Date: Thu, 8 Apr 93 05:23:23 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #436 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 8 Apr 93 Volume 16 : Issue 436 Today's Topics: Aerospace companies cooperate in reusable vehicle market. Biosphere II Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter? DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY for Spacecraft/Colonies interested in microrovers I would like some feedback petrochemicals (was Re: nuclear waste) Question- Why is SSTO Single Stage Shuttle-C cost estimating Space Research Spin Off SR-71 Replacement? UARS & STS-56 Will the launch be visible from NJ? 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: 8 Apr 1993 00:28:49 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Aerospace companies cooperate in reusable vehicle market. Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: |What we need, at this point, is to build an orbital demonstrator. It |need not be a full-scale transport prototype, and indeed it need not be |manned, but it must go into orbit repeatedly. This is the final proof |that the approach is workable, and it is a step we will be ready to |take after the DC-X tests (if we aren't already -- a debatable point). |There is no need to waste time and money repeating the preliminaries |yet again. Do you think the LockHeed Vega or Ford Tri-Motor were the prototypes for the DC-1? THis is kinda a trivia/speculative question. The DC-2 then DC-3 really made long haul air transport possible. Given how little we know about SSTO, would it be worth taking an S-II or S-IVB out of mothballs and rigging them for technology testing? there should be at least two still around? and the support gear is still mostly there. Maybe we could use them for testing effective behaviors, and even to test teh aero-spike nozzle concepts. pat ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 1993 00:33:17 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Biosphere II Newsgroups: sci.space Why is everyone being so critical of B2? It's ed Basses money, why should we care. If he spent it on Cocaine and hookers, no-one would care. Be glad he didn't buy an S&L instead. pat besides it's holistic science, they are attempting to establish an inbalance eco-sphere. they don't need to know neccesarily each interaction, they need to know wether or not it will self sustain. to date, it seems they are having O2 balance problems. It's like a farm. if the crops grow it's a success. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 1993 05:09 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In article <5APR199318045045@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: > According the IAU Circular #5744, Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e, may be > temporarily in orbit around Jupiter. The comet had apparently made a > close flyby of Jupiter sometime in 1992 resulting in the breakup of the > comet. Attempts to determine the comet's orbit has been complicated by > the near impossibility of measuring the comet's center of mass. I want to stress that the orbital computations for this comet are very preliminary. It is not known for certain that the comet is in a temporary Jovian orbit. This will take weeks or months of observations to know for sure. Brian Marsden sent me a message saying he based his computations on the assumption that since the comet had broken up, it must of made a very close flyby of Jupiter. If he's right, then the comet may remain in Jupiter orbit into the next century. Otherwise, all bets are off and the comet will head off on its merry way. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | and causes more aggravation | instead. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 1993 04:44:05 GMT From: Greg Wilkins Subject: DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test Newsgroups: sci.space In article 3Dn@zoo.toronto.edu, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <2736@snap> paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes: >>How is >>the transition from aerodynamic flight (if thats what it is) to hover >>accomplished? This is the really new part... > >It's also one of the tricky parts. There are four different ideas, and >DC-X will probably end up trying all of them. (This is from talking to >Mitch Burnside Clapp, who's one of the DC-X test pilots, at Making Orbit.) > >(1) Pop a drogue chute from the nose, light the engines once the thing > stabilizes base-first. Simple and reliable. Heavy shock loads > on an area of structure that doesn't otherwise carry major loads. > Needs a door in the "hot" part of the structure, a door whose > operation is mission-critical. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Why is it mission-critical, if there are the three other alternatives you outlined that could be used as a backup. ie. pop the chute, if that doesn't work switch off stability, if that don't work turn the engines on and "fly" it around? -gregw ------------------------------ Date: 7 Apr 93 18:25:17 -0600 From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu Subject: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY for Spacecraft/Colonies Newsgroups: sci.space The Technologies described below could be used to power spacecraft, space colonies, etc.: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY by Robert E. McElwaine, Physicist Ninety to a hundred years ago, everybody "knew" that a heavier-than-air machine could not possibly fly. It would violate the "laws" of physics. All of the "experts" and "authorities" said so. For example, Simon Newcomb declared in 1901: "The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the demonstration of any physical fact to be." Fortunately, a few SMART people such as the Wright Brothers did NOT accept such pronouncements as the final word. Now we take airplanes for granted, (except when they crash). Today, orthodox physicists and other "scientists" are saying similar things against several kinds of 'Free Energy' Technologies, using negative terms such as "pseudo-science" and "perpetual motion", and citing so-called "laws" which assert that "energy cannot be created or destroyed" ("1st law of thermodynamics") and "there is always a decrease in useful energy" ("2nd law of thermodynamics"). The physicists do not know how to do certain things, so they ARROGANTLY declare that those things cannot be done. Such PRINCIPLES OF IMPOTENCE are COMMON in orthodox modern "science" and help to cover up INCONSISTENCIES and CONTRADICTIONS in orthodox modern theories. Free Energy Inventions are devices which can tap a seemingly UNLIMITED supply of energy from the universe, with- OUT burning any kind of fuel, making them the PERFECT SOLUTION to the world-wide energy crisis and its associated pollution, degradation, and depletion of the environment. Most Free Energy Devices probably do not create energy, but rather tap into EXISTING natural energy sources by various forms of induction. UNLIKE solar or wind devices, they need little or no energy storage capacity, because they can tap as much energy as needed WHEN needed. Solar energy has the DIS-advantage that the sun is often blocked by clouds, trees, buildings, or the earth itself, or is reduced by haze or smog or by thick atmosphere at low altitudes and high latitudes. Likewise, wind speed is WIDELY VARIABLE and often non-existent. Neither solar nor wind power are suitable to directly power cars and airplanes. Properly designed Free Energy Devices do NOT have such limitations. For example, at least three U.S. patents (#3,811,058, #3,879,622, and #4,151,431) have so far been awarded for motors that run EXCLUSIVELY on permanent MAGNETS, seemingly tapping into energy circulating through the earth's magnetic field. The first two require a feedback network in order to be self-running. The third one, as described in detail in "Science & Mechanics" magazine, Spring 1980, ("Amazing Magnet-Powered Motor", by Jorma Hyypia, pages 45-48, 114-117, and front cover), requires critical sizes, shapes, orientations, and spacings of magnets, but NO feedback. Such a motor could drive an electric generator or reversible heatpump in one's home, YEAR ROUND, FOR FREE. [Complete descriptive copies of U.S. patents are $3.00 each from the U.S. Patent Office, 2021 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202; correct 7-digit patent number required. Or try getting copies of BOTH the article AND the Patents via your local public or university library's inter-library loan dept..] A second type of free-energy device, such as the 'Gray Motor' (U.S. Patent #3,890,548), the 'Tesla Coil', and the unpatented motor of inventor Joseph Newman, taps ELECTRO- MAGNETIC energy by INDUCTION from 'EARTH RESONANCE' (about 12 cycles per second plus harmonics). They typically have a 'SPARK GAP' in the circuit which serves to SYNCHRONIZE the energy in the coils with the energy being tapped. It is important that the total 'inductance' and 'capacitance' of the Device combine to 'RESONATE' at the same frequency as 'EARTH RESONANCE' in order to maximize the power output. This output can also be increased by centering the SPARK GAP at the 'NEUTRAL CENTER' of a strong U-shaped permanent magnet. In the case of a Tesla Coil, slipping a 'TOROID CHOKE COIL' around the secondary coil will enhance output power. ["Earth Energy: Fuelless Propulsion & Power Systems", by John Bigelow, 1976, Health Research, P.O. Box 70, Mokelumne Hill, CA 95245.] During the 1930's, an Austrian civil engineer named Viktor Schauberger invented and partially developed an 'IMPLOSION TURBINE' (German name, 'ZOKWENDLE'), after analyzing erosion, and lack of erosion, in differently shaped waterways, and developing sophisticated mathematical equations to explain it. As described in the book "A Breakthrough to New Free-Energy Sources", by Dan A. Davidson, 1977, water is pumped by an IMPELLER pump through a LOGARITHMIC-SPIRAL-shaped coil of tubing until it reaches a CRITICAL VELOCITY. The water then IMPLODES, no longer touching the inside walls of the tubing, and drives the pump, which then converts the pump's motor into an ELECTRIC GENERATOR. The device seems to be tapping energy from that of the earth's rotation, via the 'Coriolis effect', LIKE A TORNADO. [It can also NEUTRALIZE GRAVITY!] A fourth type of Free Energy Device is the 'McClintock Air Motor' (U.S. Patent #2,982,261), which is a cross between a diesel engine (it has three cylinders with a compression ratio of 27 to 1) and a rotary engine (with solar and planetary gears). It burns NO FUEL, but becomes self-running by driving its own air compressor. This engine also generates a lot of heat, which could be used to heat buildings; and its very HIGH TORQUE makes it ideal for large trucks, preventing their slowing down when climbing hills. [David McClintock is also the REAL original Inventor of the automatic transmission, differential, and 4-wheel drive.] Crystals may someday be used to supply energy, as shown in the Star Trek shows, perhaps by inserting each one between metal capacitor plates and bombarding it with a beam of particles from a small radioactive source like that used in a common household smoke detector. One other energy source should be mentioned here, despite the fact that it does not fit the definition of Free Energy. A Bulgarian-born American Physicist named Joseph Maglich has invented and partially developed an atomic FUSION reactor which he calls 'Migma', which uses NON-radioactive deuterium as a fuel [available in nearly UNLIMITED quantities from sea water], does NOT produce radioactive waste, can be converted DIRECTLY into electricity (with-OUT energy-wasting steam turbines), and can be constructed small enough to power a house or large enough to power a city. And UNLIKE the "Tokamaks" and laser fusion MONSTROSITIES that we read about, Migma WORKS, already producing at least three watts of power for every watt put in. ["New Times" (U.S. version), 6-26-78, pages 32-40.] And then there are the 'cold fusion' experiments that have been in the news lately, originally conducted by University of Utah researchers B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. Some U.S. Navy researchers at the China Lake Naval Weapons Center in California, under the direction of chemist Melvin Miles, finally took the trouble to collect the bubbles coming from such an apparatus, had them analyzed with mass-spectrometry techniques, and found HELIUM 4, which PROVES that atomic FUSION did indeed take place, and enough of it to explain the excess heat generated. There are GOOD INDICATIONS that the two so-called "laws" of thermodynamics are NOT so "absolute". For example, the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson developed a comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, which he calls the 'Reciprocal System', (which he describes in detail in several books such as "Nothing But Motion" (1979) and "The Universe of Motion" (1984)), in which the physical universe has TWO DISTINCT HALVES, the material half and an anti-matter half, with a CONTINUOUS CYCLE of matter and energy passing between them, with-OUT the "heat death" predicted by thermodynamic "laws". His Theory explains the universe MUCH BETTER than modern orthodox theories, including phenomena that orthodox physicists and astronomers are still scratching their heads about, and is SELF-CONSISTENT in every way. Some Free Energy Devices might be tapping into that energy flow, seemingly converting "low-quality energy" into "high-quality energy". Also, certain religious organizations such as 'Sant Mat' and 'Eckankar' teach their Members that the physical universe is only the LOWEST of at least a DOZEN major levels of existence, like parallel universes, or analogous to TV channels, as described in books like "The Path of the Masters", by Julian Johnson, 1939, and "Eckankar: The Key to Secret Worlds", by Sri Paul Twitchell, 1969. For example, the next level up from the physical universe is commonly called the 'Astral Plane'. Long-time Members of these groups have learned to 'Soul Travel' into these higher worlds and report on conditions there. It seems plausible that energy could flow down from these higher levels into the physical universe, or be created at the boundary between them, given the right configuration of matter to channel it. This is supported by many successful laboratory-controlled experiments in PSYCHO-KINESIS throughout the world, such as those described in the book "Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain". In terms of economics, the market has FAILED. Inventors do not have enough money and other resources to fully develop and mass-produce Free Energy Equipment, and the conventional energy producer$ have no desire to do so because of their VE$TED INTERE$T$. The government is needed to intervene. If the government does not intervene, then the total supply of energy resources from the earth will continue to decline and will soon run out, prices for energy will increase, and pollution and its harmful effects (including the 'GREENHOUSE EFFECT', acid rain, smog, radioactive contamination, oil spills, rape of the land by strip mining, etc.) will continue to increase. The government should SUBSIDIZE research and development of Free Energy by Inventors and universities, subsidize private production (until the producers can make it on their own), and subsidize consumption by low-income consumers of Free Energy Hardware. The long-range effects of such government intervention would be wide-spread and profound. The quantity of energy demanded from conventional energy producer$ (coal mining companie$, oil companie$ and countries, electric utilitie$, etc.) would drop to near zero, forcing their employees to seek work elsewhere. Energy resources (coal, uranium, oil, and gas) would be left in the ground. Prices for conventional energy supplies would also drop to near zero, while the price of Free Energy Equipment would start out high but drop as supply increases (as happened with VCR's, personal computers, etc.). Costs of producing products that require large quantities of energy to produce would decrease, along with their prices to consumers. Consumers would be able to realize the "opportunity costs" of paying electric utility bills or buying home heating fuel. Tourism would benefit and increase because travelers would not have to spend their money for gasoline for their cars. Government tax revenue from gasoline and other fuels would have to be obtained in some other way. And energy could no longer be used as a MOTIVE OR EXCUSE FOR MAKING WAR. Many conventional energy producer$ would go out of business, but society as a whole, and the earth's environment and ecosystems, would benefit greatly. It is the People, that government should serve, rather than the big corporation$ and bank$. UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. Robert E. McElwaine B.S., Physics, UW-EC ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 93 13:24:28 EST From: "S.K. Whiteman" Subject: interested in microrovers For anyone interested in microrover technology there is an article in April 1993 issue of NASA Tech Briefs, vol 17 no 4, on page 36. The article describes some of the nifty things the 15 Kg machine can do. There is a TSP, technical support package, available; NPO-18543. The work was done by David Miller, et al., of JPL. \ /___________________ Sam \_____/ 1794-1994 | IBM Systems Programmer Chicago/ | * | O Indiana University - I | Ft. Wayne | H Purdue University at Fort Wayne L | | Fort Wayne, Indiana USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 03:26:38 GMT From: Pacific Knowledge Subject: I would like some feedback Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,sci.psychology,sci.research,sci.space,de.sci.misc,aus.general Last week I posted an article in misc.entrepreneurs and sci.anthropologists. I won't bore you with the same posting. It's probably still there if you want to read it. But, I got an incredible response to the posting. So, I thought I would abreviate it a litte and share it with other people. It has long been my desire to have a company that could integrate the best of both industry and academmia. For years I worked as a roboticist and laser engineer. My interests ran far beyond these fields. I lusted for knowledge in many areas of life. But, the story goes, when you have to work, school pretty much stops. You have a skill set, you are hired for it, you perform, and you get paid. Hopefully, your job is interesting and expands your horizons. Yet, horizons are never expanded as they are in an academic research environment. That isn't to glorify the academic research environment. It has its own problems, not the least of which is no money for research or salary. Long hard hours are spent making someone else famous at the conferences... I knew that there had to be a way to make money while being able to do the kind of research I wanted to do. Two years ago I started Pacific Knowledge with my son and 2 friends. The mission was to create a multi-disciplinary research company. To fund this company we would work doing what we were all good at: computer programming. As a company, I would say we have been fairly successful. We have lasted 2 years and grown from the four of us to a staff of 15 full time permanent employees enjoying nice salaries and benefits. Our staff now offers program- ming, telecommunications, media, research and computer service. We have not really been successful at creating the wonderful multi-disciplinary research company we had hoped for. The idea of being self-funded rather than rely on grants or venture capital has been both tough and gratifying. It has kept us from growing quicker, and a little hungry at times, but left us with complete control. I run this company. I haven't got a clue how to create the very progressive company we all want to have. I am clutching at straws to lead us in the right direction. I am posting this because I want feedback from people actually in the research field on what kind of company they would like to see and how they see it working. I am asking whole heartedly for your assistance. We are not in any danger of going under. Quite the contrary. We are getting busier by the day. We are making some strides toward adding resources that will aid us in becoming the kind of high tech research company we envision. I need assistance because I have, until my posting I spoke of, run into a wall of 8 - 5 "employees" with all the vision of a blindered myopic carriage horse. Now I suppose I'll tell you how I really feel... I need to find others that believe that education does not have to stop. We believe that the kind of company that will succeed in the future is a learning organization. I remember hearing the story of how Japanese car engines are so much better designed because of the systems approach to design. Example: All of the bolts are the same size instead of the American design of as many sizes as there are bolts. A multi-disciplinary approach to design is the approach we hope to take with our company in the future. Well, this has become incoherent rambling. I hope you will respond with some feedback. Thanks. Ted Coombs Pacific Knowledge tedc@pk.com 510-687-5960 -- ===================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 93 01:14:50 GMT From: Paul Dietz Subject: petrochemicals (was Re: 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; but oil is still used because of energy > density/storability probelms with alternate sources. There are actually plenty of other feedstocks for plastics, its just that petroleum is currently the cheapest (and likely to remain the cheapest as long as the Saudis are selling oil). BTW, fertilizer is not made from oil. Nitrogenous fertilizer is made from ammonia, which is made from air and natural gas (rather, hydrogen obtained by steam reforming natural gas). Phosphate and potassium are mined, as are the trace elements. The closest you might come to oil is the sulfuric acid used to process the phosphate rock, but that can be and is obtained from other sources (sulfur from "sour" gas, as a byproduct of some coal desulfurization technologies, and ultimately by thermal decomposition of sulfate minerals). Plastics themselves make up a rather small fraction of the petroleum use (I think its something like 3%). The major ones at least can be fairly easily made from other sources. For example, if you have carbon (coal or pyrolyzed biomass, say), you can make acetylene via the calcium carbide route. Then, acetylene + hydrogen --> ethylene --> polyethylene and alpha-olefins 3 acetylene --> benzene, then benzene + ethylene --> ethyl benzene --> styrene --> polystyrene acetylene + hydrogen chloride --> vinyl chloride --> PVC. This handles most of the major commodity plastics (PET and polypropylene I left out, but propylene at least should be manufacturable, if only by cracking of medium molecular weight olefins from partial condensation of ethylene.) You can also make ethylene from ethanol, and there is the route from syngas (CO + H2) to hydrocarbons by the Fischer-Tropsch reaction (syngas is already used to make methanol, ammonia, formaldehyde, acetic anhydride and methyl acetate.) We can expect all these chemical processes to become easier in the future as better catalysts are found. Paul ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 22:43:08 GMT From: "Carlos G. Niederstrasser" Subject: Question- Why is SSTO Single Stage Newsgroups: sci.space My question is as follows. As I understand it the main theme behind SSTO is quick, cheap, and good. The idea is to get a operational launch vehicle designed and tested as quickly as possible, and then to have a fast and cheap operation cycle. But why use only one stage? I can see where one stage reduces the complexity involved, since with two stages you have more systems. However, we pay a very high penalty on payload capability. For instance, how about a two stage vehicle in which the top stage is essentially the current DC format which goes up and then reenters turns around and lands. But then there is also a first stage that never gets out of the atmosphere and can parachute, or even better land, back to its base. Could most operations still be kept at an airliner-type level? I would think that by applying all the concepts of SSTO to a double stager we would get nearly the same price and time performance, but with higher payload capabilities. --- --------------------------------------------------------------------- | Carlos G. Niederstrasser | Only two things are infinite, | | Princeton Planetary Society | the universe and human | | | stupidity, and I'm not sure | | | about the former. - Einstein | | carlosn@phoenix.princeton.edu |---------------------------------| | space@phoenix.princeton.edu | Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra | --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 8 Apr 1993 00:17:34 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Shuttle-C cost estimating Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: |prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: | | |>NASA drops 4 Billion for 8 STS missions, most of that is fixed costs. | |Love your accounting method: | |(1) ignore upfront R&D and tooling costs (more of which would be |necessary to build a Shuttle-C) |(2) pick the very best year for your numbers. Equally valid would |be to say that NASA drops $4 billion a year for zero STS missions (1986 |and 1987), so that STS costs are infinite. | Down Nick. All STS developement costs have been written off as Sunk COsts. A typical government accounting method. Also a typical free market accounting method. It part of the GAAS. Also Most of Shuttle -C has been engineered for, and the shuttle fab line is still at Palmdale. Start up costs, i threw in under the 100 million dollar figure. |Adding up _all_ costs that have been incurred to develop and support |STS, including interests costs, and dividing by the total number of >flights gives us well over $1 billion per flight. Of course, there is >no shortage of creative accounting schemes that allow one to >ignore various costs and bring down the cost estimate as low >as you like. > Hey, given the projected flight Rate of teh STS until 2006, the projected end of the system, assuming no more orbiter construction, assuming a fixed cost to money gives about 1.5 billion per flight. Abou;t the constant dollars cost of Saturn V missions. We've been down the shuttle mission cost road before. WHy bother bringing it up? Dennis thinks it's 27 Million a shot. Alan thinks it a billion a shot. Me I go with the Av Week and GAO numbers. It's better for current conditions. >The lesson here is that for Shuttle-C we will have new R&D costs, >new tooling costs, etc. If done the way STS was done we will WHo says the SHuttle C needs all new tooling? In fact, it should be faster and easier then a STS. No wings, simple control electronics. Payload doors only need to work once, use explosive bolts to blow them if neccessary.... THe big problem with the C, is given the high cost of flight rate, we are looking at 500 million per C mission plus 2-3 hundred million per bird. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1993 01:51:58 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: Space Research Spin Off Newsgroups: sci.space Michael Adams: >>Question is can someone give me 10 examples of direct NASA/Space related >>research that helped humanity in general? It will be interesting to see.. Pat> TANG :-) Mylar I think. There were both developed in the private sector before NASA came along. Ditto for Teflon, developed by DuPont in the 1930s. Pat>[composites, fly by wire] NASA did not originate either of these and played only a minor role in developing them. shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >Swept wings. Winglets. Germany, WWII. > Area ruling. Digital fly by wire. Ride smoothing. >Microwave landing systems. Supercritical wings. General aviation >air foils. The U.S. military and commercial aviation played larger roles in developing all of these than NASA. The same is true of pacemakers and telemetry, two other alleged NASA spinoffs. Furthermore most of this stuff is aeronautics research, not space research which was the original question. In any case most of this stuff is trivia. Let's look at some of the inventions more fundamentally important to the space program and civilization in general, where they came from: Rocket, liquid fuel: Goddard, Oberth, et. al. Over 90% of the basic design of today's liquid fuel rockets was completed in the private sector by the late 1930's, most of that work funded by private clubs and research foundations. Transistor: Bell Labs, 1949, privately funded. Integrated circuit: Texas Instruments, 1965, privately funded. Klystron: Varian Brothers, 1937, privately funded. It's stunning, really: over 90% of space R&D funds have been spent by governments, but the overwhelming majority of inventions important to spaceflight come from the private sector. It's very sad to think about how much talent and effort has been squandered, but on the other hand it may show us the way towards a greatly accelerated R&D effort in the future. The benefits of space research are (a) learning more science, which benefits the economy in the long run across the board, and (b) building industries that directly use space, such as communications satellites, navigation, enviromental monitoring, and defense uses. It has never made sense to do research in one application for the purpose of spinoffs to another application; much more progress is made by working directly on the desired application, and taking advantage of unpredictable spinoffs to other areas as they come along. -- Nick Szabo szabo@techboook.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 18:27 EDT From: POMEROJP%SNYFARVA.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU Subject: SR-71 Replacement? Does anyone have any info on a replacement for the SR-71 aircraft. A friend claims he saw an article around Dec 92 or early 93 which had a plane making the USA - Europe flight in just about an hour (Shades of Lens Crafters). My understanding is nothing is currently in inventory or about to come on line to replace the SR-71s capabilities. +---------------------------+-------------------------------+ | pomerojp@snyfarva.bitnet | THINK!..If you are already | | | thinking, please disregard | | John Pomeroy | this message. | +---------------------------+-------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 17:22:00 GMT From: Lee Matheson Subject: UARS & STS-56 Newsgroups: sci.space From: lee.matheson@synapse.org (Lee Matheson) Subject: UARS & STS-56 Does anyone know if the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS) project plans to coordinate any of their observations with the upcoming STS-56 mission? Lee Matheson Ottawa ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 22:19:57 GMT From: "Carlos G. Niederstrasser" Subject: Will the launch be visible from NJ? Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space The subject says it all. I'm in central NJ, little southwest of New York City. Please answer by e-mail, since I probably will not check news before the launch. --- --------------------------------------------------------------------- | Carlos G. Niederstrasser | Only two things are infinite, | | Princeton Planetary Society | the universe and human | | | stupidity, and I'm not sure | | | about the former. - Einstein | | carlosn@phoenix.princeton.edu |---------------------------------| | space@phoenix.princeton.edu | Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra | --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 436 ------------------------------