Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 05:07:14 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #386 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Fri, 6 Nov 92 Volume 15 : Issue 386 Today's Topics: ANSWER: Recognizing a Dyson sphere if you saw one Comet Collision gloves in space Hubble's mirror NASA Coverup (6 msgs) Scenario of comet hitting Earth Slush Hydrogen Swift-Tuttle Comet a threat to earth? why don't you stop snarfy, here is why, no computations! Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Nov 92 05:14:07 GMT From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" Subject: ANSWER: Recognizing a Dyson sphere if you saw one Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space In article max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) writes: > An F-K _dwarf_? How's that? > > Seems to me that a globe with a radius of 1 au and a temperature of 300 K > would look like an infrared supergiant or, perhaps, a protostar. No - the main point to the article is that the filling factor does not necessarily have to be high, so plenty of light from the central star would get through. What we'd see is a Sun-like star, with a small IR excess indicating a 300 K shell with size on the order of 1 AU: in other words, something not necessarily easily distinguishable from a natural object. Unless there's something obvious, such as narrow-band radio signals... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:53:44 GMT From: Leigh Palmer Subject: Comet Collision Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Nov5.150851.19861@pixel.kodak.com> dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes: >Oh, they used Sakharov's Cold Fusion (mu meson catalysis) for energy. >Anything else? Sakharov's!? How 'bout Alvarez? For that matter, why do you omit mention of *Jones*? Have you no family pride? He's the guy who actually did it. Leigh ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 17:36:59 PST From: rborden@ra.UVic.CA (Ross Borden) Subject: gloves in space Bill Higgins writes: >The reason I'm writing, instead of just allowing the discussion to >peter out, is to mention that a suggestion of Hermann Oberth's: >Astronauts might wear spacesuits without gloves for delicate work! > >He reasoned that your skin can stand up to low pressure without major >medical problems, so maybe you could work without pressure gloves in >space. You'd have to wear thin gloves for thermal and UV protection, >and making a good wrist seal on your spacesuit might be tough-- but >maybe not as hard as the problem of making a really flexible pressure >glove! I think this was in his Fifties book *Man in Space*. Interesting, but I think I'll let you try it first :-) A better idea might be to cast a glove from heat shrink plastic. It would be just large enough for an astronaut to fit his hand into. The cuff of the glove would have a seal to attach it to the sleave of his suit. After fitting it on, he would gently heat the glove to form it to his hand. It should provide a few atmospheres, enough to prevent damage. The glove would be destroyed getting it off, so they would have to be disposable. There might be problem with flexiblity of the plastic. The stuff I've worked with tends to crack if flexed a lot. Strength and tear resistance might also be a problem. Of course, thermal and UV protection are still necessary. A much better solution is electro-responsive plastics that expand and contract at will, but they're ways off yet. _______________________________________________________________________________ | .sig? I don't need no stinking .sig! | | rborden@ra.uvic.ca | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 92 14:59:21 GMT From: jcj Subject: Hubble's mirror Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space >...how the Hubble mirror contractor messed up the figure of the main >mirror. I understand it has spherical aberration, but wonder how >[Rockwell?] managed to do that. > Although Rockwell is my competitor in some areas, I must point out it was Perkin-Elmer that blew the figuring. -- jcj@tellabs.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:03:46 GMT From: "Robert J. Wade" Subject: NASA Coverup Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy In article <4581@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes: > > > My calculations assume the neutral point to be motionless with respect > to the earth and moon . What do your calculations assume? > > snarfy > > must be a wormhole near the neutral zone, and i bet those romulans are using it to get access to our moon! ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 1992 21:44:38 GMT From: "Blair P. Houghton" Subject: NASA Coverup Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,alt.conspiracy In article <4586@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes: > > > Well , it sounds like the willingness to cling to some kind of la-la > land belief that our government wouldn't lie to us about the moon > landings I'm perfectly willing to believe that the government has lied to us, but I prefer to believe it in the face of hard evidence rather than the ravings of a lone crackpot. For instance: The government lied to us when it said that George Bush was unsupportive of the idea of arms for hostages or ignorant of the effort to sell arms to Iran for the release of hostages in Lebanon. vs. The moon is four times as dense as our terrestrial calculations and measurements suggest, because the government lied to us about its verifying data collected during the alleged missions to the moon. I believe the former, because the evidence exists and is supported by members of the government itself. I do not believe the latter, because there is no evidence to support the claim, and because it comes from a person who previously misinterpreted Ohm's law to the point that it assisted him in mis-deriving a theory of travelling at speeds faster than light. --Blair "Makes this God stuff look simple." ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 92 22:16:13 GMT From: Kevin Quinn Subject: NASA Coverup Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy In article <4590@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes: [ paranoid ranting deleted ] > > snarfy > Yo, snarfy dude! Seems that if you could eliminate or control the paranoid side effects of your drugs, 'twould be a nice thing to share your sources, dosage levels, etc. with us - or at least with alt.drugs.... Better physics thru chemistry, huh? kbq -- Kevin Quinn | kevinq@ingres.com | {mtzinu,pacbell,ll-winken,sun}!ingres.com My opinions are my own. Should you think otherwise, think again. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:14:00 GMT From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: NASA Coverup Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy In article <4590@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us>, snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes... > > >>> No they don't . Abell's lunar gravity figure of 1/6 assumes the earth >>> and moon rotate around a common barycenter. The neutral point figure is >>> a direct derivation of that result. >>> >>> My calculations assume the neutral point to be motionless with respect >>> to the earth and moon . What do your calculations assume? >>> >>> snarfy >>> > > In message-ID: <3NOV199209041648@judy.uh.edu> Dennis, University of > Alabama in Huntsville comments : > > >A very easy way to blow this one up is to look at the weight of the > >Apollo LM and the thrust of the engine. The rocket equation says that > >there must be at least a 1.141 thrust to weight ratio. Remember the LM > >only had one Ascent stage. > > Dennis ,recall my earlier comment : > >>> The issue is not necessarily whether we landed on the moon , but how we >>> did it. > > I'm not trying to suggest that we didn't land on (and return from) the > moon. What I doubt is that we could have done it all with rockets. > What ever makes your clock tick man. > > Also remember that the Astronauts suits and baggage were set up for 1/6 > > g and not .6 gee. > > So we made them extra heavy so the astronauts couldn't jump too high , > or wander off too far, right ? (see my most recent post.) No read "For all Mankind" and find out what happened when they jumped too high. Its called loss of balance, and it was a dangerous happening for the lunar explorers. What would happen if they jumped, lost their balance and hit hard on a rock? > > > Henry can probably provide the numbers. > > Who's Henry? > Henry is the guardian angel of arcane knowlege. He sometimes posts to the net in order to enlighten the underinformed. :-) > > If any of you out there know Buzz Aldrin, there is no way he would keep > > something like this covered up. > > Probably not , sorry , gee, I guess you're right . Do you think there's a > chance I might get to talk with your good buddy Buzz? Over the ol' modem? > Us investigative types just like to get told off by those in a position > to know , y'know ? > Buzz will talk with anyone with moderate intelligence regarding CURRENT efforts to return to the moon. He will also answer specific questions regarding technical aspects of his apollo experience. Just don't act like a star struck idiot (unless you are a female with nice legs|) > Now that you mention Buzz Aldrin, didn't I read somewhere that he went > through severe depression and "therapy" after his one moon excursion? > What was this all about? Was he confused or upset about anything after > this experience? > Buzz is a great man who had a hard time dealing with the rest of his life after the Apollo 11 mission. He is a very hard driving go getter who wondered what else there was to do to top the lunar landing as something to live for, for the rest of his life. Can you imagine being 35 with at least half of your life left and a very remote possiblity of topping your achievements? Well as a happy ending Buzz is working to get us back to the moon by buying off on Russian technology. He is probably behind some of the moves recently that have us getting their hardware. We see him in Huntsville and other places where the professionals who are working dedicating their lives to giving humanity a spacefaring civilization meet. > >Also the pertubations of Lunar orbits by the Earth and Sun become > >significant at altitudes above 800 km and dominate above 22,000. > > Where did you read this ? Was this a paper based on theory or the actual > flight trajectories of real spacecraft ? If it's true , I'll be the first > to admit that it shoots my theory ...but I'd like to see for myself. > Snarf of the no name, go read up on Lunar Gravity field studies. Start with the Apollo 15 and 16 science summary by NASA for information on the perturbations of the lunar gravity fields by MASCONS. Then go and pick do your research starting with papers by Bill Sjogren from JPL on Lunar Gravity. His data is primarily based on Apollo and Lunar Orbiter Gravity mappin missions. For a nice primer on Earth Lunar Gravity theory go and read Brown's treatise on the subject. I don't have time to go and the the reference numbers, go to a government printing office or AIAA publications house and look it up yourself. If you are really hard to go after this come to Huntsville or Houston and go through the archives. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Nov 92 19:22:39 From: Fran Litterio Subject: NASA Coverup Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,alt.conspiracy bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes: > snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes: > > ) jump about 18 inches vertically without a run. On all of the video > ) footage shot by the astronauts while in the moonwalking mode , the > ) highest leaps performed by the most vigorous individuals, such as John > ) Young, never amounted to more than about 18 inches, while they were > ) THEORETICALLY CAPABLE OF SLOW BACKFLIPS! > > If we assume, though, that the moon landings *were* real and in low G (just > for the purposes of argument, of course), wouldn't it be plausible that the > astronauts were being very careful and restrained *NOT* to do backflips, in > ordor to avoid possible adverse effects due to a bad landing damaging their > space suits? Recall that astronauts did sometimes fall down on the moon and had to be helped up due to the bulkiness of the suits. That's one reason why there were always two of them out at once. Then the was the time an astronaut caught his foot on a cable and knocked over a rack of million dollar equipment. It was useless thereafter (anyone know who did that?). I guess I shouldn't feel so bad about getting crumbs in my keyboard. -- franl@centerline.com || Fran Litterio, CenterLine Software R&D 617-498-3255 || 10 Fawcett St, Cambridge, MA, USA 02138-1110 "It's not the thing you fling, it's the fling itself." -- Chris Stevens ------------------------------ Date: 6 Nov 92 01:41:42 GMT From: "Richard A. Schumacher" Subject: NASA Coverup Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy Well, if lunar surface gravity was about .64 that of Earths, then suited astronauts on the Moon would have weighed about 240 pounds. Hardly likely that they would have been bouncing around as lightly as they appear to be in the videotapes. And the hammer and falcon feather fell much too slowly for 0.64 G. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Nov 92 18:16:11 GMT From: Erik Max Francis Subject: Scenario of comet hitting Earth Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary,sci.astro,sci.space black@breeze.rsre.mod.uk (John Black) writes: > What are the chances of the comet's orbit to be change significantly so that > the close approach or impact doesn't happen. More specifically, what is the > affect of outgassing or gravitaional interaction with a giant planet? From what I understand, the outgassing is what _causes_ the possibility of hitting the Earth (non-gravitational disturbances make the orbit hard to predict, and it's _possible_ that it might hit the Earth). We won't be able to revise the probabilities (has anyone gotten the "official" chances of it hitting the Earth?) until it is on approach. I'm of the opinion that we'll have plenty of time to deflect it if it's determined to be a significant threat, as long as we get our butts in gear. ---------- Erik Max Francis Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt. Coming soon: UNIVERSE _ | _ USmail: 1070 Oakmont Dr. #1 San Jose CA 95117 ICBM: 37 20 N 121 53 W _>|<_ UUCP: ..!apple!uuwest!max Usenet: max@west.darkside.com 464E4F5244 | ------------------------------ Date: 6 Nov 92 00:21:39 GMT From: Jeff Greason ~ Subject: Slush Hydrogen Newsgroups: sci.space We had an earlier problem posting news, so this may be a repeat post in some locations. What exactly is "slush hydrogen?" I know it is planned for NASP use, and I believe it is supposed to be a liquid hydrogen alternative with higher energy density per liter (which would certainly be nice). However, my CRC claims that solid frozen hydrogen has essentially the same density as liquid hydrogen. I has always assumed that "slush" hydrogen was a mixture of frozen and liquid hydrogen, but this would seem to rule that out. So, just what is "slush" hydrogen? And what is it's density?? And, if anyone knows, what is the cost to produce it? Response by email or post is fine Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own, and do not reflect the position of Intel, Portland State University, or Zippy the Pinhead. ============================================================================ Jeff Greason "You lock the door ... And throw away the key. There's someone in my head, but it's not me." -- Pink Floyd ------------------------------ Date: 4 Nov 92 18:09:43 GMT From: Erik Max Francis Subject: Swift-Tuttle Comet a threat to earth? Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes: > But assuming that it is possible to fragment the nucleus of the comet, > this imparts a transverse velocity to the fragments that they did not > previously have. If they previously were exactly on the "right" path > to strike earth, by imparting motion to them along a right-angle to > that path, won't even a relatively small delta to their previous path > cause the vast majority of the fragments to miss earth? That's the idea. But if the asteroid is anything but tiny, it's going to take large amounts of energies, delivered at just the right places, to cause it to calve. And if you mess up, and the pieces still hit the Earth, they're going to be hitting even harder and over a wider area. ---------- Erik Max Francis Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt. Coming soon: UNIVERSE _ | _ USmail: 1070 Oakmont Dr. #1 San Jose CA 95117 ICBM: 37 20 N 121 53 W _>|<_ UUCP: ..!apple!uuwest!max Usenet: max@west.darkside.com 464E4F5244 | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:28:00 GMT From: IGOR Subject: why don't you stop snarfy, here is why, no computations! Newsgroups: sci.space Hello snarfy, I for one am not related to any governmental agency, I am not even american. I therefore do not really qualify for a cover-up of any kind. I do not know where your argument is failing and I am sure some other readers will take the time to tell you exactly. The thing is that I had with my group the extraordinary possiblity to be in weightlessness, in martian (1/3g) and in lunar gravity (1/6g) while riding on NASA's KC-135 recently. I can tell you that if you want to have the agility that those guys had while on the moon ( from the movies) you HAVE to be at MOST under 1/6 g and definetly way under .34g. Trust me, the martian gravity is bitch, there is NO fun being under it and it's relatively dangerous to even try a backflip. Then again the pilot might have fooled us since he's a NASA employee! then again our experiments DO HAVE accelerometers and they match with NASA's (ain't it weird :-)) Igor Texas A&M University ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 386 ------------------------------