Message-ID: <kZcytM200VcJ01uU5V@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Thu,  4 Jan 90 19:46:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #365

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 365

Today's Topics:
		   An organising principle for 1g ?
		 Re: An organising principle for 1g ?
		     Air to orbit launch in 1985?
	       Re: Launching AUSSAT on Chinese rockets
		   Re: Air to orbit launch in 1985?
		 Re: The time thread that won't die.
	    SR-71 (Was: Re: space news from Nov 13 AW&ST)
			   Re: Antigravity
	       Payload Status for 12/19/89 (Forwarded)
		    Re: Big Bang:  Did it happen?
			Re: New years eve 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Dec 89 13:59:29 GMT
From: voder!dtg.nsc.com!andrew@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head )
Subject: An organising principle for 1g ?

While reading the yearly washup of planetary science in "The Economist",
I converted a table of mass and equatorial radii of the planets into
gravity at the surface. I was surprised that even the giants, Jupiter
and Saturn, did not deviate by much from 1g. Here is the data:
(r = equatorial radius [earth=1], m = mass [earth=1])
		r		m		m/r^2
-------------------------------------------------------
mercury		0.38		0.056		0.4
venus		0.95		0.81		0.9
earth		1		1		1
moon		0.27		0.012		0.15
mars		0.53		0.107		0.4
jupiter		11.2		318		2.5
saturn		9.42		95.1		1.1
uranus		4.11		14.5		0.85
neptune		3.96		17.2		1.1
pluto		0.17		0.006		0.2
-------------------------------------------------------
r ranges over 2 orders-of-magnitude, m even more. But the gravitation
at the surface is constrained within about one order-of-magnitude.

Is there a theory of planetary formation which accounts for what appears
to be an organising principle here?
-- 
...........................................................................
Andrew Palfreyman	a wet bird never flies at night		time sucks
andrew@dtg.nsc.com	there are always two sides to a broken window

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

Date: 27 Dec 89 21:03:27 GMT
From: moonzappa!loren@lll-winken.llnl.gov  (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: An organising principle for 1g ?

In article <430@berlioz.nsc.com> andrew@dtg.nsc.com (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head       ) writes:
>While reading the yearly washup of planetary science in "The Economist",
>I converted a table of mass and equatorial radii of the planets into
>gravity at the surface. I was surprised that even the giants, Jupiter
>and Saturn, did not deviate by much from 1g. Here is the data:
>(r = equatorial radius [earth=1], m = mass [earth=1])
>		r		m		m/r^2
>-------------------------------------------------------
>mercury		0.38		0.056		0.4
>venus		0.95		0.81		0.9
>earth		1		1		1
>moon		0.27		0.012		0.15
>mars		0.53		0.107		0.4
>jupiter		11.2		318		2.5
>saturn		9.42		95.1		1.1
>uranus		4.11		14.5		0.85
>neptune		3.96		17.2		1.1
>pluto		0.17		0.006		0.2
>-------------------------------------------------------
>r ranges over 2 orders-of-magnitude, m even more. But the gravitation
>at the surface is constrained within about one order-of-magnitude.
>
>Is there a theory of planetary formation which accounts for what appears
>to be an organising principle here?

Not at all. The mass is approximately (density)(4*pi/3)*r^3, making
the surface gravity proportional to (density)*r. Furthermore, the
inner planets are made of rocky materials and iron, making their
densities between 3 and 5 g/cc. On the other hand, the outer planets
are made largely of hydrogen, with a much lower density. The density
of Saturn is less than that of water, for instance. These two factors
combine to put the surface gravities of most of the planets into a
very small range.

						        ^    
Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster		     \  ^  /
	loren@moonzappa.llnl.gov		      \ ^ /
One may need to route through any of:		       \^/
	sunlight.llnl.gov			<<<<<<<<+>>>>>>>>
	lll-lcc.llnl.gov			       /v\
	lll-crg.llnl.gov			      / v \
	star.stanford.edu			     /  v  \
						        v    
"I'm just a spud boy looking for that real tomato" -- Devo

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

Date: 26 Dec 89 16:39:25 GMT
From: crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen@uunet.uu.net  (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
Subject: Air to orbit launch in 1985?


  Just caught a documentary on the F15 fighter. Among other things
described was a report of the F15 shooting down a dead US satellite
with a missle... in 1985. Now I realize that it is not impossible to
throw something slow moving into orbit and let a satellite "run into
it" as it were, but it is certainly not the reliable way to do it. I
would doubt that anyone would design a production defense system which
involved a crossing shot on something at orbital velocity.

  My question is, did this air to orbit missle achieve orbital velocity
itself? The naration didn't say, while the footage certainly *looked*
like an overtaking, low deflection angle, approach.

  Since the show was on cable TV the program is obviously not
classified, although the details may be. Does anyone know more about
this? There are better things of that size to place in LEO than 50kg of
explosive if you can do it (a) cheaply and (b) on short notice.
Emergency repair and relief comes to mind.

-- 
	bill davidsen - sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
davidsen@sixhub.uucp		...!uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen

"Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon

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

Date: 29 Dec 89 03:31:50 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Launching AUSSAT on Chinese rockets

In article <2462@moondance.cs.uq.oz.au> anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au writes:
>Recently, President Bush approved the sale of three communication satellites
>to China...

Well, not quite -- what has happened is that Bush has dropped the
post-Tiananmen embargo that prevented completion of sales which had
already passed the full US-government approval process.

>... The money that the Chinese government received
>for the launch of the AUSSAT satellites is used to further the research
>in rockets in the Chinese Army...
>By lauching AUSSAT at half the price of the shuttle, the Chinese government
>is clearly trying to artifically force down the prices of the launch 
>industry and to beat the competition.  This is clearly an unfair trade
>practice...

I wish the opponents of launching things on Long March would be consistent
about what their objection is.  Half the time they say that China is
selling launches far below cost and this is unfair competition, and half
the time they say that China is making a large profit which supports rocket
research, thereby somehow contributing to atrocities like Tiananmen Square.
I'm afraid Anthony Lee has set a new record, with both arguments in one
article.  C'mon, folks:  if they're selling below cost, they can't be
supporting anything with the proceeds.

Beating the competition and forcing prices down is normal, fair trade
practice, engaged in every day by a wide variety of US companies, often
to the considerable sorrow of their competitors in other nations.  It
only becomes unfair if money stolen from taxpayers at gunpoint is used
to subsidize it, as the US did for most of its commercially-available
launchers in their early days.  (The classic example is the old shuttle
commercial prices, set so low that the development of Ariane looked like
a huge gamble.)

I don't know for sure whether the Chinese are subsidizing foreign launches
on Long March, but I doubt that they're subsidizing it much.  They simply
have cheaper hardware and less costly operations than their high-tech
competitors.  It's quite true that bloated military contractors -- the
ones who build all current Western launch systems, including Ariane --
have a hard time competing with people who build heatshields out of wood
and set launch azimuth by rotating the pad with hand cranks.  We need
more such people, preferably in free countries, not an international
launcher cartel determined to squeeze them out of the market.  Which
is what we have now:  if the US-China agreement limiting foreign access
to Chinese launches had been between two US companies instead of two
countries, there would be a restraint-of-trade antitrust suit pending
against them.

>Beside political considerations, what is the record of launches for the
>Long March rockets ?

Excellent, actually.  It's simple, reliable hardware.

>Bush is bowing to the Chinese government.

Insofar as he's bowing to anyone, it's to the US satellite builders, who
want freedom to launch their birds on the lowest bidder's rockets and to
hell with the ideologies.
-- 
1972: Saturn V #15 flight-ready|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1989: birds nesting in engines | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

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

Date: 30 Dec 89 20:03:07 GMT
From: jds@mimsy.umd.edu  (James da Silva)
Subject: Re: Air to orbit launch in 1985?

In article <1989Dec29.211745.2553@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
writes:
>In article <246@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
>>... a report of the F15 shooting down a dead US satellite
>>with a missle...
>
>Something I forgot in my previous posting...  Just to set the record
>straight, that US satellite was *not* dead, and the science community
>was somewhat annoyed about its destruction -- it was still returning
>useful data.  (It *was* DoD property, so there was no gross impropriety
>involved, but it's still a pity they couldn't use something else.)

This incident was mentioned in the December 89 issue of Sky and Telescope,
in a review of "The Restless Sun" by Donat G. Wentzel.  Reviewer Mark S.
Giampapa writes:

     "Wentzel cites the destruction of the Air Force satellite P78-1 and
its on-board coronagraph during an antisatellite test as a particularly
frustrating example of how reduced visibility can have detrimental
consequences for solar science.  But he fails to state the other side of
the coin, namely, that the DoD had supported the installation and
subsequent operation of the coronagraph on its satellite, even after the
initial defense-related objectives had been fulfilled. (How many NASA
astronomy missions carry DoD experiments?)  Furthermore, solar scientists
had allowed themselves to fall several years behind in the analysis of the
coronagraph's data, thus casting doubt on the high priority claimed for
this instrument by the solar community."

Interesting.

Jaime
...........................................................................
: domain: jds@cs.umd.edu				     James da Silva
: path:   uunet!mimsy!jds

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

Date: 2 Jan 90 12:42:31 GMT
From: netnews.upenn.edu!linc.cis.upenn.edu!rubinoff@rutgers.edu  (Robert Rubinoff)
Subject: Re: The time thread that won't die.

In article <9440001@hpcilzb.HP.COM> fish@hpcilzb.HP.COM (John Fisher) writes:
>Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not completely sure of this), but
>doesn't the new millennium begin on January 1, 2001? 

Actually, since the current year is 5750, the new millenium won't begin for
another two and a half centuries...

(what do you mean, this isn't soc.culture.jewish?)

    Robert

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

Date: 2 Jan 90 18:02:09 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!jarthur!aqdata!sullivan@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Michael T. Sullivan)
Subject: SR-71 (Was: Re: space news from Nov 13 AW&ST)

From article <1990Jan1.040623.28415@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):
> 
> [marginally space related]  SR-71 operations terminated due to high cost
> and continued USAF confusion about reconnaissance plans.

But not before doing a few flybys over the Lockheed plant in Burbank where
it was built, tying up traffic for miles.  Wish I was there.  Sigh.
-- 
Michael Sullivan          uunet!jarthur.uucp!aqdata!sullivan
aQdata, Inc.
San Dimas, CA

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

Date: 31 Dec 89 02:02:48 GMT
From: voder!dtg.nsc.com!andrew@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head )
Subject: Re: Antigravity


Re gyroscope thread: Professor Eric Laithwaite, well-known British
eccentric at Imperial College, London, did a lot of weird stuff with
gyros in black boxes about 15 (?) years ago. They would sit around
and then "inexplicably jump sideways", and similar stuff. He was
doing this in the context of engineering lectures, his intention
being for you to apply creative methods to work out what could
possibly be inside the black box. Perhaps someone over in the UK
can fill in the blanks here - i.e. references - as this may be
germane to the Japanese results?
-- 
...........................................................................
Andrew Palfreyman	a wet bird never flies at night		time sucks
andrew@dtg.nsc.com	there are always two sides to a broken window

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

Date: 19 Dec 89 21:28:49 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Status for 12/19/89 (Forwarded)

Daily Status/KSC Payload Management and Operations 12-19-89
       
         
- STS-31R HST (at VPF) -
      
All scheduled ops are on hold due to a live wasp found early     
Monday morning in the VPF highbay.  Additional sealing off of   
the areas where the wasp penetration is coming from has been
performed and an every four hour inspection of the highbay has 
been instituted.  Engineering is evaluating the use of a 
"bug tent" that would allow for the wide field planetary camera
installation.
        
- STS-32R SYNCOM (at Pad A) -
       
Battery conditioning was performed yesterday and is being 
assessed based on the launch slip to 8 January 1989.
       
- STS-35 ASTRO-1/BBXRT (at O&C) -
        
Software validation for cite in test stand four continues.  Aft
flight deck equipment removal from test stand three and the igloo
mechanical GSE disconnect were completed.  Payload centering and
transfer of the BBXRT to test stand four was completed yesterday.
Plan to pick up this morning with transfer of ASTRO-1 to (cite)
test stand four.

- STS-40 SLS-1 (at O&C) -
        
Connector protective cap re-identification is complete.  Rack 4
cable tie strut installation is complete.  Rack 3 and 11 front  
mods and rack 7 side mods were all completed yesterday.  Back
panel removal on rack 11 was accomplished and rack 9 RSS 
installation began.

- STS-42 IML (at O&C) -
      
No activity.  Plan to pick up with rack mod work and staging on
Wednesday.

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

Date: 20 Dec 89 02:46:07 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!panoff@uunet.uu.net  (Robert M. Panoff)
Subject: Re: Big Bang:  Did it happen?

In article <822@tahoma.UUCP>, jpg3196@tahoma.UUCP (James P. Galasyn) writes:
> 
> I just heard from a fairly reliable source that CalTech has demonstrated
> the Big Bang never happened.  

Cjeck out the latest issue of The Sciences, published by the New York
Academy of Science.  There are a number of fine articles, including one
by Anthony Peratt of Los Alamos which discusses how the universe could
have come to be the way it is without postulating a Big Bang.  This is a
far cry from sayong that it ``proves'' the Big Bang never occurred.  If
there is enough interest, I will summarize this article for the net.
The article is titled, ``Not With a Bang -- The Universe May Have
Evolved from a Vast Sea of Plasma.''  One quotation is worth including:
``Many physicists believe the time is fast approaching when the big bang
must prove its worth anew or step out of the limelight.''
-- 
rmp, for the Bob's of the World

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

Date: 21 Dec 89 00:41:28 GMT
From: milton!dancey@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Mikel Stromberg)
Subject: Re: New years eve 1999


You are right that a millenium ends every year, but the CENTURY ends with
the final second of the 00 year.  See, we're in the 20th century, derived from the year 2000, the final year of this century.  Thus, Jan 1, 2001, will be
the first year of the 21st Century, and also the 3rd Millenia.

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #365
*******************