. A. Sperati and H. W. Starkweather, Jr., Fortschr. Hoshpolym.- Forsch., Vol. 2, p. 465 (1961): In Sec. II, entitled "Synthesis and Polymerization of Tetrafluoroethylene" -- that's the technical name for Teflon -- "poly-tetrafluoroethylene", starting on p.468 "The first report of the polymerization of tetrafluoroethylene was by Plunkett in 1941, who had a cylinder of TFE cut open to see why the expected amount of gas was not released when the valve was opened. His perspicacity led to the discovery of an inert, white, opaque solid with a waxy feel. Various methods polymerization were tried after the adventitious discovery and . . ." The section goes on to describe current methods of producing PTFE (Teflon) and its various physical and chemical properties as they were known at the time. It is a good review article to launch a technical inquiry about Teflon. Plunkett's original reference is "Tetrafluoroethylene polymers, U. S. Patent 2,230,654 (Feb. 4, 1941)". I haven't bothered to look it up. >Unfortunately, tracking down the reaction that had >produced it turned out to be quite difficult, and for a while they >weren't sure they could do it. The critical factor finally turned out >to be the presence of the silver gasket in the original canister. >(Yes, that's what he said.) By a really unlikely coincidence, this >was the catalyst that was needed to make the reaction happen at >reasonable temperatures. Interestingly, S & S do not include silver in the list of preferred reaction initiators, although high pressures, as must have existed in the cylinder are needed. They mention "adueous media" and oxygen is mentioned as one of the preferred initiators. It is possible, I'm guessing here, that the gas in the cylinder was not entirely dry or pure. If it was contaminated with both moisture and oxygen, and sat around for a long time, that might explain the reaction. BTW, the starting gas, TFE is rather explosive at high temperatures and pressures. >Even if the lab turns out to have been a NASA >one, it probably wasn't a substance produced on demand according to >NASA specs. Plunkett, the original discoverer, worked for DuPont and DuPont owned (still owns?) exclusive manufacturing(?) rights to Teflon. Subsequent development and use of Teflon may have been promoted by government/defense/NASA funding but I have no details on that. The trick in making non-stick frying pans is to get the pan to stick to Teflon as *nothing* sticks to Teflon!! Bye Amitava _____________________________________________________________________ Amitava Banerjea banerj@helios.lerc.nasa.gov ^^^^^^==or mars or saturn _____________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: 12 Apr 91 18:13:47 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!rex!rouge!dlbres10@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits In article <1991Apr12.163104.11955@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >Still sounds like grounds for a lawsuit to me. *What* "best endeavours"? I thought there was only going to be one Endeavour. Is Endeavour II already in the works? -- Phil Fraering dlbres10@pc.usl.edu "The reserve of modern assertions is sometimes pushed to extermes, in which the fear of being contradicted leads the writer to strip himself of almost all sense and meaning." - Winston Churchill, _The Birth of Britian_ "X-rays are a hoax." - Lord Kelvin ------------------------------ Date: 12 Apr 91 20:29:56 GMT From: pacbell.com!mips!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watnow.waterloo.edu!mark@ucsd.edu (Mark Earnshaw) Subject: Re: anniversary In article <1991Apr12.195135.19723@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >Lest we forget, today is the 20th anniversary of the first man in space. Oops, that should be the 30th anniversary. And isn't it almost exactly 10 years since Columbia first flew? -- Mark Earnshaw, Systems Design Engineering | mark@watnow.waterloo.{edu,cdn} University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada | mark@watnow.uwaterloo.ca ------------------------------ Date: 12 Apr 91 20:59:32 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: anniversary In article <1991Apr12.202956.12051@watserv1.waterloo.edu> mark@watnow.waterloo.edu (Mark Earnshaw) writes: >>Lest we forget, today is the 20th anniversary of the first man in space. > >Oops, that should be the 30th anniversary... Oops indeed. 30th it is. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 11 Apr 91 00:06:24 GMT From: hub.ucsb.edu!ucsbuxa!3001crad@ucsd.edu (Charles Frank Radley) Subject: Re: comsat cancellations and lawsuits The a satellite rescue you mean is presumably Intelsat-6, it is the only one scheduled as far as I know, I think it is Feb 1992.. It is the first flight of Endeavor. The satellite is ownded by Intelsat, it was manufactured by Hughes. Intelsat was also hit hard bvy NASA's termination of Shuttle launch contracts, Hughes' suit could open the floodgates... NASA never guaranteed to launch anything. The language in the standard Launch Services Agreement states NASA will use "their best endeavours", which means no warranty etc. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Apr 91 18:11:15 GMT From: ssc-vax!bcsaic!hsvaic!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Dani Eder) Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #344 In article heskett@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Donald Heskett) writes: > >IMHO it's a very poor idea to complicate your launch system that much >for a mere 300mph. > According to Dr. Dana Andrews of Boeing, who is the study manager of one of the four industry SSTO studies underway for the SDIO, the addition of 1000 feet/second (680 miles per hour) to a horizontal take-off SSTO rocket that uses oxygen/hydrogen propulsion will triple the payload. This is because SSTO vehicles using chamical propulsion are today just this side of feasibility, and so are very sensitive to how much velocity they have to provide. So in this case, a relatively small ground accelerator can have a large effect on payload capacity. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #399 *******************