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 ; Fri, 5 Apr 91 02:28:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Fri, 5 Apr 91 02:28:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #363 SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 363 Today's Topics: Re: Let's build Freedom on the Moon Reviews of Planetary Geology Texts for amateurs Re: Gamma Ray Observatory ready for launch--last milestone reached (Forwarded) SPACE Digest V13 #356 Re: Space Stations, Money, Startrek 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: 3 Apr 91 15:20:13 GMT From: swrinde!mips!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!watyew!jdnicoll@ucsd.edu (James Davis Nicoll) Subject: Re: Let's build Freedom on the Moon In article <10256@hub.ucsb.edu> 3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley) writes: > > >The NASA 90 day study proposed exactly that .. a lunar base >composed initially of Freedom modules. How much redesign would be necessary to adapt a structure designed to be used in free fall to be useful in 1/6 gravity? Would it be cheaper to design a structure intended to be used on the Moon? James Nicoll ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 91 07:52:28 GMT From: uokmax!rwmurphr@apple.com (Robert W Murphree) Subject: Reviews of Planetary Geology Texts for amateurs In sci.geo.geology, about a month ago, there was a request for amateur level planetary science references. Here are mine, a little tardy, but here, nonetheless. I am more of an amateur astronomer than geologist. legend for level of difficulty 1 = non-technical or biginner 2 = amateur with technical background 3 = advanced amateur or professional 1) Time-Life series on Astronomy , just come out in the past two years. Good reviews from Sky and Telescope. I liked What I read of "The Far Planets". Titles include "The Sun", The Near Planets, "The Far Planets", "The Third Planet", "Life Search", "Comets, Asteroids, and Metereorites". The best in science journalism. level 1. 2) "The New Solar System" by J.K.Beatty and A. Chaikin 1990. This is a must for the serious amateur planetologist. It is between a coffee table book and a textbook. Lots of pictures. Includes Neptune and Phobos but not Magellan. level 2. At the back is a bibliography of amateur level articles that is very comprehensive and covers the 80's. 3) "The Planetary System" by Morrison, T. Owen 1989? Well reviewed in Sky and Tel. and the critical Mercury magazine, this low-level textbook appears to be a very good choice. I haven't read it. level 2 4) "Planetary Landscapes" By R. Greeley. Mid 80's second edition includes Uranus. This was the book to have for the mid-80's. Its focus is geomorphology-lots of black and white pictures. An excellant source of references to the geological literature, It includes, on page 13-14, a list of special issues of Science, Nature, Icarus for particular missions, planets, etc. and a complete list of readable NASA documents you've never heard of but would love to read. level 2-3. 5) "Planets of Rock and Ice" by Clark Chapman. Mid 80's. A Scientific American level or easier of selected essays on topics of interest about the new planetary sciences. level 1-2. Very readable. Not encyclopediac. 6) "Earthlike Planets" by Murray, Malin, et al. Late 70's, too late for Voyager. A good Book on the terrestrial planets with (I thought) good discussion of geologic processes. level 2-3. Textbook. 7) A reviewer in Sky and Tel. suggested that William K. Hartman's textbook (maybe Moons and Planets, I'm not sure). mid 80's was his favorite textbook due to emphasis on geologic processes. 8) "Orbiting the Sun" by Fred Whipple. 1981 update of a 40's text in the Harvard Amateur Astronomy series. This post voyager Saturn book is worth reading Fred Whipple is a very good writer. See also, "The Mystery of Comets" by Fred Whipple -this is a fabulous introduction to cometary history and science up to pre-Halley that is not very dated as far as I can tell. level 2. 9) "The Planets-A Cosmic Pastorale" by Diane Ackerman. A mid-70's book length collection of poems about the planets-real poetry about real science. level 1. 10) "Earth, Cosmos and Man" by Preston Cloud. An encyclopediac work by a grand old man of Earth Science. Late 70's. level 1. 11) "The Space Age Solar System" by Joseph F. Baugher. late 80's no review. Books on Specific Planets or Topics. 12) "Mercury-the elusive Planet" by Robert G. Strom. Mid 80's. The best amatuer book on Mercury by a mercury expert. Very Readable. level 2. 13) "The Restless Sun" by Donat Wentzel 88-89?. An up-to-date, eminently readable summary of current Solar science including some politics. level 2. 14) "The Surface of Mars" by Michael Carr. A post- viking summary of features of Mars. It won a academic book of the year award back in eary 80 something. Probably more than a an amateur wants to know. level 3. 15) "Uranus" by Ellis D. Miner A JPL, voyager team member gives a scientific summary of the post-voyager science and mission experience for Uranus. Have not read but looks good. Guess level 2. $55.00 expensive. 16) "In Darkness Born" by Martin Cohen. 88?. A readable book about what we know about how stars form. level 1-2. 17) Exploring the Planets by Murrow (?) a 1991 book on the history of planetary exploration and politics. I haven't read it but judging by his book "Deep Black" on the politics of satellites I look forward to it. 18) Bruce Murray's memoirs on planetary history, science and politics is a must for the politically inclined "Journey into Space" 1988. 19) The Heaven's and the Earth by Walter Macdougall. 1984?./ The best book on Space Politics. The other is Bruce Murray's Book. Of course if your a real planetary science researcher you'll read the University of Arizona Books on the solar system. And the Institute of Lunar and Planetary Sciences Proceedings (Probably I have the name wrong) that come out every year. There was a Scientific american special issue on Space that reprinted a bunch of 80's articles on Planetary science spring 90. And the September 75 scienctific american issue was on the planets. Robert W. Murphree rwmurphr.eecs3.uokmax3.ecn.uoknor.edu Internet 442 Park Drive Norman, Ok 73069 (405) 447-7590. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Apr 91 09:43 CST From: Kent P. Iler To: I was just curious about something I recently heard that I was totally unaware of. It was that a major flare could cause serious injury-even death- to any astronauts in orbit at the time of the resulting storm. Could anyone give me any more detals on this? Thanks. Kent P. Iler ---You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd--- Kent P. Iler | Internet : kentiler@ksuvm.ksu.edu Kansas State University | : kentiler@matt.ksu.ksu.edu Cardwell Hall-RM 25 | Bitnet : kentiler@ksuvm Manhattan, Kansas 66506 Mainframe Consultant ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 91 19:56:57 GMT From: convex!news@tmc.edu (Dave Dodson) Subject: Re: Gamma Ray Observatory ready for launch--last milestone reached (Forwarded) In article <1991Apr4.191455.27211@news.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: > > George Diller April 3, 1991 > Kennedy Space Center > 407/867-2468 > > KSC Release No. 42-91 > > The spacecraft was loaded > with 4,200 gallons of hydrazine propellant, the largest quantity > ever to be loaded aboard a satellite. Assuming hydrazine has a density about like water, that would be 32,000 pounds of the stuff. Is this really correct? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Dodson dodson@convex.COM Convex Computer Corporation Richardson, Texas (214) 497-4234 ------------------------------ ReSent-Message-ID: Resent-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 91 21:12:13 EST Resent-From: Tommy Mac <18084TM@msu.edu> Resent-To: space+@andrew.cmu.edu Date: Thu, 4 Apr 91 03:33:42 EST Reply-To: space+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU@msu.edu From: space-request+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU%CARNEGIE.BITNET@msu.edu Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #356 Comments: To: space+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU To: david polito <15432DJP@MSU.BITNET>, Tom McWilliams <18084TM@MSU.BITNET> Subject: Re: Railguns, EM launchers Henry rites: >In article 18084TM@MSU.EDU (Tom McWil iams) writes: >>No one has given a good explanation of how to beat the frictional problems >>of a PURE gun-style launcher. >Brute force. Just give it enough extra velocity to punch on through, and >enough ablator to keep the payload temperature under control. It does help >if you put the muzzle end at the highest possible altitude. I won't bore you with details, but based on first run calculation, since the friction to be overcome increases with speed, and since you can never get a coefficient less than about .25, assuming perfect aerodynamics (which would preclude much payload), you just can't do it. Remember you've still got the gravity well to fight too. Assuming an escape velocity of 11km/s at the top of the atmosphere, and assume a 200km thick atmosphere. Use friction .15 to estimate decreasing density with altitude, and assume a 45 degree shot. To overcome the gravity well will require at least 13km/s for initial velocity, but this raises the energy requirements to overcome friction around 400-500% Moving fastest in the thickest part of the atmosphere just won't work. Some kind of combination is needed. I'll do it exact, if you like, but give me the time to look up the formulas (particularly the integrations). If you want to compare notes, assume a coefficient of .25 at the surface, 200km atmos. >>Use a short rail, with moderate acceleration to put a fully-loaded, already- >>been-tested-and-budget-approved chemical rocket moving up at around, say, >>300mph, then fire the rockets. >Unfortunately, those chemical rockets aren't designed for a horizontal >takeoff. You could get useful gains by catapulting them at such speeds >*vertically*, and in fact there was a recent Japanese proposal to do >just that. Sounds neat. Any details? Tommy Mac 18084tm@msu.bitnet Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU> ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 91 04:53:35 GMT From: agate!bionet!uwm.edu!rpi!mvk@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Michael V. Kent) Subject: Re: Space Stations, Money, Startrek In article <1991Apr4.232725.24921@herbert.uucp> uunet!rsl-egg!doug writes: > > Yes I know that is the whole purpose of the darn thing. Well >the follow on to FRED must be a cylindrical station that rotates for >LONG duration living, I'm talking years here. And the micro gravity >experiments can be done at the zero G hub of the station. Now with >FRED you are going to have to take a lot of exercise equipment up >to orbit just to keep the scientists from becoming silly putty. >And a good measure of their time will be taken up using that >exercise equipment. Why don't we start our space research from >the start in a station we won't have to scrap in 10 to 15 years. > > Douglas Phillipson > Visionary Programmer A couple of finer details here. First, Freedom IS a long-term project. It's being designed for a 30 year lifetime. (That's 2025 folks.) The major task for Freedom is to learn how to live and work in space. Once we have that we can work on expanding the facilities. Second, the initial crews will remain aboard for only 90 days (longer than any Americans have been in space), but that will be increased to 180 as we learn more. Probably even longer as events warrant. Third, the exercise equipment is of neglible mass when considering the size of the Space Station. Fourth, astronauts will spend about 1.5 hours a day exer- cising. One of the things we need to know is what exercise is necessary and why. Freedom will help provide that answer. Finally, Freedom IS NOT OBSOLETE. On the contrary, it is the most advanced space station ever designed. It completely blows away Skylab and Mir, and, yes, it is expandible. Just how we are going to expand it, we're not sure, because we have so much to learn before we can begin designing the next step. For a good overview of the Space Station, see Space Station Freedom: A Foothold on the Future by Leonard David. It provides a good picture of what we are trying to build and why. Michael Kent mvk@itsgw.rpi.edu ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #363 *******************