Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_0/V16NO077.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 23KB

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 05:00:00
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #077
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon, 25 Jan 93       Volume 16 : Issue 077

Today's Topics:
                     "suicides" of SDI scientists
                    Availability of SPOC Software
    Availability of SPOC Software (Was Hewlett Packard con in spac
                         Handling Antimatter
             Making Orbit 93 - The Delta Clipper Program
                  NASA Criticism and other...PART II
                   Next unmanned missions to Venus
                  Next  unmanned missions to Venus *
                       Organic heat shielding.
       ques about earlier "suicides" of SDI scientists (2 msgs)
                          Repeating message
                     Sabatier Reactors. (2 msgs)
            So what's happened to Henry Spencer? (2 msgs)
                Space based combat--the next frontier
              Space Sta.Freedom pics/gifs/sketches info?

    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: Sun, 24 Jan 93 20:01:22 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: "suicides" of SDI scientists

-From: [e-mail] (Daniel Burstein)
-Subject: ques about earlier "suicides" of SDI scientists
-Date: 19 Jan 93 08:51:42 GMT
-Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

-About five years ago, there were quite a few suicides by scientists in
-Europe who were asociated with the US led "strategic defense initiative."

-Quite a few of these seemed to be suspicious, and the gross numbers were
-quite a bit higher than would be expected in a group of this size.

-I haven't heard anything lately about this nor have I been able to track
-down the results of any investigations.  The only stuff I've found has
-been news articles simply describing the venets.

-Does anybody out there in greater NETLAND have any further info?  Or can
-you direct me to better sources?

Since this corresponds extremely closely to the classic 1951 short story
"Breeds there a Man...?", written by Isaac Asimov, and available in the
collections "Nightfall and Other Stories" and "Nightfall One", I'd say
there's a significant chance that you read either this story or a reference
to this story, and now you remember it as an historical event.

Or, maybe, [lowers voice to ominous tone]
it...wasn't...just...a...story!!! [eerie music plays in background]

:-)
John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:31:22 GMT
From: "T.X. Yuan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Availability of SPOC Software
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Hmmm.... you guys might check around some of the local sites for a
>copy.  I note a copy of SPOC is available with documentation in the
>file archives on the site I post from.  Never unloaded it, so I
>don't know how it runs,  but it appears to available to the general
>public...
>                                     - Wales Larrison -
>
>--- Maximus 2.01wb
Hey, great, Do you mean we can get SPOC from local fidonet sites?
Can we get it from internet ftp sites also?(If we don't have access
to local fidonet sites)
                                     -txy3340-

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

Date: 23 Jan 93  20:37:22
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Availability of SPOC Software (Was Hewlett Packard con in spac
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:
>Before you ask, the SPOC software is NOT available to the general
>public.  It includes a world map showing day/night and the current
>position of the Orbiter, updated in real time.

Doug Mohney responds:
>Like, bogus. Do you realize how much money NASA could make by
>selling it off to Space Junkies at $50 a pop? :)

Hmmm.... you guys might check around some of the local sites for a
copy.  I note a copy of SPOC is available with documentation in the
file archives on the site I post from.  Never unloaded it, so I
don't know how it runs,  but it appears to available to the general
public...
                                     - Wales Larrison -

--- Maximus 2.01wb

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 05:23:44 GMT
From: Hugh Emberson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Handling Antimatter
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>>>> On Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:30:01 EST, Graydon <[e-mail]> said:

G> Neither antimatter nor nuke-thermal are very good for launching
G> to orbit(not if we expect to use that part of the planet again),

Why?  I'm no expert, but I think there would be little or no
radiation release from a Nerva-style nuclear thermal rocket.  And the
release from a Nerva-style antimatter fueled rocket would depend on
how well you can stop gamma rays.

The only mechanism I can see for release in the nuclear thermal case
would be parts of the engine getting irradiated and then eroded away
by the propellant stream.

Nervas were tested, does anyone have any figures for the amount of
radiation (or radioactive materials) released into the environment?

Hugh
--
Hugh Emberson -- CS Postgrad
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:56:26 GMT
From: Bruce Dunn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Making Orbit 93 - The Delta Clipper Program
Newsgroups: sci.space

Regarding my posting in which I related the Delta Clipper landing sequence
as:
1) start engines
2) flip to base-first attitude


> Larry Wall writes:
> How do they guarantee they don't get upside-down-spraycan syndrome?



I checked my notes again, and the notes give the start engines, then flip
sequence.  It is possible that I misheard the speaker (Gaubatz from McDonnell
Douglas).  I expect the most likely explanation is that I have
mis-interpreted the sequence.  An alternate possibility is that the "engines"
started are the RCS thrusters, which run on gaseous hydrogen and gaseous
oxygen.
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   [e-mail]

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

Date: 24 Jan 93 14:50:26
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA Criticism and other...PART II
Newsgroups: sci.space

On the question of NASA spin-offs, I seem to recall that
CCDs were originally developed at JPL in the 70's - can
someone confirm/deny this - have I fallen victim to
JPLs superb PR machine :-)

(and can we say Sony successfully transferred the technology
PROMPTLY to the benefit of all mankind?)

|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
| [e-mail] |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 22:35:35 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Next unmanned missions to Venus

-From: [e-mail] (Ryan Korniloff)
-Subject: Re: Next  unmanned missions to Venus *
-Date: 24 Jan 93 06:39:04 GMT
-Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

-Hmmm, well, I guess if we were to make any kind of serious exploration of
-Venus's  surface we would have to develop electronics componants that
-operate comforably at 900f. And metals that can protect the inards of the
-probe from terrential sulfuric acid down-poors..
-How WOULD we do that by the way? Anyone know??

Read the October 1992 Scientific American. If they pan out, diamond film
semiconductors should be able to operate at up to 700 C (as compared to
~450 C Venus surface temperatures), and be smaller and 40-100 times faster
than silicon semiconductors.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 06:39:04 GMT
From: Ryan Korniloff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Next  unmanned missions to Venus *
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Path: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke
>From: [e-mail] (Ron Baalke)
>Newsgroups: sci.space
>Subject: Re: Next unmanned missions to Venus?
>Date: 20 Jan 1993 05:55 UT
>Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
>Lines: 19
>Distribution: world
>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>References: <[e-mail]>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
>News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
>
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (rabjab) writes...
>>Does anyone know of plans for future Venus exploration?  Any
>>leads would be appreciated.
>
>The only mission I'm aware of that will be going to Venus within the
>next 10 years is Cassini.  Cassini will be making two Venus flybys
>in 1998 and 1999 as part of its gravity assisted trajectory to Saturn.
>But other than that, it looks pretty bleak for Venus missions. I know
>several members of the Magellan team would like to see another spacecraft
>dedicated to Venus.  The Soviets had tentative plans a couple of years
>ago to send a Venera spacecraft to Venus in 2005, but as far as I know
>those plans have been abandoned.


Hmmm, well, I guess if we were to make any kind of serious exploration of
Venus's  surface we would have to develop electronics componants that
operate comforably at 900f. And metals that can protect the inards of the
probe from terrential sulfuric acid down-poors..
How WOULD we do that by the way? Anyone know??


         --- Ryan Korniloff
         --- [e-mail]

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

Date: 24 Jan 93 08:47:54 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Organic heat shielding.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Dunn) writes:
|
|        The liquid hydrogen tank of the DC-X currently being built is
|insulated with balsa wood.  I saw a photo over the weekend - the speaker
|noted that they had to bring a worker out of retirement who had the necessary
|skills for bonding it to the metal.  Unless my eyes pulled a perspective
|trick, the photo showed the balsa on the ***inside*** of the tank.


I can believe that.  I believe in the Saturn,  The insualtionfor
the liquid hydrogen tank was on the inside.  Less heat loss that way,
except on one stage, I think it was the S-IV  where to save weight
they put the insulation outside the tank, because the cold made the
metal stronger, thus saving weight.

Someone who has the saturn tech ref will be able to post for sure.

pat

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 06:22:26 GMT
From: David Fuzzy Wells <[e-mail]>
Subject: ques about earlier "suicides" of SDI scientists
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.misc,sci.space

>This is -kind of- reaching into ALT.CONSPIRACY stuff, but these deaths
>certainly did occur, so I reached out to the SCI type nets because that's
>where people who deal with scientists would hang out...
>
>[e-mail]
>

Didn't know that Specially Compartmentalized Information (SCI) type places
could have connections into the Internet.  Sorry, couldn't resist...
BTW, while be are on the subject of conspiracy...where is "panix.com"?
Love the name...very apropos considering your article.

                    Fuzzy.
        (who lives nearby the Falcon AFB unknown scientist gravesite)

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 19:08:05 GMT
From: Nick Maclaren <[e-mail]>
Subject: ques about earlier "suicides" of SDI scientists
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.misc,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel Burstein) writes:
>About five years ago, there were quite a few suicides by scientists in
>Europe who were asociated with the US led "strategic defense initiative."
>
>Quite a few of these seemed to be suspicious, and the gross numbers were
>quite a bit higher than would be expected in a group of this size.
>
>I haven't heard anything lately about this nor have I been able to track
>down the results of any investigations.  The only stuff I've found has
>been news articles simply describing the venets.

This is not just ALT.CONSPIRACY stuff, but is based on fact.  One research
laboratory in the West of England (GEC/Marconi?) had several news items about
it and, on the limited evidence available, something stank.  However, the
newspapers failed to get enough data to justify any story beyond "something
is being covered up."

However, this whole area (including whether they were really working on SDI
or just a new design of video game) comes under the Official Secrets Act
(our reverse equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act).  You won't get
any more information, unless the USA government was involved and leaks it
from that end.

I suspect that SDI is irrelevant, because the rumours started before SDI
had ever been heard of.


Nick Maclaren
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street,
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email:  [e-mail]
Tel.:   [phone]
Fax:    [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 09:31:07 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Repeating message

-Path: cam!dove!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu![e-mail]
-From: [e-mail] (John Roberts)
-Newsgroups: sci.space
-Subject: Re: lunar base/life-support on freedom
-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
-Date: 23 Jan 93 22:25:11 GMT

This message has appeared at least three times. However, I only posted it
once, and my machine sent it to ISU only once. Apologies for any inconvenience.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 24 Jan 93 10:21:52 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sabatier Reactors.
Newsgroups: sci.space

|From: [e-mail]

|-In sci.space you write:
|Freedom decided not to use methane thrusters.  so instead they are
|-throwing out waste CO2  and importing hydrazine.  failure oriented
|-management wins again.  someone thought methane thrusters were
|-too risky.
|Methane more risky then hydrazine? but, but, but, oh well :-(
|I simply dont understand the US pork barrels. Couldent they have
|launched 4-5 miniature stations with single shuttle flights to test
|things out? The first 1-2 is junk and cannot be habitable and are
|scuttled after the shuttle flight, next 3-4 can be manned between
|two flights or more and number 5 - n can be bolted to a truss and
|you have your tested, safe freedom with bells and whistles that _work_.
|You will get at least as much pork and much more space station.
|Why in hell are they stuck inside CAD simulations and paperbins?
|Magnus Redin  Lysator Academic Computer Society  [e-mail]
|Mail: Magnus redin, Rydsv{gen 240C26, 582 51 LINK|PING, SWEDEN

The problem is not that methane is risky.  We have been using methane
industrially for 150 years.  but that SSF management said, no-one has ever
space qualified a methane oxygen thruster so damn if we will.
Failure oriented management.

and as for the other idea,  i guess that's what skylab was.  of course
now NASA is such an arthritic bureaucracy, i dont think they really want
to fly packages so much as study them.  actually  who needs to build
mini stations.  for small items test them in the shuttle cargo bay,
for longer duration, test them on MIR.

but that would be too easy, i guess.

pat

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

Date: 25 Jan 93 02:50:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Sabatier Reactors.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes...
>
>
>|From: [e-mail]
>
>|-In sci.space you write:
>|Freedom decided not to use methane thrusters.  so instead they are
>|-throwing out waste CO2  and importing hydrazine.  failure oriented
>|-management wins again.  someone thought methane thrusters were
>|-too risky.
>|Methane more risky then hydrazine? but, but, but, oh well :-(
>|I simply dont understand the US pork barrels. Couldent they have
>|launched 4-5 miniature stations with single shuttle flights to test
>|things out? The first 1-2 is junk and cannot be habitable and are
>|scuttled after the shuttle flight, next 3-4 can be manned between
>|two flights or more and number 5 - n can be bolted to a truss and
>|you have your tested, safe freedom with bells and whistles that _work_.
>|You will get at least as much pork and much more space station.
>|Why in hell are they stuck inside CAD simulations and paperbins?
>|Magnus Redin  Lysator Academic Computer Society  [e-mail]
>|Mail: Magnus redin, Rydsv{gen 240C26, 582 51 LINK|PING, SWEDEN
>

I wonder if people like this are just trying to provoke me? The last I heard
was that SSF was going to use LOX/H2 thrusters for orbit maintainance.
Am I wrong? If so, then they are MORE risky than hydrazine.

Also for your information, NASA has been flying station precursors for
over ten years now. They are called Spacelab.  Also the new SpaceHab will
be flying on STS-57 in April.  These are dependent on Shuttle for
utilities, but are doing the most important SSF precursor work, which is
the experiments for microgravity.  Also NASA has sponsored COMET, which will
fly in March, which is a free flying microgravity laboratory with a return
module for returning samples that have been through their process cycle.


So NASA, who you think is stupid, IS doing what you are saying there, and
for a lot more money than a full up program of throwing away hardware.
All of the Spacelab and Spacehab experiments can be used again for very
minimal costs, as well as the experiments returned from the COMET module.

These experiments are all important as precursors to SSF because we can get
all of the bugs out of the experiments and the experiment process before we
fly them on SSF where they can be run in an effective manner, having all of t
eh bugs worked out on less expensive platforms.  See there NASA ain't half
as dumb as the average poster to sci.space.


>The problem is not that methane is risky.  We have been using methane
>industrially for 150 years.  but that SSF management said, no-one has ever
>space qualified a methane oxygen thruster so damn if we will.
>Failure oriented management.
>
>and as for the other idea,  i guess that's what skylab was.  of course
>now NASA is such an arthritic bureaucracy, i dont think they really want
>to fly packages so much as study them.  actually  who needs to build
>mini stations.  for small items test them in the shuttle cargo bay,
>for longer duration, test them on MIR.
>
>but that would be too easy, i guess.
>
>pat

It is also easy to criticize before you find out the facts. I suggest that
you might take the time to do a little research to find out exactly what is
going on in NASA before you are so blith in your criticism.

There are many problems at NASA, but there is also a lot of good things
going on.

Dennis, University of Alabama  in Huntsville

     *
     *********
     *********
     *********
     *    0
           *
        *
             *
              *
          *
           *
           *
        *
         *
          *
         ***
         ***

**************************************************************************

Delta II/Small Expendable (Tether) Deployer System (SEDS) flight
configuration during deployment, circa March 1993.

**************************************************************************

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 04:20:41 GMT
From: "Richard A. Schumacher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: So what's happened to Henry Spencer?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Does anyone know why Henry Spencer has not posted recently?
His were consistently the most interesting, informative
and terse posts. What a shame if the intemperate remark by
that Harvard snotnose drove him away...

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

Date: 24 Jan 93 16:31:54 GMT
From: Sean Michael Gallagher <[e-mail]>
Subject: So what's happened to Henry Spencer?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Could be that the mystery people who got the SDI scientists got him...
who's next?
                    Sarcastically Yours,
                        Sean

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:31:04 GMT
From: Brian Lane <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space based combat--the next frontier
Newsgroups: sci.space

>
>ok....here's a question for all you space buffs out there...
>This is actually for a story i'm writing but I figured that the
>folks here could give me a good estimate...
>If we consider combat in space in say...the next 50 years...there are three
>limitations: the effectiveness of the weapon, the effectiveness of sensors
>to detect the target , and the effectiveness of fire control to aim the
>weapon so it can hit the detected target.
>Let's say that two sides have somehing the size of a naval destroyer out in
>deep space somewhere. how close would they have to be before radar could
>pick the other ship up, how about passive sensors (what kind of sensors
>would they be?)?  How close would they have to be to get an adequate fire
>control solution? (I assume the energy weapon they'r using (laser or some
>other energy weapon) would have a longer range than the fire control.)
>
>I'd appreciate it if replies were sent in e-mail (and i'd post a edited
>compendium of the results), as I don't get on here often enough to avoid
>the reader's clearing of messages.
>
>thanx!
>Brian
>[e-mail]
>Raleigh, NC
>

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

Date: 25 Jan 93 05:02:12 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Sta.Freedom pics/gifs/sketches info?
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.d,sci.space

Greetings. In search of: Space Station Freedom maps/schematics as jpegs,
gifs, tiffs, ascii line sketches/drawings; preferably with areas labeled.
No technical details needed - just simple geometric shapes for educ.purposes;
also general dimensions of modules/parts & whole.  FTP info specially
welcome.  Simple lists of modules also welcome. Thanks in advance.
If replying, e-mail to:    (internet) [e-mail]
                             (bitnet) [e-mail]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 077
------------------------------