Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_3/V9_322.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 19KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
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/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/8YAPWuy00UkZI9:k4g>;
          Thu, 30 Mar 89 00:18:51 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 89 00:18:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #322

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 322

Today's Topics:
               Re: US/USSR launch costs
       NASA Administrator Fletcher resigns (Forwarded)
     Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
     Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
  Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)
     Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
        Re: Success with cold fusion reported
     Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1989 12:40-EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: US/USSR launch costs

I could generate a great deal more on this subject, but I suggest that
anyone who is really interested in the economic effects of government
subsidies and "assistance" read a book translated from french a few
years back: "Tomorrow, Capitilism" by Henri LePage.

It has an excellent summary of the effects (or lack of them) of much
touted government interference with the market place. He thoroughly
debunks the myth that the government assistance to the railroads in the
last century had any serious impact on economic growth, other than to
guarantee that the railroads fell into a mode of operation that
guaranteed their eventual demise as the primary carrier. Econometric
models have shown that if the railroads had not been assisted at all,
the effect on US growth would have been the equivalent of 1 - 2 years
delay.

The new breakthrough in fusion, if it pans out will be just one more
example of the way government fails to have the economic effects it
claims it will have. 30 years and untold billions (US billions, not
European billions) have been spent on big bureaucratic science and the
preservation of reputations and pet projects. And along come two guys
with a neat idea and their own money to create a fusion process people
will be able to build for high school science projects. Consider the
effects on economic growth if those funds had been left IN the
marketplace to be used by the creators of the wealth instead of by
societal parasites working off stolen goods.

Whatever people may say, the government and NASA space programs are
irrelevant to the long term development of space. They have spent a
drop in the bucket compared to what willoccur once private investment
begins to get a return, and most of the expenditures have been for
things that aren't needed, are too costly, or that have been build and
discarded. Much of the funds goes into paper studies that are worthless
duplication of paper studies made 30 years ago.

Don't take my word for it. Read Henri LePage. It is probably the best
book on economics I have read in many years. Kudos to the French!!!

Oh, and in answer to Mr Roberts. Why is the demand for launches in the
US so low? Why are US comsats such giant expensive affairs instead of
the smaller, cheaper throw away technology used by the USSR? Might it
be that the super reliable very heavy lift vehicle is a flawed economic
concept at this time? Might it be that what we need are lots of low
throw weight pipes with rocket fuel putting up non aerospace technology
small sats that "usually" work? We might have had a market place were
staellite reliability and rocket cost had driven each other instead of
the government distorted situation we now have.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 89 23:18:32 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA Administrator Fletcher resigns (Forwarded)

David W. Garrett
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     March 21, 1989


RELEASE:  89-36

NASA ADMINISTRATOR FLETCHER RESIGNS


     NASA Administrator Dr. James C. Fletcher submitted his
resignation today to President Bush, effective April 8, 1989.

     Fletcher, who was brought back for a second term as
administrator after the Challenger accident, says that with the
successful conclusion of the third post-Challenger Space Shuttle
mission, he feels that he can safely place the leadership of NASA
in another's hands.

     The letter to the president pledges to continue to work with
his successor when appropriate.  Fletcher said, "It has been a
pleasure to serve you, both in your capacity as vice-president
and in recent weeks as president.  I look forward to an eminently
successful Bush presidency."

     Fletcher first served as NASA administrator from April 1971
to May 1977.  He was called back by President Reagan in May 1986
with a mandate to get the Space Shuttle flying again safely.  By
virtue of the two terms, Fletcher has served as NASA
administrator longer than anyone.

     Effective April 8, Deputy Administrator Dale Myers will
become acting administrator pending a new presidential
appointment.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 05:03:09 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Kallen) writes:
>I've been reading the postings about R.T. fusion with interest, and I
>am wondering: why are neutrons so undesirable in a nuclear reaction?
>Aren't protons and neutrons of the same energies just as bad? Or does
>the Coulomb repulsion of a proton by the nucleus play a role here?

Uncharged particles in general are much more penetrating, because they
interact more weakly with matter.  This has several implications,
including the need for massive shielding for personnel and electronics.
For really high-power applications like fusion rocketry, everything near
the engine gets hot, instead of just the engine, due to neutron heating.
Neutrons also tend to make the shielding (etc.) radioactive, which adds
a nasty waste-disposal problem.  Finally, protons can be controlled
and bullied around with magnetic fields, which neutrons ignore.
--
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 04:11:49 GMT
From: prism![e-mail]  (Daniel McGurl)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew T. DeLuca) writes:
>     A few problems here...
[lines deleted]
>the fuel for the return trip must be carried on board, and this fuel must be
>sufficient to accelerate and decelerate the loaded ship.  WE're looking at
>fuel requirements in the tens of millions of tons.  I don't see this kind
>of capability with forseeable technology anytime in the next thirty years.
>Matthew DeLuca
>Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
>uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!ccoprmd
>ARPA: [e-mail]

Ah, but you miss a critical point, the only fuel required is to get out to the
Asteroid belt.  Getting the asteriods back involves just giving them a push
of sorts (unless you are in a hurry-- sure this may take a few years for them
to get back to earth orbit).  Also, the space ship could probably slow in a
way similar to the shuttles when it returns to Earth, just use the atmosphere
as a speed brake.
--
Daniel Sean McGurl                       "He's got to make his own mistakes,
Office of Computing Services              and learn to mend the mess he makes."
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta Georgia, 30332                                ARPA: [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 06:40:46 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Steve Philipson)
Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ruaraidh Gillies) writes:

> >NASA is an organisation with the job of implementing the
> >American Space Program. Space flight is risky stuff, and whilst flying from
> >Heathrow to JFK is no walk in the park, it's an awful lot easier and common.
>
> Didn't used to be.  Airlines got started back when airflight was also
> risky and uncommon.

   True, but aircraft could be bought in quantity by single companies with
the express intent of making a profit.  Space flight has taken considerably
larger investment to get going, with a large percentage of it coming from
public funds.  Perhaps we haven't let private companies jump into space,
but the government hasn't been overwhelmed with requests from companies
desiring to build AND FINANCE entire launch systems (including launch pads
and recovery facilities) on their own.


> Tell that to NASA, which prefers professional astronauts (who are *not*,
> repeat *not*, scientists -- ask a scientist).

   Tell *that* to Taylor Wang at JPL.  If he's not a professional scientist,
who is?  There are career astronauts who are not primarily research
scientists, but we send up people who are as mission specialists, as we
did with Taylor and others.  Surely this fact hasn't escaped your attention?


> It certainly doesn't bring any money into the US treasury; note that my
> comments addressed only spacefaring nations, which the US is not, despite
> clumsy attempts in that direction.  As for the Soviets, they're working
> on it.  ...

   Come on, Henry! Give it a rest!!  You clearly don't care much for NASA
and the US space program, but you're letting your dogma get the best of
you.  "Seafaring" as a noun is defined "a mariner's calling". "Spacefaring"
could thus be defined as an astronaut's calling.  The US has career
astronauts, we have been sending them into space for some two and a half
decades, and we continue to do so.  Perhaps we don't do it at the rate
that the Soviets do, but does that mean it isn't happening?  And that
we're not working on it?  There are sure a lot of people working hard
on space projects that would be surprised to find that their jobs and
work aren't real.

   You also should have noticed that the US government is not in the
business of making money, so it's no surprise that monies don't flow
rapidly into the national treasury as a result of the space program.
Many launches are "reimbursable" though, meaning that the government
is paid back for the services that are provided.  We've got quite a
few commercial space vehicles in operation.  They are mainly
communication systems, but they are there and producing revenue.


  [re: the last flight of Challenger and the Teacher In Space program]

> Really?  I detected no signs of such great excitement at the time.
> "Another shuttle flight?  Yawn.  Oh, the teacher is going up on this
> one?  Must be thrilling for her students.  Yawn."

   If you had read the papers at the time, or watched TV news, you might
have noticed that her students were cheering wildly at launch, to the
point that many of them initially did not notice the explosion.  It
WAS a big deal to them, even though it might not have been a big deal
to you.  There were many people excited by the idea of "just plain
folks" going into space.


   Henry, it is clear that you are well versed in space activities, and
also that you're clearly not happy with the way the US is doing things.
Still, it doesn't mean that the US is always in the wrong and can't do
anything right, which is what you regularly appear to be saying.  Lighten
up a little, and try to see things in a more balanced light.  The USSR
may have a much higher launch rate, and may be committing more resources
to space exploration and operations than is the US, but that is no reason
to denigrate everything that is done here.  Most of us applaud Soviet
accomplishments, and hope that they will move our leaders to increase our
rate of space activity.

   The US has a political system in which decisions are made by consensus.
Various needs are argued and weighed in public debate, albeit imperfectly
at times.  As a result, we often don't do things in the best way we could,
and policies sometimes result that no one is perfectly happy with.  The
Soviets don't have that problem (yet), and their leadership can set
priorities and direct efforts to accomplish them with far less in the way
of dissent.  If they have an edge because of the differences in political
systems, we just have to chalk that up to part of the price of democracy.

   Citizens in this country can, and do, work to get more support for
space activities, but we work within the constraints of our system.  You
seem to be upset with us for not doing enough.  So what are YOU doing to
promote space exploration?



   Just for the record:  No, I am NOT employed by NASA.
--

                           Steve
                    (the certified flying fanatic)
                        [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 05:19:28 GMT
From: silver![e-mail]  (Lucius Chiaraviglio)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Kallen) writes:
>I've been reading the postings about R.T. fusion with interest, and I
>am wondering: why are neutrons so undesirable in a nuclear reaction?
>Aren't protons and neutrons of the same energies just as bad? Or does
>the Coulomb repulsion of a proton by the nucleus play a role here?
>[I've forgotten all my nuclear physics :-) ]

    The neutrons aren't necessarily bad for the reaction, but they aren't
good for your health.  Protons would also be bad if they got into you, but
being charged, they will lose energy rapidly upon passing through any matter
and are therefore easily stopped, whereas neutrons, having no charge, only
lose energy slowly (generally by crashing into a nucleus, which is not
necessary for stopping protons) and therefore require considerably more
shielding to stop, and make the shielding radioactive besides.  Yes, Coulomb
repulsion of a proton by a nucleus does play a role -- the higher the atomic
number of the nucleus, the faster the proton has to be moving to react with it
instead of being deflected by it.  This means that protons moving at the
minimal speeds needed for fusion of light elements (up to boron) will not be
able to make shielding radioactive, provided that the shielding is made of
something at least as heavy as carbon (preferably a little heavier than that,
just to provide a little safety margin).  On the other hand, even very slow
neutrons can react with nuclei and thus have the potential to make things
radioactive.  Thermal neutrons (that is, neutrons moving at speeds expected
for room temperature) have been successfully used as a mutagen (source of
information:  _Genetic Mutations of Drosophila melanogaster_) (although this
may be partly due to the fact that the neutrons themselves are radioactive).

--
|  Lucius Chiaraviglio   |  ARPA:  [e-mail]
BITNET:  [e-mail] (IUBACS hoses From: fields; INCLUDE RET ADDR)
ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:      [e-mail]
Alt ARPA-gatewayed BITNET:  [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 89 20:16:37 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Success with cold fusion reported

Bravo!  Bravo!!  The researchers at the University of Utah should be
congratulated for their breakthrough.  Does this mean the environmentalists
will have to find another line of work, with all the possible ways that
a clean power source could be used to alleviate the pollution problem?

CONGRATULATIONS UU!

Awaiting further developments,

Dan Harter
[e-mail]
Penn State University
DBH10

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 89 17:30:30 GMT
From: steinmetz![e-mail]  (Wm. E. Davidsen Jr)
Subject: Re: Room Temperature fusion - possible indications?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes:

| Then we also need either very advanced AI, very advanced biotechnology,
| or artificial gravity: It appears that low gravity fields shut down the
| human immune system in a way similar to the AIDS virus.  Humans will NOT
| be spending any appreciable percentage of their lives in space until we
| can fix our immune systems so that they tolerate low gravity,  or until
| we can provide gravity artificially.  As things stand, a career as an
| asteroid miner would not last long...

  What are the parameters on this? I know the Russians had people in
orbit for almost a year (didn't they?) and didn't seem to have problems.
They were visited by other cosmonauts during the time so they weren't in
a sterile atmosphere.

  I want to make a hypothesis: we won't go the the belt in any short
time unless we actually get room temperature fusion working. Given that
a fusion powered ship seems a certainty. Can I assume a hydrogen ram
jet? I will guess that the distance is 61 million miles. If you assume
that the constant acceleration is 1 fps^2 I think it takes about 13.1
days for the trip. At 1/10G it would take 7.3 days.

  If I didn't drop a deciaml place we are taking about a short journey
here... even assuming 0.1 fps^2 I get 41.5 days. This sounds too good to
be true, and if you extrapolate to 4.5 lightyears it still looks like
space flight is possible.
________________________________________________________________

Since this sounds too good to be true, here's what I did:

 1) S = at^2 / 2
 2) t = sqrt(2S / a)
    if we assume that we accellerate half way and
    decellerate half way
 3) t = 2 * sqrt(S / a)
    S = 65e6 * 5280 (feet)
      a    sec    days
    ====================
      .1    3589317  41.5
     0.1    1135041  13.1
     3.2     634507   7.3

If I didn't make a silly mistake in the equasions, which seems likely
given the results, or if I have overestimated the power of a fusion
powered hydrogen ram jet, please let me know.

Also if someone has info on such a jet as far as implementation or power
it would help quantify the discussion.
--
    bill davidsen        ([e-mail])
  {uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V9 #322
*******************