Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 05:05:34 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #293 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Wed, 7 Oct 92 Volume 15 : Issue 293 Today's Topics: Diamond film semiconductors Drop nuc waste into sun HRMS Pioneer Venus Out of Fuel, Orbit Deteroriating Population Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System SPS Telepresence UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan Von Braun -- Hero, Villain, or Both? what use is Freedom? (2 msgs) Why not Mir? was(what use is freedom?) Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Oct 92 04:38:03 GMT From: John Roberts Subject: Diamond film semiconductors Newsgroups: sci.space There's an interesting article in the October 1992 Scientific American entitled "Diamond Film Semiconductors". Apparently new techniques have been used to grow large thin films on a silicon substrate, heavily doped with boron and of adequate crystalline structure to act as a semiconductor. Schottky diodes, transistors, and MOSFETs have been made. Ultimately, such devices are expected to be smaller and operate 40-100 times faster than their silicon or gallium arsenide counterparts, and function at up to 700 degrees Celsius (in fact, they work better at 100-500 C than at room temperature). Diamond semiconductors can also function as relatively low-temperature, low-voltage electron emitters, and could be made into high-current (1000 A/cm^2) subminiature vacuum tubes that essentially never burn out. Sounds like something that could be applied to the demanding requirements of space electronics! John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:36:50 GMT From: "robert.f.casey" Subject: Drop nuc waste into sun Newsgroups: sci.space In article rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes: >>If my >>schoolboy physics memory serves me correctly it would take more energy to >>toss waste into the sun than it would to send it right out of the solar >>system. > >Actually, I think you can leave Earth orbit at less than solar >system escape velocity, and perform a Jupiter gravity assist >manuever that will shoot you straight into the Sun. Not sure that you really would want to go to the Sun with the nuke waste. It would get vaporized and sprayed back (maybe at Earth if it is overhead the impact point of the Sun). Maybe the best thing is to put it in a parking orbit beyond Jupiter. So, it would be off Earth, but retrivable by future generations if they decide they want some of it back. This assumes there is an answer to the problem of safety and cost of launching it off Earth in the first place. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:37:47 GMT From: Eric Goldstein Subject: HRMS Newsgroups: sci.space I guess I really wanted to know: Over what range of frequencies do we significantly leak, and are those frequencies capable of being detected by HRMS? The HRMS press kit that Ron Baalke posted (thanks Ron!) said that the targeted search would search at 1,000 to 3,000 MHz. I know we leak significantly on the TV bands, but TV is around 10 MHz, right? So, I was wondering if we also leak at detectable levels at 1,000 to 3,000 MHz. And if we do, what is the source of the leakage? If I've displayed a real misunderstanding, please go easy on me -- this isn't my field -- and I'd genuinely appreciate any explanations. -- Eric -- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 00:47:57 GMT From: "John P. Mechalas" Subject: Pioneer Venus Out of Fuel, Orbit Deteroriating Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary In article <1at959INNru4@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> bafta@cats.ucsc.edu (Shari L Brooks) writes: >>Contrary to some beliefs, PVO is not simply on a crash course into the >>center of the planet. It is in a highly elliptical orbit with a periapsis >>that is slowly decaying. It has a 24 hour orbit period and literally every >>day, at closest approach, the s/c dips a little deeper into the atmosphere >>and suffers more drag. The next orbit, then, has an even *lower* periapsis. >>Around Wednesday, this effect will become so pronounced that it won't be >>able to continue through the orbit and will have its orbit slowed so much that >>that periapsis encounter will be its last. > >I am not sure I understand this. It seems to me that every time the S/C >encounters atmospheric drag, the orbit should lose energy. I always thought >that this would circularize the orbit (decrease the apoapsis) before >significantly decreasing the periapsis. Where did I go wrong? Don't circular >orbits of a given radius have less energy than an elliptical orbit with >that same value as the periapsis? Yes, but the radius to the spacecraft changes because of the drag forces. When a s/c enters the atmosphere, the drag force cause the semi-major axis to decrease by 4 * pi * Drag / n^2 per orbit (assuming a nominally cirular orbit). The altitude of the s/c also decreases. Since orbital velocity is inversely proportional to the semi-major axis and the radius, as those terms decrease, the velocity must increase. Orbital energy is defined as being inversely proportional to the semi-major axis as well, so energy increases, too. The result is a more energetic, and more elliptic orbit. It is very counter-intuitive, as is a lot of orbital mechanics. :) -- John Mechalas "I'm not an actor, but mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu I play one on TV." Aero Engineering, Purdue University #include disclaimer.h ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 92 04:42:11 GMT From: "Edward V. Wright" Subject: Population Newsgroups: sci.space |> |> -In <1992Sep21.064536.19465@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes: |> ->> Not the only person. A common theme that runs through all environmental |> ->>debate is that every other species is more important than Man. |> ->Perhaps you've been reading literature the rest of us haven't. I've never |> ->seen such a thing. |> |> -Oh? You haven't even read about the spotted owl? The environmentalist |> -position there is that the species must be saved regardless of how many |> -jobs are lost. Now, there are certainly cases where a specific type of |> -environmental protection may be worth some job loss, and this may be one |> -of them, but that is not the environmentalist position. Whenever |> -someone starts talking about cost/benefit analyses, the environmentalists |> -do not contest the costs and benefits involved -- they just yell bloody |> -murder. |> |> I've never thought the coverage of this controversy in the popular news |> media provided enough details for anyone to form a reasonable opinion. |> One item that was peripherally mentioned was that the proposed logging |> of the area would be at much faster than replacement rate, so that after |> a certain number of years (perhaps 10-20 - I don't know for sure), those |> jobs would be gone anyway. Also, I haven't seen too much mention of the |> events leading to the current situation. Was the forest land in question |> always protected, or is the protection a recent change in policy? If the |> former, then I assume the people who want the jobs cutting the trees didn't |> all graduate from lumberjack college this year - they must have been |> cutting somewhere else before this. If that is the case, then why did they |> keep the industry going full blast until this was the only land left |> available to them (if that's also the case)? Were they confident that they |> would be able to get the protection removed? If, on the other hand, the |> protection was abruptly added, I can see how they might feel they have a |> legitimate complaint. |> |> Does anybody have more information on the events leading to the current |> situation? It seems to me that the fact that the timber industry wants to |> cut the trees in the area at much more than the replacement rate weakens |> their argument - they basically want to destroy a renewable resource in |> order to enjoy a few more years of prosperity. I'm also not entirely clear |> on why these particular trees have to be cut - are they all the old-growth |> timber that's left? |> |> John Roberts |> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov |> I tried, in vain to post some response to Edward several weeks ago. Reading your post has refreshed my interest. Thanks. My apologies to John, for piggy-backing my emotional response onto his measured post, as follows... I was under the impression that Federal law prohibits those activities that further the decline of threatened species, not screaming intruders from out of town. That's the LAW isn't it? My view is that economies, being creations of mankind are castles made of sand. They can be created and recreated once destroyed. Ecosystems on the otherhand are gifts, given only once. Given the choice between having to prove humanity's special gift for adaptation and creativity or the permanent loss of a very special place, I'd choose the former. I'd choose success over loss every time. >Bingo! What is wrong with someone worrying about how an environmental >decision affects people? You environmentalists frame questions in terms >of how they affect every other species *except man.* An investigation of current events, like leaked, suppressed reports will show you that if you sell every damn tree in that preserve to the Japanese, that really won't provide very many jobs for very long. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, perhaps several thousand for several years. That is a significant figure to those doing the chopping, but compared to the nation, it's nothing. Lockheed did away with many more jobs this year alone. Here is my point: Given the finite nature of that preserve, and the spee d at which it could be cleared, what have you got when it's done? Five, ten years of jobs? So lets say the year is 2002, we've had our jobs, the timber idustry has had their profits and now it's over. The jobs are still gone, now the trees are gone, the spotted owl is gone and now the soil is washing to the sea. Who really won? The workers didn't, the nation didn't, the trees didn't. Only the multi-national timber interests won. They're living the good life somewhere very far from the scene they created. And Ed, you helped them. Not because you didn't like birds but because you bought into the whole "Environmentalists are killing us!" lie. That 'all` environmentalists want only to stifle the economy. That business is in business to create jobs. Wake up! They are there for money and if they're allowed, some would smash the last tree on the planet to get a clean shot at the last tiger. How are your interests being served by your stance? I need to understand just what you're after. Are they paying you or do you just hate people who don't think just like you? You've closed your mind to ideas because you didn't like what someone, somewhere said or caused to happen. "You environmentalists", what, are they not people? Why must you label people? So you can exclude or dismiss them? Some are nuts, some are great, most are just concerned enough to try to make a difference. But you put words into all their mouths and then flame them all. Not constructive, Ed. I propose that if we buck the vested interests and use our brains we can have jobs, trees, owls and much much more. Perhaps these folks who used to chop trees could build space hardware? How about tree "planters"? How does all this fit into sci.space? For me it fits because I'd like to travel to other worlds and I'm sure I won't. I'm stranded here and I'd like to share this planet with all the life that is here. I'm sure I wouldn't miss the spotted owl personally, (I know I don't miss Tyrannosaurus) but if there isn't enough room for an owl, is there going to be enough room for us? In my way of looking at things I am not watching out for any species _except_ mine. Rich Whitmeyer Just another former shuttle worker at Vandenberg. OUCH! whitmeye@figueroa.vbg.mmc.com (std disclaimer) ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 92 02:55:08 GMT From: Kevin Quinn Subject: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System Newsgroups: sci.space In article amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes: >Putting someone who holds strong but different opinions from your own From *any* sane individual's, I'd venture to say... Does this leave you out? >in the same catagory as this is rather insulting and I'd suggest it >requires an apology. There is certainly nothing wrong with holding ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Nut cases require sympathy and medical care - not apologies. >and defending strong opinions. If you don't like his ideas, then join >the debate and pull no intellectual punches. It is ENTIRELY another >matter when you blatently insult a member of our community for no >purpose other than to be "cute". A member? By whose definition? Sounds like you're pissed you might have to share the same stuff the original poster was smoking... kbq -- Kevin Quinn | kevinq@ingres.com | {mtzinu,pacbell,ll-winken,sun}!ingres.com My opinions are my own. Should you think otherwise, think again. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 92 04:41:42 GMT From: John Roberts Subject: SPS Newsgroups: sci.space -From: ralph.buttigieg@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Ralph Buttigieg) -Subject: Re: SPS -Date: 30 Sep 92 10:25:12 GMT -Original to: Roberts@Cmr.Ncsl.Nist.Gov - to roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts), via *IXgate 3:713/602 - r> According to Steve Willner, if you choose 10.6um (handy - r> because that's what - r> a CO2 laser put out), then the main absorption is by water vapor, at -about - r> 1% per millimeter equivalent. So it wouldn't heat the upper atmosphere - r> significantly, if you choose a high, dry site for reception there -wouldn't - But how do you convert the laser light back into electricity? - Photovoltics? Does not sound very efficiant to me. I was referring to the following device (repost): ............... ELECTROMAGNETICS: "Smallest Antennas Imitate Insect Communication" "Using tools developed for fabricating electronic integrated circuits, NIST scientists have produced microantennas the size of a grain of sand and only 60 micrometers across (about the diameter of a human hair). At this tiny size, these "world's smallest" antennas can capture the extremely short (about 3 to 30 micrometers) wavelengths of infrared radiation. Their development paves the way for novel infrared detectors that rely on antennas to "see" images of heat radiating from all warm objects such as people, animals, and buildings. Such detectors have many applications, including satellite observation of Earth, astronomy, medicine, and national defense. There is evidence that insects evolved microantennas, similar to the NIST devices, to enhance their infrared pickup, allow them to see in darkness, and give them a survival advantage. The NIST work proves that such tiny insect structures can function efficiently for infrared wavelengths." ............... Essentially, the infrared radiation is treated as *very* short wavelength microwaves. Perhaps the beam needs to be polarized for best results. The article didn't mention applicability for power reception - that such a detector might be useful for this is speculation on my part. - r> by the greenhouse gases released by fossil fuel. Space-based solar power - r> would also heat the Earth much less than ground-based - r> solar power generation. - Why? Ground based collectors would use the energy coming to Earth - already. I must be missing something. - Ralph - * Origin: Vulcan's World-Sydney Australia 02 635-1204 (3:713/635) I should have said "could". Earth-based photovoltaic power systems greatly increase the Earth's albedo over a significant area, and only a small portion of the increased energy absorption goes into power generation. (This would be at least partially offset by increased radiation at night.) If the IR beam is much more concentrated than normal sunlight, and if IR power receivers can be developed with efficiency not too far off from that of microwave receivers, then there might be a net saving in the heating of the Earth. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 92 01:47:10 GMT From: John Roberts Subject: Telepresence Newsgroups: sci.space -From: Cohena@mdc.com (Andy Cohen) -Subject: Re: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit? -Date: 6 Oct 92 15:25:19 GMT -Organization: MDSSC-Space Station -If the location can be scanned with enough detail,..then the data -transmitted back to Earth.... a vitual simulation can be constructed -Earthside. Use of telerobotic interfaces using a form of batch commanding -can be feasible... Earthside builds the batched commands using the virual -simulation then transmits... The scan is performed again after the -completion of the commands as feedback again to the virtual simulation -Earthside.... Sounds good. I've been advocating that for use on Mars rover missions as a precursor to or enhancement of autonomous operation. Here's an interesting item from the July 1992 issue of NASA Tech Briefs: .............. Predictive Display for Teleoperation With Delay The Predictive image helps the operator control the remote manipulator. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California A computer-graphical simulator helps an operator control a robotic manipulator located so far away that controlling and monitoring signals are delayed significantly in transmission. The simulator displays a phantom image of the robot superimposed on the delayed "real" monitoring image of the robot. The phantom responds to control signals immediately -- that is, without transmission delay. Its motion predicts that of the real robot. After the transmission delay, the real image of the robot follows the motion of the phantom image. The system includes a high-fidelity, real-time computer-graphical display. It gives the user depth, perspective, and lighting cues that improve control. [Several paragraphs of details.] .............. It sounds to me like this approach would be especially useful where the delay is a fraction of a second to several seconds - Earth orbit (via geosynchronous satellite) or the moon. For greater distances (i.e. Mars), batch mode operation with more complex simulation sequences might be better. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 92 03:39:41 GMT From: Kevin Quinn Subject: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Oct6.170715.1564@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes: > > > UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan [ drivel and blather deleted... ] > Robert E. McElwaine > B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC > > Robert - why don't you take this and other such threads to alt.alien.visitors, where you'll find rapt and willing stooges.. um, advocates? You'll still catch your share of flames, of course, but it'll all be in fun. Right? kbq -- Kevin Quinn | kevinq@ingres.com | {mtzinu,pacbell,ll-winken,sun}!ingres.com My opinions are my own. Should you think otherwise, think again. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 92 03:41:22 GMT From: Richard Whitmeyer Subject: Von Braun -- Hero, Villain, or Both? Newsgroups: sci.space In article , wr0k+@andrew.cmu.edu (William Dow Rieder) writes: |> Henry Spencer writes: |> |> >I'm not sure I agree with Mary on this one. I'd tentatively assume that |> >most of the net participants are pretty young, given the net's roots in |> >educational institutions... and on the occasions when I've forcefully |> >expressed my opinions about those responsible for the Challenger disaster |> >in particular, the responses have been at least 95% hostile, citing all |> >manner of reasons why "I vas chust following orders" should be considered |> >acceptable, or at least excusable, behavior. Thanks! My 15 yr old has been telling me I'm old as dirt. How does 40 fit into the scene? But I had thought the net's roots were governmental, for facilitating data transfer/interchange. |> The responses are not necessarily representative of all the people who |> read a particular message. People seem to be far more likely to respond to |> something if they disagree with it, particularly if they are extremists |> or their |> sensibilities are offended. Most of the time (in my experience and that |> of people |> I know), someone who agrees with an expressed opinion is likely to think |> "Good point" and go on to the next post. Responding takes time and effort, and |> if you agree, why respond unless you have questions or points to add? |> |> W. Dow Rieder Good point! I also enjoy the hammer remark, below, each time I see it. Rich Whitmeyer Views expressed are in agreement. |> |> When the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems |> start to look like nails... ------------------------------ Date: 7 Oct 92 01:54:44 GMT From: Frank Crary Subject: what use is Freedom? Newsgroups: sci.space In article Cohena@mdc.com (Andy Cohen) writes: >> Actually, Mir (once it is fully expanded) will be roughly the same >> size as Freedom, with five full-sized modules (about the size of the >> Japanese and European Freedom modules, and larger than the now-scaled-down >> American modules) and one half-sized module, slightly larger than the >> Freedom nodes. >Perhaps....however, how many watts does Mir provide? I've heard it is not >much...certainly not enough for the same number of racks and EVA/IVA >equipment SSF will have... Soviet EVA proceedures don't use all that much power... But currently Mir should have around 50 kW of power. However, it isn't fully expanded: It's still got two expansion modules to go. Fully expanded, I'd guess it would be in the 75kW range. >...We have also >learned that Mir has regular power blackouts lasting around 15 minutes or >so....real fun... I don't know about blackouts, but they do have occasional power problems. That's the disadvantage of lacking a truss: They have a limited amount of solar pannels and problems with one casting shadows on the other. The question is, is all the effort of the truss structure really worth it? >> "Large"? The cupola mock up I saw was around 1.5 to 2m across. Admittedly, this >> is enough room to put in a treadmill and jog with a _increadble_ view, but >> its hardly a "large area." >As far as elbow room IN the cupola itself..it'll be very tight... >...I was actually >refering to the space from the node up into the cupola... Did you look up >inside the mockup of Node 2 or the mockup of the cupola by itself? In the cupola mockup itself, but none of the nodes looked like they had alot of room, either... >> I'm sorry, but this is totally incorrect: These [truss] structures are _not_ >> necessary. They are necessary if you want an easily expanded station, >> or if you want to get the highest possible effeciency out of the solar >> panels. But if you simply want to power the living spaces and experiments, >> and radiate away the watse heat, you do _not_ need all that structure. >Sigh... Where'd you get that from? The early 80s studies, before the truss configuration was decided on. (Not that these studies were suffiecient, in my opinion, but they raised _some_ relevant trade offs.) > Measure the width of the radiators and >the space between the modules and the rotary joints.... There is just >enough clearance... There isn't enough clearance _if_ you want to get full efficiency out of the components. Less efficient but more compact arrangements are possible. The question becomes a trade off between small size (and thereby ease of construction) and system effeciency (and thereby system mass). I think the Freedom design is at one extreme. >Also...I guess you could make the truss smaller...but then the solar panels >(which are also at the bare minimum for the minimum power reqs) would block >essential antennas as well as have unnacceptable rotational limits... Again, it's a trade off between making life difficult, by having the systems interfere with each other, or having a more compact design. Freedom is trying to be a design where each part works at peak efficiency, without interfereing with anything else. I think such a design isn't too realistic and definitely not cost effective. (Though from the sound of it, this is mostly the result of unreasonable design requirements, rather than the design itself...) Frank Crary CU Boulder ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:17:17 GMT From: Richard Whitmeyer Subject: what use is Freedom? Newsgroups: sci.space In a post I've lost track of, Andy Cohen writes: |> First of all the press makes the program look real bad when a redesign is |> announced... Yeah, too bad. The press had us destroying SLC-6 years ago. They need real science editors, not just attractive readers. I miss Jules Bergman. |> Truth is, the redesign of a little while ago was way overdue |> and caused by the group think notion of the astronaut building the station |> rather than it being prebuilt on the ground.... The old design would NEVER |> have worked. Since we had to redesign AND keep to the schedule of a first |> launch in 1995 (now 1996) we are all scrambling to complete the design in |> an environment which seems dead set against us.... funds are shrinking, |> schedule slips are taboo and most importantly...we are STILL learning about |> how to do it..... Now.....learning how to do it should stick in your |> mind........ You've got my moral support, and my sympathy. |> Space Station Freedom is big....REALLY BIG...I mean, it's not just some |> skylab or something....listen... We are talking about something the size |> and mass of a building for cripes sake! AND....it is orbiting within the |> altitude envelope of the shuttle.....that means there is an atmosphere |> hitting up against all those surfaces making the guidance and navigation a |> very tricky prospect indeed. However, technically it IS feasible and once |> we got it....WE GOT IT!!! Not only do we know how to do it once it's |> up....we also have the standards for all manned space endeavers for the |> future....the power systems, the avionics...the modules...the environmental |> control...the truss assemblies...the launch capacities...I can go on and |> on.... all can be off-the-shelf for a moon base....for a moon orbiting |> station...for an interplanetary jump-off platform...for orbiting |> factories....and yes don't forget Mars.. Possible use as propelled craft? |>.. Please....don't just attack this program.....ask questions. I'll answer what I can. |> Andy Cohen.....these are MY opinions expressed....NOT MDSSC!!! OK, I do have some questions, 1. How come the interior appointments create the same impact on the senses as my new Kenmore fridge? I mean, were's the softness? Any wood grain? 2. Any plans for one in polar orbit? (I'm at Vandenberg, so there 'may be' some self interests in this question.) 3. What happened to the large service bays visible on the early models? 4. Can I too see or experience the mockups? How about my kids. 5. How visible will this thing be from the ground? 6. How big can it get, when the currently planned size is too crowded? 7. What CAD software package(s) is used for design? Well keep up the good work and while you're at it, WORK HARDER, we're all paying for this! (Just kidding) Please keep sharing the insights, much enjoyed. Rich Whitmeyer Views expressed are solely my own. whitmeye@figueroa.vbg.mmc.com or whitmeye@everest.den.mmc.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:01:09 GMT From: Richard Whitmeyer 865-8497 Subject: Why not Mir? was(what use is freedom?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Oct6.171821.19794@yang.earlham.edu>, yannb@yang.earlham.edu writes: |> |> |> I don't see why NASA, ESA, and the Japanese Space |> Agencies should spend all that money on this Space Station Freedom. My |> question is: why not spend less, and have each country but a module on |> the Mir? The Russians have a Mir on the ground too; in mothballs. |> This second Mir is also to be launched into orbit |> using the powerful Proton rockets, which would be much cheaper to use than |> the current NASA shuttles (It has been qualified for operations in space). |> The first Mir station (the one thats up there now) , has proven itself to |> all space agencies of it's durability and worthiness. |> Intsead of building a whole new space station, |> which would take millions of $$$ and years to build, the world should turn |> towards the already constructed and mothballed Mir, which is gathering |> dust somewhere in Russia. |> /\ |> yannb@yang.earlham.edu |/ \ |> ------ |> | | |> Yann Bandy | /\ | |> 808 Abington Pike | || | |> Earlham College /| \/ |\ |> Richmond, IN | / | | \ | |> 47374 |/ | | \| |> | / | | \ | |> |/ | | \| |> / | | \ |> |/ | | \| |> MiGs |-------| |-------| |> | | |> are | /\ | |> /| || |\ |> MASTERS!! |/ | || | \| |> / _| || |_ \ |> |/ =||= \| |> \/ If "we" didn't build "our own" then "we" wouldn't have one. We would simply be renters, you know, the deadbeats down the hall. Pride has a lot to do it, I think. That we started our plans years before we really trusted our new partners in the free marketplace, has a lot to do with it too, I'd guess. Too late to stop or change, what with funding plans. Also, it is smaller than SSF, I hear. I hope so, the Salut mockup I climbed in at the '86 Expo in B.C. was cramped. (It's my understanding that the difference between Salut and Mir is one of expandability, not size of core module.) Besides, they use "Peace", we have to counter with "Freedom". (That still seems to me like Reagan's silly imprint on a great program.) I'd prefer something more open ended, like OP1 (Orbiting Platform No.1) or SS1, anything that would imply a No. 2 somewhere in the plans. As for "gathering dust", I hope not. I hope the CIS uses it, the bought it. Rich Whitmeyer Views expressed are solely my own. ps, Interesting sig you got there. I'd guess you're going hear something more regarding it's accuracy. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 293 ------------------------------