stevel@haddock.UUCP (12/24/83)
#R:sri-arpa:-1412400:haddock:16000003:000:512
haddock!stevel Dec 23 13:10:00 1983
Many books I have read talk about the ARMY project. It was simply
the Jupiter C balistic missle project designed by Werner Von
Braun at Huntsville. They were ordered to fill thier payload
section with sand to prevent an "accidental" orbit insertion of a
test vehicle. This was to give the "civilian"/navy Vanguard
booster the chance to do the job first.
The only reason we lost the space race of 1957 was because of
service infighting.
Steve Ludlum, decvax!yale-co!ima!stevel, {ucbvax|ihnp4}!cbosgd!ima!steveltower@inmet.UUCP (12/31/83)
#R:apollo:-20900:inmet:10600005:177600:189 inmet!tower Dec 29 09:50:00 1983 Beyond a description of the L5 Society, I would appreciate hearing about The Planetary Society, and any other space groups. Thanx. -len tower harpo!inmet!tower Cambridge, MA
wombat@uicsl.UUCP (01/06/84)
#R:apollo:-20900:uicsl:11100018:000:593 uicsl!wombat Jan 5 09:31:00 1984 The Planetary Society is interested in research. With money collected from dues and extra contributions/gifts, it sponsors work on specific projects, holds conferences, etc. Carl Sagan heads it. Delta Vee was started (as The Viking Fund) to extend the Viking mission on Mars. After a sizable amount of money was raised and donated to NASA they went on to try and get a Halley's Comet mission. I haven't heard from them for a while. I don't have addresses for these here, but anyone who's interested can send me mail, and I'll send what I have. Wombat ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!wombat
rmd@hpfcla.UUCP (02/21/84)
I think you missed his point somewhat. True, the dominant cost of the space shuttle is engineering and capital costs, but these costs are not justified simply because they exist! We have to ask ourselves if all that engineeering and capital was necessary in the first place. I am not saying that I know of any better design, but I think it is possible and highly probable that there are cheaper ways to get into space than the space shuttle. Any organization, public or private, American or not, would be doing us all a favor if they come up with a cheaper design. Rick Dow hpfcla!rmd
clardy@smu.UUCP (04/29/84)
#R:sri-arpa:-1244000:smu:17700003:37777777600:200 smu!clardy Apr 29 03:12:00 1984 [sacrificial line, to imaginary bugs] Could someone out there who is able to attend the lecture please summarize it to the net, for those of us who do not (currently) live in California. Thanks.
stevep@haddock.UUCP (11/03/84)
This is my first time writing in a notesfile so forgive me if I mess up on the formatting. You stated in your note that currently there is no feasible way to destroy our satellites in geosynchronous orbit and that if we had Reagan's "Star Wars" defense system now that it would be impregnable to attack. I read an article in the Sept. Omni that said that this is not yhe case. The author stated that it would be relatively easy to wipe out the whole orbit within two days. In the hypothetical scene he set up a rocket was launched from the USSR on a supposed unmanned mission to the Moon. In reality this unmanned probe was carrying an explosive charge and its mission was to fly around the moon coming back towards Earth re-entering by way of the geosynchronous orbit, but in the reverse direction, exploding and wiping out everything within a short period of time. The author also stated that once around the back side of the Moon it would be impossible to track. This whole "Star Wars" scheme seems to me to be a collosal waste of time, money, and resources. It seems to me that we would be much better off helping developing countries with space technology rather then giving ourselves a false sense of security with it. By using our satellites to help educate the world we will stand more of a chance of making friends and that is what we need in this crazy world of ours.
fritz@hpfclp.UUCP (fritz) (12/15/84)
One of the German scientists described the mission very poetically:
"What we want to do", says physicist Bernd Hausler, "is paint the sky
and look at it as it moves."
The following information is reprinted without permission from the
December issue of Science84.
Gary Fritz
{ihnp4,hplabs}!hpfcla!fritz
Four cannisters are to separate from the spacecraft and explode,
releasing five pounds of barium atoms. The sun's photons of light
will bump the barium atoms, exciting them and causing them to radiate
in several wavelengths. During the first few seconds, when the atoms
are still clustered tightly, the barium will glow a reddish yellow.
The more diffuse atoms at the fringes should appear green, and then
the whole ball of gas may turn green as it expands at a mile per
second. Eighty seconds after the release, the ball will have reached
its maximum size, at least a sixth the size of the full moon.
[I assume they mean it will *look* 1/6 as big as the moon -- at
1 mi/sec for 80 seconds it will actually be only 160 miles in
diameter. I think.]
By then the sun's photons of light will have bumped loose an electron
from most of the barium atoms. Once the barium is electrically
charged, it will change color and be susceptible to the solar wind's
magnetic influence, which will promptly start blowing the ions into a
tail.
... The artificial comet is scheduled to appear on December 25 at 4:16
AM Pacific Time. It will form 70000 miles above the Pacific Ocean six
degrees west of Lima, Peru, and nine degrees south of the equator.
To see it, you'll have to be in the dark, which for North Americans
means roughly being west of a line running through Mexico City,
Houston, St. Louis, Milwaukee, and Canada's Belcher Islands. The
comet should appear four degrees to the right of Spica, the brightest
star in the constellation Virgo. (A viewer in Los Angeles would see
it 33 degrees above the southeastern horizon.) Then it should move
west toward the star Regulus in the constellation Leo.
As the comet grows fainter, the green and purple colors will be hard
to distinguish -- it might simply appear white or gray. Scientists
say it may be visible for three minutes with the naked eye, 10 minutes
with binoculars. For more details, call NASA at (301) 344-0470.al@hpfclq.UUCP (al) (12/16/84)
<eat before reading> I believe the answer is "yes". I know that the on-board flight computers land the vehicle but I don't remember if they also inject the Shuttle into the re-entry path. I also think that it wasn't until the sixth misssion that a pilot actually landed the craft manually. Knowing NASA, it seems to me that they probably could land the Shuttle without human help for safety reasons if nothing else. al stone hpfcla!al <The opinions above are not those of anybody in particular. I make it up as I go.>
al@hpfclq.UUCP (al) (12/17/84)
Last I heard (late 1979), the internal pressure on the Shuttle was ~10 psi to keep mass requirements down without sacrificing comfort. Those that I worked with (at the time) said that the pressure was going to be roughly equivalent to an altitude of 6500 ft. Was that misinformation? al "the memory goes first" stone hpfcla!al <I have no opinions. The dog is holding a gun to my head and making me write this.>
al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (12/19/84)
> Last I heard (late 1979), the internal pressure on the Shuttle was > ~10 psi to keep mass requirements down without sacrificing comfort. > Those that I worked with (at the time) said that the pressure was going > to be roughly equivalent to an altitude of 6500 ft. Was that misinformation? > > al "the memory goes first" stone > hpfcla!al > > <I have no opinions. The dog is holding a gun to my head and making > me write this.> Shuttle is kept at 14.7 psi (normal sea level pressure) most of the time. On at least some space walks, pressure is reduced to shorten pre-breathing requirements for space walkers. I think it's reduced to about 10 psi, but I'm not sure.
al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (12/19/84)
> <eat before reading> > > I believe the answer is "yes". I know that the on-board flight > computers land the vehicle but I don't remember if they also inject > the Shuttle into the re-entry path. I also think that it wasn't > until the sixth misssion that a pilot actually landed the craft > manually. Knowing NASA, it seems to me that they probably could land > the Shuttle without human help for safety reasons if nothing else. > > al stone > hpfcla!al > > <The opinions above are not those of anybody in particular. I make > it up as I go.> Final touchdown on all shuttle landings has been done with the mission commander in control. People are considered more reliable. Many parts of re-entry are computer controlled and the software has touch down capability but it has never been used. There is some speculation that the pilots prefer to land themselves for, essentially, personal reasons. After all, they may only get a few chances to actually land the shuttle, better take advantage of them. It's quite an accomplishment.
chris@ISM780.UUCP (02/24/85)
I don't think this is a problem. Space is very big, and stars are very far apart. I doubt if the lightsail capsule would get going anywhere near the speed of light. (Any physicist who wants to calculate the speed of the capsule as it passes the orbit of Pluto, I would much appreciate it) It will take centuries to cross the distance between us and the nearest star. It would be truly unlikely if it ended up pointed towards anything near us. I doubt if anybody anywhere and anywhen will ever notice out poor little capsule. Such a capsule could pass through the solar system and we would never notice it, unless it hit something. chris kostanick decvax!vortex!ism780!chris
chris@ISM780.UUCP (02/24/85)
As i remember it, the moon rocks had a high titanium content relative to earth rocks. Since titanium is strong, light, and can withstand high tempretures, it seems like building a titanium extractor using some of the solar mirrors would be useful. One problem of the moon is that solar stuff only works for two weeks out of every four. Anybody got any ideas on how to store energy for the two weeks the sun is down? chris kostanick decvax!vortex!ism780!chris
peterb@pbear.UUCP (02/25/85)
Sure, park your solar energy producer on one of the poles, that way its in the sun all the time (except for lunar eclipses) either that, or you can build a heat resivoir and store the heat much as solar houses do with a bed of rocks, and then use a sterling engine to extract the energy from the heat differential during the dark period. This only requires a rather large radiator for the sterling to throw awy its heat. Then some of the excess thermal energy can be used to heat a living space. Peter Barada ima!pbear!peterb
greg@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg McMullan) (02/25/85)
Peter says that we can avoid the problem of storing solar power for a moonbase during the 14 day night by placing the collector at one of the poles. this has two problems. First, it necessitates long power lines if we want our base to be anywhere but near the pole, which is not necessarily serious. Secondly, and more importantly, this then leaves us in the dark for the moon's `winter' which I seem to recall is 6 months long. Not really a useful suggestion, then. Storing heat in the ground is a little better, but i suspect that the heat would diffuse away into the ground or radiate away (3 degrees K heat sink, remember) too fast for this to be much of a help, as well. If I am wrong, please tell me, as I would like to see a way around the problem, but I haven't been able to see one. greg uucp: !genrad!mit-eddie!greg arpa: greg@grape-nehi%mit-mc or g.mcmullan@mit-eecs%mit-mc us snail: 500 memorial drive cambridge, ma, 02139[-4326] (617) 225-8942
peterb@pbear.UUCP (02/27/85)
I don't think that the heat from the ground will escape fast IF You use insulation, or even just leave it. The moon is after all the biggest example of a dewer flask... Peter PS I didn't know that the moon had a 'winter'.
mccann@sjuvax.UUCP (mccann) (02/27/85)
The problem of the moon being in darkness for 2 out of four weeks (and thus unable to use solar power) could (I think) be solved by using a large solar power gathering satlleite orbiting in such a way that it could send power down to the base (either simply as reflected light or by using solar cells and beaming it down as microwaves.) The biggest problem with this is that I don't know if there is such a location. Any body know? M. McCann
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (02/27/85)
> As i remember it, the moon rocks had a high titanium content > relative to earth rocks. Since titanium is strong, light, and > can withstand high tempretures, it seems like building a titanium > extractor using some of the solar mirrors would be useful. Actually, a fair number of earth rocks have substantial titanium content. The problem with titanium is not finding it, but getting it out -- it's ferociously chemically active and hangs on TIGHT to elements like oxygen. You've got to do a good job of separation, too, because even a trace of oxygen makes it brittle. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (02/28/85)
> > As i remember it, the moon rocks had a high titanium content > > relative to earth rocks. Since titanium is strong, light, and > > can withstand high tempretures, it seems like building a titanium > > extractor using some of the solar mirrors would be useful. > > Actually, a fair number of earth rocks have substantial titanium > content. The problem with titanium is not finding it, but getting > it out -- it's ferociously chemically active and hangs on TIGHT to > elements like oxygen. You've got to do a good job of separation, > too, because even a trace of oxygen makes it brittle. > -- And those same Moon rocks are about 60% oxygen (or was it 40%?).
chris@hplvla.UUCP (chris) (04/16/85)
I recently read about GPS accuracy (Microwave System News?) and its published claims are 100 meters or so accuracy, and varies depending on the receivers' view of the satellites (how many and what angles) and whether or not the user has "pseudolites" or pseudo-satellites nearby, such as near harbor entrances, etc. I believe that if the user carried a time standard his accuracy would also be enhanced. Present GPS receivers cost $15,000 or so, and are aparrently limited by cost of signal processing LSI (SAW filters, etc). NOBODY has talked about any $200 receivers of any accuracy within the forseeable future except maybe in science fiction. The Hope is that the lower resolution receivers cost will decrease to $1500 in the next 5 years so they may be economically feasible for automobile options (with a CD ROM map and display on a CRT?). If the lower resolution system gives me 100 meters in 3-space for $1500, I might consider it useful for private ownership, but I'll wager the 10x accuracy increase would mean a 100x cost increase even if the military chose to make that part of the system available, and few non-military users would have any need for this resolution, especially at that cost. There are, of course, other navigation systems available with pretty good accuracy, but not many systems serve the non-costal regions of the country. Happy Navigating (sounds like California talk) chris
schrei@faust.UUCP (07/27/85)
There has been at least one helicopter with two primary rotors and no tail rotor. Whether the two primaries (one fore, one aft) were counter- rotating or not, I don't know. I also don't know its official designa- tion, but it looked like a flying banana with a rotor at each end, and no tail rotor. It was in service in 1958, and quite possibly much earlier.
eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) (08/02/85)
> > > There has been at least one helicopter with two primary rotors and no > tail rotor. Whether the two primaries (one fore, one aft) were counter- > rotating or not, I don't know. I also don't know its official designa- > tion, but it looked like a flying banana with a rotor at each end, and > no tail rotor. It was in service in 1958, and quite possibly much > earlier. The XHRP-1 'Flying Banana' first flew in 1947, and led off a whole series of counter-rotating propeller helicopters built by the Boeing Company. Currently we produce the CH-47D 'Chinook' helicopter, used by the US Army, and a commercial version called the 234. The model 234 does things like fly people to offshore oil rigs. Our helicopters are made in Philadelphia, PA by the Boeing Vertol Company, which employs about 5000 people. Dani Eder/Boeing Aerospace Company/ Advanced Space Transportation -
rjn@hpfcla.UUCP (12/20/85)
re: "shadowing" of satellites in GEO ... Earth station operators (like the plant I work at) already have to put up with such interference. A few (predictable) times a year, the SUN is directly behind the satellite we use for video conferencing. The sun, being a prodigious radio source, wipes out the signal for about ten minutes. I imagine passing aircraft can also glitch the signal. Regards, Hewlett-Packard Bob "so we take a coffee break" Niland 3404 East Harmony Road [ihnp4|hplabs]!hpfcla!rjn Fort Collins CO 80525
ajs@hpfcla.UUCP (01/19/86)
> If you cannot track the stars, I would not recommend a picture longer > than about 5 minutes with the telephoto as the image will begin to blur. > If you use the 50mm lens, you could maybe get by with a good 5-min > exposure. The rule of thumb I recently heard, which applied post-facto to some streaked pictures I took, is: maximum exposure (seconds) to avoid streaking = 600 / focal length (mm). For a 50mm lens, you get 12 seconds. For 200mm, 3 seconds. You'll also need high-ASA film. In dark skies, 60sec on 100ASA at 50mm, f/1.7, produced negatives about 1/2 as dark as needed for good results, with noticeable streaking. If things are linear (and they are probably not), you'd need something like 30sec (way too long) with 1600ASA, 200mm. Alan Silverstein
bees@infoswx.UUCP (01/24/86)
The cape will hear sonic booms again as soon as the new steerable nose wheel is in use. Because the runway at KSC is shorter and narrower than a large lake bed, the increased steerability was required. Ray Davis Teknekron Infoswitch, Richardson, TX infoswx!bees, (214)644-0570
ric@rrm.UUCP (03/22/86)
There have been several "picture" books on the missions to the outer
planets published by NASA. The following is a short list, there are
more. These are 100-200 page books with descriptions of the hardware
and personnel involved in putting these missions together.
Voyage to Jupiter ~$10 SP-439
Voyages to Saturn ~$11 SP-451
Pioneer: First to Jupiter and Beyond ~$20 SP-466
Meeting With the Universe ~$20 EP-177
These can be obtained from:
Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
or, if you live in a large city, check to see if the federal government does
not have a bookstore like the one here in Dallas. They can get updated prices
and ordering information to you. You can also request that you be on a mailing
list to be notified when space/NASA books and pamphlets are published by
the government.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard R. Martin usenet: {infoswx!mcomp, texsun} rrm!ric
Compuserve: [70535,747]