Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 05:03:43 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #408 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Wed, 11 Nov 92 Volume 15 : Issue 408 Today's Topics: Automated space station construction Hubble's mirror (3 msgs) imdisp Low-Pressure O2 Atmosphere Lunar "colony" reality check (4 msgs) Man in space ... (2 msgs) Mascons MS Windows Programs Available from SIMTEL20 N-1 giant Moon rocket photo in *AvLeak* Nasa coverup Nylon Off The Subject Help Please.... oxygen atmospheres (3 msgs) Pen based computers in space Russian Engines for DC-Y? Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:21:56 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Automated space station construction Newsgroups: sci.space In article <6615@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> 3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley) writes: >Space Station Freedom is Apollo type technology ? >Really ? Pretty much so. Only incidentals have improved very much. >Using ADA and 386 / 586 processors and Nickel Hydrogen batteries, Ada is not an improvement. :-) Nor is the 386. :-) The batteries are better... but a solar-dynamic system with phase-change heat storage would be far superior to any kind of battery. Had there been any real effort at improving power technology since Apollo, it would have been flight-qualified in time for Fred. Even a regenerative fuel-cell system would be superior. Every five years or so, they're going to need an entire shuttle flight just to replace the batteries. This is 1960s technology with minor embellishments. I won't even mention the antiquated propulsion system being planned for attitude control and reboost. :-) Nor the 1970s-vintage spacesuits. -- MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 15:53:30 GMT From: Dave Jones Subject: Hubble's mirror Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space Brian Stuart Thorn (BrianT@cup.portal.com) wrote: > If there is a perfect mirror presumably sitting at Kodak, why doesn't NASA > simply return Hubble to Earth and replace the faulty mirror? > You want a list? Just off the top of my head: It would take two missions to return, fix and re-launch Hubble. You could probably rebuild Hubble on the ground and launch it for less. The extended portions of Hubble are almost certainly not designed to retract, and would have to be cut off in orbit. This has never been done before. If one aspect of securing Hubble for the return mission fails, you're screwed. The mission would fail and Hubble would likely be disabled permanently. Hubble is doing valuable work right now. Removing it from orbit, probably for months, would damage astronomy far more than a mirror whose defects are known and correctable by image-processing techniques. -- ||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 20:52:51 EST From: John Roberts Subject: Hubble's mirror -From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) -Subject: Re: Hubble's mirror -Date: 10 Nov 92 16:48:59 GMT -Organization: University of Central Florida -Actually, we should forget Hubble and spend the money needed -for the repair mission on building a half-dozen Keck-type telescopes. The *incremental* cost for the corrections for the error (including diagnosis, COSTAR, and replacing the little mirrors in WF/PC II, but not including the service mission and the manufacture of WF/PC II because those had been planned anyway) is estimated at ~ $60 million, so make that *one* Keck at current prices. Since two Kecks have already been provided for, and since HST can do useful things that no Keck can do, I think it's worthwhile to repair HST. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:18:53 GMT From: "Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892" Subject: Hubble's mirror Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space In article <#9n19q_@rpi.edu> you write: >In article <69203@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes: >>If there is a perfect mirror presumably sitting at Kodak, why doesn't NASA >>simply return Hubble to Earth and replace the faulty mirror? > >There is no perfect mirror sitting at Kodak. The "mirror" at Kodak is a blank >that would need to be ground and polished at considerable expense. > Well, what happened to the backup mirror that Kodak made? Did it really get put into a KH-12 satellite (paid for by NASA utilized by the DOD) as rumored? I attended a lecture by the Kodak Manager who was supervising the final figuring of the mirror, at the time the lecture was given. -- dsc@gemini.gsfc.nasa.gov | Regards, | Hughes STX | Code 926.9 GSFC | | Doug Caprette | Lanham, Maryland | Greenbelt, MD 20771 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I am not a number. I am a free man." -- # 6 ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 10 Nov 1992 16:22:08 EST From: LABBEY@GTRI01.GATECH.EDU Subject: imdisp Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro The primary distribution point for VICAR images is: ames.arc.nasa.gov Retrieve them by anonymous ftp. Look in /pub/SPACE/VICAR. Lots of good stuff there. Leonard Abbey, F.R.A.S. Georgia Tech Research Institute Atlanta, Georgia, USA labbey@gtri01.gatech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:05:09 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Low-Pressure O2 Atmosphere Newsgroups: sci.space In article flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube x554") writes: >But in pure O2 lots of things burn that "shouldn't", like >asbestos fibers. This actually happened long before that >Apollo capsule burned up, and should have alerted NASA. Low-pressure pure O2 is not much worse for flammability than ordinary air. NASA did extensive flammability tests under those conditions, and concluded, more or less correctly, that there was no serious problem. What they missed -- despite some hints of trouble -- was that the capsules were operated at circa 1atm of pure O2 before launch, and under *those* conditions the situation is indeed much worse. It *is* thought that an inert diluent gas helps reduce fire hazards, but the effect isn't huge. -- MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 1992 21:59:37 GMT From: steve hix Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary In article <1992Nov9.180901@betsy.gsfc.nasa.gov> giglio@betsy.gsfc.nasa.gov (Louis Giglio) writes: >In article <1992Nov9.192439.1354@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. >Sherzer) writes: > >|> >* A livable atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, not oxygen. >|> >|> Which comes as a rude suprise to the astronaust who lived >|> weeks on end on pure oxygen. > ^^^^ ^^^^^^ >I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either party, but I want to point >out that >this can't possibly be correct. The oxygen had to be diluted with >something. >They would have died otherwise. At one atmosphere pressure, maybe so...but the U.S. manned space missions up through Apollo used pure O2 at 3.5psi or so. It reduced the total weight of the capsules, what with smaller pressure loading, reduced tankage requirements (no nitrogen need be carried), and so on. It also contributed to problems such as the Apollo 1 pad fire, which was conducted at >1atm O2... The astronauts lived in pure O2 for extended periods quite nicely, thanks, with some trouble from dehydration 'cause their "air" was too dry. -- ------------------------------------------------------- | Some things are too important not to give them away | | to everybody else and have none left for yourself. | ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:25:50 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary In article <1992Nov10.152154.9709@eng.ufl.edu> joev@sioux.eel.ufl.edu (Joseph Versagg) writes: >... what is this about ice at the poles of Mercury? >Since Mercury rotates, although slowly, ice would be baked off the surface, >then would leak into space due to the low gravity. As with the Moon, Mercury's axis is almost precisely perpendicular to its orbital plane, so a modest polar crater can have its floor permanently in shadow. Even so, nobody would have been rash enough to *predict* ice there. Recent radar-mapping work shows strong echos from Mercury's poles which are very difficult to explain as anything but ice deposits. -- MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 92 17:21:46 GMT From: Rolf Meier Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary In article <1dnbiqINNdjq@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes: >In article <1992Nov9.180901@betsy.gsfc.nasa.gov>, giglio@betsy.gsfc.nasa.gov (Louis Giglio) writes: >>this can't possibly be correct. The oxygen had to be diluted with >>something. >>They would have died otherwise. > >You would be correct had the vehicle been pressurized to 1 atmosphere. >However, your conclusion does not follow if the cabin pressure was .2 >atmosphere. Remember also that Apollo 1 burned because the capsule was filled with pure oxygen. This happened with the vehicle still on the earth. _________________________________________________________________________ Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 1992 22:09:07 GMT From: steve hix Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary In article roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes: > >Are you certain that Apollo astronauts breathed pure O2? I thought that >after the fatal Apollo 1 fire, which killed astronauts Grissom, White, and >Chaffee on January 27, 1967, pure O2 was no longer used because it was a >proven fire hazard. Or did NASA simply reduce the cabin pressure as >suggested by Carl Lydick? After the pad fire, NASA quit running the ground overpressure test in pure O2. In orbit, it was still pure O2 at about 3.5psi. Even that is a bit above the partial pressure of O2 at sea level (~ 3.08 psi) -- ------------------------------------------------------- | Some things are too important not to give away | | to everybody else and have none left for yourself. | ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 15:36:03 GMT From: Dave Jones Subject: Man in space ... Newsgroups: sci.space Henry Spencer (henry@zoo.toronto.edu) wrote: > In article <1992Nov9.182037.19085@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> jenkins@fritz (Steve Jenkins) writes: > >... At normal arterial O2 partial pressure (about 100 mmHg), > >the blood is almost completely saturated with oxygen. You can raise > >the partial pressure by hyperventilating, but not the oxygen content. > > How do the breath-holding effects of hyperventilation work, then? > Flushing CO2 out to suppress the desire to breathe, as opposed to > providing more internal oxygen to eliminate the need to breathe? I think the hyperventilation idea is an incorrect extrapolation from underwater techniques. Vacuum would be like an anoxic atmosphere - no oxygen coming in, but no problem losing CO2. Without buildup of CO2 in the blood, there's no urge to breathe faster. That's why people get caught out by hypoxia: they don't feel a problem until they're so far gone they can't save themselves. Just this week a guy died inside a storage tank after it got flushed with N2 by mistake. Moderate ventilation might be a good idea for fully saturating the blood with O2. Beyond that you risk lowering blood pH to the point where you impair your ability to function. -- ||------------------------------------------------------------------------ ||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 18:27:58 GMT From: Dave Jones Subject: Man in space ... Newsgroups: sci.space Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com) wrote: > > Moderate ventilation might be a good idea for fully saturating the blood > with O2. Beyond that you risk lowering blood pH to the point where you > impair your ability to function. Make that raising blood pH. Where do I hand in my Chem. degree? > > -- > ||------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY | Note on underwater record holders: they need to concentrate on not needing to breathe (hence the hyperventilation to suppress the reflex) and cutting O2 demand (inactivity, water at blood temperature, self-control etc. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 21:33:14 EST From: John Roberts Subject: Mascons -From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) -Subject: Re: Mascons -Date: 9 Nov 92 19:01:42 GMT -Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co. -In article Subject: MS Windows Programs Available from SIMTEL20 Newsgroups: sci.edu,sci.astro,sci.space,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d,comp.os.ms-windows.apps,comp.os.ms-windows.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer Folks: My Microsoft Windows shareware programs were recently uploaded to simtel20 and are available for anonymous ftp: Program Name Filename Ver. Description Req'd Astronomy Lab ALW113.ZIP 1.13 Astronomy program MS Win 3.x Anim8 ANIM8.ZIP 1.02 Animation program MS Win 3.x Astronomy Clock ACLOCK.ZIP 1.12 Clock for astronomy MS Win 3.x enthusiasts Bog BOG.ZIP 1.05 Word search game MS Win 3.X FracView FRACVIEW.ZIP 1.03 Fractal viewer MS Win 3.x Hangman HANGMAN.ZIP 1.01 Hangman game MS Win 3.x Puzzle-8 PZL8.ZIP 1.02 8 tile puzzle MS Win 3.x RCALC RCALC103.ZIP 1.03 Talking RPN MS Win 3.1 calculator Stopwatch SW.ZIP 1.02 Clock/stopwatch MS Win 3.x Talking Clock TCLK_106.ZIP 1.06 Talking clock MS Win 3.1 They are stored in the simtel20/windows3 directory. Here's how to get the programs from simtel20: 1. ftp 192.88.110.20 2. login as anonymous and use your e-mail address as a password, e.g. user@company.com 4. cd pd1: (Is simtel20 is a DEC 20 running Tops 20? If so, cool!) 5. binary 6. get alw113.zip 7. get bog.zip, etc. 8. quit If you don't have ftp access, feel free to send me a 3 1/2" or 5 1/4" high density floppy disk in a self-addressed POSTPAID POSTPAID POSTPAID mailer and I'll send you the programs (please include a cover letter telling me what you want). Eric Bergman-Terrell Personal MicroCosms 8547 E. Arapahoe Rd. Suite J-147 Greenwood Village, CO 80112 USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 21:52:31 GMT From: Doug Mohney Subject: N-1 giant Moon rocket photo in *AvLeak* Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Nov10.135703.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: >I think this one can't wait for Henry's summaries... > >The new 9 November issue of *Aviation Week* just hit my mailbox. On >page 65 is a nice photograph of the Soviet N-1 rocket on its pad with >service tower. The N-1 was the "Soviet Saturn V," the BIG rocket >whose failure doomed their manned lunar landing program. > >The photo, taken in 1968 or 1969, was given to American educator Edwin >N. Cameraon by an official of NPO Energiya. Other photos Cameron took >at Baikonur-- I mean Tyuratam-- show the N-1 service tower as it >appeared today, and an old N-1 shroud that's been converted into a >toolshed. > >The N-1 has always been cloaked in secrecy, and this is only the >second photo of it that's been published in the West. Maybe NPO Energiya would create a full-color picture book called "Secrets of the Soviet Space Program 1957-1992." So, Bill, how much would you pay for such a book? :-) looking to accepting orders from the U.S. and Canada if Henry's check clears. Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 18:31:08 GMT From: Dave Jones Subject: Nasa coverup Newsgroups: sci.space John Roberts (roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov) wrote: > > Isn't it Miranda that's supposed to have been blown apart and then reassembled > itself? If you want to permanently destroy a moon or planet, you have to hit > it so hard that most or all of the mass achieves escape velocity (and in > different directions :-). > Not necessarily. There's that moon of Saturn that was split in two and now exists as two fragments that exchange orbits regularly. -- ||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 21:09:54 EST From: John Roberts Subject: Nylon -From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) -Subject: Re: reality check -Date: 10 Nov 92 15:33:40 GMT -Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park -In article , roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes: ->So ship it in the form of nylon. Plenty of hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon, ->and able to withstand high impact velocity, which should save considerably ->on delta-v to land it on the moon. -How difficult is it to break down nylon into useable components? Burn it or -shove some ozone at it? I mentioned nylon because it contains nitrogen, and because I believe it's one of the materials used to make sabots for subcaliber ammunition, thus demonstrating that it can withstand accelerations of up to hundreds of thousands of G's (thus it can hit the moon *very* hard and still be recovered - I don't think it would withstand free-fall from infinity, but it could still save quite a bit on landing costs). I don't know the best way to break down nylon - I can't even find it in the CRC Handbook (though I presume it's there). If nothing else, brute-force methods like heating and electrolysis ought to break it down into more easily-managed compounds. If the cost is less than the incremental cost of soft-landing the constituents in more fragile form (still very expensive, by all accounts), then you come out ahead. Some other form of plastic might be better - I'm not an expert in organic chemistry. The only one I understand reasonably well is polyethylene, and that doesn't contain any nitrogen. Plastic is one of the propellants proposed for laser launchers. One could imagine small payloads launched by laser from Earth, with small rockets to kill enough of the reentry velocity for the plastic payload to survive impact on the moon. Perhaps even better in the long run, you could make the entire rocket out of plastic - use a laser lander on the moon to kill some of the velocity and to direct it to a specified landing site. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 92 23:15:53 GMT From: "M. Todd Lawson" Subject: Off The Subject Help Please.... Newsgroups: sci.space Hi! I am a student at Calif. State Univ. Chico studying computer engineering. I am currently looking forward to a career in the field of technical writing and documentation. Because of this, I have decided to start a journal for the most frequently asked questions about computers. I intend for it to be a bi-monthly publication with the purpose of answering all the most often asked questions new and semi-experienced computer users have. It will not be for those of you with off the wall, obscure questions, because I will not be able to answer many of those. Try to remember when you were a new computer user and some of the questions that you had. For me to get started, please send me any question that a new user is likely to ask; i.e. What is the speed of my computer? 386 or 33mhz? I know that seems simple, but you would be surprised to hear what new computer people will ask. Below is a subscription form and question sheet. All I ask is that you send me a question, and your name will go into the mailing list. However, as I am a student, I have limited funds. If this is not in the scope of NetNews, then, forgive me and just send a question. I will print as many as I can afford and send them out. Thanks for your participation, and I look forward to hearing from you. Todd Lawson. Lawson@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu 1245 Esplanade Ave. #10 Chico Ca. 95926 Name:.................................................. Address:............................................... City, State, Country:.................................. Zip:.............. Phone Number:.......................................... Please put question below:............................. ....................................................... Thanks again. Todd. -- =============================================================================== M. Todd Lawson -- Lawson@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu California State University, Chico. Computer Engineering Dept. It happens to the best. It happens to the rest. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 20:38:27 EST From: John Roberts Subject: oxygen atmospheres ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 20:39:38 EST From: John Roberts Subject: oxygen atmospheres -From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) -Subject: oxygen atmospheres -Date: 10 Nov 92 21:29:43 GMT -Neither. In space, the Apollo spacecraft used the atmosphere it was -designed for: low-pressure pure oxygen. It wasn't feasible to run that -way on the pad, though, because the spacecraft wasn't built to stand an -external pressure exceeding internal pressure. After some attempts to -fireproof the interior for 1atm of oxygen -- abandoned as impossibly -difficult -- they switched to using a mixed-gas atmosphere before and -during launch, with switchover to low-pressure pure oxygen on the way up. Did the astronauts continue to breathe pure oxygen on the pad to avoid the bends? John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:29:43 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: oxygen atmospheres Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary In article roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes: >Are you certain that Apollo astronauts breathed pure O2? I thought that >after the fatal Apollo 1 fire, which killed astronauts Grissom, White, and >Chaffee on January 27, 1967, pure O2 was no longer used because it was a >proven fire hazard. Or did NASA simply reduce the cabin pressure as >suggested by Carl Lydick? Neither. In space, the Apollo spacecraft used the atmosphere it was designed for: low-pressure pure oxygen. It wasn't feasible to run that way on the pad, though, because the spacecraft wasn't built to stand an external pressure exceeding internal pressure. After some attempts to fireproof the interior for 1atm of oxygen -- abandoned as impossibly difficult -- they switched to using a mixed-gas atmosphere before and during launch, with switchover to low-pressure pure oxygen on the way up. -- MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:06:07 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Pen based computers in space Newsgroups: sci.space I received an inquiry from the editor of Pen Magazine, a magazine devoted to the new pen based computers. He wanted to know about the use of PCs and pen based PCs in space. Does anybody know of any experiments or future shuttle flights where there will be a pen based computer? If so, please email to me and I will forward them. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------165 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:12:14 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Russian Engines for DC-Y? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Nov9.153927.11010@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rbw3q@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Whitehurst) writes: >...In kerosene/LOX engines, do they vaporize the LOX, or >do they inject it as a spray into the combustion chamber? ... It goes in as a spray. Rocket engines normally make no attempt to vaporize the fuels on the way in; liquids are easier to handle and make better coolants. Localized small-scale boiling is sometimes permitted in cooling jackets, but without affecting the bulk of the coolant flow. There are some borderline cases like liquid hydrogen, which is often above its critical point (where the distinction between gas and liquid vanishes) in rocket applications. >...just thinking about all those 2 >phase sprays gives me a headache! :) Designing a good injector gives lots of rocket engineers headaches. :-) -- MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 408 ------------------------------