Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from hogtown.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 ; Sat, 9 Feb 91 01:28:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4bgtNmC00WBw8PME5G@andrew.cmu.edu> Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sat, 9 Feb 91 01:28:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #136 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 136 Today's Topics: Re: Fire in Space Spy satellite coverage of the Gulf Re: Fire in Space Confusion regarding "Firm Fred Decisions" Re: SPACE Digest V13 #088 Re: Humanity's Launch Window Space Films Re: Fire in Space 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 5 Feb 91 04:25:19 GMT From: umich!dgsi!gregc@gumby.wisc.edu (Greg Cronau) Organization: Cimage Corp, Ann Arbor, MI Subject: Re: Fire in Space References: <7332@crash.cts.com>, <10134@ncar.ucar.edu> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article <10134@ncar.ucar.edu> strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes: >> Dan Gookin > >> If figure if you lit a match, it probably would lack the familiar conical >> shape the flame has here on earth. In fact, I think it would look like a >> point of light or perhaps a spherical flame. > > Why? What effect does gravity have on the burning particles, relative to > the forces they feel from the other heated particles around them? I would > think that since gravity plays such a small role in what a flame looks > like, it would look the same on the Shuttle (say) as here on earth. >-- >Gary Strand There is only one success -- to be able >Internet: strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu to spend your life in your own way. >Voicenet: (303) 497-1336 - Christopher Morley There is a reason that a match flame has a conical shape pointed upwards. The flame heats the air. Hot air is less dense than cold air, hence an equal volume of hot air is lighter than the surrounding cold air. This causes the hot air to rise and the cold air to fall into the space left by the hot air. This is what makes hot air balloons work. WHICH WAY IS *UP* IN ZERO-G?!?! There is *NO WAY* that a match flame would be conical in zero-g unless you were waving it around in your hand. The hot air *would* be less dense, but *gravity* is what makes that less-dense air rise! A flame has just as much chance burning with a conical shape in zero-g as a flame on earth has of burning with the flame pointed down or sideways. gregc@cimage.com ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 4 Feb 91 19:55:37 GMT From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!inmos!conor%lion.inmos.co.uk@uunet.uu.net (Conor O'Neill) Organization: INMOS Limited, Bristol, UK. Subject: Spy satellite coverage of the Gulf Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu The media is going loopy expecting satellites to be able to spot every Iraqi soldier scratching his nose. Anyone with any sense realises that the coverage is intermittent, and infrequent at that. But the question is, how infrequent? For instance, Given that a low orbit satellite orbits in approximately 90 minutes, one would expect that the earth has rotated too much by the time that the satellite returns. So we have to wait 12 hours until the Gulf rotates to the `other side' or the earth. I realise that the real details are almost certainly classified, but I would like to get some feel for the answers: (_Please_ don't say "I heard on the news that...", lets try and keep this to the documented facts. Remember that this is a "sci." newsgroup.) 1) How many US/Allied spy satellites are likely to be targetted on the Gulf? 2) How often does each one pass over a useful part of the world? 3) What sort of width can each satellite usefully 'see' as it passes? Can it scan the whole of this width on a single pass? (By this I mean that it may be able to look +/- 100 miles, but only scan 10 miles at a time.) 4) What sort of resolution? Can they count buildings? (Yes, it seems) Can they count vehicles? (maybe?) Can they recognise different types of vehicles? Can they count men? Can they see an Iraqi soldier scratching his nose? 5) Are they affected by the dark, or by cloud cover, or is much of the sensing done in the Infra Red? 6) Can they really detect missile and airplane launches, or is this done by AWACS? 7) A point was made that if you knew when the satellite was due, you could simply hide under a bridge for 10 minutes. How true is this, and are the Iraqis likely to be able to determine enough orbital information to do this? 8) Any other information which is available about spy satellites. --- Conor O'Neill, Software Group, INMOS Ltd., UK. UK: conor@inmos.co.uk US: conor@inmos.com "It's state-of-the-art" "But it doesn't work!" "That is the state-of-the-art". ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 4 Feb 91 21:18:27 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase@handies.ucar.edu (Paul Blase) Organization: The NSS BBS, Pittsburgh PA (412) 366-5208 Subject: Re: Fire in Space Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu DG> I have this perverse curiosity about what fire--specifically a DG> flame--would look like in space. An experiment to do just this was performed on the shuttle recently. Has anyone seen the results yet? --- 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 ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 5 Feb 91 20:33:23 GMT From: eagle!news@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Ronald E. Graham) Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center Subject: Confusion regarding "Firm Fred Decisions" Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu Any confusion resulting from the posting "Firm Fred Decisions" I will take the blame for. It turns out that I had correct information, but not comprehensive information. Here is the skinny: o The SSF program is being divided into three stand-alone phases, for budget purposes: man-tended capability (MTC), permanently-manned capability (PMC), and EMCC, whatever that stands for. The term "stand- alone" I think means that each phase will be funded separately, with the results of the first being used to determine whether/for how much the subsequent phases will be funded, etc. o Solar Dynamic and FTS have been stopped, as I stated before. o The 18.75 kW power capability at MTC I mentioned previously is a number recommended for five years after beginning-of-life (BOL). At BOL, they think 37.5 kW will be achieved. o The truss is to be pre-integrated (PIT), saving mucho EVA during assembly. o Some component and acceptance testing in the Electrical Power System (EPS) is to be deleted. If anybody cares, I'll get back to you on that. o In the six-year period from fiscal 1991-96, a program cost reduction of ~$6 billion is anticipated. Posted with minimal comment by RG ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: Tue, 05 Feb 91 18:10:21 EST From: Tommy Mac <18084TM%MSU.BITNET@BITNET.CC.CMU.EDU> Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #088 In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 31 Jan 91 07:09:00 EST from To: space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU Re: Speed of Moon's Terminator No one has probably answered you because it would take you less time to derive the formula your self. Some hints: -ANGULAR velocity is independent of latitude, though transverse is not -the angular velocity of the terminator is equal to the angular velocity of the moon with respect to the sun (i.e. 360 degrees per phase cycle) Have Fun Tommy Mac - Stating the problem correctly is half the problem - but drawing a good picture is more impressive. Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU> ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 1 Feb 91 22:02:29 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!nss!Paul.Blase@handies.ucar.edu (Paul Blase) Organization: The NSS BBS, Pittsburgh PA (412) 366-5208 Subject: Re: Humanity's Launch Window Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu NS> The only thing the Japanese really have over us is efficiency -- NS> they manage to get some things done on quite a bit smaller NS> budget and less time than the U.S. -- "quick is beautiful." NS> But some "off the beaten path" U.S. projects (Pegasus, AMSAT) NS> also demonstrate this capability. In overall aerospace and NS> science they are still behind the U.S. We could learn some NS> things from them about manufacturing automation, though. I refer you to the August 13 '90 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology. 1) The Keidanren Space Activities Council, a group of 94 companies and trade associations involved in the Japanese space development, has asked the government to double its budget to $3 billion. 2) Since 1985 the Japanese have formed 6 new cooperative organizations involving contractors and space agencies. 3) Two new Japanese corporations have been created to privatize large portions of Japan's space station activities and H-2 booster operations. 4) ISAS, Japan's version of NASA, is planning to launch a $100M lunar probe in 1995, on a home-grown M5 booster 5) The new H-2 booster is Japanese-developed 6) The Japanese have just completed construction of their new launch facility at Tanegashima Space Center. The key is that Japanese Industry is taking the initiative and not merely relying upon government funding. Maybe we're more innovative, but they are DOING it. --- 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 ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: Tue, 5 Feb 1991 19:04:45 EST From: KLUDGE@AGCB1.LARC.NASA.GOV Subject: Space Films To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"space+@andrew.cmu.edu" For those who were asking earlier about what films wer used by unmanned photo sattelites, I asked the fellow who designed the lunar orbiter photographic system, who was fixing some gate problems on my movie camera for me. He says the system they used shot SO-243 film (which looks a lot like Plus-X aerographic film from the 1967 datasheet... 470 lines per mm resolution, sensitivity of 3 (I think that's about 25 ASA or so). Extended red sensitvity. The equipment processed the film in flight using a monobath, then did a postive transfer onto a web like the old Polaroid pack cameras, and scanned the positive image. I don't know why the negative wasn't scanned directly. He also processed the Ektachrome SO.  217 film for the Gemini flights, though he says Gemini V also shot some Anscochrome D-50, shot on a Hasselblad with a 70mm back. I suspect the Ekta was an EA-2 film but am not sure. More modern spacecraft use the Shellburst Linagraph or the RAR series of films. Good resolution, extended red sensitivity, high contrast, and all the other things you look for in a good aerial film are pretty much the same requirements for spaceborne navigation. We still shoot a lot of that here at Langley, but from lower altitudes than LEO.... --scott ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 5 Feb 91 04:12:10 GMT From: umich!dgsi!gregc@gumby.wisc.edu (Greg Cronau) Organization: Cimage Corp, Ann Arbor, MI Subject: Re: Fire in Space References: <7332@crash.cts.com> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article <7332@crash.cts.com> dang@crash.cts.com (Dan Gookin) writes: > >I have this perverse curiosity about what fire--specifically a >flame--would look like in space. > >If figure if you lit a match, it probably would lack the familiar >conical shape the flame has here on earth. In fact, I think it would >look like a point of light or perhaps a spherical flame. (And >then my mind thought "Ooops, pure oxygen atmosphere--Whoosh!) > >But what would fire look like in space? or actually, zero-g? Would >there be flames? Would it be spotty and amorphous? There is no >scientific reason behind this; just curiosity (a mind-exercise, >if you will). > >dang Well, by "space" I assume you mean "outer space" as opposed to the space we walk around in all day. :-) What would a flame look like in outer space? Probably not much, considering the lack of oxygen.:-) But, a flame in a breathable atmosphere in a zero-g environment would be interesting. Early theory said that a bubble of CO2 would just form around it and smother it, but on the pragmatic side, the air in all space habitats is kept in motion so that bubbles of CO2 don't form around the *people* and smother them! It turns out that even a flame in motionless air still tends to get some oxygen through some kind of convective/quantum effect. It tends to smoulder at a low level surrounded by a cloud of hot gases. gregc@cimage.com ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #136 *******************