Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 05:08:35 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #419 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Fri, 13 Nov 92 Volume 15 : Issue 419 Today's Topics: Apollo fire Automated space station construction (3 msgs) Dante Early life discussions Hard suits Ice hardness Lunar "colony" reality check (2 msgs) Man in the loop Names for Venus Features reality check (2) Space suit research? (2 msgs) Space suit research??? Study says: Space research spinoffs marginal The Big Picture The story on Oxygen Was Re: Lunar "colony" reality check What kind of computers are in the shuttle? Where are Pioneer and Voyager Headed? 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: 12 Nov 92 21:19:15 GMT From: Curtis Roelle Subject: Apollo fire Newsgroups: sci.space henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >............ Mercury >used normal air for ground pressurization, although I believe the astronaut >breathed pure oxygen at all times. However, it turned out that there were >risks in this approach: a technician was killed in an accident which would >not have happened with pure oxygen. (I don't have details, but I would >guess a pressure-chamber test went awry and he ended up breathing air at >low pressure.) Around 7-8 years ago several technicians died at space shuttle pad 39A or B when they entered a chamber of pure Nitrogen (during a purge?). Does anyone have more information about that? I believe they were contractors with Rockwell. A broader question is: In the history of the U.S. manned space program, what other fatal accidents have ground crews members been involved in at the Cape? Curt Roelle roelle@sigi.jhuapl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:39:23 GMT From: Philip Graves Subject: Automated space station construction Newsgroups: sci.space In article kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu (Kieran A. Carroll) writes: >In article <1992Nov8.064256.7682@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >>Is anyone looking into robots with very limited autonomy? That is, >>under direction from a human, but able to execute instructions on >>their own for periods of, say, ten seconds? >> >> Frank Crary >> CU Boulder > >Yes. The Canadian Space Agency (who are developing the Mobile >Servicing System for SSF) are spending about CDN$50M per year >on research into automating various aspects of MSS, through their >STEAR (Strategic TEchnologies for Automation and Robotics) >program. The work is being done by various Canadian companies, A system has been developed at NASA-JSC which demonstrates earth based control of SSF robotics maintenance tasks. It consists of a workstation where a human can control a manipulator system which is in a room across the hall. Tests were performed to determine the communications delays by routing all signals between the workstation and manipulator through a series of satelites and ground stations which are used to test the shuttle communications path. Since this communications route is not available for robot experiments very often, the delay was measured and can be "simulated". It is hoped that this system can be developed into a ground control station for SSF maintenance. The Shuttle Remote Manipulator System has a little used (if ever used) mode called Automatic Control Function, which is capable of tracking a preprogrammed trajectory. That's about as autonomous as the system gets, mainly because it is lacking the sensory systems required for anything more sophisticated. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Lee Graves, graves@drseus.jsc.nasa.gov -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 23:36:55 GMT From: david michelson Subject: Automated space station construction Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Nov12.202909.10062@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article <1992Nov12.044348.827@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: > >>Military COBOL and Intel processors, FRED IS DOOMED. :-) :-) > >Oh I don't know about that. After all, the Terminator used COBOL and >8080 assembly language and it worked pretty good. > > Allen > It looked like Apple ][ (6502) assembly language to me! -- Dave Michelson davem@ee.ubc.ca ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 92 15:26:33 GMT From: Bob Pendleton Subject: Automated space station construction Newsgroups: sci.space From article <1992Nov12.044348.827@ke4zv.uucp>, by gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman): > In article <6615@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> 3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley) writes: >>Space Station Freedom is Apollo type technology ? >>Really ? >> >>Using ADA and 386 / 586 processors and Nickel Hydrogen batteries, > > Military COBOL and Intel processors, FRED IS DOOMED. :-) :-) Get your history straight. COBOL was a US Navy project. The Air Force also had it's own programming language. ADA is the result of inter-service rivalry :-) Bob P. -- Bob Pendleton | As an engineer I hate to hear: bobp@hal.com | 1) You've earned an "I told you so." Speaking only for myself. | 2) Our customers don't do that. <<< Odin, after the well of Mimir. >>> ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 22:53:33 EST From: John Roberts Subject: Dante -From: lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Lawrence Curcio) -Subject: Re: Mars Simulation in Antarctica -Date: 12 Nov 92 04:24:24 GMT -Organization: Doctoral student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA -Is this rover the same robot we at CMU call, AMBLER? Big red sucker? -Legs arranged like eggbeaters? .......... -From: sk4i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Samuel John Kass) -Date: 12 Nov 92 03:45:44 GMT -Organization: Sophomore, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA - Basically, Dante looks like a big, purple bug. It's transport -counterpart, "Virgil" (which was dropped from the Antarctica mission due -to manpower and time constraints) looked like a high-tech purple dune -buggy with lots of extra wheels. Hm, I wonder how they came up with that name. :-) :-) It's very, *very* purple - I saw it on display at the rover exposition in Washington, D.C. a few months ago. (Is the color functional?) Here are some notes I took at the exposition: ............ - Dante -- the Erebus Explorer size: 3.0 x 1.9 x 3.5 meters mass: 400 kg speed: 2 cm/s comments: Another (6-legged?) walker, hard to describe. It appears to be made of beautiful purple anodized aluminum. It's intended to explore the active volcano Mount Erebus in Antarctica in 1992. Another robot, Virgil, also called the transporter, is to ascend to the rim of the crater, where it will lower Dante, also called the rappeller, to observe the lava lake, measure temperatures, take samples, etc. Not scheduled for a demo. Cameras return anaglyph stereo display. ............ - If our newspaper reports anything new and exciting, I'll be sure to -post again. - --Sam Please do so. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 00:45:27 GMT From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Early life discussions > Now, tell us all about the experiments that made pure > 5'-Phosphorimidazolide of Adenosine with a spark from CO2, nitrogen > and water. > > It's a fine tradition in origin-of-life research to assume away > your starting materials. Rather a waste of time, IMO. > If I run across such a reference, I will post it for the use of those arguing on this thread. I am not. Calm down for chrissake. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 22:41:36 EST From: John Roberts Subject: Hard suits -From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) -Subject: Re: Space suit research??? -Date: 12 Nov 92 04:48:26 GMT -Organization: Gannett Technologies Group -In article <1992Nov10.232320.4521@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> stanczyk@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (STANCZYK MICHAEL B) writes: ->With all the talk about US space suits being at 5 psi and pure O2 I was ->wondering what the current state of research is in space suits using ->1 atm and normal air? -Imagine a starfish. Constant volume joints aren't constant volume. At -1 atm, you can't move unless you're Arnold S. The suit fabric becomes -so stiff when inflated to 14 PSI that you can't get any feeling through -it, gloves don't work. 1 atm suit designs are hard suits with remote -manipulators, one man space ships, not suits at all. The prototype hard suit I've seen pictures of isn't made of fabric (at least on the outside), and it doesn't use remote manipulators. It appears to be made of rigid white plastic, though I suppose it could be metal. The joints are made of pieces that slide over one another - the general appearance is that of a medieval suit of armor. I *think* the finger joints are similarly constructed, but I don't remember the details. One concern that's been expressed over the eventual introduction of this suit is pneufrancaisophobia - the fear of looking like the Michelin Man. :-) John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 92 14:34:49 GMT From: Charles Frank Radley <3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> Subject: Ice hardness Newsgroups: sci.space In article lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes: >Being hard doesn't mean that bulk material is without flaws. It >wouldn't be surprising if the explosion caused major fracturing. >Precisely how much, would be unpredictable. >Don D.C.Lindsay Carnegie Mellon Computer Science - Indeeed. Hardness and strength do not prevent a material from containing numerous flaws, large and small. Flaws can propogte, regardless of the strength or hardness of the material. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:10:20 GMT From: Jr Childers Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary In article v071pzp4@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Craig L. Cole) writes: >In article <1drh9aINN91n@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes... >>In article <1992Nov11.143433.18514@news.weeg.uiowa.edu>, jboggs@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (John D. Boggs) writes: >>=From article <1992Nov11.005151.15358@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>, by jenkins@fritz (Steve Jenkins): >>=> >>=> Oxygen, like many gases, has narcotic effects at very high pressures, >>=> such as in deep-sea diving. It can cause blindness in newborns >>=> >>= >>=Yes to blindness in newborns, but it is the *nitrogen* that has the narcotic >>=effect in deep sea diving -- hence the use of helium for the really really >>=deep dives. >> >>If oxygen at high pressures DIDN'T cause the bad effects, why bother mixing it >>with helium? Yes, nitrogen has narcotic effects at high pressure, but so does >>oxygen. I am a diver but, I've never used helium underwater. Well has anyone here been up over 100km? :-) What you are refering to is mixed gas diving, which is mostly (only) used by professionals. In mixed gas systems the O2 pressure is keep at 0.2atm to maybe 0.5atm. The rest of the pressure is madeup with helium and some times N2 at 0.8atm. Note that the O2 level is above normal for a very good reason. When assending the gases expand and their pressures drop. Going from 100ft (30m) to the surface is a drop of 4atm and professionals don't like blackouts. :-) > >I'm no expert at deep sea diving or anything, but don't they use the helium >to increase to total atmospheric pressure in their submerisibles? So that >the pressure inside and outside the craft are more equal? Submerisibles are keep at 1 atm to avoid any need for decompression or mixed gases, unless of coures a diver is going to leave the sub at depth. >This is the opposite of space -- these guys are trying keep there craft >from imploding due to pressure. Increasing the pressure inside the craft >reduces the loads on the craft's strucutre. Adding pressure increases the sub's operating depth by only 10m/atm (33ft/atm) and 10m is not a real improvement when when the sub is built to operate 1km to 10km down. Is anyone else amazed at how little most people know about the air they need to survive. John Childers | We're sorry, University of North Carolina at Charlotte| all quotes are on Electrical Engineering Department | backorder. Charlotte NC 28223 | Internet? Try john@opticslab1.uncc.edu | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer? Does anyone on usenet ever offically speak for their computer? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:21:31 GMT From: Jr Childers Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary In article <1992Nov11.222130.8652@infodev.cam.ac.uk> sl25@cus.cam.ac.uk (Steve Linton) writes: >In article <1992Nov11.143433.18514@news.weeg.uiowa.edu>, jboggs@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (John D. Boggs) writes: >|> From article <1992Nov11.005151.15358@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>, by jenkins@fritz (Steve Jenkins): >|> > >|> > Oxygen, like many gases, has narcotic effects at very high pressures, >|> > such as in deep-sea diving. It can cause blindness in newborns >|> > >|> >|> Yes to blindness in newborns, but it is the *nitrogen* that has the narcotic >|> effect in deep sea diving -- hence the use of helium for the really really >|> deep dives. > >Oxygen causes drunkenness-like symptoms above around 2atm. Any inert gas (except According to my scuba text books O2 causes death at a partial pressure of 2atm not narcosis! Nitrogen begins causing narcosis at a pressures of about 4-5atm. >helium, which I'll come back to) causes narcosis (anaesthesia) at sufficient >partial pressure. Roughly, the larger the molecule, the lower the pressure >needed. For nitrogen it's about 10atm, for ether or chloroform, less than 1. John Childers | We're sorry, University of North Carolina at Charlotte| all quotes are on Electrical Engineering Department | backorder. Charlotte NC 28223 | Internet? Try john@opticslab1.uncc.edu | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer? Does anyone on usenet ever offically speak for their computer? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 23:06:21 EST From: John Roberts Subject: Man in the loop -From: i0c0256@summa.tamu.edu (IGOR) -Subject: Re: Man in the loop -Date: 12 Nov 92 00:00:00 GMT -Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services -Actually one is giving control to the machine so that the human can -THINK about what is going wrong. Most of the research in specific accidents -such as Loss Of Coolant Accident (LOCA) are studied in a way to allow the -operator a safe margin of time to see what he can do to stop the whole process. ->It's true that the human is always given the last word, but then if you ->look at nuclear power plant accidents, they seem to occur most when the ->human intervenes. -While it might be true for the Chernobyl disaster, for Three Miles -Island accident even the machine -could not do anything since they were not designed to handle this huge hydrogen -bubble. -Igor -Nuclear Engineering Department -Texas A&M University I thought one of the the major contributors to the TMI incident was that when things started to go wrong, the human operators panicked and *shut off* the automatic safety systems. I had the impression that the automatic systems might have been able to keep things relatively under control if they hadn't been overridden. The Chernobyl operators caused the explosion by performing a test which was supposedly to show how safe the reactor was. In order to create a hazard condition with which to demonstrate the recovery, they deliberately operated the reactor far outside the specifications permitted by the safety rules. The reactor power suddenly increased manyfold, and there was no time for the operators to react. This is not to say that reactors can't be designed to be much safer than the current US models - I believe there's an ongoing effort in this direction. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 92 01:45:52 GMT From: MURTY Hema Sandhyarani Subject: Names for Venus Features Newsgroups: sci.space Does anyone have information concerning a recent request for names for features on Venus? Is the search still active and if so, where do we send the names to? I recall that the names had to meet certain criteria. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 22:24:01 EST From: John Roberts Subject: reality check (2) -From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) -Subject: Re: Reality check (2) -Date: 12 Nov 92 15:51:03 GMT -Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park -In article , roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes: -[in reference to doing work on the moon...] ->I think a lot of the initial work could be done with robots, more cheaply than ->sending humans there right away. (Once we know more, and hopefully have more ->appropriate launchers, we can send humans.) -You'll need some humans hanging around, just to apply duct tape. Eventually, sure. But I was referring mainly to the very beginning of the process - things that could potentially be done starting just a few years from now. You don't need humans around just to figure out how to pound sand. For example - teleoperated rovers have already been sent to the moon (by the Russians) - we could do more of that, to locate good sites. "Earth moving" and "factory" functions would be more of a challenge, but we could start small - something on the order of the Viking landers. I suspect with concentration on the "smaller, faster, cheaper" approach, we could get in several good lunar surface missions for under a billion dollars - while it would cost many billions and require a new (or restored) launcher to send even one person to the moon. While the robotic missions are underway, new launchers will (hopefully) be coming along, and launch costs will (hopefully) be dropping, so by the time we can afford to send humans to the moon, we'll have a much clearer idea of what they should be doing. Anyway, I don't think we ever established that duct (grey) tape remains sticky after long exposure to vacuum. Experience from Skylab and the Shuttle shows that it will work for short periods. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 92 23:39:07 GMT From: Rich Kolker Subject: Space suit research? Newsgroups: sci.space In article roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes: > >-From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >-Subject: Re: Space suit research??? >-Date: 11 Nov 92 21:27:59 GMT > >-Advanced spacesuit research is basically stalled for lack of funding. >-A high-pressure suit (probably 8psi or so rather than full normal >-pressure -- most people can take a certain amount of pressure change >-without much risk of the bends) was planned for the space station but >-scuttled by funding cuts. It would still be useful, because prebreathing >-greatly increases the time needed for a spacewalk. > >In the NASA Select coverage of a Shuttle mission (this year, I think) in which >EVAs were used, I believe the commentator remarked that with something other >than the usual pre-EVA cabin depressurization, only about half an hour of >EVA pre-breathe was required. I considered that to be an astounding >statement, but I never heard any followup. (I'm pretty sure that the mission >was STS-49, and the cabin pressure was 10.2 psi.) > >Has anyone else heard anything about this? > That's correct. By lowering the cabin pressure to 10.2 psi and keeping it there for a number of hours, the prebreathe is decreased. It's now standard procedure for shuttle EVAs when possible. ++rich ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 22:30:52 EST From: John Roberts Subject: Space suit research? -From: mheney@access.digex.com (Michael K. Heney) -Subject: Re: Space suit research? -Date: 12 Nov 92 14:00:12 GMT -Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA -In article roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes: -> ->In the NASA Select coverage of a Shuttle mission (this year, I think) in which ->EVAs were used, I believe the commentator remarked that with something other ->than the usual pre-EVA cabin depressurization, only about half an hour of ->EVA pre-breathe was required. I considered that to be an astounding ->statement, but I never heard any followup. (I'm pretty sure that the mission ->was STS-49, and the cabin pressure was 10.2 psi.) -I remember that, too - I recall that the Shuttle cabin pressure was reduced -to 8.4 (?) psi, which gretly reduced the pre-breathe times. Given the -number of EVA's they had to do on that flight (Intelsat rescue), this -was a Very Good Thing. Thanks for the confirmation. 8.4 psi sounds plausible - 10.2 seemed a little high, since they always depressurize somewhat in preparation for an EVA. Anyone recall whether there was an unusually high rate of equipment failure for that flight that might be associated with the lower pressure? (Other than the fax machine jamming as usual, of course. :-) I remember that one or more of the cargo bay lights burned out, but that wouldn't be pressure-related. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 92 03:36:53 GMT From: "Michael V. Kent" Subject: Space suit research??? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Nov11.020758.7868@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: > >The current (unfunded) goal is for a 8.5 psi "no pre-breath" >pure-oxygen suit. One of the proposed designs (the Ames Hard Suit) >doesn't suffer at high pressures, so in theory it could go all >the way up to one atmosphere (although this isn't currently >planned for...) What type of line item would the Ames Hard Suit (or the competing design) need to move forward at a reasonable pace? Mike -- Michael Kent kentm@rpi.edu McDonnell Douglas Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Tute Screwed Aero Class of '92 Apple II Forever !! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:20:25 -0500 From: Lawrence Curcio Subject: Study says: Space research spinoffs marginal Newsgroups: sci.econ,sci.space Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU I would think that the spinoffs od space research in the realm of materials science would be neither marginal nor random. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 92 14:04:52 GMT From: "T. Joseph Lazio, Cornell University" Subject: The Big Picture Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1041@dgaust.dg.oz>, young@wattle.dg.oz (Philip Young) writes: > Given our propensity to fling hardware into the heavens, and our desire > to get a good handle on what's very old and far away, has anybody done > any serious investigation of the possibility of tacking astronomical eyes > on craft headed for interstellar space which would be suitable for > verrrrrrrrrrrry long baseline interferometry? We're not just talking > Earth orbit here. Seems to me we have the clocks, the computers, the > comms. What would be the shortest frequency we could realistically > deal with? Could costs be contained with a standardized, shrink-wrapped > observatory package? What might we discover with a (radio?) telescope > whose effective diameter increases 10E+4 km/sec or more for the forseeable > future? I haven't looked into some of the technical details you mention, so I'll comment on the scientific and historic. Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) with space based telescopes has been done with a TDRSS satellite. Both the former Soviet Union and Japan had/have projects, RadioAstron and VSOP, respectively, to do VLBI from satellites. Also there is a project in Italy and the U.S. (still on the drawing board) called SETIsail which would use a solar sail as a radio telescope. There are two major scientific hurdles. First, there must be something to see. Interferometers act as filters: Objects smaller than the resolving power of the instrument are broadened and objects more extended than the angular size to which the smallest baseline is sensitive will not be seen. This last property is peculiar to interferometers. What it means is that if you have two antennas, one on the ground and one a distance 1 A.U. away, in order for the interferometer to see anything, there must be astronomical objects whose angular size is about wavelength/baseline where baseline = 1 A.U. If there are no astronomical objects with angular sizes less than or about this size, the interferometer will detect nothing. Second, one must take into account interstellar scintillation (ISS). ISS is like astronomical seeing at visible wavelengths, it broadens the angular size of objects. ISS could be (probably is) the limiting factor in determining the angular size of objects. ISS is neat though, in that there are ways of exploiting it to mock up large baselines (~ 1 A.U.) and there are hints that on these size of baselines one could resolve pulsar magnetospheres. Thus, we have problems with VVLBI (Very, Very Long Baseline Interferometry). ISS results in a lower limit to the angular size of radio sources, interferometers cannot detect anything larger than the minimum fringe spacing, so there may not be anything to see. Even without ISS, there are hints that pulsar magnetospheres (probably the most compact astronomical source known) could be resolved with 1 A.U. baselines. Hence, baselines substantially larger than this are probably not worthwhile. There is one caveat; one hypothetical radio source would be more compact than pulsar magnetospheres: radio telescopes on another planet. Hence, with a VVLBI, one could use the filtering power of the interferometer to screen out all known astronomical sources and anything left over would be, by definition, an artifical source. -- T. Joseph Lazio | Why relativity? and Why 514 Space Sciences | turbulence? I really believe Ithaca, NY 14853-6801 | [God] will have an answer for the (607) 255-6420 | first [question]. lazio@astrosun.tn.cornell.edu | -- W. Heisenberg, on his death bed ICBM: | 42 deg. 20' 08" N | STOP RAPE 76 deg. 28' 48" W | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:36:07 GMT From: Jr Childers Subject: The story on Oxygen Was Re: Lunar "colony" reality check Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Nov12.011647.2397@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes: >In article <1992Nov11.222130.8652@infodev.cam.ac.uk> sl25@cus.cam.ac.uk (Steve Linton) writes: [ A very good correction to the O2 noise cut due to common sense. ] >I'm not sure if it[helium] dissolves less into blood than N2 but I know that >decompression is still an issue using heliox mixes. > >-- >David Knapp University of Colorado, Boulder >Perpetual Student knapp@spot.colorado.edu >Looks like hate *is* a family value after all and Colorado families are for it. > Helium being a much smaller molecule than N2 will diffuse into and out of blood, bone nerves, and anything else much more quickly than N2. This makes decompression more of a problem for helium. And thankyou for some clear and accurate information. John Childers | We're sorry, University of North Carolina at Charlotte| all quotes are on Electrical Engineering Department | backorder. Charlotte NC 28223 | Internet? Try john@opticslab1.uncc.edu | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer? Does anyone on usenet ever offically speak for their computer? ------------------------------ Date: 13 Nov 92 03:54:26 GMT From: "Michael V. Kent" Subject: What kind of computers are in the shuttle? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Nov12.001047.10408@nuchat.sccsi.com> rkolker@nuchat.sccsi.com (Rich Kolker) writes: >Now, if we can just get the money for the glass cockpit... Rockwell recently won a multi-million dollar contract to upgrade the Shuttle's avionics. This contract is the one, I believe, that is known as glass cockpit. Mike -- Michael Kent kentm@rpi.edu McDonnell Douglas Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Tute Screwed Aero Class of '92 Apple II Forever !! ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 92 22:01:54 GMT From: Gerald Cecil Subject: Where are Pioneer and Voyager Headed? Newsgroups: sci.space In article 7ws@zoo.toronto.edu, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes: >>... AC +79 3888 must be sqrt (1.5^2 + 1.65^2) = 2.23 ly from >>the sun, according to the Pioneer figures, and sqrt (2.2^2 + 1.64^2) = >>2.74 ly from the sun according the the Voyager figures. Not only are >>these numbers very different from each other, they're also much less >>than the correct distance to AC +79 3888. >> >>Doing the same calculation for Ross 248 gets us a distance of 3.5 ly >>(correct figure is 10.3), and for Sirius 26.8 ly (correct figure is >>8.7 ly). > >Bear in mind that the stars are moving, in many cases at rather higher >velocities than the spacecraft. >-- >MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry Yes. Typical velocity dispersions for K- and M-dwarfs in the solar neighbourhood are 20 km/s or so, which translates into >0.6 ly drift per 10,000 yrs. --- Gerald Cecil cecil@wrath.physics.unc.edu 919-962-7169 Physics & Astronomy, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 419 ------------------------------