Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Tue, 16 Oct 1990 01:40:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4b6doga00VcJ4QtE56@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Tue, 16 Oct 1990 01:39:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #461 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 461 Today's Topics: Re: Cost comparison: Apollo/Saturn vs. Shuttle Analysis of stellar spectra Re: North and South off Earth [was Magellan/Venus Info] Re: disposal of N-waste into sun Re: SPACE Digest V12 #459 Re: Cost comparison: Apollo/Saturn vs. Shuttle Re: Man-rated SRBs (was Re: Junk the shuttle?) Pioneer 11 Update - 10/15/90 Ulysses Update - 10/13/90 Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Oct 90 15:55:50 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!rex!rouge!dlbres10@ucsd.edu (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: Cost comparison: Apollo/Saturn vs. Shuttle In article <143708@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> jmck@norge.Eng.Sun.COM (John McKernan) writes: JMcK>Wrong. You've made your case against a booster that no longer exists, JMcK>the Saturn 1B. At this years launch rates the Shuttle costs well over JMcK>$1 Billion per launch (the NASA appropriation for shuttle operations is JMcK>approximately $4 billion per year, not counting things like fixed JMcK>facilities costs for people primarily working for the shuttle JMcK>program). Even in an optimum year, if these ten year old shuttles have JMcK>any more optimum years left, shuttle costs are approx $500 million per JMcK>launch. The last time someone bought this up, it was $ 3 billion a year, not including fixed facilities costs... Could someone come up with a definate answer? After all, a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon the amount of error is pretty big money. I'm not quibbling with (or agreeing with) the points being made here. Phil Fraering dlbres10@pc.usl.edu "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money." William Proxmire ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 90 01:38:52 GMT From: munnari.oz.au!bruce!monu1!vaxc!phs404g@uunet.uu.net (G.Anders) Subject: Analysis of stellar spectra Hi netters... Anybody out there have any idea as to where I could get hold of a program to display and analyze grey-scale images of stellar spectra?? Basically i'm looking for something for my pc AT (286) with vga screen. I want to be able to look at spectra I have taken for my Phd, and isolate various spectral lines, measure various parameters, e.t.c. The data I have is in Figaro format, which is a standard astronomical method of recording data. I know I'll probably have to consult someone who specializes in Figaro, but any ideas, suggestions, etc would be much appreciated. --- Greg Anders **************************************************************** *** Greg Anders, Physics Department, Monash University - Australia.*** **************************************************************** Disclaimer: The thoughts expressed above do not represent the opinions of anyone, least of all me. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 90 16:00:09 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!samsung!rex!rouge!dlbres10@ucsd.edu (Fraering Philip) Subject: Re: North and South off Earth [was Magellan/Venus Info] In article <1990Oct14.155228.11856@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (Brian or James) writes: >If you were to stand on the surface of Venus with a magnetic compass Good question. I don't think Venus has an internally generated magnetic field. Phil F. dlbres10@pc.usl.edu ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 90 21:44:11 GMT From: usc!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!cummings@ucsd.edu (Michael Cummings) Subject: Re: disposal of N-waste into sun In article <655979997.22403@minster.york.ac.uk> george@SoftEng.UUCP (george) writes: >>Picture this: a supertanker modified slightly so that the nuclear >>waste starts out in the bow tank, being diluted 100:1 with sea water. >>This mix is then pumped to the next tank where it is diluted 100:1 with >>sea water. And so on till the last tank, which is pumped into the open >>ocean. You would be unable to detect other than background radiation >>in the resulting water. >> > >What!!! Diluting nuclear waste doesn't make it disappear as you suggest >above...it merely spreads it out. I have serious doubts to the accuracy >of your last comment - only in mathematics can you say A + delta A >approximates A. > >George Bolt. Exactly. Dilution of a hazardous waste product has another name: dumping. There's no difference between the above suggestion and running a pipeline into the ocean (I know, I know, you've diluted it out to the point where you won't create "dead zones," etc. The point is you're still just throwing it into the ocean.). We need to _solve_ the problem of N-waste (and chem waste), not find sugar-coated ways to do what we've done all along. Besides, EPA and any other environmental agency will tell you that dilution is strictly out. In the waste treatment industry they have a slogan for sleazy operators: "Dilution is the solution to pollution." :-) -- Michael Cummings cummings@milton.u.washington.edu "Math is math becomes physics (sorta)." - The Great Perfesser ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 90 22:04 EDT From: M_HAYDEN%GBURG.BITNET@vma.cc.cmu.edu Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V12 #459 X-Envelope-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu forgive me if I have not done this correct... this is my first attempt at a response. Concerning the conduction velocity of amyelin shrouded nerve fiber, the conduction velocity is approximatelt proportional to the fiber diameter. For a 20micron fiber, in a mammal, a large fiber will conduct impulses at about 120 m/s. Reference: John C. Eccles - Understanding the Brain -1973 McGraw Hill at page 30. Michael Hayden ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 90 16:49:58 -0400 From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Re: Cost comparison: Apollo/Saturn vs. Shuttle Newsgroups: sci.space In article you write: JMcK>At this years launch rates the Shuttle costs well over JMcK>$1 Billion per launch (the NASA appropriation for shuttle operations is JMcK>approximately $4 billion per year,... >The last time someone bought this up, it was $ 3 billion a year, not >including fixed facilities costs... Could someone come up with a >definate answer? Not as easy as it sounds. The funding is spread accross several line items in several bills. It is also mixed in with other aspects of the Shuttle. For example, this years House Appropriation bill is paying for some structural spares out of the Shuttle Operations bucket. How much goes where? In fact, if you add up the numbers in the various collumns, it is not unusual for the number to be different from the total. So it depends on what kind of numbers you want to use. If you want to use conservative numbers, go with $3B per year (although it may be closer to $2.8B next year). If you want real knock down NASA bashing numbers, use $4B. The truth is likely in between. Either way, we are talking about the worlds most expensive way to put a pound into orbit. Allen PS. A recent pro-Shuttle editorial in Space News put the cost per launch at $650M for this year. -- +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | What should man do but dare? | | aws@iti.org | - Sir Gawain | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 90 22:42:54 GMT From: mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu!dil@purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey) Subject: Re: Man-rated SRBs (was Re: Junk the shuttle?) > >In article Mike.McManus@FtCollins.NCR.com (Mike McManus) writes: > >>Reliability? How do these issues compare against liquid fueled engines? > > henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) replies: > > high thrust for their size, and they are a bit cheaper to develop > In article <1411@ke4zv.UUCP>, gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: > There are also a lot less things to go wrong in solids. There are no ^^^^ A gramatical quibble. There are FEWER things to go wrong. Fewer means smaller in number of quantity. I agree. Less implies magnitude. The magnitude of the problems in solids can be just as great (e.g., instant death and destruction.) > in general, solids are the most reliable rockets we know how to build. There are thousands of solid rocket motors in the armed forces of the world, some of them handled by not-so-skilled technicians, and they very rarely go wrong or go off accidentally. Now that I think of it, why are we messing around with these liquids? Besides: Cleaner You can shut them off Better Isp, particularly H2 systems. -- Perry G. Ramsey Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences perryr@vm.cc.purdue.edu Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN USA dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu We've looked at clouds from ten sides now, And we REALLY don't know clouds, at all. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 90 15:14:32 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Pioneer 11 Update - 10/15/90 Pioneer 11 Update October 15, 1990 Pioneer 11 spacecraft emergency continues. Downlink to the 70 meter antenna in Australia is in low noise configuration. The station reports that the receivers are locking up for 3 to 4 second intervals. The AGC (Automatic Gain Control) has been fluctuating from -170 DBM to below the threshold. As of this morning, the situation has not changed. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 90 04:00:22 GMT From: usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!forsight!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Ulysses Update - 10/13/90 Ulysses Mission Status October 13, 1990 The Ulysses spacecraft is about 3.7 millions miles from Earth, and traveling 91,714 mph relative to the Sun, and 25,367 mph relative to the Earth. The first two days of a three day activity to calibrate the hydrazine thrusters, accurately assess High Gain Antenna characteristics, and acquire the Earth with the High Gain Antenna have been successfully completed. There was a 5% under performance of thrusters on average measured during calibration maneuvers in the AOCS (Attitude and Orbit Control Subsystem). The solar aspect of the spacecraft changed from 91 degrees to 28 degrees during the earth acquisition maneuver. The configuration of the power dumpers was changed to compensate for this. Two experiment temperatures, however, in the GLG (Solar Wind Ion Composition) instrument and the HUS (Solar X-rays/Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts) instrument, did show an increase due to increased solar input. The temperature decreased as the maneuver slewed away from the Sun. The final day of Earth Acquisition will take place on October 13. The first trajectory correction maneuver will commence on October 15 and will be completed by 17 October. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #461 *******************