Date: Wed, 7 Apr 93 05:04:23 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #427 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Wed, 7 Apr 93 Volume 16 : Issue 427 Today's Topics: Abyss: breathing fluids (2 msgs) Aerospace companies cooperate in reusable vehicle market. Alaska Pipeline and Space Station! Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter? (2 msgs) Cosmos 2238: an EORSAT DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test nuclear waste Plutonium based Nuclear Power plants. pushing the envelope space food sticks (3 msgs) Space Research Spin Off (2 msgs) The Area Rule Vulcan? (No, not the guy with the ears!) What if the USSR had reached the Moon first? 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: Thu, 1 Apr 1993 13:16:50 GMT From: Achurist Subject: Abyss: breathing fluids Newsgroups: sci.space In article <93089.204431GRV101@psuvm.psu.edu> Callec Dradja writes: >I am a bit nervous about posting this beacause it is begining to >stray fron the topic of space but then again that doesn't seem to >stop alot of other people. :-) > >With all of this talk about breathing at high pressures, I began >to think about the movie Abyss. If you remember, in that movie one >of the characters dove to great depths by wearing a suit that used >a fluid that carries oxegen as opposed to some sort of gas. Now I >have heard that mice can breath this fluid but for some reason, humans >are unable to. Does anyone know more details about this? > >Gregson Vaux > I believe the reason is that the lung diaphram gets too tired to pump the liquid in and out and simply stops breathing after 2-3 minutes. So if your in the vehicle ready to go they better not put you on hold, or else!! That's about it. Remember a liquid is several more times as dense as a gas by its very nature. ~10 I think, depending on the gas and liquid comparision of course! Acurist ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 93 10:01:27 GMT From: Pat Subject: Abyss: breathing fluids Newsgroups: sci.space In article enf021@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Achurist) writes: | |I believe the reason is that the lung diaphram gets too tired to pump |the liquid in and out and simply stops breathing after 2-3 minutes. |So if your in the vehicle ready to go they better not put you on |hold, or else!! That's about it. Remember a liquid is several more times |as dense as a gas by its very nature. ~10 I think, depending on the gas |and liquid comparision of course! Could you use some sort of mechanical chest compression as an aid. Sorta like the portable Iron Lung? Put some sort of flex tubing around the 'aquanauts' chest. Cyclically compress it and it will push enough on the chest wall to support breathing????? You'd have to trust your breather, but in space, you have to trust your suit anyway. pat ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 93 20:18:43 GMT From: games@max.u.washington.edu Subject: Aerospace companies cooperate in reusable vehicle market. Newsgroups: sci.space What would all of you out there in net land think of the big 6 (Martin Mariatta, Boeing, Mcdonell Douglas, General Dynamics, Lockheed, Rockwell) getting together, and forming a consortium to study exactly what the market price pints are for building reusable launch vehicles, and spending say $3million to do that. Recognizing that most of the military requirements for launch vehicles are pulled out of a hat somewhere (say, has the shuttle ever really used that 1200mi crossrange capability? You get the idea, figure out how many, how often, where to, etc...) Then taking this data, and forming a sematech type company (bad example, I know... but at least its an example...) To develop between 3 and 5 craft designs. Then to take all of those designs, and figure out EXACTLY what the technologies are, and demonstrate those technologies, in order to eliminate designs that can't be built today. And lets say that this portion again funded by the GOV cost about $20 million. And from here all of these companies went their separate ways, with the intention of taking all of the market data and the design data to wall street, and saying "I want to build this vehicle, and here are the numbers that show %20 ROI, fund me...) Now many of you think that this is a joke, but I have it on good authority that just this project is shaping up in the background. It seems that the aerospace companies have learned that everyone yelling similar but different things ends up in many programs that do nothing much and get canceled (NASP, NLS, ALS, DCY?, etc...) They need to work more in the japaneese, and european spirit of initial cooperation. They have also learned that design requirements that are phony (I.E. some generals idea of what a space vehicle ought to be) ends up getting chopped up in congress, because it is not a REAL requirement. Any feedback? John. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 17:42:36 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: Alaska Pipeline and Space Station! Newsgroups: sci.space In <1pq7rj$q2u@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >In article <1993Apr5.160550.7592@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >| >|I think this would be a great way to build it, but unfortunately >|current spending rules don't permit it to be workable. For this to >|work it would be necessary for the government to guarantee a certain >|minimum amount of business in order to sufficiently reduce the risk >|enough to make this attractive to a private firm. Since they >|generally can't allocate money except one year at a time, the >|government can't provide such a tenant guarantee. >Fred. > Try reading a bit. THe government does lots of multi year >contracts with Penalty for cancellation clauses. They just like to be >damn sure they know what they are doing before they sign a multi year >contract. THe reason they aren't cutting defense spending as much >as they would like is the Reagan administration signed enough >Multi year contracts, that it's now cheaper to just finish them out. I don't have to "try reading a bit", Pat. I *work* as a government contractor and know what the rules are like. Yes, they sign some (damned few -- which is why everyone is always having to go to Washington to see about next week's funding) multi-year contracts; they also aren't willing to include sufficient cancellation penalties when they *do* decide to cut the multi-year contract and not pay on it (which can happen arbitrarily at any time, no matter what previous plans were) to make the risk acceptable of something like putting up a private space station with the government as the expected prime occupant. I'd like a source for that statement about "the reason they aren't cutting defense spending as much as they would like"; I just don't buy it. The other thing I find a bit 'funny' about your posting, Pat, is that several other people answered the question pretty much the same way I did; mine is the one you comment (and incorrectly, I think) on. I think that says a lot. You and Tommy should move in together. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 1993 13:40:39 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary In article <6APR199314571378@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: |Comet Gehrels 3, which was discovered in 1977, was determined to have |been in a temporary Jovian orbit from 1970 to 1973. Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e |may remain in orbit around Jupiter long enough to allow Galileo to |make some closeup observations. The orbital trajectory for Comet |Shoemaker-Levy is still being determined. a What about positional uncertainties in S-L 1993e? I assume we know where and what Galileo is doing within a few meters. But without the HGA, don't we have to have some pretty good ideas, of where to look before imaging? If the HGA was working, they could slew around in near real time (Less speed of light delay). But when they were imaging toutatis???? didn't someone have to get lucky on a guess to find the first images? Also, I imagine S-L 1993e will be mostly a visual image. so how will that affect the other imaging missions. with the LGA, there is a real tight allocation of bandwidth. It may be premature to hope for answers, but I thought i'd throw it on the floor. pat ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 1993 19:04 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Comet in Temporary Orbit Around Jupiter? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary In article <1psfan$pj0@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes... >In article <6APR199314571378@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: >|Comet Gehrels 3, which was discovered in 1977, was determined to have >|been in a temporary Jovian orbit from 1970 to 1973. Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e >|may remain in orbit around Jupiter long enough to allow Galileo to >|make some closeup observations. The orbital trajectory for Comet >|Shoemaker-Levy is still being determined. >a > >What about positional uncertainties in S-L 1993e? If Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e is in Jovian orbit, and if the comet is still hanging around when Galileo arrives, then I'm sure it will be added to the list of targets. We'll have by then over two years of Earth-based observations to help narrow down the positions of the pieces of the comet. It probably won't be too much different than what was done with Gaspra. >But when they were >imaging toutatis? Galileo did not image Toutatis. That came from Earth-based radar. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Being cynical never helps /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | to correct the situation |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | and causes more aggravation | instead. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 93 19:34:50 GMT From: thomsonal@cpva.saic.com Subject: Cosmos 2238: an EORSAT Newsgroups: sci.space >Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 15:40:47 GMT >I need as much information about Cosmos 2238 and its rocket fragment (1993- >018B) as possible. Both its purpose, launch date, location, in short, >EVERYTHING! Can you help? >-Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ocean Reconnaissance Launch Surprises West Space News, April 5-11, 1993, p.2 [Excerpts] Russia launched its first ocean reconnaissance satellite in 26 months March 30, confounding Western analysts who had proclaimed the program dead. The Itar-TASS news agency announced the launch of Cosmos 2238 from Plesetsk Cosmodrome, but provided little description of the payload's mission. However, based on the satellite's trajectory, Western observers identified it as a military spacecraft designed to monitor electronic emissions from foreign naval ships in order to track their movement. Geoff Perry of the Kettering Group in England... [said] Western observers had concluded that no more would be launched. But days after the last [such] satellite re-entered the Earth's atmosphere, Cosmos 2238 was launched. "Cosmos-2238" Satellite Launched for Defense Ministry Moscow ITAR-TASS World Service in Russian 1238 GMT 30 March 1993 Translated in FBIS-SOV-93-060, p.27 by ITAR-TASS correspondent Veronika Romanenkova Moscow, 30 March -- The Cosmos-2238 satellite was launched at 1600 Moscow time today from the Baykonur by a "Tsiklon-M" carrier rocket. An ITAR-TASS correspondent was told at the press center of Russia's space-military forces that the satellite was launched in the interests of the Russian Defense Ministry. Parameters Given Moscow ITAR-TASS World Service in Russian 0930 GMT 31 March 1993 Translated in FBIS-SOV-93-060, p.27 Moscow, 31 March -- Another artificial Earth satellite, Cosmos-2238, was launched on 30 March from the Baykonur cosmodrome. The satellite carries scientific apparatus for continuing space research. The satellite has been placed in an orbit with the following parameters: initial period of revolution--92.8 minutes; apogee--443 km; perigee--413 km; orbital inclination--65 degrees. Besides scientific apparatus the satellite carries a radio system for the precise measurement of orbital elements and a radiotelemetry system for transmitting to Earth data about the work of the instruments and scientific apparatus. The apparatus aboard the satellite is working normally. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 17:54:31 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: DC-X: Vehicle Nears Flight Test Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993Apr5.191011.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >Since the DC-X is to take off horizontal, why not land that way?? >Why do the Martian Landing thing.. Or am I missing something.. Don't know to >much about DC-X and such.. (overly obvious?). You missed something. I think it takes off vertically and is intended to land the same way. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 1993 13:56:53 -0400 From: Pat Subject: nuclear waste Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr6.125608.7506@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: |In <1993Apr2.150038.2521@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: |>> |>>Paul, quite frankly I'll believe that this is really going to work on |>>the typical trash one needs to process when I see them put a couple |>>tons in one end and get (relatively) clean material out the other end, |>>plus be able to run it off its own residual power. Sounds almost like |>>perpetual motion, doesn't it? | |I will believe that this process comes even close to approaching |technological and economic feasibility (given the mixed nature of the |trash that will have to be run through it as opposed to the costs of |separating things first and having a different 'run' for each |actinide) when I see them dump a few tons in one end and pull |(relatively) clean material out the other. Once the costs, |technological risks, etc., are taken into account I still class this |one with the idea of throwing waste into the sun. Sure, it's possible |and the physics are well understood, but is it really a reasonable |approach? | How is it ever going to be an Off- the Shelf Technology if someone doesn't do it? Maybe we should do this as part of the SSF design goals. ;-) Gee fred. After your bitter defense of 20 KHz power as a Basic technology for SSF, Id think you would support a minor research program like this. And does anyone who knows more Particle physics then me, know if the IPNS could Prove this technology? | |>The real reason why accelerator breeders or incinerators are not being |>built is that there isn't any reason to do so. Natural uranium is |>still too cheap, and geological disposal of actinides looks |>technically reasonable. | It may also help there is political gridlock on the entire nuclear technical agenda. There were big political opponenents to Fast Breeder Technologies. WIPP is being fought to death in Courts. Even if you could make a nuclear incinerator, do you really think even Deaf SMith County Nevada would accept it? NIMBY'ism rules nuclear power concerns. Only the medical community has been able to overrule nuclear technology opposition. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 1993 13:48:22 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Plutonium based Nuclear Power plants. Newsgroups: sci.space Todays New York TImes just wrote about a pact being negotiated between us and the Russians to develope High Temperature Gas Cooled Fission Reactors using Re-Cycled Weapons Grade plutonium from Warhead stockpiles. THe fuel will be pelletized in ceramic for safety, and then after depletion will be sufficiently contaminated with by-products to make extraction of the remaining plutonium hazardous enough to deter re-use. Apparently the project will be led by General Atomics of San Diego with funding from the US GOvernment. THe pilot plant will be built and operated by the russians. pat ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 16:25:34 GMT From: Thomas Clarke Subject: pushing the envelope Newsgroups: sci.space > In <1993Apr3.233154.7045@Princeton.EDU> lije@cognito.Princeton.EDU (Elijah Millgram) writes: > > > A friend of mine and I were wondering where the expression "pushing > the envelope" comes from. Anyone out there know? > Everbody has been defining envelope. Why was the world "envelope" chosen, rather than say "shell", or "boundary". In analogy with the envelopes of airships perhaps? Actually, "shell" might be good. Push the shell too hard and it (the aircraft?) breaks. -- Thomas Clarke Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL 12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826 (407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 93 16:50:14 GMT From: Rob Unverzagt Subject: space food sticks Newsgroups: sci.space Organization: Organization? You must be kidding. Lines: 35 Nntp-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In article <1pr5u2$t0b@agate.berkeley.edu> ghelf@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;RD48) writes: > I had spacefood sticks just about every morning for breakfast in > first and second grade (69-70, 70-71). They came in Chocolate, > strawberry, and peanut butter and were cylinders about 10cm long > and 1cm in diameter wrapped in yellow space foil (well, it seemed > like space foil at the time). Wasn't there a "plain" flavor too? They looked more like some kind of extruded industrial product than food -- perfectly smooth cylinders with perfectly smooth ends. Kinda scary. > The taste is hard to describe, although I remember it fondly. It was > most certainly more "candy" than say a modern "Power Bar." Sort of > a toffee injected with vitamins. The chocolate Power Bar is a rough > approximation of the taste. Strawberry sucked. An other post described it as like a "microwaved Tootsie Roll" -- which captures the texture pretty well. As for taste, they were like candy, only not very sweet -- does that make sense? I recall liking them for their texture, not taste. I guess I have well developed texture buds. > Man, these were my "60's." It was obligatory to eat a few while watching "Captain Scarlet". Does anybody else remember _that_, as long as we're off the topic of space? Shag -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rob Unverzagt | shag@aerospace.aero.org | Tuesday is soylent green day. unverzagt@courier2.aero.org | ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 1993 17:00:38 GMT From: Mark Adam Subject: space food sticks Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1pr5u2$t0b@agate.berkeley.edu>, ghelf@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;RD48) writes: > The taste is hard to describe, although I remember it fondly. It was > most certainly more "candy" than say a modern "Power Bar." Sort of > a toffee injected with vitamins. The chocolate Power Bar is a rough > approximation of the taste. Strawberry sucked. > Peanut butter was definitely my favorite. I don't think I ever took a second bite of the strawberry. I recently joined Nutri-System and their "Chewy Fudge Bar" is very reminicent of the chocolate Space Food. This is the only thing I can find that even comes close the taste. It takes you back... your taste-buds are happy and your intestines are in knots... joy! -- mark ---------------------------- (adam@paix.sw.stratus.com) | My opinions are not those of Stratus. | Hell! I don`t even agree with myself! "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad." ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 1993 14:19:58 -0400 From: Pat Subject: space food sticks Newsgroups: sci.space dillon comments that Space Food Sticks may have bad digestive properties. I don't think so. I think most NASA food products were designed to be low fiber 'zero-residue' products so as to minimize the difficulties of waste disposal. I'd doubt they'd deploy anything that caused whole sale GI distress. There aren't enough plastic baggies in the world for a bad case of GI disease. pat ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 16:44:07 GMT From: Mary Shafer Subject: Space Research Spin Off Newsgroups: sci.space On Tue, 6 Apr 1993 02:19:59 GMT, pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) said: Phil> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >On 4 Apr 1993 20:31:10 -0400, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) said: >Pat> In article <1993Apr2.213917.1@aurora.alaska.edu> Pat> >nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >Question is can someone give me 10 >examples of direct NASA/Space related >research that helped humanity >in general? It will be interesting to see.. >Pat> TANG :-) Mylar I think. I think they also pushed Hi Tech Pat> >Composites for airframes. Look at Fly by Wire. >Swept wings--if you fly in airliners you've reaped the benefits. Phil> Didn't one of the early jet fighters have these? I also think Phil> the germans did some work on these in WWII. The NACA came up with them before World War II. NASA is directly descended from the NACA, with space added in. You'll notice that I didn't mention sweep wings even though the X-5, tested at what's now Dryden, had them. We did steal that one dirctly from the Germans. The difference is that swept wings don't change their angle of sweep, sweep wings do. Perhaps the similarity of names has caused some confusion? 747s have swept wings, F-111s have sweep wings. >Winglets. Area ruling. Digital fly by wire. Ride smoothing. Phil> A lot of this was also done by the military... After NASA aerodynamicists proposed them and NASA test teams demonstrated them. Richard Whitcomb and R.T. Jones, at Langley Research Center, were giants in the field. Dryden was involved in the flight testing of winglets and area ruling (in the 70s and 50s, respectively). It's true that we used military aircraft as the testbeds (KC-135 and YF-102) but that had more to do with availability and need than with military involvement. The YF-102 was completely ours and the KC-135 was bailed to us. The Air Force, of course, was interested in our results and supportive of our efforts. Dryden flew the first digital fly by wire aircraft in the 70s. No mechnaical or analog backup, to show you how confident we were. General Dynamics decided to make the F-16 flyby-wire when they saw how successful we were. (Mind you, the Avro Arrow and the X-15 were both fly-by-wire aircraft much earlier, but analog.) Phil> Egad! I'm disagreeing with Mary Shafer! The NASA habit of acquiring second-hand military aircraft and using them for testbeds can make things kind of confusing. On the other hand, all those second-hand Navy planes give our test pilots a chance to fold the wings--something most pilots at Edwards Air Force Base can't do. -- Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all." Unknown US fighter pilot ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 1993 14:06:57 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Space Research Spin Off Newsgroups: sci.space In article shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >Dryden flew the first digital fly by wire aircraft in the 70s. No >mechnaical or analog backup, to show you how confident we were. Confident, or merely crazed? That desert sun :-) >successful we were. (Mind you, the Avro Arrow and the X-15 were both >fly-by-wire aircraft much earlier, but analog.) > Gee, I thought the X-15 was Cable controlled. Didn't one of them have a total electrical failure in flight? Was there machanical backup systems? | |The NASA habit of acquiring second-hand military aircraft and using |them for testbeds can make things kind of confusing. On the other |hand, all those second-hand Navy planes give our test pilots a chance |to fold the wings--something most pilots at Edwards Air Force Base |can't do. | What do you mean? Overstress the wings, and they fail at teh joints? You'll have to enlighten us in the hinterlands. pat ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 1993 14:29:15 -0400 From: Pat Subject: The Area Rule Newsgroups: sci.space I am sure Mary or Henry can describe this more aptly then me. But here is how i understand it. At Speed, Near supersonic. The wind behaves like a fluid pipe. It becomes incompressible. So wind has to bend away from the wing edges. AS the wing thickens, the more the pipes bend. If they have no place to go, they begin to stall, and force compression, stealing power from the vehicle (High Drag). If you squeeze the fuselage, so that these pipes have aplace to bend into, then drag is reduced. Essentially, teh cross sectional area of the aircraft shoulf remain constant for all areas of the fuselage. That is where the wings are subtract, teh cross sectional area of the wings from the fuselage. pat ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 93 16:00:23 GMT From: gawne@stsci.edu Subject: Vulcan? (No, not the guy with the ears!) Newsgroups: sci.space In article , victor@inqmind.bison.mb.ca (Victor Laking) writes: > Does anyone have any info on the apparent sightings of Vulcan? > > All that I know is that there were apparently two sightings at > drastically different times of a small planet that was inside Mercury's > orbit. Beyond that, I have no other info. The sightings were apparently spurious. There is no planet inside of the orbit of Mercury. The idea of Vulcan came from the differences between Mercury's observed perihelion precession and the value it should have had according to Newtonian physics. Leverrier made an extensive set of observations and calculations during the mid 19th century, and Simon Newcombe later improved on the observations and re-calculated using Leverrier's system of equations. Now Leverrier was one of the co-discoverers of Neptune and since he had predicted its existence based on anomalies in the orbit of Uranus his inclination was to believe the same sort of thing was afoot with Mercury. But alas, 'twere not so. Mercury's perihelion precesses at the rate it does because the space where it resides near the sun is significantly curved due to the sun's mass. This explanation had to wait until 1915 and Albert Einstein's synthesis of his earlier theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies (commonly called Special Relativity) with Reimanian geometry. The result was the General Theory of Relativity, and one of it's most noteworthy strengths is that it accounts for the precession of Mercury's perihelion almost exactly. (Exactly if you use Newcomb's numbers rather than Leverrier's.) Of course not everybody believes Einstein, and that's fine. But subsequent efforts to find any planets closer to the sun than Mercury using radar have been fruitless. -Bill Gawne "Forgive him, he is a barbarian, who thinks the customs of his tribe are the laws of the universe." - G. J. Caesar Any opinions are my own. Nothing in this post constitutes an official statement from any person or organization. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 13:52:36 GMT From: Eric Glover Subject: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first? Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,sci.space In article <1993Apr06.020021.186145@zeus.calpoly.edu> jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes: >Suppose the Soviets had managed to get their moon rocket working >and had made it first. They could have beaten us if either: >* Their rocket hadn't blown up on the pad thus setting them back, >and/or >* A Saturn V went boom. The Apollo fire was harsh, A Saturn V explosion would have been hurtful but The Soviets winning would have been crushing. That could have been *the* technological turning point for the US turning us from Today's "We can do anything, we're *the* Super Power" to a much more reserved attitude like the Soviet Program today. Kennedy was gone by 68\69, the war was still on is the east, I think the program would have stalled badly and the goal of the moon by 70 would have been dead with Nasa trying to figure were they went wrong. >If they had beaten us, I speculate that the US would have gone >head and done some landings, but we also would have been more >determined to set up a base (both in Earth Orbit and on the >Moon). Whether or not we would be on Mars by now would depend >upon whether the Soviets tried to go. Setting up a lunar base >would have stretched the budgets of both nations and I think >that the military value of a lunar base would outweigh the value >of going to Mars (at least in the short run). Thus we would >have concentrated on the moon. I speulate that: +The Saturn program would have been pushed into the 70s with cost over runs that would just be too evil. Nixon still wins. +The Shuttle was never proposed and Skylab never built. +By 73 the program stalled yet again under the fuel crisis. +A string of small launches mark the mid seventies. +By 76 the goal of a US man on the moon is dead and the US space program drifts till the present day. >/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@oboe.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ >| "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving | >| the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the | >| Moon and returning him safely to the Earth." | >| | ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 427 ------------------------------