Message-ID: <UbeZjpq00WBwA7IU5Q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Sat,  2 Feb 91 01:28:06 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #102

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 102

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Commercial Space
		       Exploding in Outerspace
		   Satellite Imagery of Iraq/Kuwait
		      Ulysses Update - 01/28/91
			  Re: Why man rate?
		    Re: liquid SCUBA -- possible?
		    Re: Vangaurd/Apollo questions
	The Moon (continuation of Galileo article - it's long)

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  space+@andrew.cmu.edu.  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to
			 tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu

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

Date: 25 Jan 91 17:53:22 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!csn!ub!dsinc!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase@ucsd.edu  (Paul Blase)
Subject: Re: Commercial Space


 s> Beyond the commercial utilization of space currently emphasized,
 s> i.e. Earth communications and zero gravity projects, are there
 s> other foreseeable commercial utilizations.  I am interested in
 s> compiling a list of all the commercial possibilities.  At
 s> present, outside of the above fields, I can only think of the
 s> possibility of mining precious minerals from other planets,
 s> moons, or asteroids.  I would appreciate the input of others on
 s> the net or suggested references that I may look at to add to such
 s> a list.

1) High vacuum manufacuring (primarily integrated circuits)
2) Solar power satellites (either beaming the power down or using it
   directly in orbit for industries that could otherwise be Earthside)
3) mining non-precious minerals from the asteroids - one good sized
   nickel-iron asteroid would supply Earth's needs for quite a while!
   (of course, needs follow supply)
4) Industries that could otherwise function nicely on Earth will be moved
   into orbit for reasons having to do with power availability (see above),
   raw materials (see above), and disposal of waste products (either into
   the sun or into a nice lunar crater somewhere).
5) Tourism.  Don't laugh, for many countries on Earth this IS the prime
   industry.  The Japanese are certainly allowing for it in their space
   station designs

Actually, null-g is quite a good reason in and of itself to be up there.  You
can do some fascinating things that are just not practical on the Earth's
surface.

--- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR]
--  
Paul Blase - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase
INTERNET: Paul.Blase@nss.FIDONET.ORG

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

Date: 30 Jan 91 00:25:01 GMT
From: mintaka!think.com!sdd.hp.com!usc!ucselx!steer!c-stumpf@bloom-beacon.mit.edu  (Robert S. Radvanovsky KC6ONL)
Subject: Exploding in Outerspace

iA question arose while discussing about the space shuttle.  We have
many shuttle buffs around here, and noone is really sure what the   
answer is.  The quuestion?

   "If you were to expose yourself without a pressure suit, would
    your body suddenly decompress (i.e. explode)?"

Rather than discuss this for the next three weeks publicly over the 
net, just send me E-mail.  Please do not speculate.  I'm running an
argument and possible winning of a bet on this, so don't blow it!

A
*spock*

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

Date: 29 Jan 91 20:35:53 GMT
From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Mark.Perew@ucsd.edu  (Mark Perew)
Subject: Satellite Imagery of Iraq/Kuwait

First, let me state that I don't want to cause sci.space to descend
into a cloud of political debate.  I'd like to keep this more on
the technological and factual areas.
 
As I recall when Chernobyl had its little "event" the media was
displaying LandSat-style imagery within a couple of days of the
"event".  However, we are now 13 days into Operation Desert Storm
and I haven't seen any visible spectrum or IR imagery from the
Persian Gulf area.
 
I realize that the resolution would be on the order of meters, but
I'm still surprised that we haven't seen any.
 
Am I expecting too much?  Has the government classified this material
(political debates to talk.politics, please)?
 
aTdHvAaNnKcSe


--  
Mark Perew
Internet: Mark.Perew@ofa123.fidonet.org
Compuserve: >internet:Mark.Perew@ofa123.fidonet.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 29 Jan 91 18:28:15 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Ulysses Update - 01/28/91


                           ULYSSES STATUS REPORT
                             January 28, 1991
 
     As of 9 AM (PST), January 28, 1991, the following orbital elements
were taken on the Ulysses spacecraft:
 
        Distance from Earth              92,104,568 miles (148,227,934 km)
        Distance from Jupiter           327,720,429 miles (527,414,907 km)
        Velocity relative to the Sun         64,802 mph       (104,288 kph)
        Velocity relative to the Earth       64,318 mph       (103,510 kph)
 
     Tape recorder operations based on recovering data acquired during the 16
hours out of view periods are continuing on a routine scheduled basis.
Experiment reconfigurations are carried out as required.  An average of 99%
data recovery has been achieved.
 
     An incorrect command was transmitted on January 25 to the STO (Radio and
Plasma Waves) experiment.  The operational effect was minimal causing the
sounder time interval to be altered.  The interval was reset to the correct
value.
 
     No detectable nutation has been observed during this reporting period.
However, a close watch is being kept for the possible return of nutation and
procedures are available to control it should it occur.
 
     Routine data gathering operations will continue together with experiment
reconfiguratons as required.  The ground segment has been nominal during the
past week.  Further investigation revealed that the rain at the Madrid station
had not been the cause of the degraded pass referred to in the last report.
The data were recovered from ground station records and were played into the
real time and data records systems.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab | 
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | It's 10PM, do you know
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 | where your spacecraft is?
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      | We do!

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

Date: 28 Jan 91 19:58:28 GMT
From: isis!gaserre@uunet.uu.net  (Glenn A. Serre)
Subject: Re: Why man rate?

In article <1991Jan25.200639.16712@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov> cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov (David Cornutt) writes:
>I apologize to the group for posting this, but people that play fast and
>loose with their facts burn me up.  Hit 'n' if you are adverse to flames.
...
>capacity?  Contrary to popular belief, the Titan IV is only about a
>50K payload vehicle.  And it's a ragged-edge design.  There's no way
>that it could ever be man-rated.  You can't go on adding thrust to a
>vehicle forever.  If you tried to uprate Titan IV to this payload
>capacity, you'd wind up, in effect, designing a new vehicle.

1) Whose popular belief?  No one on the net (recently, at least) has said
the Titan IV is a more than 50K payload vehicle.  

2) The Titan IV is definitely NOT a ragged-edge design (I assume that you're
talking about stuff like "leading edge" and "pushing the envelope."). 

3) The Titan II was man-rated, and the Titan IV is a Titan II that's been 
modded.
   a) 1st and second stages are stretched. 
   b) Titan IV has SRMs (like the Shuttle). 
   c) Avionics have been upgraded and currently are  being upgraded some more.
   d) Titan IV has a huge payload fairing. 
Why couldn't a Titan IV be man-rated? 

4) The idea behind a Titan V would be to build on the current design and 
experience so you wouldn't have to do everything over again. If effect, a
half-new vehicle.  

...
>>than the crew. If it wasn't safe, nobody would fly their payloads
>>on it.
>
>(Again, Delta folks, please don't feel like I'm picking on you; the
>Delta just happens to be the ELV that I know the most about, other
>than the late great Saturns.  And no, I'm not going to bring up
>the recent incident on a flight where a payload failed due to
>miswiring of the adaptor; that had nothing to do with the design
>of the vehicle and so isn't relevent to this argument.)  The main
>problem with the Delta, as far as man-rating, is that steering
>of the first stage is provided solely by gimbaling of the main
>engine.  If that engine fails, the vehicle has no directional
>control and must be aborted.  This happened on a Delta launch in

1) Is Titan IV reliable?  Well, many millions of dollars in Martin Marietta
profit depends upon achieving a %100 success rate during the contract.  

2) The recent miswiring of the adaptor was a Commercial Titan problem, not a
Delta problem (unless a Delta had this problem too).  

3) Engine gimbaling:  Does a Shuttle have adequate steering authority if one 
of the SRM gimbals fails?  You seem to think that the Delta is less safe for
having only one engine.  One option would then be to use a Titan II or the 
core to a Titan IV.  

...
>David Cornutt, New Technology Inc., Huntsville, AL  (205) 461-6457
>(cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov; some insane route applies)
>"The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer,
>not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary."

More thoughts and Titan boosting from

-- 

--Glenn Serre         
gaserre@nyx.cs.du.edu

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

Date: 29 Jan 91 17:27:53 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: liquid SCUBA -- possible?

In article <1991Jan29.010316.26621@gjetor.geac.COM> adeboer@gjetor.geac.COM (Anthony DeBoer) writes:
>... The idea they had was to use liquid breathing, with some
>complicated solution, to fill your lungs and breathing spaces, then fill your
>sinuses and middle ears with some neutral solution and put you inside a tank
>of water, such that everything would be at the same density.  Then they could
>shoot you out of their cannon without it bothering you...

Well, I don't know as I'd want to be the first person to try it. :-)  There
are still density differences; for example, your bones are denser than the
surrounding tissue.  Run the acceleration up high enough and injury will
still result.  I have no feel for where trouble starts, though.
-- 
If the Space Shuttle was the answer,   | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
what was the question?                 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry

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

Date: 29 Jan 91 19:51:26 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu!dil@ucsd.edu  (Perry G Ramsey)
Subject: Re: Vangaurd/Apollo questions


In article <48544@cci632.UUCP>, lmm@cci632.UUCP (Lance Michel) writes:
> 	Kind of a morbid question; But how close did Grissom, White and
>         Chaffee come to getting the hatch open?


How close did the AS-204 crew get to opening the hatch?  Not very.  By
my accounts (See particularly, "We Reach the Moon" by John Noble Wilford)
first reports of fire came at 6:27:03 and last movement was detected
at 6:27:17.  An attempt to get the tools needed to open the hatch was made.

> 	Anyone know where I can find a resource which gives great detail
>         regarding the launch procedure for Apollo?  Something equivilent
>         to the _Space Shuttle Operator's Manual_ would be perfect.  Also
>         a diagram of the cockpit/cabin would be of great help.
> 

I have a Saturn V flight manual for AS-507 (Apollo 12).  It has everything
you want.  I will not let it out of my sight, but I could
copy a few pages for you.

-- 
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    ***  IMAGINE YOUR LOGO HERE  ******
    Ten thousand low-lifes a day read this space.  You did!

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

Date: 28 Jan 91 19:34:41 GMT
From: eagle!news@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Ronald E. Graham)
Subject: The Moon (continuation of Galileo article - it's long)

[This is the second part of the article that appeared in the Cleveland Plain
 Dealer: the first part I posted last week.  It was written by Cleveland 
 State physics prof Ron Haybron.  I dedicate the postings to Gary Coffman,
 ke4zv.UUCP, who told this newsgroup I had an "unscientific attitude" and
 never apologized for saying it.  Pbbbpthth!  -  RG]

To some, the Moon is cruel.  When Juliet expresses her concern that Romeo
was not sincere in his love, he swears it on the Moon.  To which Juliet
replies:

	Oh, swear not by the moon, the inconstant moon,
	...That monthly changes in her circled orb.

Of course, she was referring to the Moon's changing appearance, fearing that
Romeo's love might prove to be just as variable.  But her complaint might be
taken up by an assortment of scientists throughout history, who have worked
vainly to learn where our "sister planer" originated.

One of the most prominent in this chain of disappointed savants was chemist
and Nobel Prize winner Harold C. Urey (1893-1981), who spent the last 40 
years of his career seeking to understand how the Earth and Moon came to be.
He stimulated scientific research into the origins of the solar system during
that period, most notably through his influence in mounting the Apollo missions
to the Moon.

In particular, Urey believed the Moon to be a primordial body, formed at the
birth of the solar system ~4.6 billion years ago, then captured by the Earth
in a close encounter, and essentially unchanged since then.  Since the oldest
Earth rocks yet found are [considered] less than ~4 billion years old, and
because the surface of the Moon is not subjected to the erosive changes of
wind and water, studies of it could yield information unavailable on Earth.

However the Moon came to be, its formation had to be a part of the larger 
chain of events that formed the entire solar system.  The generally accepted
scenario for this process follows.  (It should be noted that even when the
broad outlines of such a story are commonly agreed upon by the experts, many 
details remain in dispute.  These stories of the origins of the stars and
planets are fleshed out be predictions of computer models, which require
simplifying assumptions to be feasible [Amen!], and specifics differ from
one calculation to another.)

The entire assemblage started as a slowly-rotating mass of gas and dust.
This cloud was mostly hydrogen, but it was laced with heavier elements that
had been synthesized in the energy cycle of earlier, deceased stars.  Dis-
turbed by some external agent, perhaps the explosion of a nearby aging, 
giant star, the cloud began to contract due to self-gravity.

A lot of the matter collapsed to the center, to form the great ball that
would become the Sun.  Much of the rest collected in a flattened disc, called
the "solar nebula," in which the constituent atoms and molecules of gas and
particles of cosmic dust revolved about the forming star.

As the nebula continued to contract from a spherical glob to a thin disc, it
heated up due to gravitational compression.  Solids vaporized.  Meanwhile, 
the Sun winked on, its center heated so much by gravitational compression that
fusion of hydrogen nuclei (protons) began.  This kept the nebular disc hotter
near the Sun than in its outer reaches.  It began to cool differentially.

Rock-forming materials, minerals and metals began to condense into particles
in the region near the Sun, while the lightest and most volatile materials
remained in the gaseous state and were "flushed out."  Only in the outer
reaches of the nebula did these volatiles become ices of water, methane, and
ammonia.

This would account for the fact that the inner planets - Mercury, Venus, 
Earth, and Mars - are dense and rocky, whereas the outer planers, starting
with Jupiter, contain much of the original hydrogen and are far less dense.
Saturn is even less dense than water.

As the nebula evolved, tiny particles came together, forming bigger ones,
which grew into even larger bodies, called planetesimals.  These in turn 
collided with each other to finally become planets.  In the final phase of
this process, the forming planets, especially the big outer planets, were
massive enough to deflect some planetesimals with their gravity and fling 
them to other parts of the solar system.  Scientists believe that is where
our water and some other volatile materials came from.

With this background, the Moon's origin seems obvious: it must have formed
as a system with Earth, by the same mechanisms.  But the chemistry of the
Moon doesn't fit that explanation.  Compared to Earth, it is poor in metals
like iron.  Chemically, it closely resembles the rocks in the crust and
mantle of the Earth, deprived of volatiles such as water.

Other chemical similarities between Earth and the Moon, revealed by lunar
rocks, suggest that they must have formed at the same distance from the Sun.
Since the capture theory long favored by Urey seemed to require that the
Moon originated elsewhere, he abandoned it after the Apollo missions returned
samples of the lunar surface.

Not long before he died, Urey showed some acceptance for a new idea - that
the Moon was formed when a body the size of Mars crashed into Earth and threw 
a cloud of vaporized material into orbit.  Subsequently, the Moon formed from
this debris.  This "giant impact" theory seems to be in favor now and it does
seem to satisfy some of the chemical data.

But it does not solve all the mysteries.  In time, this notion may too be
quashed by new information from the "inconstant moon."

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #102
*******************