Return-path: 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/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Sat, 22 Apr 89 03:18:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 22 Apr 89 03:18:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #387 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 387 Today's Topics: Re: NASA tank reuse fiasco Fer-de-lance by TE Bearden Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties NASA selects contractor to develop Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (Forwarded) Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties Stirling Engines ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Apr 89 14:33:36 GMT From: janus!bwood@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Blake Philip Wood) Subject: Re: NASA tank reuse fiasco In article <361@cybaswan.UUCP> iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) writes: >I used to wonder if it would be possible to redesign the ET so that: >1) They could be taken to orbit >2) The end caps could be removed >3) The internal pressure vessels could be removed. The current (May 1989) issue of the IEEE's newsletter "The Institute" has an article about how NASA has decided ot allow the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research to use the intertank ring to house suborbital experiments on five upcomming shuttle flights. It also says that "in later years,... UCAR and NASA will boost the tanks into orbit, where they will be modified, outfitted, and made available to 'any responsible party' for scientific or commercial purposes." By the way, UCAR is a "30 year old not-for-profit consortium of 58 universities that grant Ph.D.s in atmospheric, oceanic, or related sciences." Blake P. Wood U.C. Berkeley, EECS Plasmas and Non-Linear Dynamics bwood@janus.Berkeley.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Apr 89 13:40:24 EDT From: fuzzy@aruba.arpa (John Karabaic) To: "physics@unix.sri.com"%aagate.dnet@wpafb-avlab, "space+@andrew.cmu.edu"%aagate.dnet@wpafb-avlab, baker@aruba.arpa Subject: Fer-de-lance by TE Bearden *************************************************************************** Advance Note: none of this reflects official US Government or Air Force Policy, opinions or ongoing programs. *************************************************************************** My boss, who has a wonderful sense of humor, gave me this somewhat off-the-wall book to read in my spare time. The book is called Fer-de-lance, by TE Bearden, LtCol, USA, Ret., and it is basically a set of briefing charts, background text for the person giving the briefing, and set answers to a number of questions. The premise of the book is that Nikola Tesla discovered a unifying force way back when which can do some pretty amazing things. The physics is not clear (to me, at least), but it has something to do with the Aharonov-Bohm effect, Theordor Kaluza's unified field theory, and vacuum potentials. Of course, Bearden would be a lot more credible if he stuck to the physics and explained it clearly, but he claims the Soviets are using it to destroy space shuttles, Titan Missiles, and cargo planes carrying American troops. Anybody on either physics or space hear about this before? The guy definitely seems looney-tunes, but I took quantum mechanics and electrodynamics six years ago so I can't judge right away without investing some time. Anyone have any references on this guy's work? Full book info is: Fer-del-lance, A Briefing on Soviet Scalar Electromagnetic Weapons, By T E Bearden. Library of Congress Number UG 486.5 B42 1986. Published by Tesla Book Company (which appears to be Bearden's company), Ventura, CA. 1987. ISBN 0-914119-03-6. Respond to me directly and I'll summarize. Unless you have something really amusing to share... Lt John S. Karabaic (fuzzy%aruba.dnet@wpafb-avlab.arpa) WRDC/TXI 513 255 5800 It's not just a job. WPAFB, OH 45433-6543 AV 785 5800 It's an indenture. These opinions are mine. I cannot confirm or deny whether anyone else holds them. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 89 20:58:31 GMT From: uhccux!osborne@humu.nosc.mil (Larry Osborne) Subject: Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties In article <1796@mas1.mas.UUCP>, condor@mas1.UUCP (Rick Kawala) writes: > In article <4549@drivax.UUCP>, macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: > > I have received requests for the citation which covers the > > illegal aspects of man-ET encounters. [plus some more, not really relevant here] then Kawala goes on: > I called a friend of mine who's a paralegal and asked him to look > this thing up. He told me that it citation was incomplete, that > one has to say "Code of Federal Regulations", , Title 14, > Section 1211, where can be replaced with things like > "Coast Guard Regulations" or something. Otherwise, you're faced > with too many books to look through. It's something like saying > "It's in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, page number 432" but not > saying which volume of EB you're referring to. If anyone has any > more information, I'd love to hear about it. I asked one of our students who works in the government documents department of the library and she dug it up in about fifteen minutes. (When in doubt, ask a librarian.) She made me a copy, and the reference is on page 115. At the top of page 114 is printed "14 CFR Ch. V (1-1-88 Edition), and at the top of 115 is "National Aeronautics and Space Administration". I hope that is enuf for you to find a copy locally. I know from nothing about governments, documents, regulations, or laws, but the second section of PART 1211 -- EXTRATERRESTRIAL EXPOSURE (section 1211.101) is headed "Applicabil All the standard disclaimers (and as many of thhe special ones as possible) apply. -- osborne@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (preferred) | Larry N Osborne osborne@uhccux.bitnet | SLIS, 2550 The Mall | University of Hawaii at Manoa or via W.A.S.T.E | Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 ------------------------------ Date: 21 Apr 89 22:04:00 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA selects contractor to develop Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (Forwarded) Barbara Selby Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Jerry Berg Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. RELEASE: 89-57 NASA SELECTS CONTRACTOR TO DEVELOP ADVANCED SOLID ROCKET MOTOR NASA today announced selection of Lockheed Missile Systems Division, Sunnyvale, Calif., for final negotiations leading to the award of a contract to design, develop, test and evaluate a Space Shuttle advanced solid rocket motor (ASRM) and a contract for construction of facilities for production and testing of the ASRM hardware. The effort also will include an option for production of up to 44 motor sets. The new motor will replace, in the mid-1990s, the current Shuttle redesigned solid rocket motor. Lockheed is teamed with Aerojet Space Booster Co., Sacramento, Calif., as its principal subcontractor on the ASRM program, and Rust International, Birmingham, Ala., as its facility contractor. The total cost for the approximately 7-year development project and facility work is estimated by Lockheed to be in excess of $1.1 billion dollars. The precise values of both contracts will be determined in negotiations between NASA and Lockheed. The ASRM program goal is to enhance Shuttle system reliability, safety and performance. It will improve system safety and reliability through quality and reproducibility enhancements, which in turn will result from optimum application of state-of-the-art automation and process control technology. The ASRM also is intended to provide the Shuttle with the capability to lift heavier payloads into orbit, with the design goal being an increase of at least 12,000 pounds over the current payload delivery performance. The major new facilities to be built for the ASRM project will be those required for production of motor segments, nozzles and associated hardware, at a rate of up to 30 motors per year. The facilities are planned for construction at the Yellow Creek site in extreme northeastern Mississippi, near the city of Iuka. The property is presently in the custody and control of the Tennessee Valley Authority, pending transfer of ownership to NASA. Additional specialized facilities will be constructed at the John C. Stennis Space Center near Bay St. Louis, Miss., for ground testing of the ASRM. The Stennis Center has long been NASA's primary testing center for liquid fueled rocket engines and now will have the unique test stands and apparatus required for static firing of powerful solid rocket motors. It also is planned that a part of the effort will be done utilizing NASA's existing facilities at the Michoud Assembly Facility near New Orleans. As part of the ASRM procurement, NASA officials requested and considered private-financing options for construction of the ASRM facilities, in addition to "up-front" government funding of the construction. NASA will negotiate with Lockheed on the basis of privately-financed construction. A bill providing for the Government's assumption of termination liability to contract on this basis is pending Congressional authorization. In addition to the design, development, test and evaluation work, the primary ASRM contract will require Lockheed to produce the first 12 operational motors for use in a flight verification program consisting of six Shuttle missions. The projected schedule calls for delivery of the first flight set of motors in 1994. NASA plans to phase-in the ASRM hardware over approximately a 3-year period, after which use of the redesigned solid rocket motor will be discontinued. As part of their proposals, ASRM offerors were each required to submit a production pricing proposal under which NASA, at its option, may order up to 88 motors beyond the initial 12. If the maximum quantity were ordered, it would consist of 40 operational flight sets (80 motors) and eight production verification motors for use in ground tests, and is estimated by Lockheed to be near $1 billion. Lockheed was selected after an exhaustive review of the technical, management and cost proposals received in response to NASA's August 1988 request for proposals. Major Lockheed subcontractors and their places of performance are: Aerojet Space Booster Co.; Aerojet Solid Propulsion Co., Sacramento; Babcock and Wilcox, Barberton, Ohio; Morton Thiokol Space Operations, Brigham City, Utah; Lockheed Austin Division, Austin, Texas; and Rust International. The Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., has management responsibility for the ASRM and will directly manage performance of the contract. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Apr 89 01:29:39 GMT From: vsi1!v7fs1!mvp@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Van Pelt) Subject: Re: US citizen - ET contact legal penalties In article <3815@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> osborne@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Larry Osborne) writes: > In article <4549@drivax.UUCP>, macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: > > I have received requests for the citation which covers the > > illegal aspects of man-ET encounters. >At the top of page 114 is printed "14 CFR Ch. V (1-1-88 Edition), and >at the top of 115 is "National Aeronautics and Space Administration". ... >I know from nothing about governments, documents, regulations, or laws, >but the second section of PART 1211 -- EXTRATERRESTRIAL EXPOSURE (section >1211.101) is headed "Applicabil Some of the message seems to have been cut off. I wonder what the original date of this law is? I suspect that it dates back to the Apollo moon missions, and the "Extraterrestrial exposure" they're talking about is material of extraterrestrial origin, i.e., moon rocks. This is back when they were worried about the possibility of some disease organism against which we'd have no defenses. I remember a reporter or two managing to get themselves 'contaminated', and ending up locked up with the astronauts in quarantine for the duration. (I wonder if the reporter did that deliberately...) Given the concerns, which in retrospect seem rather silly, the law would seem reasonable, since otherwise you'd have some reporter getting contaminated and obtaining a court order to grant him his Constitutional right to spread Virus X to the world at large. -- Mike Van Pelt "I'm not a biologist, but I play one in Video Seven front of Congressional hearings." ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp -- Meryl Streep ------------------------------ Date: 20 Apr 89 17:26:59 GMT From: tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!mbutts@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Butts @ APD x1302) Subject: Stirling Engines The subject of Stirling engines has come up in sci.space and alt.fusion. I found a very good article in the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, complete with diagrams of several forms, graphs of power and efficiency vs. temperature difference, photos of actual engines, and references. I'll try to summarize here, but it's worth looking at the article. The Stirling Engine converts any form of heat differential into mechanical work. It has a cold end and a hot end, with a sealed working fluid (hydrogen) which is put through a pressure/volume/temperature cycle: Compress it on the cold end, shift that compressed gas to the hot end, where it expands against the piston, shift the hot uncompressed gas to the cold end where it is cooled and compressed again. The work from hot expansion exceeds the work of cold compression. The efficiency depends primarily on the difference between the hot and cold temperatures, according to the Carnot cycle, and secondarily on a large number of engineering factors. Actual engines have been built in the 5HP to 500HP range. Pictures of two engines are shown, one built by Philips in Holland and the other by GM. Since it works from steady heat, these engines have a burner at one end, burning anything from gasoline to olive oil. Cooling is done with water and a radiator, as in a car. The efficiency-temperature curve shows up to 40% efficiency has been measured on an actual engine, with a burner temperature of 800 degrees C. This drops to about 5% at 200 degrees C. I don't recall the cooling temperature, but it must be something like 100 degrees C. The energy breakdown is said to be 40% work, 10% burner exhaust, and 50% into the cooling system. Since the engine has a closed cycle, far more heat is dissipated by the cooling system than with internal combustion, where the exhaust carries away most of the waste heat. Thus the cooling system must be much larger than in cars. The torque is nearly constant per rotation and over speed for multi-cylinder engines. Speed is controlled by varying the pressure of the working fluid. The engine is perfectly balanced, the pistons move according to sinusoids, and there are no explosive power events, so it is extremely smooth and quiet in operation. (I want to drive one of these!) We can easily imagine a palladium fusion reactor mounted to the head of a Stirling engine. The operating temperature is extremely important, as that determines efficiency. 800 degrees C is below the melting point of palladium, so we may hope that such an engine will come to pass. If the cost and efficiency are right, we might see fusion-driven Stirling engines running cars (which are very clean and quiet and have enormous grilles). An engine like that would also be ideal for a home power station, generating electricity from the crankshaft and heating the house with the coolant. If such a device could be manufactured economically, it would be a tremendous boon to developing nations, who could get high-grade power where and when needed, without big capital investments in power stations and distribution systems, and without the pollution and economic miseries of oil. If and only if Pons is right, if enough palladium or a substitute can be found, cheap enough, if it's as free of radiation as Pons says it is, if it can be made to run at a high enough temperature for thermal efficiency, if it can be engineered, if it is appropriate for intermittent use, etc. Very big ifs, but we will certainly see! Please followup to alt.fusion. -- Mike Butts, Research Engineer KC7IT 503-626-1302 Mentor Graphics Corp., 8500 SW Creekside Place, Beaverton OR 97005 ...!{sequent,tessi,apollo}!mntgfx!mbutts OR mbutts@pdx.MENTOR.COM These are my opinions, & not necessarily those of Mentor Graphics. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #387 *******************