Submarine in space...
Johnny1A
>
> ISTR a book called _The Daleth Effect_, by Harry Harrison (?) where a
> handwavium drive had been developed by some Danish researchers, and they
> used a small submarine for their prototype spacecraft because it already
> had environmental systems and a pressure hull.
>
> Conrad Hodson
Here's a question for anyone knowledgeable about submarines or space
vehicle engineering.
Hypothetically, let's assume we've got a spindizzy, a Dean Drive, or
some similar magic-handwave drive that we could mount inside a
submarine and propel it into space at any arbitrarily reasonable
velocity. For the sake of our scenario, we can assume the the magic
engine accelerates everything within its field of effect equally,
eliminating those stresses.
It's been suggested more than once, by various people, that a modern
nuclear submarine bears a family kinship to a spacecraft.
What happens when we try this? We can use the fission plant for
power, and our minispindizzy is assumed to need only electrical power
to operate, so that's covered. But will our submarine actually work
in space?
Can we get rid of excess heat from the reactor fast enough?
Will the hull stay airtight with vacuum outside, instead of ocean?
Can we maintain internal temperatures at tolerable values when the
submaship is in direct sunlight? What affect will vacuum and
radiation have on the hull, if any?
I've heard (but I don't know for sure) that most subs today get their
fresh water by purifying sea water. Obviously, that's not going to
work here, so how much in the way of supplies including water can a
modern sub carry for a standard crew? What provision is made for
waste, and what waste provision changes would be needed to take a Navy
submarine into space?
Sonar is going to be cold dead useless in space. What sensory
equipment does a modern sub carry that would be useful in vacuum?
What sort of on-board maintenance can modern naval submarines manage,
and how long can they cruise between major maintenance as a rule?
(Space would be different, but that might provide a ballpark
guideline.)
That should do for a starter.
Shermanlee
Derek Lyons
years in the Submarine Service.
sherm...@hotmail.com (Johnny1A) wrote:
>It's been suggested more than once, by various people, that a modern
>nuclear submarine bears a family kinship to a spacecraft.
2nd cousin twice removed at best.
>What happens when we try this? We can use the fission plant for
>power, and our minispindizzy is assumed to need only electrical power
>to operate, so that's covered. But will our submarine actually work
>in space?
>
>Can we get rid of excess heat from the reactor fast enough?
Not even remotely. It take *big* pipes and *big* pumps to move water
through the main condensers. You are going to need a lot of radiator
acreage. Then there is also the problem of heat generated by the crew
and equipment inside the submarine, currently that's rejected to the
sea by a cooling system.
>Will the hull stay airtight with vacuum outside, instead of ocean?
Maybe, maybe not. Some penetrations rely on sea pressure pushing in
to help form the seal.
>Can we maintain internal temperatures at tolerable values when the
>submaship is in direct sunlight?
Not without modifying the hull. Cryogenic on one side, and near
boiling water on the other? Well, well, outside the range the hulls
are designed to operate at.
>What affect will vacuum and radiation have on the hull, if any?
Very little other than paint boil off.
>I've heard (but I don't know for sure) that most subs today get their
>fresh water by purifying sea water. Obviously, that's not going to
>work here, so how much in the way of supplies including water can a
>modern sub carry for a standard crew?
Water? About 2 days. O2? About a week. Food, spares & Sundries,
about 120 days.
Keep in mind that a nuclear sub has no way to make up any atmosphere
losses other than from the O2 banks. Equally, we depend on routine
exchange with the atmosphere to prevent the buildup of trace
contaminants.
>What provision is made for waste, and what waste provision changes would
>be needed to take a Navy submarine into space?
Trash goes overboard through what's essentially a vertical torpedo
tube, so that's not a problem. Sewage is normally pumped overboard,
so there are going to have to be some changes there.
>Sonar is going to be cold dead useless in space. What sensory
>equipment does a modern sub carry that would be useful in vacuum?
Radar, though of fairly short range.
>What sort of on-board maintenance can modern naval submarines manage,
Quite a bit, so long as it does not require changing out heavy parts.
(I.E. pumps, major valves, large chunks of electronics... Anything
that can't be lifted by one man can carried through passageways no
wider than his shoulders.) Usually we do as much as preventative
maintenance as possible in port, and only do minor preventative
maintenance underway. When we do corrective maintenance and on what
is very situational.
>and how long can they cruise between major maintenance as a rule?
Define major maintenance.
>(Space would be different, but that might provide a ballpark
>guideline.)
No, it wouldn't be all that different. A computer does not care where
it is, nor does a hydraulic pump or air compressor.
D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:
Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html
Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html
Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to o...@io.com, as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.
Derek Lyons
sherm...@hotmail.com (Johnny1A) wrote:
>Conrad Hodson <con...@efn.org> wrote :
--
Rick
>>What happens when we try this?
I don't think it will work.
When it is raised to vertical for the launch all the stuff
will fall off the shelves and will take too long to clean up.
Rick
Jim E
"Derek Lyons" <derekl19...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40029daf...@supernews.seanet.com...
> Crossed to sci.military.naval
>
> sherm...@hotmail.com (Johnny1A) wrote:
> >Conrad Hodson <con...@efn.org> wrote :
> >
> >>
> >> ISTR a book called _The Daleth Effect_, by Harry Harrison (?)
Ah old memories thanks.
To the question, I believe all the atmosphere containing
doors and gaskets are designed for reverse forces,
As water pressure presses external hatches inward
against their seals.
Reversing the dynamics would negatively impact this seal
IMHO
Bailout note: I know diddly squat about real subs.
Jim E
Damn, they missed!
George William Herbert
put the submarine inside a partial sleeve full of water,
welded to the hull, to provide the radiator area and
water supply and to maintain positive pressure
into the hatch seals and such (for the most part).
Sleeve can be dirt-cheap simple and quick.
Now the only problem is adapting the interior to zero-G
operations, and figuring out how to liberate a SPY-1D from
an Arleigh Burke lying around Norfolk without attracting
undue attention. Though, maybe undue attention would be
the most effective distraction. "Hey, Look, Up in the Sky,
it's a Flying Submarine!" *weld*weld*weld*
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Jim E
"Rick" <wood...@dearthlink.nyet> wrote in message
news:8rNLb.2703$zj7....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
But I thought they went straight from surfaced to
I'll be damned.
Jim E
Brian Allardice
says...
>
>Crossed to sci.military.naval
>
>sherm...@hotmail.com (Johnny1A) wrote:
>>Conrad Hodson <con...@efn.org> wrote :
>>
>>>
>>> ISTR a book called _The Daleth Effect_, by Harry Harrison (?) where a
>>> handwavium drive had been developed by some Danish researchers, and they
>>> used a small submarine for their prototype spacecraft because it already
>>> had environmental systems and a pressure hull.
If I recall correctly, the Japanese have Yamato in orbit, and Harrison had the
universe's most powerful weapon in a spray can on a 747, so it must be
possible....
Cheers,
dba
Jack Linthicum
Like the tea-glasses in Hunt for Red October?
Keith Willshaw
>
> sherm...@hotmail.com (Johnny1A) wrote:
> >Conrad Hodson <con...@efn.org> wrote :
> >
> >>
> >> ISTR a book called _The Daleth Effect_, by Harry Harrison (?) where a
> >> handwavium drive had been developed by some Danish researchers, and
they
> >> used a small submarine for their prototype spacecraft because it
already
> >> had environmental systems and a pressure hull.
> >
> >>
> >> Conrad Hodson
> >
> >Here's a question for anyone knowledgeable about submarines or space
> >vehicle engineering.
> >
> >Hypothetically, let's assume we've got a spindizzy, a Dean Drive, or
> >some similar magic-handwave drive that we could mount inside a
> >submarine and propel it into space at any arbitrarily reasonable
> >velocity. For the sake of our scenario, we can assume the the magic
> >engine accelerates everything within its field of effect equally,
> >eliminating those stresses.
> >
> >It's been suggested more than once, by various people, that a modern
> >nuclear submarine bears a family kinship to a spacecraft.
> >
Incorrectly I'd say
> >What happens when we try this? We can use the fission plant for
> >power, and our minispindizzy is assumed to need only electrical power
> >to operate, so that's covered. But will our submarine actually work
> >in space?
> >
No
> >Can we get rid of excess heat from the reactor fast enough?
> >
No, reactors are water cooled
> >Will the hull stay airtight with vacuum outside, instead of ocean?
> >
Possibly, the harches are all the wrong way but 15psi
is quite a small load, equivalent to only 34 ft of depth
> >Can we maintain internal temperatures at tolerable values when the
> >submaship is in direct sunlight? What affect will vacuum and
> >radiation have on the hull, if any?
> >
Minor but with no power things will get nasty fast inside
> >I've heard (but I don't know for sure) that most subs today get their
> >fresh water by purifying sea water. Obviously, that's not going to
> >work here, so how much in the way of supplies including water can a
> >modern sub carry for a standard crew? What provision is made for
> >waste, and what waste provision changes would be needed to take a Navy
> >submarine into space?
> >
Thats the easy part, designing a chemical toilet system
is minor compared with the other problems
> >Sonar is going to be cold dead useless in space. What sensory
> >equipment does a modern sub carry that would be useful in vacuum?
> >
Radar
> >What sort of on-board maintenance can modern naval submarines manage,
> >and how long can they cruise between major maintenance as a rule?
> >(Space would be different, but that might provide a ballpark
> >guideline.)
> >
Dont sweat it, the power system wont work in a vacuum , its a
no go.
Keith
Vaughn
"Keith Willshaw" <keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:btorpn$mvj$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> Possibly, the harches are all the wrong way but 15psi
> is quite a small load, equivalent to only 34 ft of depth
Agree
>
> > >Can we maintain internal temperatures at tolerable values when the
> > >submaship is in direct sunlight? What affect will vacuum and
> > >radiation have on the hull, if any?
>
> Minor but with no power things will get nasty fast inside
Even with power, I am not so sure about this one.
>
> > >I've heard (but I don't know for sure) that most subs today get their
> > >fresh water by purifying sea water. Obviously, that's not going to
> > >work here, so how much in the way of supplies including water can a
> > >modern sub carry for a standard crew? What provision is made for
> > >waste, and what waste provision changes would be needed to take a Navy
> > >submarine into space?
O2 generators won't work well without water, but that is actually OK since
there will be no power anyhow.
> Thats the easy part, designing a chemical toilet system
> is minor compared with the other problems
Without gravity, how do you get the "stuff" to drop from the toilet down to
the sanitary tank?
> > >Sonar is going to be cold dead useless in space. What sensory
> > >equipment does a modern sub carry that would be useful in vacuum?
>
> Radar
Periscope
> > >What sort of on-board maintenance can modern naval submarines manage,
> > >and how long can they cruise between major maintenance as a rule?
> > >(Space would be different, but that might provide a ballpark
> > >guideline.)
>
> Dont sweat it, the power system wont work in a vacuum , its a no go.
Nuclear plant also requires gravity; in the pressurizer, in the steam
generator, and in the condensor (inop anyhow sans cooling water) to keep
liquids and gasses in their proper places.
I don't think that I would want to make that cruise.
Vaughn
Duke of URL
Derek Lyons <derekl19...@yahoo.com> radiated into the
WorldWideWait:
> Crossed to sci.military.naval
>
> sherm...@hotmail.com (Johnny1A) wrote:
>> Conrad Hodson <con...@efn.org> wrote :
>>
>>> ISTR a book called _The Daleth Effect_, by Harry Harrison (?)
>>> where a handwavium drive had been developed by some Danish
>>> researchers, and they used a small submarine for their prototype
>>> spacecraft because it already had environmental systems and a
>>> pressure hull.
>>
>> Here's a question for anyone knowledgeable about submarines or
>> space vehicle engineering.
>>
>> Hypothetically, let's assume we've got a spindizzy, a Dean Drive,
>> or some similar magic-handwave drive that we could mount inside a
>> submarine and propel it into space at any arbitrarily reasonable
>> velocity. For the sake of our scenario, we can assume the the
>> magic engine accelerates everything within its field of effect
>> equally, eliminating those stresses.
>>
>> It's been suggested more than once, by various people, that a
>> modern nuclear submarine bears a family kinship to a spacecraft.
>>
>> What happens when we try this? We can use the fission plant for
>> power, and our minispindizzy is assumed to need only electrical
>> power to operate, so that's covered. But will our submarine
>> actually work in space?
>>
>> Can we get rid of excess heat from the reactor fast enough?
Don't submarine reactors require seawater for cooling?
>> Will the hull stay airtight with vacuum outside, instead of ocean?
Probably, if you apply a thick enough layer of epoxy over the entire
thing.
>> Can we maintain internal temperatures at tolerable values when the
>> submaship is in direct sunlight? What affect will vacuum and
>> radiation have on the hull, if any?
Think "baked potato"...
>> I've heard (but I don't know for sure) that most subs today get
>> their fresh water by purifying sea water. Obviously, that's not
>> going to work here, so how much in the way of supplies including
>> water can a modern sub carry for a standard crew? What provision
>> is made for waste, and what waste provision changes would be
>> needed to take a Navy submarine into space?
>>
>> Sonar is going to be cold dead useless in space. What sensory
>> equipment does a modern sub carry that would be useful in vacuum?
Radar and the MK I eyeball
Keith Willshaw
"Vaughn" <vaughnsimo...@att.fake.net> wrote in message
news:2sTLb.20684$Ub6.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" <keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:btorpn$mvj$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > Possibly, the harches are all the wrong way but 15psi
> > is quite a small load, equivalent to only 34 ft of depth
>
> Agree
> >
> > > >Can we maintain internal temperatures at tolerable values when the
> > > >submaship is in direct sunlight? What affect will vacuum and
> > > >radiation have on the hull, if any?
> >
> > Minor but with no power things will get nasty fast inside
>
> Even with power, I am not so sure about this one.
>
> >
> > > >I've heard (but I don't know for sure) that most subs today get their
> > > >fresh water by purifying sea water. Obviously, that's not going to
> > > >work here, so how much in the way of supplies including water can a
> > > >modern sub carry for a standard crew? What provision is made for
> > > >waste, and what waste provision changes would be needed to take a
Navy
> > > >submarine into space?
>
> O2 generators won't work well without water, but that is actually OK since
> there will be no power anyhow.
>
> > Thats the easy part, designing a chemical toilet system
> > is minor compared with the other problems
>
> Without gravity, how do you get the "stuff" to drop from the toilet down
to
> the sanitary tank?
>
The same way they do on the shuttle or Soyuz
> > > >Sonar is going to be cold dead useless in space. What sensory
> > > >equipment does a modern sub carry that would be useful in vacuum?
> >
> > Radar
>
> Periscope
>
> > > >What sort of on-board maintenance can modern naval submarines manage,
> > > >and how long can they cruise between major maintenance as a rule?
> > > >(Space would be different, but that might provide a ballpark
> > > >guideline.)
> >
> > Dont sweat it, the power system wont work in a vacuum , its a no go.
>
> Nuclear plant also requires gravity; in the pressurizer, in the steam
> generator, and in the condensor (inop anyhow sans cooling water) to keep
> liquids and gasses in their proper places.
>
True enough
> I don't think that I would want to make that cruise.
>
Agreed
Keith
mike stone
>sherm...@hotmail.com (Johnny1A) wrote:
>>It's been suggested more than once, by various people, that a modern
>>nuclear submarine bears a family kinship to a spacecraft.
>
>2nd cousin twice removed at best.
>
>>What happens when we try this? We can use the fission plant for
>>power, and our minispindizzy is assumed to need only electrical power
>>to operate, so that's covered. But will our submarine actually work
>>in space?
>>
>>Can we get rid of excess heat from the reactor fast enough?
>
>Not even remotely. It take *big* pipes and *big* pumps to move water
>through the main condensers. You are going to need a lot of radiator
>acreage. Then there is also the problem of heat generated by the crew
>and equipment inside the submarine, currently that's rejected to the
>sea by a cooling system.
If we're using a spindizzy, the best option might be to take off from midocean
and make the spindizzy field wide enough that, say a half-mile sphere of water.
with the sub at the centre, goes up with you. Stay in Earth's shadow long
enough for the surface to freeze over. That way you've still got water for your
reactor, can still eject waste without immediate problems, and are well
screened from solar flares and the like
When you want to land somewhere, narrow down the field so that just the sub
lands, leaving the water droplet in orbit for the time being
>
>>Will the hull stay airtight with vacuum outside, instead of ocean?
>
>Maybe, maybe not. Some penetrations rely on sea pressure pushing in
>to help form the seal.
>
>>Can we maintain internal temperatures at tolerable values when the
>>submaship is in direct sunlight?
>
>Not without modifying the hull. Cryogenic on one side, and near
>boiling water on the other? Well, well, outside the range the hulls
>are designed to operate at.
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England
Call nothing true until it has been officially denied
Ray Drouillard
"Johnny1A" <sherm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b3030854.04010...@posting.google.com...
The submarine gets its oxygen by splitting water (presumably, the
hydrogen is released into the water). Another solution will have to be
found if the sub is used in space.
The rest of the life support system should still work fine, though.
For short trips, the oxygen can come from bottles. For longer trips, a
way needs to be found to recycle CO2 to O2.
I have heard that a modern nuclear sub's submersion time is limited only
by the ability to store food for the crew, and by the ability of the
crew to handle it psychologically.
Ray Drouillard
Ray Drouillard
"mike stone" <mws...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20040110113534...@mb-m15.aol.com...
That sounds like fun: in a submarine inside a sphere of water with brown
things floating around inside it.
Bryan Derksen
Lyons) wrote:
>sherm...@hotmail.com (Johnny1A) wrote:
>>It's been suggested more than once, by various people, that a modern
>>nuclear submarine bears a family kinship to a spacecraft.
>
>2nd cousin twice removed at best.
>
>>What happens when we try this? We can use the fission plant for
>>power, and our minispindizzy is assumed to need only electrical power
>>to operate, so that's covered. But will our submarine actually work
>>in space?
>
>Maybe, maybe not. Some penetrations rely on sea pressure pushing in
>to help form the seal.
It's only one atmosphere of pressure, and the sub will have to be
overhauled somewhat simply to get the magic space drive installed
perhaps these penetrations can be slathered with epoxy or something at
the same time.
>>Can we maintain internal temperatures at tolerable values when the
>>submaship is in direct sunlight?
>
>Not without modifying the hull. Cryogenic on one side, and near
>boiling water on the other? Well, well, outside the range the hulls
>are designed to operate at.
Keep it constantly rotating at a slow speed, that might even things
out sufficiently. Won't help much if you take the sub down to
Mercury's orbit, though, and the overall heat radiation problem you
pointed out earlier remains.
>>What affect will vacuum and radiation have on the hull, if any?
>
>Very little other than paint boil off.
Rubber or rubber-like seals may have some problems.
>>(Space would be different, but that might provide a ballpark
>>guideline.)
>
>No, it wouldn't be all that different. A computer does not care where
>it is, nor does a hydraulic pump or air compressor.
Are there any systems that depend on gravity? Plumbing, perhaps?
You'll want to install zero-G toilets and showers, at least. :)
Duke of URL
Keith Willshaw <keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> radiated into the
WorldWideWait:
> "Vaughn" <vaughnsimo...@att.fake.net> wrote in message
> news:2sTLb.20684$Ub6.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> I don't think that I would want to make that cruise.
>
> Agreed
But what a *wonderful* mileage claim you could file!
John Mullen
Was an interesting comparison of mileage vs safety in the US SSBN fleet
versus the STS in the Columbia investigation report. I might go and look
out the text if I can figure how to copy text from a pdf...
John
Mark Fergerson
> Conrad Hodson <con...@efn.org> wrote in message news:<Pine.SUN.4.56.04...@garcia.efn.org>...
>
>
>>ISTR a book called _The Daleth Effect_, by Harry Harrison (?) where a
>>handwavium drive had been developed by some Danish researchers, and they
>>used a small submarine for their prototype spacecraft because it already
>>had environmental systems and a pressure hull.
> Here's a question for anyone knowledgeable about submarines or space
> vehicle engineering.
One that started some very interesting and informative
arguments, too. Thanks.
> Hypothetically, let's assume we've got a spindizzy, a Dean Drive, or
> some similar magic-handwave drive that we could mount inside a
> submarine and propel it into space at any arbitrarily reasonable
> velocity. For the sake of our scenario, we can assume the the magic
> engine accelerates everything within its field of effect equally,
> eliminating those stresses.
What's felt inside, one g? Zero g? It may or may not
matter. Mentions of gravity being essential for the proper
flow of cooling water etc. can be handled by
"zero-g-proofing" similar to aircraft carburetion. Minor
tuning and tweaking for some subsystems, major redesigns for
others.
> It's been suggested more than once, by various people, that a modern
> nuclear submarine bears a family kinship to a spacecraft.
By people that don't know either subject except from
'60's movies, maybe...
> What happens when we try this? We can use the fission plant for
> power, and our minispindizzy is assumed to need only electrical power
> to operate, so that's covered. But will our submarine actually work
> in space?
Suitably modified, yes (with reservations).
> Can we get rid of excess heat from the reactor fast enough?
Biggest problem AFAICT; not as built. The reactor is just
a heat source for the turbines that produce electricity and
even with a skeleton crew and reduced power demands you
_will_ have low-grade heat remaining (which usually goes
overboard). We might consider yanking all the standard
propulsion gear and instead use The Drive at all times. Now
if The Drive converts heat directly to propulsive force, you
hopefully have much smaller electrical needs and can also
yank the standard turbines, generators, etc. and install
smaller systems. As has been said, you'll still need some
radiators (or that half-mile sphere of seawater a spindizzy
lets you take along).
> Will the hull stay airtight with vacuum outside, instead of ocean?
Sure. If anybody's especially worried, just reverse all
the pressure seals, or better, redesign them so they work
both ways so you can still submerge if that's desired.
> Can we maintain internal temperatures at tolerable values when the
> submaship is in direct sunlight? What affect will vacuum and
> radiation have on the hull, if any?
I'd worry more about flying sand and gravel (and UV), but
some thermal isolation between the power systems and the
habitable part will help. Apollo 13 has been mentioned. Also
see _Venus Equilateral_ for reasons Why Not To Paint Spacecraft.
Another thing. I've read cryptic references to rubberized
"dolphin skin" on newer subs that reduces turbulence and
concomittant noise; I'm pretty sure that won't be happy with
vacuum exposure. Unless the Spacesub doesn't really need to
be a sub, in which case you merely skin the hull with
polished Aluminum which radiates heat fairly nicely.
> I've heard (but I don't know for sure) that most subs today get their
> fresh water by purifying sea water. Obviously, that's not going to
> work here, so how much in the way of supplies including water can a
> modern sub carry for a standard crew? What provision is made for
> waste, and what waste provision changes would be needed to take a Navy
> submarine into space?
The next most important reservation AFAICT is
consumables. I also understand that Boomers get their O2 and
drinking water from seawater. If your crew is OK with
old-fashioned NASA-style food concentrates and water
rationing, mission time can be extended greatly. Human waste
can just be thrown overboard. Some recycling will help, and
you'll need to fill the space left over from chucking the
old drive systems anyway.
> Sonar is going to be cold dead useless in space. What sensory
> equipment does a modern sub carry that would be useful in vacuum?
RADAR, periscope. Add on other gear (telescopes and like
that) in parallel to the sonar as considered useful.
> What sort of on-board maintenance can modern naval submarines manage,
> and how long can they cruise between major maintenance as a rule?
Depends on the mission. Also consider that nuke subs are
_weapons_ and are basically expendable after the mission's
accomplished. What's the mission profile for our Spacesub?
Mark L. (Can we paint it yellow?) Fergerson
Howard Berkowitz
<wood...@dearthlink.nyet> wrote:
If you are serious --- and it is a funny thought, I agree --- less than
you might think. Stuff on the shelves tends to be mechanically secured,
lest accidental contact or extreme maneuvering might cause it to fall
and cause an acoustic transient.
In the deep, a loud submarine is a dead submarine.
Derek Lyons
>Obviously the easy cheat way to make this work is to
>put the submarine inside a partial sleeve full of water,
>welded to the hull, to provide the radiator area and
>water supply and to maintain positive pressure
>into the hatch seals and such (for the most part).
>Sleeve can be dirt-cheap simple and quick.
That's a germ of an idea 'just crazy enough that it might work'.
>Now the only problem is adapting the interior to zero-G
>operations,
And that's going to be a real bear... Lot's of things are designed to
operate in a certain orientation, lots of things are cooled by
convection... And there are a *lot* of angles and corners and snag
hazards.
>and figuring out how to liberate a SPY-1D from
>an Arleigh Burke lying around Norfolk without attracting
>undue attention. Though, maybe undue attention would be
>the most effective distraction. "Hey, Look, Up in the Sky,
>it's a Flying Submarine!" *weld*weld*weld*
Hmm...
Derek Lyons
>>>(Space would be different, but that might provide a ballpark
>>>guideline.)
>>
>>No, it wouldn't be all that different. A computer does not care where
>>it is, nor does a hydraulic pump or air compressor.
>
>Are there any systems that depend on gravity? Plumbing, perhaps?
>You'll want to install zero-G toilets and showers, at least. :)
There are plenty of systems that depend on gravity, and yah, those
will have to be modified. But my original statement addressed the
issue of maintenance, not zero-G operations.
Derek Lyons
>The submarine gets its oxygen by splitting water (presumably, the
>hydrogen is released into the water). Another solution will have to be
>found if the sub is used in space.
Keep in mind that subs currently have no way to make up the non-O2
portion of the atmosphere.
>The rest of the life support system should still work fine, though.
Mostly. Subs rely on occasionally exchanging air with the atmosphere
to prevent the buildup of trace contaminants.
D.
Derek Lyons
> Depends on the mission. Also consider that nuke subs are
>_weapons_ and are basically expendable after the mission's
>accomplished.
Um, no. After the mission is accomplished they cycle back through
maintenance and go off on another one. There simply was never enough
boats to sustain even a low loss rate.
Fred J. McCall
:"Vaughn" <vaughnsimo...@att.fake.net> wrote in message
:news:2sTLb.20684$Ub6.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
:>
:> Without gravity, how do you get the "stuff" to drop from the toilet down to
:> the sanitary tank?
:
:The same way they do on the shuttle or Soyuz
Oh, so your answer is "badly, or not at all"?
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Richard Bell
While there will be some problems from reversing the pressure gradient
of the seals, all of the sealing problems become much simpler, as instead
of keeping fifty atmospheres of pressure out, you are only trying to
keep one in. Based on the total number of holes, a sub is not a bad start
for a mass/volume-is-no-cost spacecraft.
If mass is an issue, you start with a passenger jet and add internal
subdivision.
Richard Bell
Vaughn <vaughnsimo...@att.fake.net> wrote:
>> > >Can we maintain internal temperatures at tolerable values when the
>> > >submaship is in direct sunlight? What affect will vacuum and
>> > >radiation have on the hull, if any?
>>
>> Minor but with no power things will get nasty fast inside
>
>Even with power, I am not so sure about this one.
You tack on a pair of bloody great heat sinks with deployable sunshades. The
one in shadow opens its shade and dumps heat to the blackness of space. The
condensor should now really suck, and the trick is getting feedwater out of it.
Replacing the steam turbine with a sterling cycle will simplify things and
solve the condensor icing problem, as well as really boost thermal efficiency.
>
>>
>> > >I've heard (but I don't know for sure) that most subs today get their
>> > >fresh water by purifying sea water. Obviously, that's not going to
>> > >work here, so how much in the way of supplies including water can a
>> > >modern sub carry for a standard crew? What provision is made for
>> > >waste, and what waste provision changes would be needed to take a Navy
>> > >submarine into space?
>
>O2 generators won't work well without water, but that is actually OK since
>there will be no power anyhow.
Water recycling is an issue, but they are working on sending a manned craft
to Mars, so it may be only an engineering problem.
>
>> Thats the easy part, designing a chemical toilet system
>> is minor compared with the other problems
>
>Without gravity, how do you get the "stuff" to drop from the toilet down to
>the sanitary tank?
Old problem, astronauts have been shitting in space for some time. Its been
solved.
>
>> > >Sonar is going to be cold dead useless in space. What sensory
>> > >equipment does a modern sub carry that would be useful in vacuum?
>>
>> Radar
>
>Periscope
>
>> > >What sort of on-board maintenance can modern naval submarines manage,
>> > >and how long can they cruise between major maintenance as a rule?
>> > >(Space would be different, but that might provide a ballpark
>> > >guideline.)
>>
>> Dont sweat it, the power system wont work in a vacuum , its a no go.
>
>Nuclear plant also requires gravity; in the pressurizer, in the steam
>generator, and in the condensor (inop anyhow sans cooling water) to keep
>liquids and gasses in their proper places.
Only natural circulation plants need gravity. As we are not worried about
passive sonar detection, we can put the force feed pumps back on. Water
droplets can be mechanically seperated from the steam. Gravity helps, but
is not absolutely necessary. There is also using a liquid metal coolant
with sterling cycle to remove the steam, altogether.
a425couple
"John Mullen" <nos...@please.com> wrote in
> Duke of URL wrote:
> > Keith Willshaw <keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> radiated
> >>"Vaughn" <vaughnsimo...@att.fake.net> wrote in
> >>>I don't think that I would want to make that cruise.
> >>Agreed
> > But what a *wonderful* mileage claim you could file!
> >
> Was an interesting comparison of mileage vs safety in the US SSBN fleet
> versus the STS in the Columbia investigation report. I might go and look
> out the text if I can figure how to copy text from a pdf...
That will be a neat bit of information.
Vehicle mileage vs safety.
Then of course need to convert to standard "passenger mile vs fatalities"
Duke of URL
a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> radiated into the WorldWideWait:
> "John Mullen" <nos...@please.com> wrote
??? wrote
>> Duke of URL wrote:
>>> Keith Willshaw <keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> radiated
>>>> "Vaughn" <vaughnsimo...@att.fake.net> wrote in
>>>>> I don't think that I would want to make that cruise.
>>>> Agreed
>>> But what a *wonderful* mileage claim you could file!
>>>
>> Was an interesting comparison of mileage vs safety in the US SSBN
>> fleet versus the STS in the Columbia investigation report. I might
>> go and look out the text if I can figure how to copy text from a
>> pdf...
I don't know who wrote that - John accidentally snipped it out.
If you ever do figure out how to copy text from a pdf *without
spending several hundred dollars*, please let me know. I rarely read
PSFs, but once in a while I see something I'd like to copy & keep.
Emailing it to me *should* work.
David Biddulph
news:1000sba...@corp.supernews.com...
...
> I don't know who wrote that - John accidentally snipped it out.
> If you ever do figure out how to copy text from a pdf *without
> spending several hundred dollars*, please let me know. I rarely read
> PSFs, but once in a while I see something I'd like to copy & keep.
> Emailing it to me *should* work.
Open the pdf file with Acrobat Reader (free), use the Text select button,
select the text you want to copy, then copy.
--
David Biddulph
Derek Lyons
>Vaughn <vaughnsimo...@att.fake.net> wrote:
?
>>Nuclear plant also requires gravity; in the pressurizer, in the steam
>>generator, and in the condensor (inop anyhow sans cooling water) to keep
>>liquids and gasses in their proper places.
>
>Only natural circulation plants need gravity.
Nope. PWR's rely on gravity to form a 'bubble' in the pressurizer to
maintain system pressure, whether natural or forced circulation.
Fred J. McCall
:I don't know who wrote that - John accidentally snipped it out.
:If you ever do figure out how to copy text from a pdf *without
:spending several hundred dollars*, please let me know. I rarely read
:PSFs, but once in a while I see something I'd like to copy & keep.
:Emailing it to me *should* work.
Depending on how the PDF was put together, you can often simply 'right
click' in the document and choose "Select All" from the resulting
menu. Then use the standard Windows copy and paste commands to move
it around.
Damned inconvenient that there's no way to highlight portions of the
document, though.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
Peter Skelton
get the text into the Adobe reader.
use the menu command Edit, Select All
^C
then open an editor
^V
voila
Peter Skelton
Fred J. McCall
:rlb...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Richard Bell) wrote:
:
:>Vaughn <vaughnsimo...@att.fake.net> wrote:
:?
:>>Nuclear plant also requires gravity; in the pressurizer, in the steam
:>>generator, and in the condensor (inop anyhow sans cooling water) to keep
:>>liquids and gasses in their proper places.
:>
:>Only natural circulation plants need gravity.
:
:Nope. PWR's rely on gravity to form a 'bubble' in the pressurizer to
:maintain system pressure, whether natural or forced circulation.
I believe the fuel assembly itself relies on gravity and being
oriented a certain way. You'd have to replace the entire reactor with
a space-rated one in order to play this game.
--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
Keith Willshaw
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:kpi000h38nf08q8qi...@4ax.com...
> "Keith Willshaw" <keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :"Vaughn" <vaughnsimo...@att.fake.net> wrote in message
> :news:2sTLb.20684$Ub6.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> :>
> :> Without gravity, how do you get the "stuff" to drop from the toilet
down to
> :> the sanitary tank?
> :
> :The same way they do on the shuttle or Soyuz
>
> Oh, so your answer is "badly, or not at all"?
Nope, unless you believe astronauts hold it for
months at a time.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"Richard Bell" <rlb...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:btpjh5$usg$3...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
>
> Only natural circulation plants need gravity. As we are not worried about
> passive sonar detection, we can put the force feed pumps back on. Water
> droplets can be mechanically seperated from the steam. Gravity helps, but
> is not absolutely necessary. There is also using a liquid metal coolant
> with sterling cycle to remove the steam, altogether.
>
This isnt true
A PWR does not use natural circulation. It does however
have definite steam/water interfaces in the pressuriser and
steam generator. I dont see how the basic design could
work in zero g.
If power requirements are modest the obvious system
is fuel cells. If you need large amounts of power a
gas cooled reactor with gas turbine similar to that
suggested in the South African pebbled bed reactor
would seem a possibilty.
Keith
Duke of URL
David Biddulph <da...@biddulph.org.uk> radiated into the
WorldWideWait:
And it says: "This feature is not available unless you upgrade to the
full Adobe Acrobat."
Duke of URL
Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> radiated into the
WorldWideWait:
> "Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote:
>
>> I don't know who wrote that - John accidentally snipped it out.
>> If you ever do figure out how to copy text from a pdf *without
>> spending several hundred dollars*, please let me know. I rarely
>> read PSFs, but once in a while I see something I'd like to copy &
>> keep. Emailing it to me *should* work.
>
> Depending on how the PDF was put together, you can often simply
> 'right click' in the document and choose "Select All" from the
> resulting menu. Then use the standard Windows copy and paste
> commands to move it around.
>
> Damned inconvenient that there's no way to highlight portions of the
> document, though.
When I try that, all it will make is a duplicate PDF.
Keith Willshaw
"Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote in message
Works for me with Adobe Reader 5.0
Keith
Paul H. Lemmen
"Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote in message
news:100166a...@corp.supernews.com...
you to open a .pdf file inside any Office application (even Outlook and
Outlook Express, cut and paste any of the contents of the .pdf file into the
Office document you are working on (even a new posting) I believe it costs
only $50 or less. You can look in the MS Office web site and search on add
ins.
Slainte,
--
Paul H. Lemmen
Just because I choose to act civilised
does not mean that I am.
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
You might want to check out just how well the facilities in the
Shuttle actually work. Lots of complaints about 'fecalization' of the
atmosphere because they don't work all that well. As for Soyuz, I
found a picture on the web of what their 'facility' looks like.
Primitive is a GENEROUS description.
When those are your two reference points, you really are saying
"badly, or not at all", whether you realize it or not. Frankly, I
think it would probably be more sanitary to use a piddle pack and dump
in a vacuum bag. That makes it much harder for the women, though,
which is why we have what we have on the Shuttle.
Fred J. McCall
:In news:btpt6d$9cpbq$1...@ID-109688.news.uni-berlin.de,
It works on mine (and I never noticed that button up there before).
What version of Reader do you have?
However, like the 'Select All' menu item I mentioned, some documents
were created to prohibit copying sections of them.
Fred J. McCall
:In news:qh31001ggb052m2jo...@4ax.com,
Really! I've used it to paste sections of document into Emacs or
Agent.
Peter Skelton
Try my instructions, they work.
Peter Skelton
ZZBunker
> rlb...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Richard Bell) wrote:
>
> >Vaughn <vaughnsimo...@att.fake.net> wrote:
> ?
> >>Nuclear plant also requires gravity; in the pressurizer, in the steam
> >>generator, and in the condensor (inop anyhow sans cooling water) to keep
> >>liquids and gasses in their proper places.
> >
> >Only natural circulation plants need gravity.
>
> Nope. PWR's rely on gravity to form a 'bubble' in the pressurizer to
> maintain system pressure, whether natural or forced circulation.
PWRs don't rely on gravity for anything.
That's why their neutrally bouyant at 300' down.
Heat forces the bubbles to the top,
just like it does the ICBMs they carry.
Ray Drouillard
"Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote in message
news:1000sba...@corp.supernews.com...
> a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> radiated into the WorldWideWait:
> > "John Mullen" <nos...@please.com> wrote
> ??? wrote
> >> Duke of URL wrote:
> >>> Keith Willshaw <keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> radiated
> >>>> "Vaughn" <vaughnsimo...@att.fake.net> wrote in
>
> >>>>> I don't think that I would want to make that cruise.
> >>>> Agreed
>
> >>> But what a *wonderful* mileage claim you could file!
> >>>
> >> Was an interesting comparison of mileage vs safety in the US SSBN
> >> fleet versus the STS in the Columbia investigation report. I might
> >> go and look out the text if I can figure how to copy text from a
> >> pdf...
>
> I don't know who wrote that - John accidentally snipped it out.
> If you ever do figure out how to copy text from a pdf *without
> spending several hundred dollars*, please let me know. I rarely read
> PSFs, but once in a while I see something I'd like to copy & keep.
> Emailing it to me *should* work.
Well, you could try using some kind of a screen capture, or press [Print
Screen] (yes, that button still does something in Windows) and Ctrl-V
the clipboard into your favorite image editing program (like PC
Paintbrush).
Then, take the resultant .bmp file and run it through one of those
programs that are used to turn scanned images into text.
Ray Drouillard
Ray Drouillard
> "Keith Willshaw" <keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :
> :"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> :news:kpi000h38nf08q8qi...@4ax.com...
> :> "Keith Willshaw" <keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> :>
> :> :"Vaughn" <vaughnsimo...@att.fake.net> wrote in message
> :> :news:2sTLb.20684$Ub6.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> :> :>
> :> :> Without gravity, how do you get the "stuff" to drop from the
toilet
> :down to
> :> :> the sanitary tank?
> :> :
> :> :The same way they do on the shuttle or Soyuz
> :>
> :> Oh, so your answer is "badly, or not at all"?
> :
> :Nope, unless you believe astronauts hold it for
> :months at a time.
>
> You might want to check out just how well the facilities in the
> Shuttle actually work. Lots of complaints about 'fecalization' of the
> atmosphere because they don't work all that well. As for Soyuz, I
> found a picture on the web of what their 'facility' looks like.
> Primitive is a GENEROUS description.
>
> When those are your two reference points, you really are saying
> "badly, or not at all", whether you realize it or not. Frankly, I
> think it would probably be more sanitary to use a piddle pack and dump
> in a vacuum bag. That makes it much harder for the women, though,
> which is why we have what we have on the Shuttle.
Duct tape and a bag?
Tape the bag into place, fill it, maneuver the contents away from the
opening, then peel off the duct tape. After that, it's time to wash up.
Ray
John Mullen
Thanks.
Navy Submarine and Reactor Safety Programs Human space flight and
submarine programs share notable similarities.
Spacecraft and submarines both operate in hazardous environments, use
complex and dangerous systems, and perform
missions of critical national significance. Both NASA and Navy
operational experience include failures (for example,
USS Thresher, USS Scorpion, Apollo 1 capsule fire, Challenger, and
Columbia). Prior to the Columbia mishap,
Administrator Sean O?Keefe initiated the NASA/Navy Benchmarking Exchange
to compare and contrast the programs,
specifically in safety and mission assurance.20 The Navy SUBSAFE and
Naval Reactor programs exercise a high
degree of engineering discipline, emphasize total responsibility of
individuals and organizations, and provide
redundant and rapid means of communicating problems to decision-makers.
The Navy?s nuclear safety program emerged
with its first nuclear-powered warship (USS Nautilus), while non-nuclear
SUBSAFE practices evolved from from past
flooding mishaps and philosophies first introduced by Naval Reactors.
The Navy lost two nuclear-powered submarines
in the 1960s – the USS Thresher in 1963 and the Scorpion 1968 – which
resulted in a renewed effort to prevent
accidents.21 The SUBSAFE program was initiated just two months after the
Thresher mishap to identify critical
changes to submarine certification requirements. Until a ship was
independently recertified, its operating
depth and maneuvers were limited. SUBSAFE proved its value as a means of
verifying the readiness and safety
of submarines, and continues to do so today.22The Naval Reactor Program
is a joint Navy/Department of Energy
organization responsible for all aspects of Navy nuclear propulsion,
including research, design, construction,
testing, training, operation, maintenance, and the disposition of the
nuclear propulsion plants onboard many
Naval ships and submarines, as well as their radioactive materials.
Although the naval fleet is ultimately
responsible for day-to-day operations and maintenance, those operations
occur within parameters established
by an entirely independent division of Naval Reactors. The U.S. nuclear
Navy has more than 5,500 reactor years
of experience without a reactor accident. Put another way,
nuclear-powered warships have steamed a cumulative
total of over 127 million miles, which is roughly equivalent to over 265
lunar roundtrips. In contrast, the
Space Shuttle Program has spent about three years on-orbit, although its
spacecraft have traveled some 420
million miles.Naval Reactor success depends on several key elements:
• Concise and timely communication of problems using redundant paths
• Insistence on airing minority opinions
• Formal written reports based on independent peer-reviewed
recommendations from prime contractors
• Facing facts objectively and with attention to detail
• Ability to manage change and deal with obsolescence of classes of
warships over their lifetime
Mycroft
pretzel boxes & the the propulsion derived from pressurized beer released
from kegs lol!
Myc
"Rick" <wood...@dearthlink.nyet> wrote in message
news:8rNLb.2703$zj7....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Derek Lyons wrote:
>
> >>What happens when we try this?
>
> I don't think it will work.
>
> When it is raised to vertical for the launch all the stuff
> will fall off the shelves and will take too long to clean up.
>
> Rick
>
Johnny1A
> gher...@gw.retro.com (George William Herbert) wrote:
> >Obviously the easy cheat way to make this work is to
> >put the submarine inside a partial sleeve full of water,
> >welded to the hull, to provide the radiator area and
> >water supply and to maintain positive pressure
> >into the hatch seals and such (for the most part).
> >Sleeve can be dirt-cheap simple and quick.
>
> That's a germ of an idea 'just crazy enough that it might work'.
It would also have the happy benefit, ISTM, of providing an additional
layer of radiation protection.
Shermanlee
Mark Borgerson
zzbu...@netscape.net says...
> derekl19...@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) wrote in message news:<400082b1...@supernews.seanet.com>...
> > rlb...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Richard Bell) wrote:
> >
> > >Vaughn <vaughnsimo...@att.fake.net> wrote:
> > ?
> > >>Nuclear plant also requires gravity; in the pressurizer, in the steam
> > >>generator, and in the condensor (inop anyhow sans cooling water) to keep
> > >>liquids and gasses in their proper places.
> > >
> > >Only natural circulation plants need gravity.
> >
> > Nope. PWR's rely on gravity to form a 'bubble' in the pressurizer to
> > maintain system pressure, whether natural or forced circulation.
>
> PWRs don't rely on gravity for anything.
> That's why their neutrally bouyant at 300' down.
> Heat forces the bubbles to the top,
> just like it does the ICBMs they carry.
>
>
way is the top!
> >
Mark Borgerson
Rick
> ROTFLMAO! without gravity, how do the bubbles know which
> way is the top!
I guess if the reactor is neutrally bouyant at 300 feet
anything is possible.
Oh, that's right, it is a light water reactor after all.
Rick
Duke of URL
Keith Willshaw <keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> radiated into the
WorldWideWait:
> "Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote in message
> news:1001624...@corp.supernews.com...
>> In news:btpt6d$9cpbq$1...@ID-109688.news.uni-berlin.de,
>> David Biddulph <da...@biddulph.org.uk> radiated into the
>> WorldWideWait:
>>> "Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote in message
>>> news:1000sba...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> ...
>>>> I don't know who wrote that - John accidentally snipped it out.
>>>> If you ever do figure out how to copy text from a pdf *without
>>>> spending several hundred dollars*, please let me know. I rarely
>>>> read PSFs, but once in a while I see something I'd like to copy &
>>>> keep. Emailing it to me *should* work.
>>>
>>> Open the pdf file with Acrobat Reader (free), use the Text select
>>> button, select the text you want to copy, then copy.
>>
>> And it says: "This feature is not available unless you upgrade to
>> the full Adobe Acrobat."
>
> Works for me with Adobe Reader 5.0
Hmm...
Duke of URL
Peter Skelton <skel...@cogeco.ca> radiated into the WorldWideWait:
I will, the next time I run across a PDF that contains something I
want to keep. Thanks, all of you.
Duke of URL
Ray Drouillard <cosmic...@comcast.net> radiated into the
WorldWideWait:
Now that's an interesting method. I'll keep it in mind.
ZZBunker
ROTCLMAO! The same way that the control rods know which
way is to the bottom!! They don't!!!!
Or in langauge even the navy could understand.
Einstein told Schroedinger twice, once for the
rod, and once for clock. That if you
really what to know where top isn't, ask a
mathematician.
>
>
> Mark Borgerson
Alan Lothian
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Keith Willshaw" <keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :
> :"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> :news:kpi000h38nf08q8qi...@4ax.com...
> :> "Keith Willshaw" <keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> :>
> :> :"Vaughn" <vaughnsimo...@att.fake.net> wrote in message
> :> :news:2sTLb.20684$Ub6.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> :> :>
> :> :> Without gravity, how do you get the "stuff" to drop from the toilet
> :down to
> :> :> the sanitary tank?
> :> :
> :> :The same way they do on the shuttle or Soyuz
> :>
> :> Oh, so your answer is "badly, or not at all"?
> :
> :Nope, unless you believe astronauts hold it for
> :months at a time.
>
> You might want to check out just how well the facilities in the
> Shuttle actually work.
Unfortunately, this requires you to be one of a small elite. Clearly I
cannot speak from direct experience, but I'm told it works, er,
tolerably well, in that it is better than any obvious alternative. Sit
on the thing, clamp yourself down, turn the blowers on, and, er, away
you go. And bless that low-residue diet.
> Lots of complaints about 'fecalization' of the
> atmosphere because they don't work all that well.
> As for Soyuz, I
> found a picture on the web of what their 'facility' looks like.
> Primitive is a GENEROUS description.
Soyuz is for real, brown-assed astronauts. It is about 150% as large as
a Gemini, with very limited facilities in every sense. I am also told
that the ISS toilet works, er, tolerably well. Biggest problem (on
Shuttle and ISS) is Space Adaptation Sickness, wryly described by a US
astronaut whose name I do not recall as "fancy words for throwing up."
Floating around with some sort of plastic bag catching puke before it
gets into electronics panels is just one of the ways these people earn
their salaries.
There is a price to be paid for conquering the universe, Fred.
>
> When those are your two reference points, you really are saying
> "badly, or not at all", whether you realize it or not. Frankly, I
> think it would probably be more sanitary to use a piddle pack and dump
> in a vacuum bag.
Sure, if you're on a quick, budget return-trip to the Moon. If you are
up there for five months because of small technical difficulties back
on the ground, then something better, even only slightly better, is a
major morale booster. Note that Skylab, back in the '70s, actually had
a shower.
> That makes it much harder for the women, though,
> which is why we have what we have on the Shuttle.
When it comes to dumping, men and women are not all that different, at
least not in my experience. IIRC, one of the Apollo astronauts did the
whole trip on pre-planned constipation; can't say I blame him. But
then, that wasn't 165 days.
Also, women in terms of intelligence per kilogram tend to be better
value than men, which must count for something if you're paying
something like $25K per kg to get them on station.
Better at avoiding fights, too, at least most of the time.
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun
My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try alan dot lothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk
Dale Farmer
"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
> "Keith Willshaw" <keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :"Vaughn" <vaughnsimo...@att.fake.net> wrote in message
> :news:2sTLb.20684$Ub6.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> :>
> :> Without gravity, how do you get the "stuff" to drop from the toilet down to
> :> the sanitary tank?
> :
> :The same way they do on the shuttle or Soyuz
>
> Oh, so your answer is "badly, or not at all"?
When the shit hits the fan on the space shuttle, this is a good thing.
--Dale
Charlie Whitaker
Alan Lothian <alanl...@mac.com> wrote:
> > When those are your two reference points, you really are saying
> > "badly, or not at all", whether you realize it or not. Frankly, I
> > think it would probably be more sanitary to use a piddle pack and dump
> > in a vacuum bag.
>
> Sure, if you're on a quick, budget return-trip to the Moon. If you are
> up there for five months because of small technical difficulties back
> on the ground, then something better, even only slightly better, is a
> major morale booster. Note that Skylab, back in the '70s, actually had
> a shower.
Alan, by any chance, has the brains trust at rec.arts.sf.science worked
out 'something better' in previous discussion?
C.
Ray Drouillard
"Charlie Whitaker" <cha...@plan-consult.com.null> wrote in message
news:charlie-CF9E1C...@iris.uk.clara.net...
Fred J. McCall
:In article <ek81005l0o9oo4v02...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall
:<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>
:> You might want to check out just how well the facilities in the
:> Shuttle actually work.
:
:Unfortunately, this requires you to be one of a small elite. Clearly I
:cannot speak from direct experience, but I'm told it works, er,
:tolerably well, in that it is better than any obvious alternative. Sit
:on the thing, clamp yourself down, turn the blowers on, and, er, away
:you go. And bless that low-residue diet.
It is only better than "any obvious alternative" if you are female.
:> As for Soyuz, I
:> found a picture on the web of what their 'facility' looks like.
:> Primitive is a GENEROUS description.
:
:Soyuz is for real, brown-assed astronauts. It is about 150% as large as
:a Gemini, with very limited facilities in every sense.
Well, I'm not the one who brought up Soyuz as an indicator of how well
this problem has been solved.
:I am also told
:that the ISS toilet works, er, tolerably well.
I can't speak to that one. However, if it's like the Shuttle system,
it works poorly at best.
:Biggest problem (on
:Shuttle and ISS) is Space Adaptation Sickness, wryly described by a US
:astronaut whose name I do not recall as "fancy words for throwing up."
:Floating around with some sort of plastic bag catching puke before it
:gets into electronics panels is just one of the ways these people earn
:their salaries.
Dealing with air with little tiny droplets of urine and flecks of shit
in it is another. However, that one only occurs because the current
Shuttle toilet is so, er, piss poor.
:There is a price to be paid for conquering the universe, Fred.
And this proves that this is a 'solved problem' precisely how, again?
:> When those are your two reference points, you really are saying
:> "badly, or not at all", whether you realize it or not. Frankly, I
:> think it would probably be more sanitary to use a piddle pack and dump
:> in a vacuum bag.
:
:Sure, if you're on a quick, budget return-trip to the Moon. If you are
:up there for five months because of small technical difficulties back
:on the ground, then something better, even only slightly better, is a
:major morale booster.
Not if that 'something better' leaves you with urine droplets and shit
flecks with your breakfast.
:Note that Skylab, back in the '70s, actually had
:a shower.
Yes, it did. And you are aware of what it consisted of, aren't you?
:> That makes it much harder for the women, though,
:> which is why we have what we have on the Shuttle.
:
:When it comes to dumping, men and women are not all that different, at
:least not in my experience.
Ah, but now flip them over. There's the reason for the design of the
Shuttle toilet. Otherwise, it would consist of an external catheter
(essentially a 'piddle pack') and a vacuum bag taped to your ass.
Unfortunately, the 'piddle pack' approach doesn't work so well for
women, which brings us to the 'sit to pee' toilet on the Shuttle.
:Also, women in terms of intelligence per kilogram tend to be better
:value than men, which must count for something if you're paying
:something like $25K per kg to get them on station.
No doubt, but if you were up there would YOU consider that savings
worth breathing toilet particles?
:Better at avoiding fights, too, at least most of the time.
Bullshit. Funny how *some* sexual stereotypes are still PC, even
though they're as wrong as all the others, don't you think?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Rick
> If you are serious --- and it is a funny thought, I agree --- less than
> you might think. Stuff on the shelves tends to be mechanically secured,
> lest accidental contact or extreme maneuvering might cause it to fall
> and cause an acoustic transient.
Oh, OK, it should work then.
Rick
JWMeritt
The secondary cooling for the reactor is seawater.
The oxygen is from electrolized water.
The fresh water is separated seawater.
Waste disposal (human and other!) is into the sea (with a possibly of
short-term storage onboard, of course)
It is NOT a closed system - or even vaguely closed. There is as much IN as
OUT. Wonder how uncomfortable it would be before death, and how long it would
last...
..........................................................................
..........................................
http://profiles.yahoo.com/jwmeritt and http://hometown.aol.com/jwmeritt/
James W. Meritt, CISSP, CISA
JWMeritt
>If we're using a spindizzy, the best option might be to take off from
>midocean
>and make the spindizzy field wide enough that, say a half-mile sphere of
>water.
>with the sub at the centre, goes up with you. Stay in Earth's shadow long
>enough for the surface to freeze over. That way you've still got water for
>your
>reactor, can still eject waste without immediate problems, and are well
>screened from solar flares and the like
When is the last time you tried to pump (or push into) a solid?
Frozen water is also known as "ice", a solid. Doesn't pump so fast...
JWMeritt
>>>What affect will vacuum and radiation have on the hull, if any?
>>
>>Very little other than paint boil off.
>
>Rubber or rubber-like seals may have some problems.
Giving up on the acoustic coating, I see...
Pretty much wouldn't matter in a vacuum, but the stuff foaming off would look
neat the first time...
JWMeritt
>
>Derek Lyons wrote:
>
>>>What happens when we try this?
>
>I don't think it will work.
>
>When it is raised to vertical for the launch all the stuff
>will fall off the shelves and will take too long to clean up.
Ever experienced angles and dangles? ;-) And the traditional ballast tank
problem wouldn't matter any more if you are not using them...
JWMeritt
>If you are serious --- and it is a funny thought, I agree --- less than
>you might think. Stuff on the shelves tends to be mechanically secured,
>lest accidental contact or extreme maneuvering might cause it to fall
>and cause an acoustic transient.
>
On the surface, too, sorta. Stuff like that tends to turn into projectiles...
Ever watched a slo-mo of shock testing?
JWMeritt
>I have heard that a modern nuclear sub's submersion time is limited only
>by the ability to store food for the crew, and by the ability of the
>crew to handle it psychologically.
The soft ice-cream maker in the galley. That GOTTA work!
And you have to stop before everyone becomes too wide to fit out of the
hatches...
JWMeritt
> Biggest problem AFAICT; not as built. The reactor is just
>a heat source for the turbines that produce electricity and
> even with a skeleton crew and reduced power demands you
>_will_ have low-grade heat remaining (which usually goes
>overboard). We might consider yanking all the standard
>propulsion gear and instead use The Drive at all times. Now
>if The Drive converts heat directly to propulsive force, you
>hopefully have much smaller electrical needs and can also
>yank the standard turbines, generators, etc. and install
>smaller systems. As has been said, you'll still need some
>radiators (or that half-mile sphere of seawater a spindizzy
>lets you take along).
And how would this be easier than starting from scratch and not having to
remove anything?
Mark Fergerson
> Mark Fergerson wrote:
>
>> Biggest problem AFAICT; not as built. The reactor is just
>>a heat source for the turbines that produce electricity and
>> even with a skeleton crew and reduced power demands you
>>_will_ have low-grade heat remaining (which usually goes
>>overboard). We might consider yanking all the standard
>>propulsion gear and instead use The Drive at all times. Now
>>if The Drive converts heat directly to propulsive force, you
>>hopefully have much smaller electrical needs and can also
>>yank the standard turbines, generators, etc. and install
>>smaller systems. As has been said, you'll still need some
>>radiators (or that half-mile sphere of seawater a spindizzy
>>lets you take along).
>
>
>
> And how would this be easier than starting from scratch and not having to
> remove anything?
Seems to me the OP posited having a handy Boomer not
being otherwise usefully occupied.
Mark L. Fergerson
Mark Fergerson
> Mark Fergerson <nu...@biz.ness> wrote:
>
>
>> Depends on the mission. Also consider that nuke subs are
>>_weapons_ and are basically expendable after the mission's
>>accomplished.
>
>
> Um, no. After the mission is accomplished they cycle back through
> maintenance and go off on another one. There simply was never enough
> boats to sustain even a low loss rate.
I mean specifically nuclear-weapon-delivery missions.
Subs are definitely expendable after the missiles are away.
Getting them back is nice, but not expected or assumed.
Besides, what (worst-case) is there to go back _to_?
So far, none have actually had to do this which is why
they do indeed cycle back through maintenance etc. as you
describe.
Mark L. Fergerson
JWMeritt
>> And how would this be easier than starting from scratch and not having to
>> remove anything?
>
> Seems to me the OP posited having a handy Boomer not
>being otherwise usefully occupied.
With all that you would have to do, methinks that the best use would be to use
it as parts.
Maybe seal off the engineering space, use the batteries, and hope its a short
trip...
Michael Ash
wrote:
> Derek Lyons wrote:
> > Mark Fergerson <nu...@biz.ness> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Depends on the mission. Also consider that nuke subs are
> >>_weapons_ and are basically expendable after the mission's
> >>accomplished.
> >
> >
> > Um, no. After the mission is accomplished they cycle back through
> > maintenance and go off on another one. There simply was never enough
> > boats to sustain even a low loss rate.
>
> I mean specifically nuclear-weapon-delivery missions.
> Subs are definitely expendable after the missiles are away.
> Getting them back is nice, but not expected or assumed.
> Besides, what (worst-case) is there to go back _to_?
A ballistic missile sub's mission isn't to fire off its missiles as a
bit player in a MAD orgy. A ballistic missile sub's mission is
*deterrence*. If it has to fire its missiles, it has basically failed.
Also, the term "nuke sub" can mean any nuclear-powered submarine, which
includes submarines which don't carry nuclear weapons.
David Loewe, Jr.
<ple...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote in message
>news:100166a...@corp.supernews.com...
>> In news:qh31001ggb052m2jo...@4ax.com,
>> Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> radiated into the
>> WorldWideWait:
>> > "Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I don't know who wrote that - John accidentally snipped it out.
>> >> If you ever do figure out how to copy text from a pdf *without
>> >> spending several hundred dollars*, please let me know. I rarely
>> >> read PSFs, but once in a while I see something I'd like to copy &
>> >> keep. Emailing it to me *should* work.
>> >
>> > Depending on how the PDF was put together, you can often simply
>> > 'right click' in the document and choose "Select All" from the
>> > resulting menu. Then use the standard Windows copy and paste
>> > commands to move it around.
>> >
>> > Damned inconvenient that there's no way to highlight portions of the
>> > document, though.
>>
>> When I try that, all it will make is a duplicate PDF.
>>
>If you are using Office System 2003, there is a .pdf add in that will allow
>you to open a .pdf file inside any Office application (even Outlook and
>Outlook Express, cut and paste any of the contents of the .pdf file into the
>Office document you are working on (even a new posting) I believe it costs
>only $50 or less. You can look in the MS Office web site and search on add
>ins.
$50 for something I may do once or twice?!?
Holy shit...
--
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the
blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
David Loewe, Jr.
>Mark Borgerson <m-a...@oes.to> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a6a99823...@Netnews.Comcast.net>...
>> In article <e4a0829b.04011...@posting.google.com>,
>> zzbu...@netscape.net says...
>> > derekl19...@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) wrote in message news:<400082b1...@supernews.seanet.com>...
>> > > rlb...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Richard Bell) wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >Vaughn <vaughnsimo...@att.fake.net> wrote:
>> ?
>> > > >>Nuclear plant also requires gravity; in the pressurizer, in the steam
>> > > >>generator, and in the condensor (inop anyhow sans cooling water) to keep
>> > > >>liquids and gasses in their proper places.
>> > > >
>> > > >Only natural circulation plants need gravity.
>> > >
>> > > Nope. PWR's rely on gravity to form a 'bubble' in the pressurizer to
>> > > maintain system pressure, whether natural or forced circulation.
>> >
>> > PWRs don't rely on gravity for anything.
>> > That's why their neutrally bouyant at 300' down.
>> > Heat forces the bubbles to the top,
>> > just like it does the ICBMs they carry.
>> ROTFLMAO! without gravity, how do the bubbles know which
>> way is the top!
>
> ROTCLMAO! The same way that the control rods know which
> way is to the bottom!! They don't!!!!
They do.
Hint: SCRAM springs.
>
> Or in langauge even the navy could understand.
> Einstein told Schroedinger twice, once for the
> rod, and once for clock. That if you
> really what to know where top isn't, ask a
> mathematician.
--
"Conscience is the inner voice that warns us somebody is looking."
- H. L. Mencken
Derek Lyons
>Derek Lyons wrote:
>> Mark Fergerson <nu...@biz.ness> wrote:
>>> Depends on the mission. Also consider that nuke subs are
>>>_weapons_ and are basically expendable after the mission's
>>>accomplished.
>>
>> Um, no. After the mission is accomplished they cycle back through
>> maintenance and go off on another one. There simply was never enough
>> boats to sustain even a low loss rate.
>
>I mean specifically nuclear-weapon-delivery missions.
>Subs are definitely expendable after the missiles are away.
Um, no. After the mission is accomplished they cycle back through
maintenance, reload, and go off on another one.
>Getting them back is nice, but not expected or assumed.
Um, no. Getting back is both expected and assumed.
>Besides, what (worst-case) is there to go back _to_?
Here's a clue for ya; Tenders carry missiles, tenders can get
underway... There's a *lot* of quiet bays and inlets where you can
reload. Just because the likelihood of the plan being carried out and
succeeding was slim, does not mean the possibility was overlooked or
skipped in the planning process.
>So far, none have actually had to do this which is why
>they do indeed cycle back through maintenance etc. as you
>describe.
Um, no.
D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:
Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html
Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html
Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to o...@io.com, as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.
Earl
The idea of cycling a Boomer back and reloading faced one major
flaw.
The total inventory of missiles that we possessed was 1.5
warloads. So assuming no losses half the boats would not have
anything to put in the tubes when they found the slinking
tender.
That was the reason we refered to ourselfs as being a slow
moving fast attack after the first 30 minutes of WW3.
(As an aside: the torpedo inventory was just as bad. 2 loads of
Mk37s and 1.5 of Mk14s )
Derek Lyons
>The idea of cycling a Boomer back and reloading faced one major
>flaw.
>
>The total inventory of missiles that we possessed was 1.5
>warloads. So assuming no losses half the boats would not have
>anything to put in the tubes when they found the slinking
>tender.
Your math has a slight error. Our inventory was 150% of the warloads
for the entire fleet. Since a portion of the fleet was nonstrategic
(in the shipyards, etc...) at any given time, somewhat more than half
would have been able to reload in theory. This is somewhat offset as
some of the birds in the depots would have been broken down for
testing & maintenance, or lacking warheads because they were
undergoing testing and maintenance.
>That was the reason we refered to ourselfs as being a slow
>moving fast attack after the first 30 minutes of WW3.
That depends on the boat and it's individual PATORD, some were
designated to (attempt to) reload and return to strategic patrol,
others would have chopped out of STRATFOR to serve as backup fast
attacks.
>(As an aside: the torpedo inventory was just as bad. 2 loads of
>Mk37s and 1.5 of Mk14s )
Changed later to 2 loads of MK48's. Had the Seawolves entered the
fleet in significant numbers, things would have gotten real
interesting.
What was your boat(s) and when?
Alan Lothian
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Alan Lothian <alanl...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> :In article <ek81005l0o9oo4v02...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall
> :<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :>
> :> You might want to check out just how well the facilities in the
> :> Shuttle actually work.
> :
> :Unfortunately, this requires you to be one of a small elite. Clearly I
> :cannot speak from direct experience, but I'm told it works, er,
> :tolerably well, in that it is better than any obvious alternative. Sit
> :on the thing, clamp yourself down, turn the blowers on, and, er, away
> :you go. And bless that low-residue diet.
>
> It is only better than "any obvious alternative" if you are female.
I'm not at all sure that this is true. A hoover that sucks the stuff
away is likely to be a lot better than struggling to get it all into a
plastic bag before it really irritates your crewmates. For urination
purposes, of course, the male physiology is extremely convenient.
> :> As for Soyuz, I
> :> found a picture on the web of what their 'facility' looks like.
> :> Primitive is a GENEROUS description.
> :
> :Soyuz is for real, brown-assed astronauts. It is about 150% as large as
> :a Gemini, with very limited facilities in every sense.
>
> Well, I'm not the one who brought up Soyuz as an indicator of how well
> this problem has been solved.
Fair enough.
> :I am also told
> :that the ISS toilet works, er, tolerably well.
>
> I can't speak to that one. However, if it's like the Shuttle system,
> it works poorly at best.
I have heard otherwise; but see below for sources. I don't believe
anyone goes into space in order to indulge themselves in vacuum-sucking
toilets, and there I believe we may find a point of agreement.
>
> :Biggest problem (on
> :Shuttle and ISS) is Space Adaptation Sickness, wryly described by a US
> :astronaut whose name I do not recall as "fancy words for throwing up."
> :Floating around with some sort of plastic bag catching puke before it
> :gets into electronics panels is just one of the ways these people earn
> :their salaries.
>
> Dealing with air with little tiny droplets of urine and flecks of shit
> in it is another. However, that one only occurs because the current
> Shuttle toilet is so, er, piss poor.
I suspect this depends on what might be called waste management.
> :There is a price to be paid for conquering the universe, Fred.
>
> And this proves that this is a 'solved problem' precisely how, again?
Note that I never pretended, claimed, or otherwise indicated that the
problem was solved. All I was saying was that the current high-tech
blower lavvies, loos, shithouses or whatever are better than the
alternative. If an astronaut has sound, solid turds, they may be chased
around the spacecraft, but this tends not to be the case. At least to
start with.
> :> When those are your two reference points, you really are saying
> :> "badly, or not at all", whether you realize it or not. Frankly, I
> :> think it would probably be more sanitary to use a piddle pack and dump
> :> in a vacuum bag.
> :
> :Sure, if you're on a quick, budget return-trip to the Moon. If you are
> :up there for five months because of small technical difficulties back
> :on the ground, then something better, even only slightly better, is a
> :major morale booster.
>
> Not if that 'something better' leaves you with urine droplets and shit
> flecks with your breakfast.
Which is still likely to be, alas, "something better". Also, I have
heard accounts that do not agree with this. See below, if you will.
> :Note that Skylab, back in the '70s, actually had
> :a shower.
>
> Yes, it did. And you are aware of what it consisted of, aren't you?
A tube, with not entirely effective recovery systems. There is a reason
why Skylab was the only one to have a shower.
> :> That makes it much harder for the women, though,
> :> which is why we have what we have on the Shuttle.
> :
> :When it comes to dumping, men and women are not all that different, at
> :least not in my experience.
>
> Ah, but now flip them over. There's the reason for the design of the
> Shuttle toilet. Otherwise, it would consist of an external catheter
> (essentially a 'piddle pack') and a vacuum bag taped to your ass.
Didn't work all that wonderfully well on Apollo. Best deal you got,
mind you.
> Unfortunately, the 'piddle pack' approach doesn't work so well for
> women, which brings us to the 'sit to pee' toilet on the Shuttle.
Urination, men win hands, er, down.
>
> :Also, women in terms of intelligence per kilogram tend to be better
> :value than men, which must count for something if you're paying
> :something like $25K per kg to get them on station.
>
> No doubt, but if you were up there would YOU consider that savings
> worth breathing toilet particles?
Is there a serious alternative? Disciplined use of the vacuum toilet
(ie the air-sucking toilet) is about the best you can hope to have in
microgravity. If you have a better 'ole, as Bruce Bairnsfather said...
> :Better at avoiding fights, too, at least most of the time.
>
> Bullshit. Funny how *some* sexual stereotypes are still PC, even
> though they're as wrong as all the others, don't you think?
Well, with something like half a century of experience, I'd say that
women, by and large, are substantially less likely to get into
horn-locking fights than men. When they *do* decide to fight, lack of
trained surrender reflexes can make it very nasty. Still, I will stand
by what I said.
Also: I do have a modest amount of interview-type-stuff with several
chaps and chapesses who have done the zero-g number. Didn't I brag to
the group about going to Baikonur for a launch...>? Didn't I brag to
the group about receiving a phone call from the ISS? My modesty
overwhelms me. .Can't believe I forgot.
Mind you, wasn't me that got launched. My experience of zero g is the
same as yours, probably less, if you got chucked around in aeroplanes
more than I did. (A small amount, re personal experience; but zero g in
aeroplanes usually arrives as about two seconds of light relief..) I'm
still trying to wangle a place on the Euro vomit comet, but they think
I am too old and unfit.
What I am saying, Fred, is that I won't post such intimate details as I
know on Usenet, but if you want to know, email, and I will tell. This
isn't being coy, just .... well, suit yourself.
And you really should try to be less irascible. Must be bad for your
heart, assuming you still have such an organ.
Fred J. McCall
:In article <k6s300duo2r16771o...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall
:<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:> Alan Lothian <alanl...@mac.com> wrote:
:>
:> :In article <ek81005l0o9oo4v02...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall
:> :<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> You might want to check out just how well the facilities in the
:> :> Shuttle actually work.
:> :
:> :Unfortunately, this requires you to be one of a small elite. Clearly I
:> :cannot speak from direct experience, but I'm told it works, er,
:> :tolerably well, in that it is better than any obvious alternative. Sit
:> :on the thing, clamp yourself down, turn the blowers on, and, er, away
:> :you go. And bless that low-residue diet.
:>
:> It is only better than "any obvious alternative" if you are female.
:
:I'm not at all sure that this is true.
Historical evidence would seem to indicate that it is.
:A hoover that sucks the stuff
:away is likely to be a lot better than struggling to get it all into a
:plastic bag before it really irritates your crewmates.
Well, no. What irritates your crewmates is all the little bits that
escape the hoover. This problem didn't exist in the old days.
:> :I am also told
:> :that the ISS toilet works, er, tolerably well.
:>
:> I can't speak to that one. However, if it's like the Shuttle system,
:> it works poorly at best.
:
:I have heard otherwise; but see below for sources. I don't believe
:anyone goes into space in order to indulge themselves in vacuum-sucking
:toilets, and there I believe we may find a point of agreement.
:> Dealing with air with little tiny droplets of urine and flecks of shit
:> in it is another. However, that one only occurs because the current
:> Shuttle toilet is so, er, piss poor.
:
:I suspect this depends on what might be called waste management.
:
:> :There is a price to be paid for conquering the universe, Fred.
:>
:> And this proves that this is a 'solved problem' precisely how, again?
:
:Note that I never pretended, claimed, or otherwise indicated that the
:problem was solved. All I was saying was that the current high-tech
:blower lavvies, loos, shithouses or whatever are better than the
:alternative.
And at least in the case of the Shuttle, you would appear to be
incorrect.
:If an astronaut has sound, solid turds, they may be chased
:around the spacecraft, but this tends not to be the case. At least to
:start with.
Especially if you bang them into little flecks with a rotating fan.
:> Not if that 'something better' leaves you with urine droplets and shit
:> flecks with your breakfast.
:
:Which is still likely to be, alas, "something better". Also, I have
:heard accounts that do not agree with this. See below, if you will.
:> :> That makes it much harder for the women, though,
:> :> which is why we have what we have on the Shuttle.
:> :
:> :When it comes to dumping, men and women are not all that different, at
:> :least not in my experience.
:>
:> Ah, but now flip them over. There's the reason for the design of the
:> Shuttle toilet. Otherwise, it would consist of an external catheter
:> (essentially a 'piddle pack') and a vacuum bag taped to your ass.
:
:Didn't work all that wonderfully well on Apollo. Best deal you got,
:mind you.
:> Unfortunately, the 'piddle pack' approach doesn't work so well for
:> women, which brings us to the 'sit to pee' toilet on the Shuttle.
:
:Urination, men win hands, er, down.
:> No doubt, but if you were up there would YOU consider that savings
:> worth breathing toilet particles?
:
:Is there a serious alternative? Disciplined use of the vacuum toilet
:(ie the air-sucking toilet) is about the best you can hope to have in
:microgravity. If you have a better 'ole, as Bruce Bairnsfather said...
:> :Better at avoiding fights, too, at least most of the time.
:>
:> Bullshit. Funny how *some* sexual stereotypes are still PC, even
:> though they're as wrong as all the others, don't you think?
:
:Well, with something like half a century of experience, I'd say that
:women, by and large, are substantially less likely to get into
:horn-locking fights than men. When they *do* decide to fight, lack of
:trained surrender reflexes can make it very nasty. Still, I will stand
:by what I said.
I remember hearing this silliness from feminists when I was much
younger, as part and parcel of the whole "if women were running the
world there wouldn't be any wars, since we don't start fights like the
nasty old white men currently in charge do". Then I'd point out that
the two nations involved the start of active wars recently (in those
days) were run by two folks named Indira and Golda, with nary a Y
chromosome between them.
What you say used to be true, perhaps, a long time ago, back when
women were trained to suppress their aggressive tendencies. These
days, all I can say is that I've known a few women I'd like to see you
say this to.
One of the ones I'm thinking of lifted weights and jousted (you know,
knocking people off horses with sharp sticks) for a hobby.
Another was QUITE upset on 9/11 when the story of how the MEN on one
airplane decided to go up and try to take the plane back. Her first
reaction was "What the fuck was wrong with the WOMEN on that
airplane?" Of course, she's also a martial arts instructor (breaks
bricks with her hands and the whole bit).
Hey, you might even ENJOY trying to tell them your little theory, up
until the point where you lost consciousness....
[I've also known a couple of female fighter pilots. About as
'non-aggressive' as the male variety of the breed.]
:And you really should try to be less irascible. Must be bad for your
:heart, assuming you still have such an organ.
I found it necessary to give that up long ago, as having one was much
more inconvenience than it was worth.
--
"I was lucky in the order. But I've always been lucky
when it comes to killin' folks."
-- William Munny, "Unforgiven"
ZZBunker
> On 11 Jan 2004 08:37:42 -0800, zzbu...@netscape.net (ZZBunker) wrote:
>
> >Mark Borgerson <m-a...@oes.to> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a6a99823...@Netnews.Comcast.net>...
> >> In article <e4a0829b.04011...@posting.google.com>,
> >> zzbu...@netscape.net says...
> >> > derekl19...@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons) wrote in message news:<400082b1...@supernews.seanet.com>...
> >> > > rlb...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Richard Bell) wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >Vaughn <vaughnsimo...@att.fake.net> wrote:
> ?
> >> > > >>Nuclear plant also requires gravity; in the pressurizer, in the steam
> >> > > >>generator, and in the condensor (inop anyhow sans cooling water) to keep
> >> > > >>liquids and gasses in their proper places.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Only natural circulation plants need gravity.
> >> > >
> >> > > Nope. PWR's rely on gravity to form a 'bubble' in the pressurizer to
> >> > > maintain system pressure, whether natural or forced circulation.
> >> >
> >> > PWRs don't rely on gravity for anything.
> >> > That's why their neutrally bouyant at 300' down.
> >> > Heat forces the bubbles to the top,
> >> > just like it does the ICBMs they carry.
>
> >> ROTFLMAO! without gravity, how do the bubbles know which
> >> way is the top!
> >
> > ROTCLMAO! The same way that the control rods know which
> > way is to the bottom!! They don't!!!!
>
> They do.
>
> Hint: SCRAM springs.
Mega Hint: spings are symmetic.
So that's obviously why we put the signs
on the Battleshort Switches to tell ET's:
SCRAM MORON.
Robert
> > :Better at avoiding fights, too, at least most of the time.
> >
> > Bullshit. Funny how *some* sexual stereotypes are still PC, even
> > though they're as wrong as all the others, don't you think?
>
> Well, with something like half a century of experience, I'd say that
> women, by and large, are substantially less likely to get into
> horn-locking fights than men. When they *do* decide to fight, lack of
> trained surrender reflexes can make it very nasty. Still, I will stand
> by what I said.
>
One of the more surprising results of accurate domestic abuse analysis was
that women start many MORE fights than men. They just loose more often so
"men" get blamed as the aggressor since they normally win.
Nearly as many girls (this may be a generational change) are doing gang
killings as boys as well.
[trim]
Alan Lothian
Whitaker <cha...@plan-consult.com.null> wrote:
Wouldn't know, Charlie; rasfs is not one of my watering-holes. Be
interesting to see if GB 43's Mars programme includes some real, as
opposed to political, spin.
Alan Lothian
Robert <kil...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> [trim]
> > > :Better at avoiding fights, too, at least most of the time.
> > >
> > > Bullshit. Funny how *some* sexual stereotypes are still PC, even
> > > though they're as wrong as all the others, don't you think?
> >
> > Well, with something like half a century of experience, I'd say that
> > women, by and large, are substantially less likely to get into
> > horn-locking fights than men. When they *do* decide to fight, lack of
> > trained surrender reflexes can make it very nasty. Still, I will stand
> > by what I said.
> >
>
> One of the more surprising results of accurate domestic abuse analysis was
> that women start many MORE fights than men.
I'd like a cite for this -- not because I am necessarily convinced it
is untrue, and certainly not because I think you're making it up, but
because I'd very much like to see what the definition of "starting a
fight" is. Nag, nag, nag.... "She made me do it, Officer."
Cut to: thousand ships sailing for Troy (obSMN content).
I still maintain that women, among women, get into horn-locking
snarl-grunt fights less often than men. And I speak as one who was once
at the receiving end of a pan of boiling fat. Never jumped so high or
fast in my life. Mind you, the most frightening thing an angry woman
ever threw at me was my son, then aged five months. Yes, I caught him.
> They just loose more often so
> "men" get blamed as the aggressor since they normally win.
Wouldn't attempt to deny the observable truth of this point.
> Nearly as many girls (this may be a generational change) are doing gang
> killings as boys as well.
I do believe this is a real change. But there is a reason why
cavalrymen preferred mares to stallions.
>
> [trim]
Alan Lothian
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Alan Lothian <alanl...@mac.com> wrote:
<continuing the discussion on the grounds that anything involving women
can't be *entirely* off-topic for smn>
> :
> :Well, with something like half a century of experience, I'd say that
> :women, by and large, are substantially less likely to get into
> :horn-locking fights than men. When they *do* decide to fight, lack of
> :trained surrender reflexes can make it very nasty. Still, I will stand
> :by what I said.
>
> I remember hearing this silliness from feminists when I was much
> younger, as part and parcel of the whole "if women were running the
> world there wouldn't be any wars, since we don't start fights like the
> nasty old white men currently in charge do". Then I'd point out that
> the two nations involved the start of active wars recently (in those
> days) were run by two folks named Indira and Golda, with nary a Y
> chromosome between them.
Note that I didn't push the argument that far, or anywhere near.
Indeed, in my youth I rather enjoyed citing the same examples, to which
Mme Thatcher would shortly be added, to those of such foolish feminism.
> What you say used to be true, perhaps, a long time ago, back when
> women were trained to suppress their aggressive tendencies. These
> days, all I can say is that I've known a few women I'd like to see you
> say this to.
Let's boil it down to what I still think is a sustainable argument.
Women, especially among women, tend not to be as snarl-grunt fight
prone as men; they settle pecking orders differently. In most
circumstances (not all, and the exceptions can be disastrous, I agree)
men tend to behave better in the presence of women. An unfortunate
corollary to this is that women may often behave worse in the presence
of men, but since I have never (except for the odd freaky
fly-on-the-wall moment) observed an all-female group in action, I
haven't really enough evidence to push this one too far.
All things considered, men-and-women make much more effective groups
for most purposes (infantry assaults etc excluded) than men or women.
> One of the ones I'm thinking of lifted weights and jousted (you know,
> knocking people off horses with sharp sticks) for a hobby.
If we are going to get into a Tough-Ladies-I-Have-Known pissing
contest, then I quit. I have known enough, but dare not cite them. For
fear of inciting them.
> Another was QUITE upset on 9/11 when the story of how the MEN on one
> airplane decided to go up and try to take the plane back. Her first
> reaction was "What the fuck was wrong with the WOMEN on that
> airplane?" Of course, she's also a martial arts instructor (breaks
> bricks with her hands and the whole bit).
Q: "What do you call a nifty blonde number with big tits and a black
belt in Karate?"
A: "Ma'am."
> Hey, you might even ENJOY trying to tell them your little theory, up
> until the point where you lost consciousness....
Many, many years ago, when the world was young, I ambled into a bar in
Greenwich Village, chatting amiably to my (male) friend as we pushed
through the door, neither of us looking ahead. Large, leather-clad,
chain-armed ladies began to rise, muttering, forming themselves into
combat-capable formations. We were lucky to get out alive and ungelded;
youthful run-like-hell reactions were the only things that saved us.
> [I've also known a couple of female fighter pilots. About as
> 'non-aggressive' as the male variety of the breed.]
Did I say that women are not capable of aggression? Even after a good
dinner, I would never be so stupid.
> :And you really should try to be less irascible. Must be bad for your
> :heart, assuming you still have such an organ.
>
> I found it necessary to give that up long ago, as having one was much
> more inconvenience than it was worth.
Quite right. All the damn thing does is beat, beat, beat. Tends to
accelerate in the presence of female persons, too. Drive a chap mad,
what?
Stephen J. Rush
wrote:
And let's not forget the ancient female sport of "Let's you and him
fight!"
pervect
wrote:
>In article <ox1Nb.7505$i4....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>Robert <kil...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I'd like a cite for this -- not because I am necessarily convinced it
>is untrue, and certainly not because I think you're making it up, but
>because I'd very much like to see what the definition of "starting a
>fight" is. Nag, nag, nag.... "She made me do it, Officer."
I'm not sure how one defines "started it" either. There is (or at
least was) some data that does indicates that women hit their husbands
more often than the reverse, try a websearch for Strauss and Gelles
(this is a different claim than that originally made). There's been a
lot of development in the field, and my information is way out of
date, though.
Mike Dworetsky
"Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote in message
news:1002ihd...@corp.supernews.com...
> In news:btqff0$a5668$1...@ID-193109.news.uni-berlin.de,
> Ray Drouillard <cosmic...@comcast.net> radiated into the
> WorldWideWait:
> > "Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote in message
> > news:1000sba...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> In news:z7ZLb.16551$8H.42656@attbi_s03,
> >> a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> radiated into the
> >> WorldWideWait:
> >>> "John Mullen" <nos...@please.com> wrote
> >> ??? wrote
> >>>> Duke of URL wrote:
> >>>>> Keith Willshaw <keit...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> radiated
> >>>>>> "Vaughn" <vaughnsimo...@att.fake.net> wrote in
> >>
> >>>>>>> I don't think that I would want to make that cruise.
>
> >>>>>> Agreed
> >>
> >>>>> But what a *wonderful* mileage claim you could file!
> >>>>>
> >>>> Was an interesting comparison of mileage vs safety in the US SSBN
> >>>> fleet versus the STS in the Columbia investigation report. I
> >>>> might go and look out the text if I can figure how to copy text
> >>>> from a pdf...
> >>
> >> I don't know who wrote that - John accidentally snipped it out.
> >> If you ever do figure out how to copy text from a pdf *without
> >> spending several hundred dollars*, please let me know. I rarely
> >> read PSFs, but once in a while I see something I'd like to copy &
> >> keep. Emailing it to me *should* work.
> >
> > Well, you could try using some kind of a screen capture, or press
> > [Print Screen] (yes, that button still does something in Windows)
> > and Ctrl-V the clipboard into your favorite image editing program
> > (like PC Paintbrush).
> >
> > Then, take the resultant .bmp file and run it through one of those
> > programs that are used to turn scanned images into text.
>
> Now that's an interesting method. I'll keep it in mind.
>
The text selector button in Acrobat Reader 5.0 and above will allow you to
select text and then you can copy using the edit menu. The result stays in
the clipboard in Windows (or Linux? I'll need to check) and you can then
paste it into another program like Word or a text editor (e.g., notepad).
For pictures embedded in pdf, I suspect the screen capture is the only
available method, so I would recommend zooming on the graph or image until
it is slightly smaller than the screen to get max detail. Then copy and
paste the image into a graphics package like Paint Shop Pro or Adobe
Photoshop eleemnts.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
JWMeritt
I heard that taxi fees were attempted to be charged by the contractor for the
L.E.M. of Apollo 13 for the trip back from the moon (where it was SUPPOSE to be
left). Didn't work.
Was this more than an urban myth?
Ash Wyllie
>In news:btpt6d$9cpbq$1...@ID-109688.news.uni-berlin.de,
>David Biddulph <da...@biddulph.org.uk> radiated into the
>WorldWideWait:
>> "Duke of URL" <macbenahATkdsiDOTnet> wrote in message
>> news:1000sba...@corp.supernews.com...
>> ...
>>> I don't know who wrote that - John accidentally snipped it out.
>>> If you ever do figure out how to copy text from a pdf *without
>>> spending several hundred dollars*, please let me know. I rarely
>>> read PSFs, but once in a while I see something I'd like to copy &
>>> keep. Emailing it to me *should* work.
>>
>> Open the pdf file with Acrobat Reader (free), use the Text select
>> button, select the text you want to copy, then copy.
>And it says: "This feature is not available unless you upgrade to the
>full Adobe Acrobat."
Try BePDF, select all & copy works there. APDF (a variant on xPDF) allows drag
box text selection.
Upgrade to a good OS ;).
-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX
Mark Fergerson
> In article <4002FD55...@biz.ness>, Mark Fergerson <nu...@biz.ness>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Derek Lyons wrote:
>>
>>>Mark Fergerson <nu...@biz.ness> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Depends on the mission. Also consider that nuke subs are
>>>>_weapons_ and are basically expendable after the mission's
>>>>accomplished.
>>>
>>>
>>>Um, no. After the mission is accomplished they cycle back through
>>>maintenance and go off on another one. There simply was never enough
>>>boats to sustain even a low loss rate.
>>
>> I mean specifically nuclear-weapon-delivery missions.
>>Subs are definitely expendable after the missiles are away.
>>Getting them back is nice, but not expected or assumed.
>>Besides, what (worst-case) is there to go back _to_?
>
>
> A ballistic missile sub's mission isn't to fire off its missiles as a
> bit player in a MAD orgy. A ballistic missile sub's mission is
> *deterrence*. If it has to fire its missiles, it has basically failed.
IMNSHO the "failure" would be on the part of those that
couldn't find any resolution other than sending the "fire"
order, but that's a philosophical matter. I'd hope that
actually firing the missiles would be successful if it came
to that point.
Of course if it did come to that point, "success" would
be a relative term.
I was Air Force, not Navy, and our motto was "Peace Is
Our Profession". I believed it then and still do, but I had
no illusions that my "weapon" (a SAC B-52 I was support crew
for) was designed to be a never-to-be-used deterrent, and
the flight crew had no illusions about their survivability
after dropping their loads.
> Also, the term "nuke sub" can mean any nuclear-powered submarine, which
> includes submarines which don't carry nuclear weapons.
"Can". I may have changed assumptions without saying so.
Mark L. Fergerson
Mark Fergerson
> Mark Fergerson <nu...@biz.ness> wrote:
>
>
>>Derek Lyons wrote:
>>
>>>Mark Fergerson <nu...@biz.ness> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Depends on the mission. Also consider that nuke subs are
>>>>_weapons_ and are basically expendable after the mission's
>>>>accomplished.
>>>
>>>Um, no. After the mission is accomplished they cycle back through
>>>maintenance and go off on another one. There simply was never enough
>>>boats to sustain even a low loss rate.
>>
>>I mean specifically nuclear-weapon-delivery missions.
>>Subs are definitely expendable after the missiles are away.
>
>
> Um, no. After the mission is accomplished they cycle back through
> maintenance, reload, and go off on another one.
I'm not talking about your average peacetime cruise, I
mean actually firing missiles "in anger". To my knowledge
this hasn't happened yet.
>>Besides, what (worst-case) is there to go back _to_?
> Here's a clue for ya; Tenders carry missiles, tenders can get
> underway... There's a *lot* of quiet bays and inlets where you can
> reload. Just because the likelihood of the plan being carried out and
> succeeding was slim, does not mean the possibility was overlooked or
> skipped in the planning process.
Didn't you notice the "worst case" part? By that I didn't
mean bad weather, but actually having to fire missiles (and
the larger situation that would happen in).
>>So far, none have actually had to do this which is why
>>they do indeed cycle back through maintenance etc. as you
>>describe.
> Um, no.
So, when has a Boomer "fired in anger"?
Mark L. Fergerson
JWMeritt
> So, when has a Boomer "fired in anger"?
Wouldn't, even under the worse scenario. There is no anger involved (I hope)
when the launch order is given and obeyed. I would not WANT someone to launch
ICBMs because they are angry...
David Loewe, Jr.
?
> So that's obviously why we put the signs
> on the Battleshort Switches to tell ET's:
>
> SCRAM MORON.
No unauthorized signs on the equipment.
--
"Does any one know where the love of God goes
When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
Gordon Lightfoot
Erik Max Francis
> I heard that taxi fees were attempted to be charged by the contractor
> for the
> L.E.M. of Apollo 13 for the trip back from the moon (where it was
> SUPPOSE to be
> left). Didn't work.
>
> Was this more than an urban myth?
I very much doubt it. It sounds even more of a tall tale than the
average urban legend.
--
__ Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
/ \ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
\__/ Whatever it is you came to teach me / I am here to learn it
-- India Arie
Derek Lyons
It was a joke started by some very tired engineers a Grumman seeking
to liven up the hours of waiting. It was treated as such by all
concerned.
Derek Lyons
> I was Air Force, not Navy, and our motto was "Peace Is
>Our Profession". I believed it then and still do, but I had
>no illusions that my "weapon" (a SAC B-52 I was support crew
>for) was designed to be a never-to-be-used deterrent, and
>the flight crew had no illusions about their survivability
>after dropping their loads.
The same is true of us out under the briny blue, (we used to toast our
birds "may they rust in peace"). But that doesn't mean we didn't have
a plan to *attempt* survival and continue the fight afterwards.
Derek Lyons
>Derek Lyons wrote:
>
>> Um, no. After the mission is accomplished they cycle back through
>> maintenance, reload, and go off on another one.
>
> I'm not talking about your average peacetime cruise, I
>mean actually firing missiles "in anger". To my knowledge
>this hasn't happened yet.
How many times do I have to repeat myself before reading comprehension
kicks in?
After firing, we either cycle back to reload (well, at least to try),
or go off and play fast attack. We were *not* expendable. Warplans
did *not* end when all birds were away. (But as you say, you were
support staff, so you may not have been privy to the plans those of us
on the operational end were.)
>>>Besides, what (worst-case) is there to go back _to_?
>
>> Here's a clue for ya; Tenders carry missiles, tenders can get
>> underway... There's a *lot* of quiet bays and inlets where you can
>> reload. Just because the likelihood of the plan being carried out and
>> succeeding was slim, does not mean the possibility was overlooked or
>> skipped in the planning process.
>
> Didn't you notice the "worst case" part? By that I didn't
>mean bad weather, but actually having to fire missiles (and
>the larger situation that would happen in).
Haven't you noticed that no matter how you rephrase your statement, my
answer is *always the same*?
We were *not* expendable. Warplans did *not* end when all birds were
away. (But as you say, you were support staff, so you may not have
been privy to the plans those of us on the operational end were.)
>>>So far, none have actually had to do this which is why
>>>they do indeed cycle back through maintenance etc. as you
>>>describe.
>
>> Um, no.
>
> So, when has a Boomer "fired in anger"?
Fired in anger or not, that does not change the fact that we were not
expendable, and after 'all missiles away' we didn't simply slink off
and sink.
We were *not* expendable. Warplans did *not* end when all birds were
away. (But as you say, you were support staff, so you may not have
been privy to the plans those of us on the operational end were.)
Charlie Whitaker
Alan Lothian <alanl...@mac.com> wrote:
> > Alan, by any chance, has the brains trust at rec.arts.sf.science worked
> > out 'something better' in previous discussion?
> >
> Wouldn't know, Charlie; rasfs is not one of my watering-holes. Be
> interesting to see if GB 43's Mars programme includes some real, as
> opposed to political, spin.
Must have got muddled up. Wonder who started cross-posting (not that it
bothers me).
What I especially like about the New Mars programme is the unashamed
maximalism of the thing. Will appeal to optimists everywhere. It even
seems to include *finishing* the ISS, far from cancelling it. Looking
forward to the new orbiter / launcher, as this will surely be the first
thing to actually materialise. Maybe it will be a Roton. Then again,
maybe not.
Speaking of SF, there was a charming short story from the early nineties
- Danny Goes To Mars. Featured Dan Quayle as the intrepid Mars explorer.
Rest of the crew die of food poisoning en route. Turns out to be a
one-way trip, also. Nice gentle satire.
Regards,
C.