Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Fri, 21 Apr 89 00:19:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 21 Apr 89 00:19:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #384 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 384 Today's Topics: Planitary Positions vs short wave radio propagation Re: failures and engineering shuttle design and low g tolerance Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties Re: QUESTION? ASTRONAUTS AND F-19 STEALTH. Re: The Stirling Engine (was Re: Success with cold fusion...) Is 'better than gravity assist' used? Re: The Stirling Engine (was Re: Success with cold fusion...) Vol 375 and Yes I am back. Re: astrology (or effect of moon on people) Re: failures and engineering ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sender: "Robert_Swenson.osbunorth"@Xerox.COM Date: 18 Apr 89 17:52:16 PDT (Tuesday) Subject: Planitary Positions vs short wave radio propagation From: "Robert_Swenson.osbunorth"@Xerox.COM Cc: "Robert_Swenson.osbunorth"@Xerox.COM Items ran in Space Digest v9 nos 371 & 373 about someone who could predict inteference in long distance short wave radio transmission. There was an article about this in Analog many years ago. This is from memory, so I may not have all the facts correct. If anyone can locate the original, it would help this discussion. 1. The Earth is, at least in a manner of speaking, inside the atmosphere of the Sun. 2. The orbit of the Earth is an elipse, with one focus at, not the center of the Sun, but the CG of the solar system. 3. Jupiter and Saturn have enough mass to move the CG of the solar system away from the center of the Sun if they are in the correct positions. 4. As the locations of Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn move, the position of Earth relative to the surface of the Sun and so Earth's depth in the solar atmosphere varies. 5. Therefore, the number (and type?) of particles bombarding the earth changes depending on the relative positions of Earth, Jupiter and Saturn. As the number of particles changes, so does the strength and location of the electrically charged layers in the atmosphere which reflect radio signals and make long distance short wave radio possible. Conclusion: Short wave radio propigation is changed by the relative positions of Earth, Jupiter and Saturn. According to the article, this person had about 93% success in predicting interference. He never missed, but sometimes the interference he predicted did not, in fact, occur. He, according to the item, made his living by forcasting these disturbances to the radio communications companies. I make no claim as to the accuracy nor to the spelling of the above. Bob Swenson Swenson.osbunorth@Xerox.COM ------------------------------ Date: 18 Apr 89 14:40:08 GMT From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hpctdlb!hpctdke!rbk@hplabs.hp.com (Richard Katz) Subject: Re: failures and engineering / hpctdke:sci.space / henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) / 6:51 pm Apr 15, 1989 / In article <411@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes: >> .................... The way you find out about these things is to try >> them. The major factor in how quickly you learn is how often you try. > >Another point of view is that with careful systems design and good engineering >you don't need to learn from your mistakes. That is what engineering is all >about. For instance, see the many successful Mariner, Pioneer, Voyager and >Viking missions. Yup, see them -- but study them properly. Mariner 2, struggling past Venus with one problem after another developing. The early Pioneers, a total disaster area. Voyager 2, limping towards Neptune with its primary command receiver dead and its backup one ailing (and don't blame this on the length of the mission -- the problems developed almost immediately after launch), not to mention the lubrication problems in the scan platform. The Viking 1 lander, dead before its time due to human error back on Earth. And let us not forget Seasat, with its slip-rings failing less than three months after launch. TDRS-1, with various electronic ailments fouling it up to the point where it's been officially retired to standby status, now that a replacement is finally in position. Galileo, which is damned lucky that it *didn't* fly in spring 1986, because its thruster system had *two* disastrous design flaws, found only a few months ago, that would have made it the most long-awaited and expensive failure in the history of planetary exploration. The GOES satellites, failing one after another as the lamps in their scanner encoders burned out. I repeat my comment: the major factor in how quickly you learn is how often you try. It is *not* possible to get everything right the first time. NASA, ESA, etc. like to pretend otherwise, but the universe has a habit of reminding them that they're wrong. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ---------- ------------------------------ Subject: shuttle design and low g tolerance From: IA80024%MAINE.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU (Nicholas C. Hester) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 89 15:34:07 EDT from what i have read of the shuttle design, the 3g limit is to permit an easie r ride for the astronauts, since non-military personnel were to be used. this w ould preclude the rigorous training required of the mercury thru apollo astrona uts, who had to withstand high g forces (5g?). =nick= ia80024@maine.bitnet ia80024@maine.maine.edu ------------------------------ Date: 19 Apr 89 20:16:04 GMT From: mas1!condor@apple.com (Rick Kawala) Subject: Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties In article <4549@drivax.UUCP>, macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: > I have received requests for the citation which covers the > illegal aspects of man-ET encounters. I am quoting here from the > enigmatic KRILL document previously posted here. > > "Dr. Brian T. Clifford (Pentagon) announced 10-5-82 that cases of > citizen-extraterrestrial contact were illegal under Title 14, > Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations (and adopted > 7-16-69, a few days before the first moon landing). The Code > specifies up to a year in jail and a 5000 dollar fine. The NASA > authorities can examine you to determine if you have been "ET > exposed", and can impose an indefinite quarantine which cannot be > broken, even by court order." > > Michael Sloan MacLeod (amdahl!drivax!macleod) I called a friend of mine who's a paralegal and asked him to look this thing up. He told me that it citation was incomplete, that one has to say "Code of Federal Regulations", , Title 14, Section 1211, where can be replaced with things like "Coast Guard Regulations" or something. Otherwise, you're faced with too many books to look through. It's something like saying "It's in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, page number 432" but not saying which volume of EB you're referring to. If anyone has any more information, I'd love to hear about it. Rick Kawala Contracted to Measurex Automation Systems I disclaim everything ------------------------------ Date: 18 Apr 89 14:42:36 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!etive!hwcs!hwee!sutherla@uunet.uu.net (I. Sutherland) Subject: Re: QUESTION? ASTRONAUTS AND F-19 STEALTH. In article <1989Apr11.181518.3936@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >A. We will assume you mean a NASA astronaut, since it's probably impossible > for a Westerner to get into the Soviet program, and the other nations Well I wouldn't be too sure about that one, it now seems likely that Britain's first man ( somehow I doubt that person is the right word to use ) in space will be travelling on a Russian mission. I haven't seen any real details but I'm sure one newspaper gave a date of 1991. I saw the announcement quite recently, in fact it was probably while Gorbachov(sp?) was on his visit to this country. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Apr 89 07:03:48 GMT From: vsi1!daver!lynx!neal@apple.com (Neal Woodall) Subject: Re: The Stirling Engine (was Re: Success with cold fusion...) In article V131Q5CG@UBVMSC.CC.BUFFALO.EDU (John Taylor) writes: >The "Buffalo News" ran a story about the Stirling a couple of days >ago; of course, the object wasn't to explain the Stirling, but to defame it >and then use it to beat Sen. Alfonse D'amato over the head with (he >initiated substantial funding for Stirling R&D). The whole premise of the >story was the uselessness of the Stirling and what a waste of taxpayer money >it is. Hmmm....objective news reporting at its best again. Didn't anyone ever tell these newspaper clods that they are supposed to report the news in an objective fashion? Anyway, I seem to remember reading a short blurb in a magazine (Popular Science? Scientific American?) about a Sterling engine that the military has been working on recently. No regular Stirling is this....it integrates the latest in high-tech microprocessor control. Supposedly the Air Force has several passenger vans running this engine for experimental purposes. One of the nice features is that, being an external combustion engine, the Stirling can burn almost any fuel, including the left-over transmission and lubricating oil from jet engines, which the Air Force used to throw away (ie, spend money disposing of properly). Also, the nice thing about the new Stirling was that the microprocessor control made it have accelleration comparable to a similar sized gasoline engine....one of the problems with the older Stirlings was that the acceleration was poor. Contrasting with the article in the "Buffalo News" as mentioned above, the article I read was objective in its reporting, but the quotes from the Air Force personnell involved made it seem they were pretty happy with their success so far. >Would someone explain the operating principle(s)? Cannot remember any specifics, but the stirling engine uses external combustion to heat a working fluid, unlike the internal combustion engine that is in all motor vehicles mass produced today, where the gasoline or diesel is the fuel and working fluid both. In the stirling engine, the vaproization and condensation of the working fluid transfer the heat and is the cause of the mechanical motion. Someone more mechanically inclined than I will have to provide more details. Neal ------------------------------ Date: 19 Apr 89 01:17:16 GMT From: mcvax!kth!draken!chalmers!ce.chalmers.se!afs-news!hacke7!d5kwedb@uunet.uu.net (Kristian Wedberg) Subject: Is 'better than gravity assist' used? Gravity assist has been used many times, by the Voyager-probes for instance. The way I understand it, however, is that if you use a part of your fuel just when you swing by the moon/planet/sun, you can reach a higher velocity than if you use it all up when you start the voyage. Is this so and has it been used, or did I break something in the energy-laws? -kitte ------------------------------ Date: 19 Apr 89 16:33:55 GMT From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown%B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU@pt.cs.cmu.edu Subject: Re: The Stirling Engine (was Re: Success with cold fusion...) In article <5474@lynx.UUCP>, neal@lynx.uucp (Neal Woodall) writes: }Anyway, I seem to remember reading a short blurb in a magazine (Popular }Science? Scientific American?) about a Sterling engine that the military }has been working on recently. No regular Stirling is this....it integrates }the latest in high-tech microprocessor control. Supposedly the Air Force }has several passenger vans running this engine for experimental purposes. }One of the nice features is that, being an external combustion engine, the }Stirling can burn almost any fuel, including the left-over transmission and }lubricating oil from jet engines, which the Air Force used to throw }away (ie, spend money disposing of properly). } }Also, the nice thing about the new Stirling was that the microprocessor }control made it have accelleration comparable to a similar sized gasoline }engine....one of the problems with the older Stirlings was that the }acceleration was poor. I remember reading about an experimental passenger car using a Sterling engine in Popular Science circa 1982/83. The reporter who test drove it said that there was very little difference from an internal-combusion gasoline engine except for a 30-second warmup on starting. -- UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school) ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31 Disclaimer? I claimed something? You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd. ------------------------------ X-Delivery-Notice: SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender. Date: Wed, 19 Apr 89 13:15:12 -0900 Reply-To: Sender: From: ROBERT J HALE Subject: Vol 375 and Yes I am back. That is right I am alive. Back from KOREA. I am overrun with work and my colleg courses. Not much ISECCo mail from me for a while. Now my question. Vol 375 of the NASA perdiction, How do you read and use the data? I think this was asked before but I would like someone to E-mail it to me. Thanks for everyone being so patient with my replys since I went on vacation. Now for some space time so I can catch up on what is happening at ISECCo. Robert J. Hale III ISECCo Director. P.S. I know this is not Astronomy, but does anyone have a recomdation of a good book on building a Dobsonian telescope. Have you read one that covers the new light and portable designs. RJH ------------------------------ Date: 19 Apr 89 20:24:55 GMT From: arc!arc.UUCP@apple.com (Ken Stuart) Subject: Re: astrology (or effect of moon on people) Here are the references some of you requested concerning the scientific research on astrology. Several books and articles have been written by the authors; only the first is listed. John Nelson (Short-wave Radio Propagation Analyst in the Solar and Ionospheric Research Department at RCA Corporation from 1946-1968) "Cosmic Patterns: Their influence on Man and his communication" 1974 (book) Michel Gauqelin, PhD "Astrology and Science" 1970 (book)(1966 in French) Also, in the process of getting you the above specifics, I came across the following book yesterday, which discusses these works (as well as others published by NASA employees who feared being ridiculed if they presented the material to NASA): H.J. Eysenck D.K.B. Nias "Astrology: Science or Superstition" 1982 (book) ------------------------------ Date: 18 Apr 89 14:36:24 GMT From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hpctdlb!hpctdke!rbk@hplabs.hp.com (Richard Katz) Subject: Re: failures and engineering >/ hpctdke:sci.space / ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) / 10:16 am Apr 16, 1989 / >I noticed that in your roll call of broken satellites and probes, you included >Voyager 2. This is a perfect example of how a space probe should be designed; >*in spite* of the fact that there are point failures on board, it *still >works*. Voyager is out there laying the groudwork for the future exploration >of the solar system, and you're sitting here on Earth complaining about the >lube job. I feel sure that if it had been a Soviet probe, you'd be singing >it's praises almost daily. In the end, all I can say is that while the Soviets >keep sending probes out, "gaining experience", we're the ones with the >working spacecraft. I believe that your analysis is superficial. You say that voyager is a perfect example of how a spacecraft should be designed - in spite of failures it still works. Nothing against voyager and the people who worked on it - I am just commenting on your argument. First, we are lucky it works at all. As Henry pointed out, the receiver failures occurred early in the mission. One is lost and the other only works in a very limited bandwith, not the way it was supposed to. The cause of the failure should be examined before it is stated whether voyager was the perfect way to go about doing things. What happened? - design fault? - workmanship error? - test error? - the unforseeable? If voyager indeed does work at all because we are lucky, then you are condoning a very flawed decision process. Also, if memory serves me correctly, voyager had some last second fixes at the pad, and some late modifications that let the dual command systems both operate contributing to the success of the missions from the added processing power. I don't think that with the current spacecraft the US can afford to keep shooting them out. Galileo cost over a billion dollars and has been in development for over a decade. Magellan, which uses a lot of Galileo spares I believe is over $500 million dollars. A little to expensive and too long a wait for "engineering" missions. Then again, there are better ways for NASA to do business. rich katz hewlett packard p o box 7050 colorado springs, co 80933-7050 email: rbk@hpctdlb.hp.com ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #384 *******************