Date: Tue, 23 Mar 93 05:13:41 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #352 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Tue, 23 Mar 93 Volume 16 : Issue 352 Today's Topics: Alumnium was available in Elizabethan times? Applications of Liquid Miror Telescopes DC-X Earth Stop Rotating!? Hello Goldstone! How to cool Venus Magellan Update - 03/19/93 Personal hygiene in space Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise Russians ICBMs -> SLVs Shuttle Launch Schedule? Skysurfing from Orbit (3 msgs) SR-71 Maiden Science Flight (2 msgs) SSTO: A Spaceship for the rest of us (2 msgs) temperature of Lunar soil 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: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 16:38:16 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Alumnium was available in Elizabethan times? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.materials In article <1oje08$jpq@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: > >I don't know all the details, but I remember in High School chemistry >the teacher mentioning that Aluminum wsa one of the Treasures >in the Tower of London. Back when it was first isolated, during >elizabethan times, it was more costly then gold. Given that most >clays are alumina oxides, I can see, some form of long high heat, >reduction process generating aluminum. After all Alchemy dates from >the 13th century. You'd need some sort of intense heat source, >and a strong reducing agent. I doubt limestone would do it, but >any society with steel technology, should be easily able to make >aluminum in non-production quantities. > >pat > >PS that date in 1827 for wohler, would be the date it was identified >as an element. Lots of stuff was around before it was identified as >elemental. Well, why don't we consult a reference book. According to the trusty World Book, aluminum does not occur free in nature. In 1825 Hans Christian Oersted, a Danish chemist and physicist, produced the first metallic aluminum. Oersted prepared aluminum chloride from alumina. He then heated the aluminum chloride with an alloy of potassium and mercury, and a small lump of aluminum formed in the alloy. Friedrich Wohler, a German chemist, produced aluminum in 1827 by heating aluminum chloride with potassium. Wohler's aluminum was in the form of a grey powder. In 1845, he produced particles *large enough to be weighed*. In 1854, Henri Etienne Sainte-Claire Deville, a French chemist, improved on Wohler's method. Deville used sodium instead of potassium to break down aluminum chloride. This process produced large enough quantities of aluminum to be used to form objects of the material. The price of aluminum was $115 a pound. In 1886 the Hall-Heroult process that is still used today was developed and the price of aluminum plummeted with the availability of cheap electrical power. The Napoleon who had aluminum tableware was Napoleon III, Emperor of France from 1852 to 1870. Lesser nobles at Napoleon III's table were forced to make do with gold utensils. The Elizabethan Age was the reign of Elizabeth I, 1558 to 1603. Aluminum would not be produced in metallic form large enough to *weigh* until 242 years later. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 16:21:12 GMT From: Remi Cabanac Subject: Applications of Liquid Miror Telescopes Newsgroups: sci.space Some months ago somebody asks for information about liquid mirror telescopes (following LMTs). Here is short update in the field. Since the first babbling of the LMTs in the mid 80s, the technology has reached the stage to be applicated in various fields of Science. Firstly, a team from University of British Columbia under the direction of Paul Hickson and a team from Universite Laval (Quebec) under the direction of Ermanno Borra (who is continuing to develop LMTs and is obtaining excellent results) is planning to do a survey of faint galaxies in forty spectral band from 400 nm to 1 micron (IR, 1000 nm). They plan to reach Mv=21 for the galaxies, which would be the deepest survey of this kind until now! Of course LMTs can only observe to the zenith but for a survey of this kind it does not matter the direction you point but more does the diametre of your mirror (here 2.7 m !). Secondly, LMTs entail major improves in LIDAR Science. A LIDAR is a instrument which measures velocities and densities of the upper atmosphere which are not accessible to sounding balloons (30-80 km). The team of R.P. Lowe from the University of Western Ontario has constructed a LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging), with a 2.7 m LMT. They have now the most sensitive LIDAR in the world. Thirdly, NASA is building a 4 m LMT to hunt satellite fragments which could harm seriously the next generation of satellites through collisions. But I don't know much about this LMT. Fourthly, Robert Content from The University of Arizona at Tucson is building a 6.5 m LMT to test the honeycomb spin-casting mirror of R. Angel. May-be the best advantage of LMTs is the high quality of their surfaces. Optical tests on a 1.5 LMT showed a paraboloid surface near lambda/250! And the last results on a 2.5 m LMT show the Airy pattern (LMTs are therefore diffraction-limited). We can see that LMT technology is no longer a weird, unusable technology. Obviously one the major limits on the use of LMTs is that they can only point to the zenith. But even this drawback is disappearing. Ermanno Borra and his team is working on off-axis correctors to observe to +/- 7 deg off-axis. This implementation could increase the possible exposure from 1 min now (equator), to more than 60 min, permitting high-res spectroscopy! To conclude, LMT technology is promised to an wonderful future! Ref: Borra, E.F., Content, R., Drinkwater, M.J. and Szapiel, S. 1989, Ap. J. (lett) 346, L41. Borra, E.F., PASP, 99, 1229-1240, Nov 1987. Borra, E.F., Girard, L., Private communications. ******************************************************************************* VIVE LE QUEBEC LIBRE !!! Remi Cabanac (Universite Laval, Quebec) cabanac@phy.ulaval.ca ******************************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 1993 17:11:06 GMT From: Andy Cohen Subject: DC-X Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1oirp0INNftj@zephyr.grace.cri.nz>, srgpjrm@grv.grace.cri.nz (John R. Manuel) wrote: > > Are there any articles in Aviation Week, or somewhere similar, about DC-X > that someone can refer me to? I'm curious to see the design of the thing > and in particular, how it will manage re-entry and still be re-usable. > If someone will tell me where I can be allowed....I will gladly upload a set of GIFs of vugraphs for the basic DC technology pitch........ COME ON! Before the roll out!!! ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 93 17:54:05 GMT From: David Lai Subject: Earth Stop Rotating!? Newsgroups: sci.space Hi netters I'm faced with a strange question. What will happen to the climate, magnetic field, plate tectonics, and us if this happened?? Any comments or suggestins? David. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 93 19:48:25 GMT From: Tim Thompson Subject: Hello Goldstone! Newsgroups: sci.space The Deep Space Communications Center at Goldstone is attached to the army reservation at Fort Irwin. When I first went to observe at Goldstone, it was before desert warfare was popular. Fort Irwin was near empty, and we just drove right in. You can't do that anymore. However, public tours can be arranged. I suggest you contact one or more of the following offices at JPL (I don't know which is most appropriate, and maybe nobody else does either :). Public Information Office (818) 354-5011 Public Services Office (818) 354-0112 Public Affairs Office (818) 354-7006 We used to have a "public education" office, but it's not listed anymore. --- ------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Thompson, Earth and Space Sciences Division, JPL. Assistant Administrator, Division Science Computing Network. Secretary, Los Angeles Astronomical Society. Member, BOD, Mount Wilson Observatory Association. INTERnet/BITnet: tjt@scn1.jpl.nasa.gov NSI/DECnet: jplsc8::tim SCREAMnet: YO!! TIM!! GPSnet: 118:10:22.85 W by 34:11:58.27 N ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 93 19:10:18 GMT From: "Alan Monday-WWCS Business Mgt. Group" Subject: How to cool Venus Newsgroups: sci.space In article 5Ft@brunel.ac.uk, mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter) writes: > >(Translated from Fogg's referencese, I *think* these are the Dec 84 and >Nov 85 issues; ICBW) > >Fogg's paper is still, IMO, a classic for those interested in doing >something with our useless sister planet. It wouldn't be easy, mind. >Here's how Fogg sees it: > >Year > 0 Project begins; algae injected into Venus atmosphere > > Importation of 1e17 kg of H2O from Iapetus (for algae) > > Mining of H2 in Uranus atmosphere begins (to fix the > excess O2 produced by photosynthesis and make oceans) > > Asteroid Psyche moved into Venus orbit > Construction of Dyson motor begins > > 500 Dyson motor in operation > >13200 Venus spun up to 24 hour day by Dyson motor > Dyson motor dismantled Interesting... What is a Dyson motor? I think I know what a Dyson sphere is. It is a solar energy capture/conversion sphere approx. the size of earth orbit, right? This must be another Dyson idea. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 18:24:54 GMT From: Mary Shafer Subject: Magellan Update - 03/19/93 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary On 21 Mar 1993 12:27:16 -0500, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) said: Pat> can I get some of the surplus gear? NASA surplussing works like this: 1. The rest of the center. 2. Other NASA centers. 3. All other Federal agencies. 4. State agencies (includes _state_ universities). 5. Counties and cities. 6. Public auction (through GSA). Offhand, I'd say no, you can't. If it's worth having, someone else will get it long before it gets to step 6. Working, reasonably current computers won't make it beyond step 3. My working DECmate II was grabbed in step 2, about two years ago. On the other hand, our C-47 Gooney Bird went to step 4, ending up at Ole Miss. Of course we surplussed it because it had a nasty habit of catching the left engine on fire, so how worth having it was is a real judgment call. -- Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all." Unknown US fighter pilot ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 93 16:49:54 GMT From: David Drumheller Subject: Personal hygiene in space Newsgroups: sci.space I've done some extensive reading about the history of the Apollo Program, and some authors (former astronauts) have described in detail the handling of human waste in early days of the program. Now my intent is not be scatological, but I have three questions: (1) What kind of backup systems do the current shuttle crews have for handling human waste when the toilet fails? I presume they resort to the old "shit mit" for fecal matter, and "motorman's friend" for urine. (2) Furthermore, what adaptations have been made to conventional (passive) waste handling tools for female astronauts when wearing space suits, especially for urination? In the old days, astronauts used a device that was similar to a condom, and was attached to a bag strapped to one of their legs. If you had to urinate, you literally wet your pants. (Buzz Aldrin claims that he was the first one to wet his pants on the moon using this device.) Clearly, the attachment to urethra would be different for females. (3) Has anyone addressed the problem of menstruation in space? I presume conventional tampons and pads are used. How does zero gravity affect menses? Does NASA have any in-flight data on this? These are serious questions; I'm genuinely interested. Response by posting is OK, but if you feel that the details are best relayed in private, then please e-mail your response directly to drumhell@claudette.nrl.navy.mil Thank you, Dave Drumheller ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 17:11:52 GMT From: Cameron Randale Bass Subject: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics,alt.sci.planetary In article <1993Mar22.155622.27939@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> tes@motif.jsc.nasa.gov. (Thomas E. Smith) writes: >> how >> does one define or detect a 'wave'? Apart from the fact that I suspect >> propagation speed determines the detection through the doppler >> shift, it seems to be crucial in all cases. > >To detect a doppler shift in gravitons, you would have to be able to detect >gravitons in the first place, and we have not been able to so far. That's like >trying to listen for the doppler shift in a train's whistle as it's approaching >you when you are deaf anyway. The crucial point in my sentence above was unfortunately deleted. The beginning was along the lines 'if the wave travelled instantaneously'. The sentiment was something like 'If a wave travels at infinite wavespeed, where's the wave?' Your ears are going to have a difficult time decomposing that oscillation. You aren't suggesting that 'gravitons', whatever they may be, are propagated instantaneously are you? >But ignoring that, it sounds like the events you could detect would be >things like massive objects speeding toward or away from you. But according >to many articles on the subject, some of the things that would produce >gravity waves are neutron stars orbiting black holes, or super novae. These >don't have as much doppler shift as other things such as quasars, which have >huge red-shifts, or even galaxies as they spin. Aren't you confusing E&M doppler effects with GR doppler effects? I guess that things moving away from us would doppler shift emitted 'gravitational waves', but this would seem to affect only the frequency of the wavepacket. We seem to be looking for the existence of the wavepacket. In other words, we seem to be looking for the effect of the wave on the doppler shift of the spacecraft, not the doppler shift of the wave itself due to the motion of the source. >If a gravity wave travels between the spacecraft, and the receiver on the >Earth, it will curve space and increase the distance between us and the >spacecraft. If they time the pulses from the ground to the spacecraft, >and back to Earth they should see a slight increase in distance between the >spacecraft, and the Earth (accounting for the spacecraft's velocity of course). >And they will have to accurately account for the time it takes the spacecraft >to proccess the signal, and send it back. If it takes a constant amount of time >to do this, then you can just ignore it. But time is the rub. While the wave is playing around with space, it's also playing around with time. It's also coinciding with the 'return' signal in various configurations. dale bass ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 16:45:15 GMT From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov Subject: Russians ICBMs -> SLVs Newsgroups: sci.space David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org wrote: : Are any details on the design of former Soviet ICBMs available now? No. -- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (713) 483-4368 "The earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind will not stay in the cradle forever." -- Konstantin Tsiolkvosky ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 16:43:49 GMT From: "Paul A. Scowen" Subject: Shuttle Launch Schedule? Newsgroups: sci.space Hi, this may be an FAQ, but I need a schedule of Shuttle launches for this year and was wondering if anyone out there could either tell me where an updated copy is maintained, or send me the latest version. Thanks. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul A. Scowen INTERNET: scowen@wfpc3.la.asu.edu Department of Physics & Astronomy uk1@spacsun.rice.edu Arizona State University Tel: (602) 965-0938 Box 871504 FAX: (602) 965-7954 Tempe, AZ 85287-1504 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 16:38:29 GMT From: Keith Mancus Subject: Skysurfing from Orbit Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Mar22.162704.28845@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, kjenks@jsc.nasa.gov (Ken Jenks [NASA]) writes: > Robert Magee (Robert_Magee@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote: > : I could use a little data on re-entry for a short story I am laboring on. > : 3) How deep into the atmosphere must the shuttle descend before the wings > : generate sufficient lift to provide control? > "Entry Interface" is at 400,000 feet. Ken, doesn't "Entry Interface" (which doesn't indeed occur at 400,000 ft) refer to the first touch of atmosphere, which causes deceleration to begin in earnest and heat shield temperatures to rise? I don't think you get any aerodynamic *control* via control surfaces until you are significantly lower. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. -- Keith Mancus | N5WVR | "Black powder and alcohol, when your states and cities fall, | when your back's against the wall...." -Leslie Fish | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 16:27:04 GMT From: "Ken Jenks [NASA]" Subject: Skysurfing from Orbit Newsgroups: sci.space Robert Magee (Robert_Magee@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote: : I could use a little data on re-entry for a short story I am laboring on. : 1) From low earth orbit, how much thrust would need to be generated : to slow a 400 pound mass sufficiently to enter the atmosphere? No thrust is required at all -- if you have enough air drag, or if you want to wait for a while. But if you're an impatient astronaut, wanting to come home on a surf board, about 500 feet per second is the rate we use on the Shuttle. (A BIG parachute might give you that drag, but it's a little hard to control where you come down.) : 2) What is the optimum angle to enter the atmosphere with the Shuttle? 35-40 degrees. : 3) How deep into the atmosphere must the shuttle descend before the wings : generate sufficient lift to provide control? "Entry Interface" is at 400,000 feet. : Input is appreciated. When I figure out how to uucode a case of beer, I'll : post it. ;^) No beer required. I trained -- briefly -- to be the astronaut office's expert on the Entry phase of Shuttle flight. I did these from memory, but my memory's pretty good. : Thanks : Bobby Magee : Robert_Magee@mindlink.bc.ca Proofreading available on request. I've done some science fiction writing, myself. -- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (713) 483-4368 "NASA turns dreams into realities and makes science fiction into fact" -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 93 17:19:43 GMT From: Keith Mancus Subject: Skysurfing from Orbit Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Mar22.163829.29154@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes: > Ken, doesn't "Entry Interface" (which doesn't indeed occur at 400,000 ft) Oops, typo, that should read "which DOES indeed occur at 400,000 ft. -- | Keith Mancus | | N5WVR | | "Black powder and alcohol, when your states and cities fall, | | when your back's against the wall...." -Leslie Fish | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 18:29:36 GMT From: Mary Shafer Subject: SR-71 Maiden Science Flight Newsgroups: sci.space On 21 Mar 1993 12:30:03 -0500, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) said: Pat> Has anyone considered which is more fun to ride along on while Pat> running science gear? I'd rather hop in the back seat of the 71 Pat> and run the science gear, as opposed to dangling in a balloon. The experimenters are NOT riding in the SR-71. Only rated Dryden personnel ride in the SR-71s. Actually there are precisely four people who are rated; Steve Ishmael and Rogers Smith, the pilots, and Bob Meyer and Marta Bohn-Meyer, the FTEs. Each flight uses one pilot and one FTE (i.e. no two-pilot flights). -- Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all." Unknown US fighter pilot ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 93 19:09:53 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: SR-71 Maiden Science Flight Newsgroups: sci.space In <1oi8mr$3km@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >Has anyone considered which is more fun to ride along on while >running science gear? I'd rather hop in the back seat of the 71 >and run the science gear, as opposed to dangling in a balloon. Uh, Pat? I don't think people go up in the kind of balloon we're talking about here. It's all done by remote control. I also don't think (but do not know for sure) that the experimenter even goes up with the gear when it's in an SR-71. It'll all be run by the regular aircrew, I expect. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 16:25:59 GMT From: "Dr. Norman J. LaFave" Subject: SSTO: A Spaceship for the rest of us Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1oih0d$up@umd5.umd.edu> Dave Akin, dakin@ssl.umd.edu writes: > What bothers me about the SSTO/SSX/DC-X enthusiasts (I > started to say "groupies", but didn't want to start a flame war > :-) ) is that they are largely ignoring the whole point of > refurbishment. Indeed, many of the tales being told about > DC-X ("airline-type maintenance", etc.) are the same things > I heard in the early days of the shuttle program. Don't get me > wrong, I have a lot of friends at MacDac, and I really hope > DC-X works like a dream, but I think it's a real mistake to > go into a program assuming you can improve things by an > order of magnitude based on an assumption (implicit or > otherwise) that you're an order of magnitude smarter than I think you need to go take a tour at KSC to see why your arguement is not valid. Let me take you on a virtual trip.... See the Vehicle Assembly building? That huge structure with massive cranes needed to build the shuttle stack for launch? Not needed for DC (no stack to assemble (and no potential assembly accidents) ). See the "crawler" used to roll the shuttle stack out to the pad (the largest land transport on earth)? Yes, the one that uses thousands of gallons of fuel to make the trip out and back. Not needed for DC (can land near where it launches). See the large shuttle gantry which must be refurbished every flight? Not necessary with DC because it is designed to need no gantry (possibly a roll-back hanger). Let's look in the orbiter maintenance buildings.... See the turbopumps being torn down for inspection after every flight? That is because the main engines red line during launch. Not the case with the DC design because it never red lines its engines. See the landing strip for the orbiter? Not necessary for a vertical landing vehicle like DC (although the landing pad may need some reinforcement). Oh, let's not forget the cost of fishing the SRBs out of the drink and transporting them to a facility for refit....or the fact that we throw away one external tank per flight...or the fact that thousands of personnel ae required for all of the refits, refurbs, inspections, and assemblies necessary between launches. The fact is that the DC concept is cheaper BY DESIGN. To clarify my position: I am a great admirer of the shuttle system. Given the time period in which it was designed, it is an amazing piece of hardware. I believe it should be used until a replacement is available (unlike Allen). The fact that it didn't achieve some of its goals should not be held against the engineering, but against the fickle funding which forced some EXPENSIVE compromises to the original concept. However, I also believe that the breakthroughs in material research, computational fluid dynamics, and engine technology over the past 15 years has given us the opportunity to make the shuttle obsolete. It has provided us the opportunity to corner the commercial launch market and to decrease the launch costs for all of NASA's science missions thus making them more affordable and saving them from the budget chopping block. NASA should fund DC-Y upon successful testing of the DC-X prototype. Norman Dr. Norman J. LaFave Senior Engineer Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro Hunter Thompson ------------------------------ Date: 22 Mar 1993 17:08:34 GMT From: Andy Cohen Subject: SSTO: A Spaceship for the rest of us Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1oih0d$up@umd5.umd.edu>, Dave Akin wrote: > > What bothers me about the SSTO/SSX/DC-X enthusiasts (I > started to say "groupies", but didn't want to start a flame war Smart. You would have gotten one... > :-) ) is that they are largely ignoring the whole point of > refurbishment. Indeed, many of the tales being told about > DC-X ("airline-type maintenance", etc.) are the same things > I heard in the early days of the shuttle program. Don't get me > wrong, I have a lot of friends at MacDac, and I really hope > DC-X works like a dream, but I think it's a real mistake to > go into a program assuming you can improve things by an > order of magnitude based on an assumption (implicit or > otherwise) that you're an order of magnitude smarter than > the guys who did it the last time... The mission of DC-X is to provide 15 flights.... Now I know first hand from the guys out in building 44 that this does not include the hover tests, or the low altitude manuever tests. Refueling will be in the field....as far as refurbishing..... I can't see how they can do the kind of refurbishing at White Sands as the shuttle requires.... no way.... My point is that there is no refurbishing....just refueling.... An ironic point.... Refurbishing of two SRB compontents takes place about 100 Yds away. Each SRB gets broken down after use..... Also, when you consider a Shuttle launch you must take into account all of the activities at KSC....before the trip to 39A or B... A lot happens at the VAB.....There is no VAB for the Delta Clipper....just a bunch of trucks... How about it!??? Where can I upload the vugraphs on Delta Clipper???!!!! The AMES system won't let me!!!! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 13:58:50 MST From: "Richard Schroeppel" Subject: temperature of Lunar soil Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 04:38:00 GMT Subject: Lunar Arctic, pressure, antifreeze (was Re: Lunar ice transport) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Mar19.142635.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: >Remember Henry's assertion that the temperature is a constant 255 K >underground? That nice steady thermal environment is mighty >attractive. Note that that's at a depth of 1m. Our measurements go down only 2-3m (and go down that far at only one site -- it took until Apollo 16 to sort out the problems of drilling holes in the regolith, and then John Young had to trip over the damn cable, so our only deep data is from Apollo 17...), but it looks like the temperature rises at something like 1.3K/m. You might not have to bury the thing all that deeply to get above 0C. That's 1300K/km, right? Selenothermal power! Rich Schroeppel rcs@cs.arizona.edu ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 352 ------------------------------