Date: Wed, 7 Apr 93 05:22:45 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #430 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Wed, 7 Apr 93 Volume 16 : Issue 430 Today's Topics: Abyss: breathing fluids ACM and the Universe Blow up space station, easy way to do it. Brazilian space program DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test (questions?) Hypothetical planet inside of mercury's orbit (was Vulcan....) Info on Probe Computers Mach 25 MACH 25 landing site bases? nuclear waste (3 msgs) Small Astronaut (was: Budget Astronaut) space food sticks 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: Wed, 7 Apr 93 09:25:36 BST From: Greg Stewart-Nicholls Subject: Abyss: breathing fluids Newsgroups: sci.space In <1psghn$s7r@access.digex.net> Pat writes: >In article enf021@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Achurist) writes: >| >|I believe the reason is that the lung diaphram gets too tired to pump >|the liquid in and out and simply stops breathing after 2-3 minutes. >|So if your in the vehicle ready to go they better not put you on >|hold, or else!! That's about it. Remember a liquid is several more times >|as dense as a gas by its very nature. ~10 I think, depending on the gas >|and liquid comparision of course! > >Could you use some sort of mechanical chest compression as an aid. >Sorta like the portable Iron Lung? Put some sort of flex tubing >around the 'aquanauts' chest. Cyclically compress it and it will >push enough on the chest wall to support breathing????? > >You'd have to trust your breather, but in space, you have to trust >your suit anyway. > >pat > The only reason you inhale and exhale is to exchange good air for bad. If you're breathing fluid, you could mechanically circulate the fluid through the lung-helmet-filter system. Provided you maintain the oxygen content of the fluid in the lung, you shouldn't need to inhale/exhale. ----------------------------------------------------------------- .sig files are like strings ... every yo-yo's got one. Greg Nicholls ... nicho@vnet.ibm.com (business) or nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk (private) ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 93 08:28:35 GMT From: Charles Lindsey Subject: ACM and the Universe Newsgroups: sci.space It seems that ACM are getting all geared up for the Space Age when it arrives. I have just signed a release form for the videotaping/audiotaping of a Conference where I am to present a paper. The rights I have signed away are amazing, including the use of my image and voice for all sorts of unspecified and unimaginable purposes. However, the real surprise was that I was asked to give my rights away "in perpetuity" (probably reasonable, but I shan't really care then) and "throughout the Universe". I did seriously consider writing in that I retained my rights to the use of these things in Alpha Centauri. -- Charles H. Lindsey ------------------------------------------------------------- At Home, doing my own thing. Internet: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Voice: +44 61 437 4506 Janet: chl@uk.ac.man.cs.clw Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave., CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. UUCP: mucs!clerew!chl ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 93 05:35:08 GMT From: Ken Kobayashi Subject: Blow up space station, easy way to do it. Newsgroups: sci.space The concept of inflatable space structures always reminds me of a scene in Allan Steele's "Orbital Decay" where an inflatable part of the space station gets hit by a spacecraft and rips apart. Is this a real concern? Could inflatable structures be more dangerous than rigid ones? -- Ken Kobayashi kkobayas@husc.harvard.edu | "There is no final frontier." - IBM ad ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 93 01:11:04 GMT From: Joseph Askew Subject: Brazilian space program Newsgroups: sci.space In article <93092.163553XXX100@psuvm.psu.edu> XXX100@psuvm.psu.edu writes: I found this is soc.culture.china (what it was doing there I have no idea) Can anyone comment on its accuracy? I thought the US was leaning on Brazil not to develop ICBM-type technology. Satellite launchers included. -----------------------------ENCLOSURE--------------------------------- Subject: Brazil launches first rocket Date: Fri, 2 Apr 93 10:30:46 PST BRASILIA, Brazil (UPI) -- Brazil joined the select group of nations capable of putting satellites in orbit Friday when it successfully launched its first locally constructed rocket, government officials said. Brazilian technicians and scientists launched the VS-40 rocked at 7:34 a.m. from the Alcantara air base in Maranhao state, 1,400 miles northwest of Brasilia, according to the director of the space center there, Commander Carlos Augusto Ancilon Cavalcante. The rocket flew to an altitude of 780 miles and fell 24 minutes later into the Atlantic Ocean off Natal, Brazil, more than 1,200 mileshwest of Alcantara, Ancilon Cavalcante said. ``It was an absolute success,'' Ancilon Cavalcante told reporters after President Itamar Franco and 60 otheric watched the launch. ``We have taken an important step toward dominating satellite-launching technology.'' Franco, 62, then announced his government had decided to create the Brazilian Space Agency. ``The project will be sent to the National Congress and we will ask that it is considered urgently,'' Franco said. Brazilian scientists included an experiment on the rocket to study solar ray effects. Ancilon Cavalcante said his team of scientists expects to be able to build a vehicle to launch satellites within three years. The South American nation thus hopes to save the $130 million needed to rent launching pads and vehicles at Cape Canaveral, Fla., or Kourou, French Guyana. ``Also, it won't be necessary for the country to wait in line for up to two years for foreign centers to launch satellites,'' Ancilon Cavalcante said. Ancilon said Alcantara had some of the most favorable conditions for satellite launching in the world, noting it was two degrees below the equater, a fact that would allow them to use 30 percent less fuel than Cape Canaveral or Kourou and save time and money on satellite launches. He said the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration plans to use the Alcantara base between October and December of this year to launch 12 test rockets and 20 meteorological satellites. Ancilon said the Brazilian government was also negotiating with the world's largest rocket-makers, Lockheed of the United States and Krunichev of Russia, on renting out Alcantara for launches. Brazil currently has two satellites, the Brasil-sat, launched eight years ago, and an environmental and weather satellite launched in February from Cape Canaveral. ------------------------END--------------------- Joseph Askew -- Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud In the autumn stillness, see the Pleiades, jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu Remote in thorny deserts, fell the grief. Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care North of our tents, the sky must end somwhere, Actually, I rather like Brenda Beyond the pale, the River murmurs on. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 1993 18:33:57 GMT From: steve hix Subject: DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr5.191011.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: > >Since the DC-X is to take off horizontal, why not land that way?? Well, since it *doesn't* launch horizontally in the first place... >Why do the Martian Landing thing.. Or am I missing something.. Don't know to >much about DC-X and such.. (overly obvious?). Hmmm. >Why not just fall to earth like the russian crafts?? Parachute in then... Single-Stage To Orbit is marginal as it is, why toss out all your payload capability for landing parachutes? -- ------------------------------------------------------- | Some things are too important not to give away | | to everybody else and have none left for yourself. | |------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----| ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 93 00:27:23 GMT From: nsmca@ACAD3.ALASKA.EDU Subject: DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test (questions?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article , jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes: > nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: > > [Excellent discussion of DC-X landing techniques by Henry deleted] > >>Since the DC-X is to take off horizontal, why not land that way?? > > The DC-X will not take of horizontally. It takes of vertically. > >>Why do the Martian Landing thing.. > > For several reasons. Vertical landings don't require miles of runway and limit > noise pollution. They don't require wheels or wings. Just turn on the engines > and touch down. Of course, as Henry pointed out, vetical landings aren't quite > that simple. > >>Or am I missing something.. Don't know to >>much about DC-X and such.. (overly obvious?). > > Well, to be blunt, yes. But at least you're learning. > >>Why not just fall to earth like the russian crafts?? Parachute in then... > > The Soyuz vehicles use parachutes for the descent and then fire small rockets > just before they hit the ground. Parachutes are, however, not especially > practical if you want to reuse something without much effort. The landings > are also not very comfortable. However, in the words of Georgy Grechko, > "I prefer to have bruises, not to sink." > > > -- > Josh Hopkins jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu > "Tout ce qu'un homme est capable d'imaginer, d'autres hommes > seront capable de la realiser" > -Jules Verne Quyanna for correcting me without insulting me (flames and such). Okay so the DC-X is to land vertically (reasons explains) maybe use the Russian Way (parachutes) or something similar.. I know its nice to have powered flight all the way down, but.. Or maybe a system in ways liek the Osprey (no not with propellors), but have someform of manuvering jets or ?? (or do I show my ignorance once again? I am learning.. Need to find a article on DC-X and read more.. I am at the library..)) Use the parachutes to slow your decent down (from the rear) and then to bring you around to verical and then loose them (parachutes can be recovered very easy).. Other odd question where will the DC-X take off from and land at? Edwards or ??White Sands?? Near Fort IRwin/Goldstone...??? Just being a busy body.. Michael Adams, Ignorant of DC-X so enlighten me.. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1993 01:08:44 GMT From: nathan wallace Subject: Hypothetical planet inside of mercury's orbit (was Vulcan....) Newsgroups: sci.space (Note to those who read my earlier postings and had line overflow: sorry! I have fixed my parameters and hopefully won't repeat this!) Could someone take a moment to address the question of how close to the sun a planet could get before it either burned away in the atmosphere of the sun or was melted by solar radiation? I presume Mercury is not in the closest possible orbit, by the way. Thanx! --- C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/ C/ Nathan F. Wallace C/C/ "Reality Is" C/ C/ e-mail: wallacen@cs.colostate.edu C/C/ ancient Alphaean proverb C/ C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 23:19:40 GMT From: simon@otago.ac.nz Subject: Info on Probe Computers Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.folklore.computers In article <1phu90$f73@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: > > Actually this shouldn't be that difficult. > What ytouare describing is a machine simulator. I've done it for > Hardware developement projects, and given the small size of > probe computers, it should be fairly straight forward. Ironically it sounds like the later, more complex systems will be easier to simulate. Apparently the earlier beasts didn't have computers in the Von Neumann sense, so a lot will depend on how good the documentation is. > THe hardest part will be developing useful simulations of probe > sensor data streams. FOr these you need a small > universe that's work. IT depends if you just want to test > command sequences or fully model the bird. Yep, that will be the fun bit... Initially I want to concentrate on the probe internals to try and get a handle on _why_ they used code X for stage Y of the mission, but eventually I'd like to go to a full-scale sim, which is going to mean a LOT of reading (me philosopher - no speak physics). Simon Brady I'm OK. You're OK. COBOL programmers are University of Otago _not_ OK. Dunedin, New Zealand ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 05:26:58 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Mach 25 Newsgroups: sci.space In article MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@rockwell.com ("RWTMS2::MUNIZB") writes: >Have any laser or microwave driven *rockets* ever been tested ... The problem is that the power requirement scales linearly with exhaust velocity, for constant thrust. A helicopter is the best case, very low exhaust velocity. For a practical rocket, you want exhaust velocities of kilometers per second, and you need megawatts per kilogram. This means a *big* laser. Kare's group did ground tests of propulsion hardware but did not quite get to the point of flying anything. They have a design for what Jordin calls "the laser bottle rocket" that could fly a semi-captive test (going up a pair of wires) with existing laser hardware and not much more effort. This would verify things like thrust vectoring. If I recall correctly, the next step after that was a suborbital demo, again using existing lasers. >... Should SSI be examining more promising >approaches other than/in addition to Myrabo's air-breathing, multiple-cycle >engines for small, personal launch vehicles? How did "personal" creep in here? Let's talk about launch systems, and leave Myrabo's "family spaceship" for the next generation of hardware. Yes, SSI most emphatically should be looking at near-term approaches as well as long-term ones. Myrabo specializes in elaborate fantasies that might eventually be feasible; practical laser launch systems could be built **TODAY** if you're willing to settle for smaller payloads and more modest performance. -- All work is one man's work. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology - Kipling | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 93 17:57:38 -0800 From: mollenauerh@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com Subject: MACH 25 landing site bases? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr5.193829.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: > The supersonic booms hear a few months ago over I belive San Fran, heading east > of what I heard, some new super speed Mach 25 aircraft?? What military based > int he direction of flight are there that could handle a Mach 25aircraft on its > landing decent?? Odd question?? > > == > Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked > Even if there was such a thing as a Mach 25 aircraft, they would not land at supersonic speeds. Hank - sorry no fancy tag line - M. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 93 18:12:00 PST From: "RWTMS2::MUNIZB" Subject: nuclear waste on Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 13:16:34 GMT, Paul Dietz writes: /Briefly, there is nothing in oil that cannot be replaced with /nonfossil fuel sources, at some cost. Another source of energy /is needed, but there are several options there. I remember hearing that: oil is more useful (worth more?) as petrochemical products such as plastics and fertilizers than as a fuel since there are other energy sources that can be used, but no other readily available feedstocks; but oil is still used because of energy density/storability probelms with alternate sources. Disclaimer: Opinions stated are solely my own (unless I change my mind). Ben Muniz MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@consrt.rockwell.com w(818)586-3578 Space Station Freedom:Rocketdyne/Rockwell:Structural Loads and Dynamics "Man will not fly for fifty years": Wilbur to Orville Wright, 1901 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 93 20:30:58 GMT From: Dave Jones Subject: nuclear waste Newsgroups: sci.space William Reiken (will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp) wrote: > In article <1pp6reINNonl@phantom.gatech.edu>, matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes: > > > > Greedy little oil companies? Don't blame them; oil companies just supply the > > demand created by you, me, and just about everyone else on the planet. If we > > run out, its all our faults. > > > > Ok, so how about the creation of oil producing bacteria? I figure > that if you can make them to eat it up then you can make them to shit it. > Any comments? > Yes, there's a small matter of energy input going to oil. That's why it's an energy source - it contains more energy than its combustion products. If you want to reverse that you need energy. If your starting material is _more_ energetic then you might want to consider using it directly - the conversion has to waste energy, though the fact that oil is a fluid and, say, coal is not might make it worthwhile. And the inevitable comment that you should use solar energy to drive this gets the answer: Yes, but it makes more sense to go with the organisms that have been doing it for millions of years (aka plants) than to engineer that into bacteria. -- ||Nothing can prepare you for the revelation ||"You have reached the phone ||that your favorite movie director is a dweeb.|| system of Muzak, Inc. ||---------------------------------------------|| While you wait you will hear ||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)--------|| live US Senate proceedings" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 05:29:18 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: nuclear waste Newsgroups: sci.space In article MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@rockwell.com ("RWTMS2::MUNIZB") writes: >I remember hearing that: oil is more useful (worth more?) as petrochemical >products such as plastics and fertilizers than as a fuel since there are other >energy sources that can be used, but no other readily available feedstocks... As I recall, at the peak of oil prices, carbonate rock was within a factor of five of being economically feasible as a chemical feedstock. (I may have the number wrong, but the factor wasn't huge.) There is lots of carbonate rock. -- All work is one man's work. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology - Kipling | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 93 01:47:03 GMT From: William Reiken Subject: Small Astronaut (was: Budget Astronaut) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <2496@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au>, jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes: > > I think you would lose your money. Julius was actually rather tall > for a Roman. > So just how tall was he? Will... ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 1993 02:10:19 GMT From: "David M. Palmer" Subject: space food sticks Newsgroups: sci.space ghelf@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;RD48) writes: >I had spacefood sticks just about every morning for breakfast in >first and second grade (69-70, 70-71). I remember these. The TV commercial for them had an astronaut eating one of them with his spacesuit and helmet on. He stuck it into his mouth through a neat hole drilled in his faceplate. Very confusing for a little kid who knows about vacuum and the horrors of a suit leak. -- David M. Palmer palmer@alumni.caltech.edu palmer@tgrs.gsfc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 430 ------------------------------