Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_7/V13_737.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 19KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/EcOkU=y00WBwQ82k4G>;
          Fri, 28 Jun 91 05:57:32 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 05:57:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #737

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 737

Today's Topics:
               Re: What's HUD?
        The Coalition for Science and Commerce
                Orbits
          Solar Weather and Shuttle Mission
      Re: Excavating (minig) gold in the space by NASA.
         Re: Astro-Nugget worth $$$ trillions
               Re: What's HUD?
        Re: Tethers (was Re: Laser launchers)
         Re: Venus face? (Was: 'Mars "face"')
      Re: Excavating (minig) gold in the space by NASA.
  LSPA Credit Assignment (was Re: The Coalition for Science and...)

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Jun 91 04:39:58 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: What's HUD?

HUD is a movie.  It came out in 1963 and it starred Paul Newman,
Patricia Neal, Melvyn Douglas, and Brandon de Wilde.  It was based on
a book by Larry McMurtry.  Neal and Douglas got Oscars for their
performances, Newman was nominated for one.

A great movie.  I recommend it strongly.

--
Mary Shafer  [e-mail]  ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
           NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
                     Of course I don't speak for NASA
            "Turn to kill, not to engage."  CDR Willie Driscoll

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

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 15:27:58 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
To: crash![e-mail]
Subject: The Coalition for Science and Commerce

I've received a lot of inquiries about the Coalition for Science
and Commerce.  Here is an introduction:


The Coalition for Science and Commerce is a network of scientists
and technologists supporting diversified public sector science
funding and commercial capitalization of technology.  We believe
the principles of free enterprise pertain to intellectual
property and therefore see technology development as a private
sector responsibility.  We also recognize that scientific
knowledge is our common heritage and is therefore a proper
function of government.  We oppose porkbarrel politics that
remove money from legitimate scientists supposedly in service of
them.  Rather we support the inclusion, on a per-grant basis, of
all funding needed to purchase the use of infrastructure and
instruments, thereby creating a scientist-driven market for such
infrastructure and instruments.  We also oppose government
subsidy of technology development.  Rather we support legislation
and policies that motivate the intelligent investment of private
risk capital in the creation of commercially viable intellectual
property.

In 1990, after a 3 year battle against the considerable resources
of NASA and its captive industry, we succeeded in passing a law
which requires NASA to procure launch services in a commercially
reasonable manner from the private sector.  Working with
Congressman Ron Packard (CA) and a bipartisan team of Congressmen
who support their stated principles with decisive action, we
succeeded in turning the tide against this multibillion dollar
per year government juggernaut.  Subsequently, the Augustine
Commission was hailed as being very "courageous" for making a
similar recommendation sometime after PL101-611 was signed into
law.

We ask for the most valuable thing you can contribute:  The
voluntary and targeted investment of time, energy and resources
in specific issues and positions that you support as a citizen of
the United States.

If you agree with the above principles, please let us know what
areas of science and/or technology interest you so we can
coordinate you with others and keep you informed when issues that
affect you arise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      619/295-3164               The Coalition for
PO Box 1981                                   Science and
La Jolla, CA 92038                             Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 13 Jun 91 07:00:13 GMT
From: bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!bison!sys6626!inqmind![e-mail]  (Norman Paterson)
Subject: Orbits

I realize you all must be busy, but if you could answer this question it
would be much appreciated. "How is a rockets' trajectory determined so as to
place a satelite into orbit? I looked up Celestial Mechanics books but have
not found a simple answer that addresses this question. If you could give an
example or two that would be GREAT! ie satelite of 1000 lbs into 600 mi
Polar orbit.
(I noticed the Japanese on a recent launch had their rocket pointed at about
45 degrees on the launch pad. Seems like a simple way to orbit, ehh?
Norman Paterson 31B-154 Maryland St. Wpg. MB CANADA R3G-1L2

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

Date: 13 Jun 91 18:31:55 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!think.com!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!cunews!bnrgate!bwdls58!bwdlh490![e-mail]  (Henry Troup)
Subject: Solar Weather and Shuttle Mission

Was there any effect on the latest shuttle mission by the solar flares?

Henry Troup - [e-mail] (Canada) - BNR owns but does not share my opinions

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

Date: 13 Jun 91 12:22:07 GMT
From: agate!spool.mu.edu!mips!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!think.com!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!cunews!semifs3!testeng1![e-mail]  (Chris Stanfield)
Subject: Re: Excavating (minig) gold in the space by NASA.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stan Bischof) writes:
>Only one problem--- copper is a better conductor than gold! You're
>probably thinking of silver, which is indeed better than copper. Gold
>is NOT a great thermal OR electrical conductor-- copper is better
>in both respects, and silver is even better.

Just for ths sake of clarity, it should be pointed that yes, gold is
used on electrical contacts where connection resistance is critical,
but not because it is a good conductor, but because it does not
corrode and therefore contact resistance remains virtually constant.
Where very low contact resistance is required (e.g. in high current
switching) silver is the contact material of choice. This is, of
course, a fairly simplified version!

Chris Stanfield, Mitel Corporation: E-mail to:- uunet!mitel!testeng1!stanfiel
[phone] Ext.4960
We do not inherit the world from our parents - we borrow it from our children.

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

Date: 11 Jun 91 16:43:20 GMT
From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv![e-mail]  (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Astro-Nugget worth $$$ trillions

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (mike santangelo (UNIX/VMS Sys Staff)) writes:
>Just FYI.  Certainly seems like a good reason to get out there fast!
>
>From the Washington Post, June 7, 1991 (y114#184), p. A11:
>
>                 Nearby Asteroid Worth a Trillion
>
>     "  An astronimical El Dorado containing some 10,000 tons of
>      gold and 100,000 tons of platinum has been found orbiting
>      the sun tantalizingly close to Earth, according to a report
>      in today's issue of Science.
>        Asteroid 1986 DA, as the solid metal ''near-Earth-object'' is
>      known is 1.2 miles wide and shaped roughly like a canned ham.
>      The itinerant astro-nugget also contains approximately 10 billion
>      tons of iron and a billion tons of nickel.
>        At today's prices, the commodity value of 1986 DA is approximately
>      astronomical: The gold alone is worth about $120 billion and the
>      platinum nearly a trillion dollars.
>        Immediate prospects for mining, however, are dim: The nearest
>      the asteroid gets to Tiffany's is about 20 million miles.
>        Nonetheless, according to astronomer Steven Ostro, who helped
>      discover the orbiting ingot, ''if in the next century we go into
>      space robitically or in person, this asteroid -- or many others
>      yet to be discovered -- could be among the targets of such
>      missions, and the metals could be used for contruction in space.''
>        Current theory indicates that such extraordinary metallic
>      abundances can only form in the cores of planet-like bodies; and
>      the researchers report in Science that 1986 DA appears to be
>      ''derived from the interior of a much larger object'' that existed
>      billions of years ago and ''subsequently was disrupted by a
>      massive collision.''

I haven't seen the issue of Science containing the above referenced
report. What techniques were used to obtain this extraordinarily
precise assay? What is the confidence level? We're talking a
gold percentage of 0.000009% here. Is it evenly distributed, or
all in one nugget?

Assuming a spectroscopic analysis of the surface and a seven digit
precision specific gravity, one could guess the asteroid's composition.
Based on spectroscopic analysis, some of the chips in this computer
could be taken for pure gold. It would be very tedious to calculate
the specific gravity of one of these chips using a balance and optical
measurements of volume, but it could be done to maybe a seven digit
precision. Could we then tell for sure what percentage was gold and
what percentage was a mixture of other materials? The asteroid's mass can
be calculated from it's orbital interaction with a known third body. Which
one was used? How did they measure the asteroid's volume to a seven digit
precision from 20,000,000 miles or more away using equipment operating from
under a distorting atmosphere? Where can we get copies of the geodetic map?

If I sound skeptical, it's because I am.

Gary

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

Date: 12 Jun 91 16:11:57 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!ox.com!hela![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: What's HUD?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>>Not being a US citizen, I have no idea what HUD stands for. Could someone
>>please enlighten me?

>Department of "Housing and Urban Development".  These guys can build
>2,000,000 houses on Earth for every one house NASA can build in space.

and if we zero out NSF we could build even more houses. So what?

>Astronaut groupies believe that this one house, about the size of a
>Winnebago, provides a motivation for Congress to move money from HUD
>to NASA.

Well I don't consider myself an 'astronaut groupie' but let's face facts:
that's exactly what happened last Thursday.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Allen W. Sherzer |   DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten.         |
|   [e-mail]   |                                                         |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: 13 Jun 91 06:26:56 GMT
From: mips!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!geac!aimed!torag!w-dnes![e-mail]  (Walter Dnes )
Subject: Re: Tethers (was Re: Laser launchers)

[e-mail] (James C Krok) writes:

>
>      I missed the beginning of this discussion on tether technology,

     I was in the same situation as you. I missed the initial
lead-in and was very skeptical. The (*GREATLY* simplified) theory
is that...
    1) shuttle leaves space station for earth. Fires rockets for
       a *SMALL* delta-v, nowhere near enough to drop down into
       the atmosphere. This thrust is applied counter to the
       direction of orbit, so the orbit drops *SLIGHTLY*

> Likewise, if the shuttle were already at the space station, you could
> let go of it and it would go nowhere!  It would still have its orbital
> velocity, just like the space station, and could maintain orbit until
> rarefied gas friction drag slowed it down.  It would not pull any sort of
> tether down.

    2) but a lower orbit means higher velocity. The tethered
       shuttle would catch up to and pass the station. The tether
       keeps unreeling.

    3) a slight tension is constantly applied on the tether. This
       slows down the shuttle still more while accelerating the
       space station.

    4) This drops shuttle lower and pulls station higher. (The
       centre-of-mass remains at the same height.) This process
       has a positive feedback. Go back to step 1, substituting
       drag on the tether for rocket thrust.

    5) Eventually the shuttle is at the top of the atmosphere, and
       can use its wings and control surfaces to dive in.

    6) Assume that a generator was being cranked by the tether as
       it was unreeling. Recharge a hydrogen-oxygen fuel cell.

    7) An incoming shuttle will not have to climb all the way up
       to the station under its own power. It has only to climb up
       to the bottom of the tether, grab it, and get reeled in. As
       the shuttle gets reeled up, the station drops to its original
       height. This is the reverse of steps 1..6

     There is no violation of conservation of energy/momentum here.
The basic trick is to *TRANSFER* part of the outgoing shuttle's
orbital energy to the station. Then *TRANSFER* energy from the
station to the shuttle. Of course there will be energy losses due
to entropy/inefficient conversions ( Generator to fuel cell and
heat losses in motor reeling in shuttle ). However, the homework
for this concept has been done and is as solid as Arthur Clarke's
1950's sci-fi use of geosynchronous orbits and earth-Mars Hohmann
transfer orbit. In case you're wondering, the tether would require
specially tapered kevlar cable.
     It may or may not be technically feasible today, but it is
theoretically doable. Note that to conserve energy, mass-going-up
and mass-going-down must be equal. So you have to assume a
"mature" space station where the shuttle flights are basically
for crew rotation.

Walter Dnes
-------------------------
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Jun 91 16:58:02 GMT
From: brunix!pilsner![e-mail]  (Joel Plutchak)
Subject: Re: Venus face? (Was: 'Mars "face"')

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I hereby propose a contest.  Who is the first person who can
>discover the Venus Face from the Magellan data?
>
>The prize is a free Dan Quayle calendar.
>--
>Nick Szabo                [e-mail]

   They've already found ticks, arachnoids, jellyfish, blowfish, anemones,
gumbies, pancakes, muffins, etc.  With all that, who needs faces?  :-)

--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst
Brown University Planetary Geology
Unix: [e-mail]
VMS:  [e-mail] -or- PGGIPL::PLUTCHAK (VMS: Just say NO!)

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

Date: 13 Jun 91 18:50:12 GMT
From: nsc!amdahl![e-mail]  (Doug Fierro)
Subject: Re: Excavating (minig) gold in the space by NASA.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Sehari Babak) writes:
>
>This article originally was posted in misc.invest. I thought it might be
>interesting for this news group too.
>
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Cray Hardware Support) writes:
>>>Today's Washington Post reports that an asteroid has been found orbiting the
>>>Sun at a distance of about 20 million miles from Earth (closest point).  It
>>>apparently contains 10000 tons of gold and 100000 tons of platinum, as well
>>>as 10 billion tons of iron and 1 billion tons of nickel.  Its estimated
>>>worth was put at around 1 trillion dollars.
>
>This might be one of the first real applications of Space technology. I say
>NASA should issue stocks to built a space craft to go and bring that thing
>down.  This could open up another very lucrative investment, a side from
>satellites.  The technology we gain could help us mine other things in the
>space too.  Then, boldly going were no man has gone before makes business
>sense to.

  I don't know if we have the technology to alter the path of an asteroid
that weights over 10 billion tons and also try to get it to earth without
burning up upon re-entry.  An idea would be to re-direct it to the
moon and extract the metals from there.

   Doug
--

                                      |\             Doug Fierro
  O                         __________|_\______      UTS System Software
  \_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */      [e-mail]
 __\____                   |=================/       [phone]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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

Date: 14 Jun 91 02:20:35 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: LSPA Credit Assignment (was Re: The Coalition for Science and...)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Bowery) writes:

>In 1990, after a 3 year battle against the considerable resources
>of NASA and its captive industry, we succeeded in passing a law
>which requires NASA to procure launch services in a commercially
>reasonable manner from the private sector.  Working with
>Congressman Ron Packard (CA) and a bipartisan team of Congressmen
>who support their stated principles with decisive action, we
>succeeded in turning the tide against this multibillion dollar
>per year government juggernaut.

I thought the NSS chapters in Tucson and San Diego were behind the
Launch Services Purchase Act.

Now that a number of recent NSS publications have taken credit for the
LSPA (for both NSS and Spacecause), I'm curious how those who were
"fighting in the trenches" (Jim? Allen?) feel about the support they
received from the national NSS organization -- excellent?  adequate?
negligible?
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi                University of Rochester
[e-mail]        Department of Computer Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #737
*******************