Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 05:16:17 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #582 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Tue, 22 Dec 92 Volume 15 : Issue 582 Today's Topics: Acceleration Breeder reactors Breeders Chase planes DC vs Shuttle capabilities (2 msgs) Feelings Justification for the Space Program (3 msgs) Looking for sci.space archives Making Orbit '93 misc STS-48 and "SDI": Oberg vs. Hoagland Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) Voyager UVS shutdown 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: Tue, 22 Dec 92 00:46:50 EST From: John Roberts Subject: Acceleration -From: gene@wucs1.wustl.edu (_Floor_) -Subject: Re: Galileo's atmospheric probe -Date: 17 Dec 92 23:37:51 GMT -In article zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) writes: -] If you drop a Timex watch (``takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'\ '') from -] a height of 1m onto a cement floor, carefully holding it so it falls flat, -] and it stops in 1mm, then it underwent 1000G's of acceleration! - I think there's a bit of a difference here. You're talking about forces - and accelerations experienced for milliseconds at a time. This probe - will be experiencing this accleration for several minutes! Things - can be damaged to prolonged exposure to acceleration! - Gene Van Buren, Kzoo Crew(Floor), Washington U. in St. Lou - #1 in Volleyball That applies to things that are somewhat resiliant (like humans with their limbs not locked), because if deformation continues throughout the period of acceleration, then the entire body is not really subjected to the full acceleration. (For another example, putting rubber feet or a springy internal suspension in a piece of equipment can greatly reduce the maximum shock if you drop it.) But other than that, and factors such as prolonged stress on human hydraulic systems, the greater problem can be with rapid changes in acceleration, which are of course associated with short bursts of acceleration. (I believe the usual term for the time derivative of acceleration is "jerk".) These rapid changes can cause very high internal stresses that are not found with slow, steady increases in acceleration. Just as an example, compare your body lying in a bed with a downward acceleration of one gravity, or being clamped in a device that repeatedly shakes your body back and forth, with a maximum acceleration of half a gravity. Which do you think would be likely to place more stress on your body, and which would be quicker to cause discomfort? :-) John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 02:05:25 EST From: John Roberts Subject: Breeder reactors -From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) -Subject: Re: Breeder reactors (was Re: Justification for the Space Program -Date: 20 Dec 92 18:53:59 GMT -Organization: University of Rochester -In article <1992Dec20.044836.26997@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes: ->>Speaking of breeder reactors, why doesn't the U.S. have more of ->>them? ->Because they're too damn dangerous. -Gee, all kinds? Do remember that there are at least 3 fundamentally -different classes of breeder reactors that we know are workable (fast -breeders, thermal breeders and spallation reactors). The second of -these already has instances in commercial use (Canadian CANDU PHWRs, -and the related Indian PHWRs). These can be operated in the -thorium/uranium fuel cycle which involves no plutonium, although -currently they operated as burners with natural uranium. One concern I've heard concerning at least some of the breeder cycles is that the fuel produced is more easily converted to bomb-grade material than is the U238-U235 mix traditionally used in commercial reactors. At the moment, it's difficult to guarantee that nobody can steal or divert a sufficient quantity of such a material (if it's widely used) to cause trouble. I believe I've heard proposals such as deliberately contaminating the fuel with high-level waste to make it too dangerous for thieves to handle. Do you have any more information on this aspect? And are there designs where the breeder itself consumes the fuel it generates? -With natural uranium currently at $10/lb, and with fossil fuels -abundant (too abundant, some might say) breeders (as such) don't -currently have sufficient advantages to overcome political and -economic obstacles. How much does uranium sufficiently enriched for use in commercial reactors cost? (For that matter, how much does U235-depleted uranium cost?) John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:45:53 -0600 From: pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) Subject: Breeders \Session's Answer was too flipant. The reason the U.S. doesn't hav mre /ooops have more breeder reactors is that the anti-nuke forces won a battle \in the late seventies and President Jimmy Carter stopped the development /of them. The arguements given revolved around the proliferation of \Plutonium that the reactors "breed" and not on the safety of the /reactors. The nuke power industry was trying to sell them as the answer \to lmited supplies of nuclear fuel (o.k. expensive supplies) because they /produce 5 lbs of fuel for every 4 they consume. Unfortunately, the \plutonium is also a great nuke weapon resource. From what I've heard, it's the wrong isotope or mixed with such as to be useless in constructing a nuclear bomb. Of course, don't let that stop you from freezing in the dark, yankee... -- Phil Fraering "...drag them, kicking and screaming, into the Century of the Fruitbat." <<- Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_ PGP key available if and when I ever get around to compiling PGP... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 00:27:14 EST From: John Roberts Subject: Chase planes -From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR -Subject: Aurora -Date: 21 Dec 92 16:29:18 GMT -John Roberts wrote (Wed, 16 Dec 92 07:58:24 EST): ->It's common to have chase planes flying along with an aircraft ->undergoing tests. One of the two Valkyrie supersonic aircraft was ->destroyed when a chase plane crashed into it. -Thanks for that info. However, does "flying along with" means "chasing"? -(AW&ST wrote "chasing"). I believe the "chase planes" occasionally used with the Shuttle are T-38s (T for "trainer"?), which carry no armaments. I don't know the full history of the term as it applies to aviation - I've just seen it in use. I think the more agressive term may be "engage". -Also, was the Valkyrie a "black" aircraft? Sorry, I don't know. They show it on television now. There are several programs on the Discovery Channel (a cable TV channel) that regularly feature military aircraft. -I apologize for being so skeptical and stubborn, and for my bad knowledge -of American and/or military aviation words, but I want to be sure... I suspect the misunderstanding is due to one of those words that's nearly the same in two languages, but which has slightly different connotation. Doesn't the French verb "chasser" mean "to hunt"? John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 22 Dec 92 06:31:51 GMT From: Greg Moore Subject: DC vs Shuttle capabilities Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes: >> Umm, so? Tell me, did you see 3 aircraft landing at the same >>time, or flying in formation? Did you see baggage transferred between >>them while in flight? I'm not talking about on the ground, I'm talking >>about in space... > >Why do you assume that "in the air" is a better analogy for "in space" >than "on the ground" is? Flying aircraft in close proximity is vastly >harder than doing the same for spacecraft, because of the complex and >unpredictable behavior of the atmosphere. In-orbit operations resemble >on-ground operations more than in-flight operations: the environment >is simple and predictable and you can take your time. >-- I make the analogy for two reasons. One as you point out may be invalid. Let's handle baggage transfer. On the ground, you have gravity and the surface. You can walk/carry/drive between two planes. In air, you have to somehow manevour. As you point out, the air itself makes this tricky. But in space, you don't have something nice like the ground to use. So, the astronauts have to use MMU's or make blind leaps between the three crafts. As for manevouring the 3 craft in close proximity, I partly agree with you. It is easier than doing it in the air. However, you do have three craft now all with somewhat different velocity vectors. I believe that the Intelsat rescue was the first time both bodies were active in terms of maneuvering. I'm not saying it can't be done, or that it won't be done. Simply that some thought and PRACTICE will have to go into it. Perhaps sea operations are a better example. But I don't think so. >"God willing... we shall return." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 22 Dec 92 07:00:38 GMT From: Greg Moore Subject: DC vs Shuttle capabilities Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >In strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes: > >> Umm, so? Tell me, did you see 3 aircraft landing at the same >>time, or flying in formation? Did you see baggage transferred between >>them while in flight? I'm not talking about on the ground, I'm talking >>about in space. If you recall, my original comment was about in-flight >>satellite repair. > >You're being led astray by words. > >Both airplanes and orbiting spacecraft are said to be >"in flight." That doesn't mean they have anything in >common, except that neither one is in contact with the >Earth. We also say that ships and islands are "at sea." >That doesn't mean that ships and islands have very much >in common. > Gee, thanks for clearing that up to me. And I thought the space shuttle needed wings so it could fly through the ether. The key words in your rebuttal are "...neither one is in contact with the Earth." Exactly. I can't just "walk" from a DC-10 in flight to a 747. I can't just "walk" from a DC-1 to another DC-1 in flight either. I can recall only 1 (possibly 2) examples of astronauts transferring between craft via EVA. And in that case I believe the craft were linked. Ever note how careful NASA is when it sends astronauts on EVA. They make sure they are somehow securred to the shuttle or the RMS so that they don't accidently drift off. I don't doubt that someday we'll see EVA between non-docked craft. I also don't doubt that we'll see in-orbit refuelling of cyrogenics. I also don't doubt that we'll see 3 bodies maneuvering within a small space (say less than a couple of meters between craft). But, I claim it will take lots of work and lots of practice. >An orbiting spacecraft is not flying like an airplane. >There is no air rushing past the wings. It isn't using >aerodynamics to stay up and isn't using its engines to >maintain velocity. If it runs out of fuel, it does not >come crashing back to Earth like an airplane. > Gee, and you mean all those Star Trek episodes where if the engines failed the Enterprise crashed were a bunch of howie? Gee whillickers. And speaking of wings, when did wings come into play. I'm not complaining about wings, or the lack thereof. I think you've mistaken me for someone else on this net. >When two spacecraft touch each other, they are not "in >flight" relative to one another. They are said to be >"docked," like ships at sea. So, if you want to base >your analogies on words like this, you should argue that >the US Navy is the only organization that can navigate >two ships to the same dock, then transfer fuel from one >to another. > So, Intelsat VI and Endeavour were docked before it was hard-down in the payload bay? What about when the astronaut bumped it with the bar? Was that docked? Or was that in flight relative to each other. I think NASA would like to know that gee, they were docked, and tht the Intelsat was NOT set into motion by this contact. And as for tranfering fuel while under way, my naval knowledge is less, but I don't know too many groups of people other than the military that do fuel transfers while in motion. It's generally a whole lot easier to come to a dock, or at least anchor in calm water. (And, even then, it's somewhat easier than in space since the water will tend to damp your motions if you bump the other ship.) > >> Ayup. And the US Air Force is the ONLY one that regularly does >>inflight air-refueling. I haven't seen Delta or Virgin Atlantic do it. >>Remember, again, we are talking about in-orbit, not on the ground. > >We aren't talking air-to-air refueling either. In-space refueling >does not require split-second timing, only hooking up the hoses >properly. > Only. Given the current understanding I have of DC-1, (and please, correct me wrong if I am) there is no mechanism for a drogue or probe. The drogue you could argue is part of the cargo fuel tanks. The probe has to be added to the DC-1 you want to refuel. Now, when designing this, you have to account for any nudges your drogue may transmit. As you transfer fuel between craft, your mass changes, which means you have to actively update your algorithm for active stabilization. If you have a rigid "arm" for your drogue, you can't have to much movement, lest you break your "arm". If you use a hose, you need someway of attaching it. (Either a rigid arm or an astronaut). A hose introduces other problems related to a change in center of mass. Now, one way I see around this is to redesign the DC-1 so that two can accomplish a hard-docking of some sort. In this I mean something studier than a linkage carrying one or two fuel lines. I make this requirement only because I think stress on a much smaller arm would be too higher. >So, what's so special about the ground? > It's stable. Things on it tend to find a stable point. If I happen to lean against a DC-1 on the ground, or even push off with some force, the worst that happens is I fall down. I don't drift off. (Before you jump down my throat, no I don't think the risk of a person drifting off is high at all. However, I do think the risk of induced motion to be high.) > >> No, some people are telling me, DC-1 will do this, do that, and >>hey, we can add this, we can add that... it's all going to be easy. >>I'ms aying, "sounds good, but prove it." > >Again, I thought that was what we are doing. > Sorry, but to me, and some others, it sounds like some people ahere are trying to skip the prove it step and say, "take our word for granted." >What are *you* doing, except standing on the sidelines carping? > I'm not insulting people. And I'm trying to A) get some answers for my own use. B) Inject a little reality into this world. A reality where sometimes things don't work the first time. Were some things may never work. A reality where a person is willing to say, "Hey, wouldn't it be great if this thing is cheap enough to fly to the moon!", not "Oh, we just fly over to our on-orbit depot, fuel up, and fly over. It's a piece of cake." Trust, me, I'm a big fan of the DC-X and DC-Y programs. I do have doubts about DC-1 though. > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: 21 Dec 92 20:19:32 GMT From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org Subject: Feelings Newsgroups: sci.space None of us here know exactly what the future of the space launch industry will be. Making blanket statements about the future is an extremely hazardous business: the only certainly is that the probability of being wrong is high. SSTO might work; it might not. After a test program that truly demonstrates the key technologies, we may know whether the SSTO concept is viable. The question is: do you support a SSTO test program, or do you believe the concept is so flawed that it is pointless to test the technologies? --- Maximus 2.01wb ------------------------------ Date: 22 Dec 92 02:33:53 GMT From: George Coleman Subject: Justification for the Space Program Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space >for every dollar spent in space there is an estimated 7 dollar return in > space spin offs. I have read this many times in nasa releases and every time it struck a sour chord. If there is that much return on technical research than it sounds like the market is in great demand. Simple supply and demand would then dictate that many firms would try to fill this demand. Call me strange but I trust the market more than I trust press release from a government agency. If this were realy true than there should be a *private* firm raking in a bundle of money. To save so time and net space I will knock down the obvious straw man... The government needs to step in because there is a market failure. Technology is a common good and free market doesn't have means to provide common goods..... Maybe, just maybe private firms have a hard time marketing new advances but with a 7/1 return they should be able to find a way. Second, if the market realy can't work the goverment should specialize. Have one agency specialize in product development and one agency build real, working space ships. NASA spends way to much time developing new technology instead of mass producing proven designs. Ed Colmeman ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:41:27 GMT From: Paul Dietz Subject: Justification for the Space Program Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article <1992Dec22.023353.10922@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> gcoleman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (George Coleman) writes: >>for every dollar spent in space there is an estimated 7 dollar return in >> space spin offs. > >I have read this many times in nasa releases and every time it struck a sour >chord. If this is the study I am thinking of, it used the methodology of simply assuming that spending by NASA on R&D was as productive as private industrial R&D. No attempt was made to actually identify the spinoffs, or judge NASA's contribution to them. The more recent German study showing that space R&D is less effective at creating spinoffs than private R&D (as judged by patent citations) would tend to discredit this. I don't recall who did the study, but it got mentioned in this newsgroup some years ago... anyone remember? Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:34:06 GMT From: "Michael V. Kent" Subject: Justification for the Space Program Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article <1992Dec22.023353.10922@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> gcoleman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (George Coleman) writes: >>for every dollar spent in space there is an estimated 7 dollar return in >> space spin offs. >Maybe, just maybe private firms have a hard time marketing new advances but >with a 7/1 return they should be able to find a way. The 7:1 return doesn't go to the agency which spent the money -- it goes to society in general. If NASA got a 7:1 return directly, we wouldn't be having so much trouble funding Space Station Freedom. :) Mike -- Michael Kent These views are solely those of the author. Flight Test Engineer McDonnell Douglas, St. Louis kentm@pro-applejacks.cts.com Tute-Screwed Aero Apple II Forever !! ------------------------------ Date: 21 Dec 92 21:56:47 GMT From: Paul Teich Subject: Looking for sci.space archives Newsgroups: sci.space I'm looking for sci.space archives which cover the last couple of months; my news feed only holds a day or two. Any info appreciated, thanks, -- Paul R. Teich pteich@cayman.AMD.COM Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Direct 1-512-462-4268 5900 E. Ben White Blvd., MS 561 WATS 1-800-538-8450 x54268 Austin, Texas 78741 FAX 1-512-462-4756 =============================================================================== Religion loses its meaning as soon as it's explained. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Dec 92 03:44:34 GMT From: "David W. Berry" Subject: Making Orbit '93 Newsgroups: sci.space M M A K K IIIII N N GGGG MM MM A A K K I NN N G G M M M M A A KKK I N N N G M M M AAAAAAA K K I N N N G GGGG M M A A K K I N NN G G M M A A K K IIIII N N GGGG OOOO RRRRR BBBB IIIII TTTTTTT 9999 333 O O R R B B I T 9 9 3 3 O O R R BBBB I T 9 9 33 O O RRRRR B B I T 99999 3 O O R R B B I T 9 3 3 OOOO R R BBBB IIIII T 9999 333 15-18 January 1993 Berkeley Marina Mariott Martin Luther King 1993 Berkeley, Ca Making Orbit Conventions is proud to announce Making Orbit '93! It is a fact that most Americans support the idea of a sound space program that gets real people out into space to do real work. Yet, how far have we really come toward making that a reality? What is being done to make that happen? What are the most promising technologies? Will we really get real people to space soon? Is there anything individuals can do to help make space living attainable for everyone? Are rocket launch systems the way to get there? Or are there other viable launch systems? How much of an influence does science fiction have on science fact and vice-versa? These are just a few of the questions we hope to address at Making Orbit '93, a space oriented hard science and science fiction convention sponsored by Making Orbit Conventions and Space Access Society. Along with answering these weighty questions, we also intend to have some fun along the way. A forum will be provided for many organizations so that information can be shared and enthusiasm for space can be rekindled. This is your chance to share ideas with the experts who are forging the path to the stars, and the science fiction writers who have been furnishing us with dreams. The convention will begin Friday afternoon with two program tracks. One will be a segment sponsored by the Lunar Society, featuring space oriented curriculum ideas and guides for educators. The other will be a mixed track of lighter programming. Then in the evening we really get down to business with an opening ceremony, participant reception and cash bar where you can meet all our speakers. On Saturday and Sunday there will be three programming tracks all featuring space oriented subjects. Two of those tracks will be oriented to hard science and space information with a special emphasis on alternate launch technologies and space policy. A third will be a lighter "Sex in Space" track. On Monday we expect things to wind down but there will still be lots to do. To round things out, in addition to our panels, there will be a dealers' room, art show, and evening hospitality to allow you to share ideas in a more informal atmosphere. We welcome any suggestions you have that would make this event more interesting and fun for you. Please feel free to call us with your ideas for guests, programs or other features. For further info and memberships contact Making Orbit, 909 Marina Village Parkway #237, Alameda, CA 94501 or (408) 321-0154. All this fun and information will be shared in the wonderful atmosphere of the Berkeley Marina Marriott. The hotel features two pools (one is adults only), a large spa, and health club, all set in a peaceful nook right on the waters of the San Francisco Bay in the Berkeley Marina. And all of this at the great convention rate of $79 per room. For hotel info and reservations contact the Berkeley Marina Marriott, 200 Marina Blvd, Berkeley, CA 94710, (510) 548-7920. Speakers Already Planning to Attend Include Max Hunter - Rocket Designer Jerry Pournelle - SF Writer Larry Niven - SF Writer G. Harry Stine - Science/SF Writer Gary Hudson - Space Entrepreneur Jordin Kare - Laser Launch Steve Hoeser - Space Technologist Jim Ransom - Lunar Society Tim Kyger - Congressional Advisor Art Bozlee - Soviet Space Expert J. P. Del Fevero - Space Economics William Gaubatz - SSTO Rick Jurmain - SSTO ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 01:17:58 EST From: John Roberts Subject: misc -From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov -Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program -Date: 21 Dec 92 04:32:00 GMT -Organization: University of Houston Just a few random comments, not directly relating to the conclusion of the original post: -I know -what fission is and one of the largest plants of that type are within a few -miles of my present location. Unfortunately the contractor scum that built -it for TVA's nuclear program did such a poor job that it took over a billion -dollars just to straighten out all of the defects (Browns Ferry). Isn't that the one those idiots set fire to while checking for air leaks with a candle? -I agree that -fission is a nice, relatively safe form of energy production. It is also -very expensive. Each plant costs somewhere in the 5-8 billion dollar range. Part of that is bad management and nonstandard designs, and part is from frivolous lawsuits by misguided "environmental" groups and others delaying the approval process. The nuclear power industry could be managed much better than it has been in the US - France is a better example of what's possible. There is an ongoing effort to improve the safety and standardization of new fission power reactor designs in the US. Maybe it will come along in time to save the Eastern forests from destruction by acid rain. -The answer that a third world person would give you to that is that the -west does not provide the right type of help. It is ok to feed people -overseas. It does much to make Westerners feel good about themselves and -how they are helping the starving masses. What is lacking is teaching those -people how to help themeselves. -Give me a fish and I eat for today -Teach me to fish and I eat for a lifetime There's at least one charity you can give money to that will finance volunteers who go to third world countries and teach the people how to generate real wealth. -What about copper? Yes yes I know that we can substitute aluminum for copper in -most cases but aluminum is only 90 as efficient as copper at carrying electricty -This translates into a 10% decrease in the net efficiency in most of our -power generating and distribution system. If copper were cheaper (more abundant) -then we could save billions per year just in this area. Given the high density and mechanical properties of copper, they might elect to continue using aluminum for long-distance transport even if the prices of the metals were the same. Copper-plated conductors might be an option. -What about stainless steel? This has been commented on here before but I'm -gonna bring it back up. If the cost of stainless were 1/100 of what it is -today, we could build bridges with it that would last for centuries rather -than for decades. Since the last round of this discussion, I have spoke with -Civil engineers (I am an ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) member) -and they would love to have stainless. The more difficult workability would -more than be offset by the lower operating costs that such bridges entail. Why don't you and Gary duke it out over this one, and the rest of us will wait on the sidelines for the outcome? :-) -Most -bridges that are steel, such as the Golden Gate must be constantly painted and -buffed and treated to stop or slow down corrosion. I've heard that's literally true for the Golden Gate Bridge - they paint it from one end to the other, then immediately start over. -Look around at your dead nuclear power program. Look around. It's not as dead as it was a few years ago. -Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 21 Dec 92 20:22:06 GMT From: Ted Frank Subject: STS-48 and "SDI": Oberg vs. Hoagland Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.astro,sci.space,alt.alien.visitors In article <1992Dec4.215702.5218@news.cs.brandeis.edu> corbisier@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes: >James Oberg will _of course_ have an explanation. He is a member of >PSICOP and works with Philip Klass, THE well-known skeptic "nothing- >is-real" other famous member of PSICOP. I've been seeing more and >more things from Oberg lately, and I *never* see this connection >mentioned, only his NASA ties. > >Robert Sheaffer may be "Skepticus Maximus", but for the rest of us >with open minds, please consider the source. > >Barb You seem to be so open-minded that you didn't address a single thing Oberg said. He had a remarkably good track record on the Soviet space program. At any rate, it's posts like this that make me want to disassociate myself from my alma mater. Sheesh. -- ted frank | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu standard disclaimers | void where prohibited the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637 ------------------------------ Date: 22 Dec 92 06:24:01 GMT From: Greg Moore Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: > >>The average total cost of a shuttle mission is a little over $500 million >>not a billion+. > >Only if you learned math from the "Hitchhiker's Guide." > Do you think it is possible for you to reply to a person's posting without being insulting or condescending? >Divide the amount of money NASA spends on the Space Shuttle program >every year by six flights per year. > Right, except last year they fley 8 times. This year they have 7 planned. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Dec 92 06:30:03 GMT From: "Michael V. Kent" Subject: Voyager UVS shutdown Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Dec20.164145.9851@head-cfa.harvard.edu> mcdowell@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes: >You ain't heard nothing yet, Bill. All of the Mission Ops and Data >Analysis programs (IUE, Einstein, EUVE, GRO, ROSAT, etc) were called >to D.C. last week for an emergency review and further major cuts. The usual >Congress smarts - spend half a billion on getting a mission up, then cut >the one percent of that that would let you do a good job with the >results. MO&DA is one of the cheapest and most important things NASA >does but one of the first to get cut. > >[Declaration of interest: of course, my salary comes out of this budget, >so I would say that, wouldn't I.] My salary doesn't come out of this budget, and I still think it's a stupid thing to cut. Mike -- Michael Kent These views are solely those of the author. Flight Test Engineer McDonnell Douglas, St. Louis kentm@pro-applejacks.cts.com Tute-Screwed Aero Apple II Forever !! ------------------------------ From: bill nelson Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,sci.space Subject: Re: Mnemonics Message-Id: <1992Dec22.020707.23411@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> Date: 22 Dec 92 02:07:07 GMT Article-I.D.: hpcvaac.1992Dec22.020707.23411 References: <1992Dec21.224604.22188@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA Lines: 24 Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (JKF) writes: : In article <1992Dec21.211902.4322@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes: : >: or near miss in about 4 billion years. Working backwards they should also : >: have collided about 2 billion years ago (c. 1/2 the estimated age of the : >: solar system). Some people speculate that Pluto is an asteroid that was : >: captured by Neptune at this time. : > : >Yeah - some people do make such a speculation. The same ones who ignore the : >fact that Pluto has a moon. Also, the same people ignore the fact that none : >of the asteroids travel anywhere close to that far out. They are pretty much : >confined between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars. : : Sorry, Bill, but there are many planetoids and asteroids that orbit beyond : the orbit of Jupiter. One such is a minor planet called Chiron. There : are quite a few others as well. Note that I said "pretty much". There certainly are some that travel outside the orbit of Jupiter - as well as inside the orbit of the Earth. However, I know of none that travel outside the orbit of Saturn, much less any of the planets further out. Bill ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 582 ------------------------------