Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_1/V15NO128.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 22KB

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 05:02:29
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #128
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 20 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 128

Today's Topics:
            Early Warning of missiles and meteors (2 msgs)
                      Home made rockets (2 msgs)
                Inflatable Space Stations - Why Not ?
          Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space
                            Saturn dreams
                            space industry
             SPS feasibility and other space development
 superstrings & supralight (was SPS feasibility and other   (2 msgs)
                     The Federation is still here
                  What about Saturn?/Future not Past

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Aug 92 15:59:35 GMT
From: Stick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Early Warning of missiles and meteors
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George Wm Turner) writes:

>nit-picks : SAC no longer exists.  it too has gone the way of cold war.
>it has been replaced by some command that combined sac, tac & maybe
>mac.

   The new commands are Air Combat Command (missles, bombers, fighters,
etc.) and Air Material Command (cargo, tankers).

>SAC's job was to provide the offensive nuclear threat.

   SAC's mission was never characterized as offensive except by our old
opponents, the Warsaw Pact.  All planning was geared towards retaliation,
not initiation.  The airborne comand post was a perfect example.  Called
"Looking Glass", it was a mirror image of our executive branch, and was
prepared to take over in the even the President and other high government
officials were eliminated.



>   george wm turner        [e-mail]

>                if you want i.u.'s opinion, ask them, not me.

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

Date: 20 Aug 92 01:20:39 GMT
From: Gerald Cecil <[e-mail]>
Subject: Early Warning of missiles and meteors
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <bzaYe-yS/@clmqt.marquette.MI.US> [e-mail] (Stick) writes:
>   SAC's mission was never characterized as offensive except by our old
>opponents, the Warsaw Pact.  All planning was geared towards retaliation,
>not initiation.
General George LeMay's original SIOP for SAC called for a massive preemptive
strike with hundreds of aircraft at a time when the Soviet Union had less than
a dozen nuclear weapons.  That sounds ``offensive'' to me.  This belongs in
talk.politics...
--
Gerald Cecil  [e-mail]  919-962-7169
Physics & Astronomy, U North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA
-- Intelligence is believing only half of what you read; brilliance is
   knowing which half. ** Be terse: each line cost the Net $10 **

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

Date: 18 Aug 92 23:19:00 GMT
From: George Gassaway <[e-mail]>
Subject: Home made rockets
Newsgroups: sci.space

If "Estes" rocekts are not enough for you folk, try some of the
commercially made larger rocket motors. Notably, Aerotech, who makes
engines for consumers in the that go to E and F power. FAR more snesible
than making your own. I've been into this hobby for 22 years and know
better than to try to make up my own. Eventually, somebody gets injured
of killed making up their own stuff. Just not worth it!!!


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

Date: 20 Aug 92 04:41:01 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Home made rockets
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (George Gassaway)  writes:
> If "Estes" rocekts are not enough for you folk, try some of the
> commercially made larger rocket motors. Notably, Aerotech, who makes
> engines for consumers in the that go to E and F power. FAR more snesible
> than making your own. I've been into this hobby for 22 years and know
> better than to try to make up my own. Eventually, somebody gets injured
> of killed making up their own stuff. Just not worth it!!!
>

Not only do some people make their own stuff, some actually put the powder
into little brass containers, stick lead plugs in the ends for projectiles
and SELL the stuff to all sorts of people to use in things called "guns".
"(according to the U.S. General Accounting Office) 138,490 Americans
have been killed or wounded over the last 10 years by gun-wielding
_children_ under _six_ years of age."   Definitely Just Not Worth It.

     :) :-) :--)  [cute - ironic - meant to be silly -  I DO NOT want
                   to take anyway anyone's ManHood ...  please ...
                   don't anyone shoot me for this ... I KNOW how
                   insecure slug-abusers and lead pushers are ... GAAAHHHHHH]

--- please No Flames ---  end of message --- WHH --------

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

Date: 19 Aug 92 23:34:03 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Inflatable Space Stations - Why Not ?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Whatever became of the idea of inflatable space habitats/workstations ?
The savings on initial cost and on launch weight should be very great.
Add to that the large size and configurational possibilities and you
have an incredibly good deal. Modern materials, esp tri-weave carbon
fiber, could strengthen an envelope and protect against ripping or
bursting. All you need is a docking hatch and a few hard points to attach
odds and ends to. The rest is just hot air. Internal partitions and
compartments would be easy to build into such a structure ... or glue in
later on. The large internal free volume of air would also add safety
against explosive decompression. Self-sealing layers could deal with
micrometeorites. If desired, thin interlocking plates of metal could be
attached to the envelope to armor the whole thing.

What's the problem ? Is this perhaps a TOO CHEAP solution - meaning that
the contractors couldn't steal enough money during development ? If we
want nice BIG space stations, with loads of internal room, with easy
expandability ... inflatable spheres sound like the economical solution.
Any feedback on this ?

-- Jim Mason

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

Date: 20 Aug 92 01:20:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] writes:
>
>> There
>> is a demonstrated need for larger lift capability.
>
>Sure, I believe you. I'm curious to know: what is the demonstrated
>need? How is it demonstrated?

It is simple. Look at the growth in size of geosync communications satellites.
Ariannispace has and that is the basline for the growth into the Arianne 5.
Also look at the Titan IV and planned V configurations. Both of these are in
the 35,000-45,000 to LEO class.  The baby Saturn BEGINS at the high end of this
range for a lower price.  Why lower price? Only one engine in the First stage
for (F1A) the initial boost.  Cuts labor costs way down and that is the driver
of ALL of the launch vehicles today.  Also a cut in cost due to using only one
14 million dollar engine.  The growth can then proceed from there with that
as a profitable viable baseline.  Questions Questions Questions.

Dennis Wingo, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:50:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Saturn dreams
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...


>One more possibility for expanding the market for such a vehicle--is it
>possible to use the first stage of the single engine version as an LRB?
>Vague memory tells me that you can re-design the Shuttle ET to accept 3
>boosters without inordinate costs.  However you feel about the Shuttle,
>it may be a way of getting more money.  I would suppose that these boosters
>would then be useful on other designs, even on a future Saturn class booster,
>let alone on a Titan system.
>
                --Brett Van Steenwyk

Alas Brett the Saturn S1-C stage originally WAS the Shuttle first stage and
the ET was the Second stage tank.  The LRB concept would work with the
Two F1A engined vehicle.  A good thing about this is that the lift would
go from 5.5 million lbs thrust from the SRB's to 7 million pounds with
only minor modifications needed at the KSC pads.  I did not think about this
till I saw your post. Heck there is another good reason for the F1A's and
the baby Saturns! Probably would cost less and would for sure pollute less
than the SRB's

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 20 Aug 92 02:33:52 GMT
From: Greg Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: space industry
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> Mark Goodman <[e-mail]> writes:
>>There are really no private space launch providers
>>outside the United States -- Arianespace is the closest thing.
> ^^^^^^^
>So what are Atlas, Delta, and Titan, chopped liver?
>
    Ah, No Allen, they are INSIDE the US. :-)

>  Allen
>--
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
>|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
>+----------------------247 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+


--
<------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Greg d. Moore                  |  [e-mail]
Green Mountain Software        |  "All that is gold does not glitter."
Carpe Diem                     |

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:42:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: SPS feasibility and other space development
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] writes:
>
>> As for quasi-religious; why are you so hung up on that phrase? Does it
>> have some special meaning for you? My religion or lack thereof does not
>> enter in to this discussion.
>
>Yes - it means faith prevailing over reason.

Faith is an essential part of life. You must have faith that you will make
it to work in the morning without being killed in order to function in society
Ask a Croat how much faith that requires. You have to have faith to get out
of bed in the morning. If you did not have confidence based on belief and
justified by confirmation in action (which is the meaning of faith in the
greek frame of the first century (pistis is the word)) you could not get out
of bed for fearing that gravity might fail.

Faith in the realm of engineering covers things like Chris Kraft & Von Braun's
decision to allow the Saturn V first mission to proceed when enough mission
rules had been violated that autodestruct would have been the prudent action.

Faith allowed Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to ignore both computer problems
and fuel near exaustion to pilot the Lunar Module to the surface of the moon.

Faith says that you can go home to your wife with a reasonable chance she is
not getting in on with your best friend.

Reason is limited. It takes faith to move a civilization forward. It takes
action based upon a premise that we will find the answers out there even if
we do not have conclusive evidence for it.

Upon that definition of faith I claim guilt. Heck so does Allen Sherzier and
his HL Delta Dreams. It is faith until it is a done deal.

Religon is simply another aspect of faith, so don't go all ga ga with accusing
me of bringing religion into this.

All other discussion along this line is not appropriate for sci.space

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 20 Aug 92 03:53:27 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: superstrings & supralight (was SPS feasibility and other
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

> > P.S. There's a preprint running around by Richard Gott (that may or may
> > not yet have come out in Physical Review D) that actually takes
> > faster-than-light travel seriously, basically as a consequence of what
> > two superstrings passing each other do to spacetime. Thorne and others
> > are trying their hardest to find what's wrong with it, as it severely
> > strains the notion of causality...
> >
>
> Now all we have to do is find a pair of superstrings. Details,
> details.... :-)
>

Well, what do you think those two big tube-things on the Enterprise are
for?

> PS: when it comes out I'd love the citation so I can go dig it out.

To my chagrin, I find it's been out for some time, and not in Physical
Review D. It's

Gott, J. R. 1991, Physical Review Letters, v. 66, p. 1126

but he shouldn't go out and spend all his money in anticipation of the
Nobel foundation giving him one of their large checks, as the
thrashing-out process is still in progress; see:

Caroll, S. M., Farhi, E., and Guth, A. H. 1992, Physical Review
Letters, v. 68, p. 263

(this paper has a VERY surprising title for a refereed journal article,
check it out), and

Deser, S., Jackiw, R., and t'Hooft, G. 1992, Physical Review Letters,
v. 68, p. 267.

The buzzphrase here is "Closed Timelike Curve," the distortion of
spacetime that the parallel, moving cosmic strings cause. Every now and
then, interest in this kind of thing flares up; in the late '60s there
was a flurry of experiments to search for tachyons, as quantum field
theory at the time suggested they might be looking for (in some
solutions, a tachyon is the same as a magnetic monopole). I think I'll
lay off this here, though, as this discussion is getting perilously
close to sci.physics territory!

By the way, there's no need to shy away from math any more, as programs
like Mathematica are doing to math in general what calculators did to
arithmetic. I learned Mathematica's essentials over a weekend; it's
easy to use, although you need a pretty good computer to run it. That
Sunday afternoon, I re-did ALL the math I'd ever taken in high school,
college, and grad school, in about four hours! It was like standing at
the edge of the Grand Canyon, looking at untold wonders spread out
before me. (No, I'm not getting any money from Stephen Wolfram to
endorse Mathematica; perhaps I ought to.)

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

Date: 20 Aug 92 05:38:11 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: superstrings & supralight (was SPS feasibility and other
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

> > P.S. There's a preprint running around by Richard Gott (that may or may
> > not yet have come out in Physical Review D) that actually takes
> > faster-than-light travel seriously, basically as a consequence of what
> > two superstrings passing each other do to spacetime. Thorne and others
> > are trying their hardest to find what's wrong with it, as it severely
> > strains the notion of causality...
> >
>
> Now all we have to do is find a pair of superstrings. Details,
> details.... :-)
>

Well, what do you think those two big tube-things on the Enterprise are
for?

> PS: when it comes out I'd love the citation so I can go dig it out.

To my chagrin, I find it's been out for some time, and not in Physical
Review D. It's

Gott, J. R. 1991, Physical Review Letters, v. 66, p. 1126

but he shouldn't go out and spend all his money in anticipation of the
Nobel foundation giving him one of their large checks, as the
thrashing-out process is still in progress; see:

Caroll, S. M., Farhi, E., and Guth, A. H. 1992, Physical Review
Letters, v. 68, p. 263

(this paper has a VERY surprising title for a refereed journal article,
check it out), and

Deser, S., Jackiw, R., and t'Hooft, G. 1992, Physical Review Letters,
v. 68, p. 267.

The buzzphrase here is "Closed Timelike Curve," the distortion of
spacetime that the parallel, moving cosmic strings cause. Every now and
then, interest in this kind of thing flares up; in the late '60s there
was a flurry of experiments to search for tachyons, as quantum field
theory at the time suggested they might be worth looking for (in some
solutions, a tachyon is the same as a magnetic monopole). I think I'll
lay off this here, though, as this discussion is getting perilously
close to sci.physics territory!

By the way, there's no need to shy away from math any more, as programs
like Mathematica are doing to math in general what calculators did to
arithmetic. I learned Mathematica's essentials over a weekend; it's
easy to use, although you need a pretty good computer to run it. That
Sunday afternoon, I re-did ALL the math I'd ever taken in high school,
college, and grad school, in about four hours! It was like standing at
the edge of the Grand Canyon, looking at untold wonders spread out
before me. (No, I'm not getting any money from Stephen Wolfram to
endorse Mathematica; perhaps I ought to.)

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

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:13:38 GMT
From: Willie Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Federation is still here
Newsgroups: sci.space

Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
[...]
>THIS IS A VERY FAST WAY FOR YOUR MACHINE TO GET SICK!!!  This sounds like a
>joke, but you have no idea where your floppy has been or what is on it.  And
>you don't even know who had it!
>
>We don't know who this "Lady Rhavyn" is.  He/She could be earnest in this
>effort, could be a dellusional fantisizer, or ...  You won't get any respect or
>support from me as long as you are ashamed of who you are.

Well, now, don't pick on the Federation folks, they aren't (near as I
can tell) living in the same universe as the rest of us.  Write and
ask for their 'position' papers, but be ready for some really hard
slogging.  After about the 5th instance of "Hmm, Ok, that's logical,
[...] WHAT?" I gave up.  They want to push human exploration of space
using a crystalline engine which no-one understands the operation
of...  Their funding comes from (will come from?) an incredibly
complicated scheme of publishing SF(?) and they've got a (paper)
conglomerate set up where everything owns everything else and the
folks on top hold _all_ the power and control _all_ the money.  Not
that there's any money.  Their first major purchase will be a
mainframe computer on which they'll set up a BBS-like thang.  Imho, a
lot of it sounds like the kinds of things 10 year olds talk about.
They seem to know all the buzzwords for any given technology, but
clearly have no idea what any of them mean.  Mostly harmless. :+}

Willie Smith
[e-mail]

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

Date: 20 Aug 92 07:42:56 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: What about Saturn?/Future not Past
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dani Eder) writes:
> Dr. Robert Bussard is working under contract to DARPA to develop an
> 'electric fusion' machine.  The way it would work is to set up
> a chamber bounded by current-carrying wires,
[...description of trapping mechanism and energy conversion deleted]
> Electrons are much lighter than ions, and
> thus are easier to control with magnetic fields - rather than
> trying to contain a plasma directly with magnetic fields as the
> Tokamak tries to do.

Sounds neat, but my physics intuition tells me that there may be lots
of subtle effects to make this harder than it looks.  Where can we
read up on the details of Bussard's scheme?

> You dump megavolt electron beams into a chamber (this is a souped
> up TV tube, which uses 20 kilovolt electron beam to illuminate the
> phosphors).  The beam energy is absorbed in a few tens of cm by
> your propellant, getting it very hot, then it goes out a nozzle.

Great!  A rocket exhaust that also shows NASA Select during launch!

> This system is close to the 'Mr Fusion' we saw in 'Back to the
> Future', and allows building real spacecraft, ones that don't
> fall apart (stage) in flight.

But can it run on banana peels and stale beer?

> This may seem futuristic to some, but no more so than cryogenic
> rocket engines would have seemed in the 40's, and they were
> actually built for the first time in the 50's.

This may seem futuristic to some, but no more so than magnetic
confinment fusion devices would have seemed in the 40's, and they were
actually built for the first time in the 50's.

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 128
------------------------------