Re: Nomenclature (was) Chemicals R Us
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: I agree with you. Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon compounds. Though usually with the omission of most metal carbonates, the chemistry of which is usually covered in the section on inorganic chemistry. That's how *I* teach it in colleges, anyway. ;) I think that a more accurate definition is that Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon compounds where carbon has a covalent bond with hydrogen, or to a replacement of hydrogen. This would include, frex, tetrachloromethane, but not carbon disulfide. Alberto 'definitions are evil, why they must be eradicated' Monteiro ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: List of The 50 Best Inventions of 2009
On 18 Nov 2009 at 20:40, Bruce Bostwick wrote: Considering the fact that the only two loss of vehicle and crew events NASA has ever had to deal with that actually involved going into or coming back from space (not counting Apollo 1 in that, as it Both were directly caused by problems on-launch... the RCC leading edge of the wing -- and since the spaceplane design in question does *not* include any abort options from liftoff to the !??? What spaceplane design do you think I'm talking about? I am not refering to any single design, and never have been. I'd have to question why putting crew on top of a rocket is insane. Because both failures on launch are related to strapping huge rockets to the crew section, and then taking off vertically, maybe? a lot of ways. About the only thing Ares I/Ares V can't do is... ...Is retrieve the decades lost while NASA messed arround with the shuttle and ISS? Oh, and let's not forget launch affordably, be reuseable, have a sensible turnarround time, use safer hybrid fuel systems... AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: List of The 50 Best Inventions of 2009
On Nov 19, 2009, at 6:44 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 18 Nov 2009 at 20:40, Bruce Bostwick wrote: Considering the fact that the only two loss of vehicle and crew events NASA has ever had to deal with that actually involved going into or coming back from space (not counting Apollo 1 in that, as it Both were directly caused by problems on-launch... .. and would not have caused an LOV/C in either event if the geometry of the stack didn't put components like the SRB *next to*, and not *in tandem with*, other components like the ET, likewise with the ET and the wing leading edges. If an SRB burn-through happened in a tandem stack, the most that would happen would be a noticeable reduction in SRB thrust and possibly a skewed thrust vector, which would be easily escapable with an LES activation. And ice-saturated foam chunks popping off the ET can only fall downstream .. in a tandem stack, there aren't any fragile wing leading edges or TPS tiles in the way for them to hit. the RCC leading edge of the wing -- and since the spaceplane design in question does *not* include any abort options from liftoff to the !??? What spaceplane design do you think I'm talking about? I am not refering to any single design, and never have been. See below. I'd have to question why putting crew on top of a rocket is insane. Because both failures on launch are related to strapping huge rockets to the crew section, and then taking off vertically, maybe? See above. The stack geometry of the STS is one of the most insane things I've ever seen, and I'm quite frankly impressed that they've only had two LOV/C's and not many more, especially in the pre-51L days. (It says something that the current mission plans usually include a contingency STS-3xx rescue mission, which, before 39B was converted to Ares I support, was stacked at 39B ready to fuel up and launch whenever an STS-1xx was flying. Word is that if NASA has to fly an STS-3xx, the STS program will be terminated after that flight.) a lot of ways. About the only thing Ares I/Ares V can't do is... ...Is retrieve the decades lost while NASA messed arround with the shuttle and ISS? Oh, and let's not forget launch affordably, be reuseable, have a sensible turnarround time, use safer hybrid fuel systems... AndrewC And there, I'll partially agree with you. I'll concede that a spaceplane design that is better than the Orion/Ares I may exist. STS just isn't it. And you know what? If you come up with a propulsion system that's more efficient than binary-fuel combustion from onboard fuel and oxidizer, that will get a spaceplane from earth surface to LEO with only the consumables it carries onboard, and allows carrying a payload that doesn't run head on into diminishing returns the way the current systems do, I'd be at the head of the line cheering for it. And if you come up with such a thing, and can make it work, you can pretty much write your own paycheck, either contracting to NASA or running your own launch business. ;) (I've considered MIPCC-type turbojet propulsion and a flying-wing robot lifting stage for that first part of the trip out of the troposphere, and there's some real promise there in terms of the significantly greater Isp of air-breathing (or LOx-supplemented) turbojet thrust vs. rocket thrust, and possibly an aerospike engine in the orbiter to get from that jet-lift altitude to LEO. Once you're out of the atmosphere and not dealing with significant degrees of drag, really efficient technologies like VASIMR become an option, but that first 50,000 feet or so is a real hurdle.) A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. -- attributed to Lazarus Long by Robert A. Heinlein ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: List of The 50 Best Inventions of 2009
Oh, and while we're talking about STS .. why is it, exactly, that NASA has been dropping all of those ET's back into the atmosphere to burn up, after spending the $10k/pound to get them up there, and not saving them on-orbit as construction material? I know they've considered keeping them on-orbit, purging out the remaining propellant traces (which are hydrogen and oxygen, nothing toxic like hypergolics or anything like that), sealing and pressurizing them, and using them as space station components? I've never really seen the logic in carrying something that large into orbit, *getting* it into orbit (albeit with a fairly low perigee and a fairly rapid decay), and then just throwing it away .. you got it out of the gravity well, and could use it as structural material, and you just abandon it? Doesn't make sense, unless I'm really missing something important .. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Nomenclature (was) Chemicals R Us
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 3:46 AM, Alberto Monteiro albm...@centroin.com.brwrote: I think that a more accurate definition is that Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon compounds where carbon has a covalent bond with hydrogen, or to a replacement of hydrogen. Organic gardening bugs me. Sounds like the opposite would be inorganic gardening. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: List of The 50 Best Inventions of 2009
On 19 Nov 2009 at 8:19, Bruce Bostwick wrote: Oh, and while we're talking about STS .. why is it, exactly, that NASA has been dropping all of those ET's back into the atmosphere to burn up, after spending the $10k/pound to get them up there, and not saving them on-orbit as construction material? One of my my *major* bugbears with the way the entire program's been run, actually. They've hauled up the ISS *inside* the shuttle. I have yet to hear any convincing explination either. For reference, the volume of the ET's LOX tank alone is very roughly 3500m^3. The current ISS habitable volume is 358m^3. The stack geometry of the STS is one of the most insane things I've ever seen, and I'm quite frankly impressed that they've only had two LOV/C's and not many more, especially in the pre-51L days. I'm not convinced that for carrying Humans, Ares is going to be much safer. Yes, I've heard the arguments. Still not entirely convinced, and it's still an extremely expensive launch vehicle - for the price, they'd be better just using proven Russian lifters. And you know what? If you come up with a propulsion system that's more efficient than binary-fuel combustion from onboard fuel and oxidizer, Well - I'm sure you're aware that SpaceShipOne sucessfully used a N2O/HTPB Hybrid rocket engine. And I'm with Pournelle's contention that if you gave Rutan a billion, he'd have a working reuseable Spaceplane which could reach a reasonable orbit inside three years. (And honestly, he could of done so for at least a decade). ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: List of The 50 Best Inventions of 2009
On Nov 19, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 19 Nov 2009 at 8:19, Bruce Bostwick wrote: Oh, and while we're talking about STS .. why is it, exactly, that NASA has been dropping all of those ET's back into the atmosphere to burn up, after spending the $10k/pound to get them up there, and not saving them on-orbit as construction material? One of my my *major* bugbears with the way the entire program's been run, actually. They've hauled up the ISS *inside* the shuttle. I have yet to hear any convincing explination either. For reference, the volume of the ET's LOX tank alone is very roughly 3500m^3. The current ISS habitable volume is 358m^3. Exactly. Why waste all that material if you *have it in orbit with you*? All they'd have to do is delay releasing the tank until after the OMS burns, and maybe compensate for the change in thrustline with some RCS torque if they can't gimbal the OMS engines. At most, they'd have to bolt an auxiliary propulsion module on it with enough delta-V to get it to a storage orbit. Trivial, given that the cost of getting it up to transfer orbit has already been paid. That being said, what I really wish someone would propose is sending a robot propulsion/navigation system out to a conveniently sized nickel/ iron asteroid, bring it home, and park it in an orbit high enough to keep it from decaying for the foreseeable future (and any orbit with a perigee higher than a few hundred miles qualifies for that), preferably one that doesn't spend too much time in the van Allen belts, and set up an automated smelter, foundry, and mill on/in it that can build structural components on-orbit, without ever having to lift them up from earth. And, if there's a surplus, make periodic drops to the surface. Did I mention that steel parts made in a vacuum are incredibly strong, mainly because they don't have any of the oxide inclusions and other contaminants that are unavoidable in the same parts made in an air atmosphere? ;) *That* would be a good application for VASIMR and other high- efficiency engine technologies .. The stack geometry of the STS is one of the most insane things I've ever seen, and I'm quite frankly impressed that they've only had two LOV/C's and not many more, especially in the pre-51L days. I'm not convinced that for carrying Humans, Ares is going to be much safer. Yes, I've heard the arguments. Still not entirely convinced, and it's still an extremely expensive launch vehicle - for the price, they'd be better just using proven Russian lifters. There's still the question of transporting hardware to the launch site, which if we were using Russian launch systems would involve either shipping all that hardware to Baikonur (and a greatly expanded fleet of Super Guppies and all the infrastructure to support them), or setting Canaveral up to launch Protons, which would involve shipping them here and building an entire new pad structure (and possibly major modifications to the VAB high bays) and fitting out MLP's to support them. And building a UDMH/N2O4 infrastructure at the new pad, to boot. Nasty stuff, those two. Worth taking the tour of the Titan II Museum in AZ to hear just how nasty. [And the Russian systems haven't always been all that safe. There's a blast scar at Baikonur, from an N-1 crash in the 60's that pretty much wrecked all the pad infrastructure they had at the time, that was clearly visible from orbit for at least 20 years. (That was from the one that shut down all but one of its first stages a couple of hundred feet up, and fell back onto the pad. The blast from it had enough of an overpressure to flatten all the surrounding buildings and buckle the tanks on the one remaining N-1 that hadn't been launched yet. Which is why the USSR never landed on the moon.) The Protons are a much more mature system, especially now, granted, but a lot of the legacy systems were USSR-built and .. well, let's just say they cut a few corners here and there.] And you know what? If you come up with a propulsion system that's more efficient than binary-fuel combustion from onboard fuel and oxidizer, Well - I'm sure you're aware that SpaceShipOne sucessfully used a N2O/HTPB Hybrid rocket engine. And I'm with Pournelle's contention that if you gave Rutan a billion, he'd have a working reuseable Spaceplane which could reach a reasonable orbit inside three years. (And honestly, he could of done so for at least a decade). Pournelle is probably just about right, there. It all comes down to a) developing enough thrust (and/or lift) to get out of the part of the atmosphere where you're having to expend most of your energy pushing air out of the way (one reason RP1/LOX worked so much better for first stages early on), and b) putting in enough deltaa-V, fast enough, to get to a high enough apogee to be able to burn one last time to bring the perigee
Re: Nomenclature (was) Chemicals R Us
On Nov 19, 2009, at 8:25 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 3:46 AM, Alberto Monteiro albm...@centroin.com.br wrote: I think that a more accurate definition is that Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon compounds where carbon has a covalent bond with hydrogen, or to a replacement of hydrogen. Organic gardening bugs me. Sounds like the opposite would be inorganic gardening. What, you mean using Nitrogen fertilizer? Dave ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: List of The 50 Best Inventions of 2009
Bruce Bostwick wrote: That being said, what I really wish someone would propose is sending a robot propulsion/navigation system out to a conveniently sized nickel/ iron asteroid, bring it home, and park it in an orbit high enough to keep it from decaying for the foreseeable future Great idea! All it would require was a propulsion system that does not waste fuel to change the asteroid's speed from about 50 km/s to 30 km/s in the perihelium of the transfer orbit, and it would be cheaper than launching stuff from Earth at the enormous 10 km/s speed (give or take a few km/s). Alberto Monteiro ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: List of The 50 Best Inventions of 2009
On Nov 19, 2009, at 1:16 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Bruce Bostwick wrote: That being said, what I really wish someone would propose is sending a robot propulsion/navigation system out to a conveniently sized nickel/ iron asteroid, bring it home, and park it in an orbit high enough to keep it from decaying for the foreseeable future Great idea! All it would require was a propulsion system that does not waste fuel to change the asteroid's speed from about 50 km/s to 30 km/s in the perihelium of the transfer orbit, and it would be cheaper than launching stuff from Earth at the enormous 10 km/s speed (give or take a few km/s). Alberto Monteiro Not as tall an order as it might sound, using something like VASIMR which has an Isp of up to 5000 s. Once you get out of the atmosphere, a higher efficiency engine system can spread out the delta-V across a fairly large period of time, and with enough engines and enough energy (some of which, for part of the mission at least, can come from PV panels), I think it would be within reach to bring us a suitable size asteroid. And as far as how much could be mined from one, well .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining The asteroid 16 Psyche is believed to contain 1.7×1019 kg of nickel- iron, which could supply the 2004 world production requirement for several million years. A small portion of the extracted material would also contain precious metals. I think it might be worth a try. ;) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Nomenclature (was) Chemicals R Us
From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Nick Arnett Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:26 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Nomenclature (was) Chemicals R Us Organic gardening bugs me. Sounds like the opposite would be inorganic gardening. Like organic food...as though non-organic tomatoes were carbon free. I like to think of it as Amish gardening...getting back to the 19th century. Unfortunately, there is a lot of that going around. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: List of The 50 Best Inventions of 2009
On 19 Nov 2009 at 12:23, Bruce Bostwick wrote: That being said, what I really wish someone would propose is sending a robot propulsion/navigation system out to a conveniently sized nickel/ iron asteroid, bring it home, and park it in an orbit high enough to Question: Would you need to go the asteroid belt for this, or are there inner-system asteroids, or even NEA's in easy-to-capture orbits, which would be useable? lift them up from earth. And, if there's a surplus, make periodic drops to the surface. Yep. Getting things /down/ is easy, things just need to fall correctly. Heck, even if there's a requirement for a Human to be up there and check the trajectory, it's cheap compared to the metals we're talking about. Which is why the USSR never landed on the moon.) The Protons are a much more mature system, especially now, granted, but a lot of the legacy systems were USSR-built and .. well, let's just say they cut a few corners here and there.] True, but they're an existing system, and while a proper replacement system is designed the Russians could do the man-lifting for NASA without the massive cost of Ares I launches. Pournelle is probably just about right, there. :) It was in a now several-year old rant of his I agree with... Heck, you could give a billion to five companies to hedge your bets, include a couple of the major aerospace companies if you wanted. I'd still put my money on the small comnoanies coming up with the working designs at this point... AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: List of The 50 Best Inventions of 2009
Bruce Bostwick wrote: Not as tall an order as it might sound, using something like VASIMR which has an Isp of up to 5000 s. Once you get out of the atmosphere, a higher efficiency engine system can spread out the delta-V across a fairly large period of time, and with enough engines and enough energy (some of which, for part of the mission at least, can come from PV panels), I think it would be within reach to bring us a suitable size asteroid. How about the way they did it in Heart of the Comet? Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: List of The 50 Best Inventions of 2009
On Nov 19, 2009, at 4:50 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: That being said, what I really wish someone would propose is sending a robot propulsion/navigation system out to a conveniently sized nickel/ iron asteroid, bring it home, and park it in an orbit high enough to Question: Would you need to go the asteroid belt for this, or are there inner-system asteroids, or even NEA's in easy-to-capture orbits, which would be useable? There are definitely inner system and near-Earth asteroids. Not sure how many of them are nickel-iron in large enough quantities to invest in trying to catch one -- about 10% of asteroids are M-type, and I can't seem to find any info on whether that population distribution is the same for the near-Earth variety as it is for the main-belt variety. The NEA's are in fairly elliptical orbits with perihelia much lower than that of Earth (which would be great for PV-assisted VASIMR, which could lower the aphelion to the point where the asteroid was exposed to near Earth-level solar illumination and allow raising the perihelion as well), so it would take a long time and a lot of reaction mass to get into a transfer orbit that would put a capture within reach of a high efficiency engine. Unless a translunar slingshot would help. ;) About the only thing we'd have going in our favor is that most of them aren't too much out of the plane of the ecliptic, so at least there wouldn't be huge plane changes involved. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Nomenclature (was) Chemicals R Us
On Nov 19, 2009, at 2:09 PM, Dan M wrote: Behalf Of Nick Arnett Organic gardening bugs me. Sounds like the opposite would be inorganic gardening. Like organic food...as though non-organic tomatoes were carbon free. I like to think of it as Amish gardening...getting back to the 19th century. Unfortunately, there is a lot of that going around. The unfortunately in your comment reminded me of this: http://www.garden-soil.com/garden-soil-organic-1.html Especially: Most experienced plantsmen and soil specialists today occupy a middle ground, using organic and chemical materials as seems best suited to the needs of a particular soil, plant, or circumstance. Unfortunately, too many people are absolutists, as the article notes: But those who are at the extremes - violently pro-organic or anti-organic - press their arguments so vehemently as to almost drown out the moderates. The answer, as in so many things in life is, it depends. Dave ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
