Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_4/V9_400.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

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/YYKf=1y00UkZ8kn05j>;
          Sun, 30 Apr 89 03:16:17 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 89 03:16:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #400

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 400

Today's Topics:
         Barium Cloud Experiment (Update) (Forwarded)
              Re: Colonization problems
  Re: WANTED: Shuttle transmission frequencies (or HF feed of NASA)
              Some questions...
    Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!
               Re: SPACE Digest V9 #396
           NASP (national aerospace plane)
 Re: Progress 41 ejected as crew prepares to leave USSR's Mir station
Private Space Companies (WAS Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!)
              Van Allen article
    Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!
              Re: Colonization problems
             Some comments on comments...
Re: NASA selects contractor to develop Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (Forwarded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 89 16:12:23 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Barium Cloud Experiment (Update) (Forwarded)

Dwayne C. Brown
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                    April 27, 1989


ADVISORY


     The rocketborne scientific experiment, programmed to create
colorful artificial clouds at high altitudes above Wallops,
Island Va., has been postponed due to technical problems.

     The experiment is tentatively rescheduled for Sunday, April
30, at 9:36 p.m. EDT, pending favorable weather conditions.

     The launch window extends through May 7.

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

Date: 26 Apr 89 23:18:31 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Colonization problems

In article <Added.gYJNFDy00Ui382=[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Kevin N. Gunn") writes:
>...problem which interests me is the effects of low gravity of growth and
>development in organisms.  I've heard that fetal development in zero (or
>micro) gravity results in abnormalities.  Does this carry over to low
>gravity situations?  Does the Moon have enough gravity for normal fetal
>development?  What about plant development?  Have any tests been run on
>any of these questions? ...

Maybe.  Nobody knows.  Nobody knows.  Nobody knows.  No.

The sum total of human knowledge about low-gravity biological effects is
that a few days on the Moon didn't hurt the Apollo astronauts.  That's *it*.
Why?  Because it can't be simulated on Earth.
--
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Apr 89 20:08:51 GMT
From: ulysses!attibr!althea![e-mail]  (Dewey Paciaffi)
Subject: Re: WANTED: Shuttle transmission frequencies (or HF feed of NASA)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Kingdon) writes:

~Could someone please send to me (or post) a list
~(preferably for HF) which gives the list of this Amateur service or some of
~NASA's feeds?

Please post this info if possible.
I would like it also.

Thanks in advance.
Dewey

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

Date: 27 Apr 89 00:06:17 GMT
From: killer![e-mail]  (Robert Johnson)
Subject: Some questions...

Well, it's term paper time again, and I decided to finally do one on
my favorite subject (yes, you guessed it, space!).  Anyways, it's
based on the first 119 days of the space race (the interval between
Sputnik I and Explorer) and there is some info I haven't been able
to locate:

      1) How long did Sputnik I&II and Explorer last?
      2) What were the EXACT dates when the above were launched?
      3) How much did Explorer weigh, and...
      4) How much did nukelear warheads weight in '57?

    Thanks in advance,
                 Robert

--
|  Robert C. Johnson                |  "Minds are like parachutes.       |
|   [e-mail]         |   They only function when they are |
|   [phone]                  |   Open."  -Sir James Dewar         |

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

Date: 26 Apr 89 23:16:22 GMT
From: attcan!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (steve emmerson) writes:
>You will find cogent arguments about some negative aspects of the manned
>space program in a Scientific American article authored by James
>Van Allen...

Also some of the most spectacularly slanted reporting you've ever seen.
That article was interesting, yes; unbiased and objective, no.
--
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1989 11:30-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #396

> Frankly, every time I read a law or federal regulation I get the same
> reaction I do to medical journals.  It's a wonder we aren't all dead
> or in jail. :^)  Mostly I take it on faith that the government won't
> run hog-wild with all the authority we give them, and that my liver
> won't pack up just because I can't see why it keeps on working.

The simple truth is that the United States has in place enormous police
state powers that are equal to anything you will find in the soviet
union. That is probably why our governments are suddenly getting along
so well. The only real difference I see is that the US has a population
with a history of civil disobedience, a strong and healthy underground
economy and a strong, healthy and organized freedom underground. Taken
together they make enforcement of anti-freedom laws pretty much a joke,
and a randomly enforced joke at that.

The current abortion bruhaha is another example. Even if the court
knocks down Roe vs Wade, it won't turn back the clock. The underground
is too big and too organized. Enforcement will simply radicalize more
people.  Hopefully towards the libertarian direction this time, since
the socialists got us into this mess by being such profound government
lovers. They centralized the power in order to "do good", and now we
are reaping the "benefits" as the power is used by those who love and
abuse power and privilege. It can only get worse before it gets better.
I'm confident it will get better in the long run, but I, for one, am
leaving the country in the interim. I have no intention in being around
when a new McCarthyism starts.

When the smell of monopolistic power is in the air, good people get
trampled in the stampede of the bad.

If I ever see an alien hitchhiking, I'll pick him up.  Then I'll help
him evade the "authorities". Hopefully I'll be able to convince him
Washington DC is a great site for an intersteller alien garbage dump.
It's already full of human garbage.

                    Free Minds and Free Markets,
                    Dale Amon

PS: I have NO intention on debating or discussing abortion here. My
statement is that the only effect of the supreme courts decision will
be whether a portion of the economy is above ground or below ground.
The women's (and other) networks are too big and well organized and there
aren't enough prisons to hold them(us) all.

=========================================================================
ET: don't call home.            Shoot a DEA agent for Abbie.
Your line is tapped.            One for the hipper...
=========================================================================

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

Date: 26 Apr 89 21:15:32 GMT
From: tektronix!tekgen!tekred![e-mail]  (Larry Brader)
Subject: NASP (national aerospace plane)



I'm probably bring up a old subject...I'm trying to find out
the capabilities of the NASP?  I know its suppose to reach a
LEO, but could it go higher...  Am I into the area of wishfull
thinking, yet : ) ? like payloads?

Also I have heard that the Japanese, Europe are designing a similar
space/aircraft. But I haven't heard anything similiar being built in
Russia.


--
Larry Brader  :: [e-mail]
Of course these are my views, any resemblance to reality is merely
a concidance.
"He's dead Jim, You grap his tricorder and I'll get his wallet"

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

Date: 26 Apr 89 17:09:15 GMT
From: well![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Progress 41 ejected as crew prepares to leave USSR's Mir station

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>                                                   ...  I know that the
>US Tethered Satellite System uses a 1kg/km cable capable of holding at
>least a few 100 kgs; a bunch of these would probably do the trick.  Is
>this a realistic thing for the Soviets to do?  It would certainly save
>a couple hundred kg of fuel.  Anyone have any stats on cable strength, or
>ideas on the practicality of the Soviets using this technique?

According to a recent article in ASTRONOMY, the Tethered Satellite
System will use a multi-strand Kevlar cable weighing *4* kg/km and with
a breaking strength of 625kg.  This is an order of magnitude too weak
for something like a Progress module.

A tether would be a terrific thing to add to Mir, but for scientific
"yoyo" payloads rather than boosting.  It does take fuel to keep moving
Mir around, but that's the funny thing about the ~100 launch/yr USSR
space program.  Fuel ain't a problem.  You just send up another
Progress!

--
Tom Neff                  [e-mail]
                       or [e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Apr 89 23:52:19 GMT
From: tektronix!tekgen!tekred![e-mail]  (Larry Brader)
Subject: Private Space Companies (WAS Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Baxter) writes:
>What gave you this idea?  The current Forbes Magazine lists the 500
>largest American companies by various characteristics.  There are 35
>with 1988 *profits* of over $1 billion, and 90 with *profits* of over
>$500 million.  This is enough money to develop space even at the NASA
>prices.
>
>William Baxter

A couple of weeks ago I remeber someone posted a brief note that
Rockwell tried to buy the shuttle from NASA..  <I believe it was
Henery S>..  Why didn't NASA sell them a couple of shuttles?

3M is very interested in space related research, and so are some other
companies <at least when NASA starting looking for clients they found
over 100 companies of various size interested>.  If a couple of
company's like Rockwell, 3M and some others went in together they could
easily <?> afford their own shuttle system.  NASA could make money.
The companys wouldn't have to worry about being bumbed for any DOD flights,
or  NASA management.  Good PR for everyone... I'll be more then happy to
sign a waiver to fly aboard as payload specialist ;-)

--
Larry Brader  :: [e-mail]
Of course these are my views, any resemblance to reality is merely
a concidance.
"He's dead Jim, You grap his tricorder and I'll get his wallet"

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

Date:    Thu, 27 Apr 89 09:30:27 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Van Allen article
X-St-Vmsmail-To: UTADNX::UTSPAN::JPLLSI::"[e-mail]"

In repsonse to Steve Emmerson mentioning of Van Allen's article in "Scientific
American" about the cuts in the unmanned space program to fund the shuttle and
space station, it was (ironically) published in the January 1986 issue.  I was
in the home stretch of finishing my doctorate in space physics when it came out
and it had been the subject of many discussions in the department for several
weeks before the Challenger exploded.

Marc Hairston--Center for Space Sciences--Univ of Texas at Dallas
SPAN address   UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTD750::HAIRSTON

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

Date: 27 Apr 89 19:29:56 GMT
From: concertina![e-mail]  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: URGENT -- SPACE STATION FUNDING VOTE ON TUESDAY!!

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (steve emmerson) writes:
> >You will find cogent arguments about some negative aspects of the manned
> >space program in a Scientific American article authored by James
> >Van Allen...
>
> Also some of the most spectacularly slanted reporting you've ever seen.
> That article was interesting, yes; unbiased and objective, no.

A bit of understatement that strongly argues for significant British
influence in Canada's past.

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

Date: 27 Apr 89 16:34:41 GMT
From: haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdb.jhuapl.edu![e-mail]  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Colonization problems

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
}In article <Added.gYJNFDy00Ui382=[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Kevin N. Gunn") writes:
}>...problem which interests me is the effects of low gravity of growth and
}>development in organisms.  I've heard that fetal development in zero (or
}>micro) gravity results in abnormalities.  Does this carry over to low
}>gravity situations?  Does the Moon have enough gravity for normal fetal
}>development?  What about plant development?  Have any tests been run on
}>any of these questions? ...
}
}Maybe.  Nobody knows.  Nobody knows.  Nobody knows.  No.
}
}The sum total of human knowledge about low-gravity biological effects is
}that a few days on the Moon didn't hurt the Apollo astronauts.  That's *it*.
}Why?  Because it can't be simulated on Earth.

Well, since I think that zero might qualify as low, I would not say that
"humans" don't know - I might say that non-soviets don't know, though...

(BTW:  Would MIR count as adrift and qualify under international salvage
laws, since it has been abandoned?)


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"
                    - D. Duck

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

Date: 27 Apr 89 17:47:23 GMT
From: att!cbnewsl![e-mail]  (Stuart Warmink)
Subject: Some comments on comments...

I sometimes wonder if Henry writes the things he writes just to see if and
what reaction he gets...well, it works in my case...   ;-)

Henry Spencer writes:
> The Zoology department *here* isn't going to launch any Mars probes until
> somebody (i.e. the Soviets) finds life there.

Assuming that the statement was not entirely tongue-in-cheek, it seems that
the US wasted its time with Viking; it wouldn't have found life anyway
because the landers had the wrong flag painted on them...

Henry Spencer writes:
> [list of mars probes] Ancient history, all of them.

I guess that implies that all the data they collected is useless too...

:-) ?

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Captain, I see no reason to stand here  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
 and be insulted" - Spock                | [e-mail] (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------

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

Date: 27 Apr 89 16:32:44 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!wasatch![e-mail]  (Timothy K Reynolds)
Subject: Re: NASA selects contractor to develop Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Smith) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
> >RELEASE:  89-57
> >
> >NASA SELECTS CONTRACTOR TO DEVELOP ADVANCED SOLID ROCKET MOTOR
> >
>
> You would think that we would have learned not to send people up on Roman
> candles by now.  Is there a valid reason for designing a new set of
> solid boosters rather than replacing them with liquid fueled boosters?
> (Other than economics.  I know NASA is cheap).
>
>
> David L. Smith
> FPS Computing, San Diego
> ucsd!celerity!dave

You might want to check a recent edition of Aerospace America for an article
on liquid boosters as replacements for the SRB's.  I think it was the April
edition.

Anyway they detailed some of the problems and benefits of liquid boosters.
For some reason the diadvantages are easier to remember (is it because I'm
out here in Utah where they make the SRB's?).  The liquid boosters would
be much larger in diameter and length, requiring redesign of the mating
hardware.  Also, performance was not as good as solids.  And finally, there
were questions of reusability, how does salt water affect the motors
etc.  It has been a while since I read the artcle so take this with an
appropriately sized grain of salt.

cheers                [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #400
*******************