Space Digest Thu, 22 Jul 93 Volume 16 : Issue 905 Today's Topics: address of EJASA Bad news from the Senate on Delta Clipper. Help needed cheap space computers (2 msgs) Clementine (3 msgs) DC-X Prophets and associated problems (2 msgs) Hubble, Why the hurry? message from Space Digest MESUR Pathfinder (Was Re: space news from April 12 AW&ST) Moon Cable/Beanstalk. problem w/ZHR equation Space Movie/PR.. The U.S. and Mir Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list 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: 21 Jul 1993 15:06:43 -0400 From: Earl W Phillips Subject: address of EJASA Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro Does anyone happen to have the e-mail address to EJASA? ***************************************************************** * | ====@==== ///////// * * ephillip@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu| ``________// * * | `------' * * -JR- | Space;........the final * * | frontier............... * ***************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 20:02:37 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Bad news from the Senate on Delta Clipper. Help needed Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space The Senate markup of the DoD Authroization bill seems to be over. At the moment, it looks very bad. Early indications are (and it may change) that the Senate will authorize a total of $30 million for NASP, Spacelifter, and SSRT. This is nowhere near the $75M SSRT needs to begin design of the SX-2. We MUST change this in the House Authorization bill which is marking up next week. Please write, call, and fax Rep. Schroeder and ask her to fully fund the BMDO SSRT program and build the SX-2. The phone numbers of the House committee in question are given below. If you have a representative in your state, please call and fax him or her. In any case, please call and fax Rep. Schroeder (the subcommittee chair) as well. Allen House Armed Services Committee - Research and Technology Subcommittee Name Address Phone FAX (AC 202) (AC 202) Patricia Schroeder (D-CO) 2208 RH 20515 225-4431 225-5842 Bob Stump (R-AZ) 211 CH 20515 225-4576 225-6328 Dave McCurdy (D-OK) 2344 RH 20515 225-6165 225-9746 Jane Harman (D-CA) 225-8220 Roscoe bartlett (R-MD) 225-2721 225-2193 Don Johnson (D-GA) 225-4101 Glen Browder (D-AL) 1630 LH 20515 225-3261 225-9020 Earl Hutto (D-FL) 2435 RH 20515 225-4136 225-5785 George Hochbrueckner (D-NY) 124 CH 20515 225-3826 225-0776 Martin Lancaster (D-NC) 225-3415 225-0666 James H. Bilbray (D-NV) 225-5965 225-8808 Chet Edwards (D-TX) 225-6105 225-0350 Duncan L. Hunter (R-CA) 133 CH 20515 225-5672 225-0235 John R. Kasich (R-OH) 1131 LH 20515 225-5355 James V. Hansen (R-UT) 2466 RH 20515 225-0453 225-5857 Frank Tejeda (D-TX) 225-1640 225-1641 Martin Meehan (D-MA) 225-3411 Elizabeth Furse (D-OR) 225-0855 225-9497 Steve Buyer (R-IN) 225-5037 225-2267 Peter Torkildsen (R-MA) 225-8020 225-8037 James Talent (R-MO) 225-2561 225-2563 Ronald V. Dellums (D-CA) 2136 RH 20515 225-2661 225-9817 Robert K. Dornan (R-CA) 2402 CH 20515 225-2965 225-2075 Marilyn Lloyd (D-TN) 2406 RH 20515 225-3271 225-6974 John Tanner (D-TN) 225-4714 225-1765 Pete Geren (D-TX) 225-5071 225-2786 -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Lady Astor: "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!" | | W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it." | +----------------------14 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1993 15:27:22 -0400 From: Pat Subject: cheap space computers Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >A much bigger practical problem is that the off-the-shelf hardware is >designed to be air-cooled. Unless you're willing to follow the Russian >approach and pressurize the interior of your spacecraft -- which works, >but introduces major new failure modes -- you can't use EISA anything >on an unmanned spacecraft. WOuldn't Mil-SPec Rad Hardened Commercial chips resolve this problem? I think a lot of USAF and USN stuff have to either cool on a sealed system, or use low pressure. Actually, interesting enough the SSF systems, IBM is fielding are just Industrial spec commercial gear in double sealed containers to keep air in them. Of course, the assumption is SSF will be pressurised most of the time. apt -- God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things. Right now, I am so far behind, I will never die. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1993 19:54:39 GMT From: George William Herbert Subject: cheap space computers Newsgroups: sci.space In article <22k5aq$3b8@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: >In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >>A much bigger practical problem is that the off-the-shelf hardware is >>designed to be air-cooled. Unless you're willing to follow the Russian >>approach and pressurize the interior of your spacecraft -- which works, >>but introduces major new failure modes -- you can't use EISA anything >>on an unmanned spacecraft. > >WOuldn't Mil-SPec Rad Hardened Commercial chips resolve this problem? >I think a lot of USAF and USN stuff have to either cool on a sealed >system, or use low pressure. Actually, interesting enough the >SSF systems, IBM is fielding are just Industrial spec commercial >gear in double sealed containers to keep air in them. >Of course, the assumption is SSF will be pressurised most of the time. SSF isn't an issue; unmanned probes and post-Freedom stations are. (At least as I understand it 8-) Mil-spec hardware isn't generally vaccum-rated. They operate (sometimes) at high altitude, but not _zero_ pressure. The cooling problem will be the same. The double-sealed container route is perfectly reasonable for a manned, and some unmanned, hardware solution. For unmanned where maximum reliability is a must, my personal favorite solution is embed in a plastic block (pour epoxy in around it for example) and put copper heat pipes in the plastic before it cures, to expedite removing heat from the hottest items. It's reliable and lasts forever. -george william herbert Retro Aerospace ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 18:40:00 GMT From: Tim Harincar Subject: Clementine Newsgroups: sci.space In article , henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes... >In article <21JUL199310592311@vx.cis.umn.edu> soc1070@vx.cis.umn.edu (Tim Harincar) writes: >>How much of the surface is intended to be mapped? Poles included? > >All of it, at the lower resolutions. Bear in mind, though, that lighting >conditions at the poles are poor. > >>Do the 10m resloution spot images include any 'artificial' features >>(ie Ranger, Lunar Orbiter, LM Ascent stage, S-IV stage impact sites)? > >I don't remember whether the spacecraft pointing is precise enough to >let you pick and choose things to see at the 10m resolution. I doubt >that you could see the impact crater from something as small as a >Ranger or a Lunar Orbiter. I expect you could see an S-IVB crater, >but I'm not sure how precisely the impact points are known. > >>How about other artifacts - Apollo sites, Lunakhod sites, Surveyors, etc. >>Apollo & Lunakhod sould be easy since the astronauts turned up so much >>new soil with there boots & rovers, should be good contrast... > >There isn't that big a contrast between the surface layers and the >near-surface dust, and the astronauts didn't do *that* much digging. >If you imaged those sites at a low Sun angle, you could probably see >shadows from the bigger items; I seem to recall a Lunar Orbiter photo >showing the shadow of a Surveyor. But even an LM descent stage isn't >going to be more than a bright point at 10m resolution. The reason I started thinking about this was that in "Exploring Space With a Camera" by NASA (can't remember the SP-number) there were Lunar Orbiter photos of what was thought to be the Ranger VII impact crater and also a photo of Surveyor I that clearly showed the shadow of the soler panel/HGA boom. The Ranger impact crater was pretty clear, but some higher rez photos would help clarify details and show the splash pattern better. -- tim harincar soc1070@vx.cis.umn.edu ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1993 18:41:20 GMT From: Dan Durda Subject: Clementine Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <21JUL199310592311@vx.cis.umn.edu> soc1070@vx.cis.umn.edu (Tim Harincar) writes: >>How much of the surface is intended to be mapped? Poles included? > >All of it, at the lower resolutions. Bear in mind, though, that lighting >conditions at the poles are poor. > >>Do the 10m resloution spot images include any 'artificial' features >>(ie Ranger, Lunar Orbiter, LM Ascent stage, S-IV stage impact sites)? > >I don't remember whether the spacecraft pointing is precise enough to >let you pick and choose things to see at the 10m resolution. I doubt >that you could see the impact crater from something as small as a >Ranger or a Lunar Orbiter. I expect you could see an S-IVB crater, >but I'm not sure how precisely the impact points are known. > Resolution aside, before Apollo the only artificial crater identified on the lunar surface was the Ranger 8 impact crater. It was identified in Lunar Orbiter II photograph H70. The resolution here was about 3 meters. I'm not sure if it would in fact show up 10 meter resoution - I do not recall the size of the crater. >>How about other artifacts - Apollo sites, Lunakhod sites, Surveyors, etc. >>Apollo & Lunakhod sould be easy since the astronauts turned up so much >>new soil with there boots & rovers, should be good contrast... > >There isn't that big a contrast between the surface layers and the >near-surface dust, and the astronauts didn't do *that* much digging. >If you imaged those sites at a low Sun angle, you could probably see >shadows from the bigger items; I seem to recall a Lunar Orbiter photo >showing the shadow of a Surveyor. But even an LM descent stage isn't >going to be more than a bright point at 10m resolution. The Ranger 7 and 9 impact craters were identified on Apollo 16 panoramic photographs as was the crater from the Apollo 14 SIVB stage. I recall that the Ranger craters had distinctly bright rims and the Apollo 14 stage had a prominent and unique system of bright and dark rays. The dark halo around the Apollo 14 stage crater led to a re-examination of Apollo 14 500-mm Hasselblad sequence photos and the identification of the Apollo 13 SIVB stage crater. I can't comment on the resolution, but in the photos I have seen the craters are quite distinct - quite a bit above the resolution limit (whatever it was for the panoramic cameras). I have seen photos of the LM's taken by panoramic cameras aboard the CM's. Particularly, the CMP on Apollo 15 observed the landing sight with 20x-30x gyro-mounted binoculars and I believe he was able to see the LM itself. He certainly noticed that there was a bright halo about 150 meters across, which was most likely material disturbed by the exhaust plume. This was discussed as a good indicator for helping to locate the position of the LM on future flights. The LM and LRV parked right next to it are visible as bright spots with shadows on a 50x enlargement of the panoramic camera photgraphs. Pretty interesting... >-- >Altruism is a fine motive, but if you | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology >want results, greed works much better. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry --Dan -- Daniel D. Durda Department of Astronomy University of Florida durda@astro.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1993 19:18:37 GMT From: "P. Douglas Reeder" Subject: Clementine Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: : :I don't remember whether the spacecraft pointing is precise enough to :let you pick and choose things to see at the 10m resolution. I doubt :that you could see the impact crater from something as small as a :Ranger or a Lunar Orbiter. I expect you could see an S-IVB crater, :but I'm not sure how precisely the impact points are known. : At high resolution, ability to pick things to look at is very limited. Oregon L-5 has been in communication with them to see what can be done about looking for lavatube caves (for future lunar bases). Entrances from collapse trenches (sinuous rilles) will be difficult to spot unless things line up just right. Skylight entrances (rimless craters) should be much easier to spot. Doug Reeder Internet: reeder@reed.edu Div, Grad & Curl USENET: ...!tektronix!reed!reeder programming & derivative work I am actively seeking scientific programming contracts. -- Doug Reeder Internet: reeder@reed.edu Div, Grad & Curl USENET: ...!tektronix!reed!reeder programming & derivative work I am actively seeking scientific programming contracts. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1993 17:47:12 GMT From: Vampy the Buffer Slayer Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems Newsgroups: sci.space Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU When Gaubatz (sp?) spoke at OMSI I was hoping to ask some of the very same questions. Tragically I was working at the time and so was only able to sneak away for about 45 minutes. The 45 minutes of his presentation I did see were pretty much promises of a rosy future in space. I was kind of pissed off with that since I wanted some more technical information. Anyway, it occurs to me that most of the general public doesn't remember the promises made about the space shuttle and is therefore unlikely to get mad at BMDO/M.D. for failure to deliver. Furthermore, continued funding for the program seems unlikely to materialize unless it seems extremely profitable to pursue the SSRT approach. Congress and the general public don't want to hear about the benefits of a good solid reliable LEO transportation system framed in terms of cheap satellite deployment -- They want Disneyland in the sky. Given that every other possible approach to cheap (i.e. less than the space shuttle) LEO transport is making the same promises, a realistic portrayal of DC-1's probable capabilities would be a death sentence for the program. Anyway, that's my take on the hype. ......Andrew -- This article was dictated to me in its entirety by the angel Moroni. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1993 19:55:58 GMT From: "Michael C. Jensen" Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems Newsgroups: sci.space Allen W. Sherzer (aws@iti.org) wrote: : >The claim of "cheap, routine access to space" - which is the same : >comment made about the shuttle before it became operational. : Can you be more specific? Why are these claims outrageous? Dennis thinks : the engines won't work. I don't agree but that is the sort of arguement : you need to make. : You look only at the claims made by DC and Shuttle. I look at the technology, [stuff deleted] Actually, I'm looking from the perspective of space programs history.. not just shuttle OR DC, but rather any space program I've been able to think about.. Shuttle is a significatly more complicated vehicle, and is older.. I expect DC to work better.. (it HAD better work better or we'll be quite disappointed) The claims I've read range from $1000/pound to $20/pound for the DC system. These SEEM to take into account the same unrealistic "demand" beleifs that Shuttle did years ago.. (and for the record, shuttle COULD fly 50+ flights a year given enough vehicles and personnel.. but with current staff and equipment, 8 is about the best you'll get..) My only point in my original post on this subject was my impression that the "forcasts" of DC's performance seem to be growing each month, and it'd be wise to keep in mind the pitfalls of history to aviod doing them again.. (I know NASA's working VERY hard to learn from it's mistakes and improve it's performance) : The differences are many and profound. Sure we need to insure the claims : aren't overblown but at the same time, the claims being made ARE reasonable. : We almost certainly can build a spacecraft which meets the DC goals for : cost and availability. Saying we can't simply because another program : made the same claims without addressing the differences just doesn't make : sense. I'd really like to see the rational behind the payload cost figures. I'd be happy to analyze em out myself if somebody would be kind enough to post them so I can see if my theories are sound.. again, the initial point I was making (you know, I keep seeing these "Hi, how are you today?"/ "Hi, Yes I like Donuts." responses on the net..) was that those who are posting DC claims should attempt to be careful about what they say, and no more. I don't see quite how we expect multiple orders of magnatude improvement in performance from what I've seen posted, but would LOVE to be proved wrong if somebody cares to post relavent info. : >perceptions of the system.. the shuttle didn't live up to ALL of the : >inital claims, and so some label it a failure. : Aside from payload, and maybe a few other minor requirements, Shuttle : didn't live up to any of its claims. Calling it a failure is reasonable. No.. it isn't reasonable. The shuttle system was and IS a remarkable achivement, and a success given the scaled back design abilities and requirements. Blaming NASA for the work of congress is hardly fair or called for. In commercial industry, if a company decides to develop a product, they will often expend the amount of funds required to actually develop it. NASA ends up giving the nation a proposal X, with a budget of $50MegaBucks, and congress turns around and tells NASA to do proposal X, with the same requirements with a budget of $25MB's and over a longer time span. I'd LOVE to see MD or another company be effecient under those conditions. : >and the requirements placed upon such : >things by NASA/FAA/Congress/DOD. : Which needs to change. I agree.. unfortunatly it's in Congress's ballpark I beleive.. and if you have the power to effect it, I'll be the first person in line to thank ye for it.. if you can remove congress from the loop, or allow NASA to play on the same "level playing field" as commercial industry, I'd bet NASA would prove to give commercial industry good run for it's money.. but the games gotta start in congress.. [re: man rating] : Which serves absolutely no useful purpose. Man rated launchers are no : safer than non-man rated ones. I disagree, but this is a whole seperate argument.. making a vechicle man rated (thanks to national reg's) DOES require more safety and reliability than a non man rated system. And the Shuttle's reliability IS greater than it was when first flown.. by a significant margin.. yes, shuttle is NOT an ideal system.. and I hope DC proves to be a good replacement some day.. but until it's online we certainly should keep the shuttle flying.. : If we can man rate Shuttle, man rating DC will be a snap. I'd be sceptical it'll be as easy as you are guessing, but I'd be pleased if it were. : And yet these added costs don't affect reliability. Why bother with : them? Sure, it covers somebody's ass, but what value does it add? They DO add reliability.. most of the major improvements or redesigns done on the shuttle have added reliability or survivability to the vehicle.. I'd MUCH rather fly on today's shuttle than the one flown ten years ago.. : Allen : +----------------------14 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ Mike -- Michael C. Jensen mjensen@gellersen.valpo.edu jensen@cisv.jsc.nasa.gov Valparaiso University - Electrical Engineering / NASA - Johnson Space Center "I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky *** Windows NT -- from the people who brought you edlin.. *** ---The opinions expressed are my own.. not NASA's or VU's..--- ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1993 16:26 EDT From: "Oh boy, mayhem!" Subject: Hubble, Why the hurry? Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space Why do you perceive that NASA is rushing the repair mission? They are prepared to launch at least a month late if necessary, but things are moving smoothly so far and it looks reasonable to be ready by December. I don't see that they are in any hurry, could you tell me why you think there's a rush? Jennifer ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 19:33:38 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: message from Space Digest Newsgroups: sci.space In article SABELD@WMAVM7.VNET.IBM.COM writes: >Allen sherzer writes "..the SSTO with crossranges has about 16% more >flightsover with to amortize it's overhead which means it operates maybe >10% cheaper... >As if anyone cares, you don't amortize overhead, you allocate it. In Homer Simpson voice: Doht! You are of course correct. What I ment was that you had more flights over which to amortize development costs and vehicle acquisition costs (and associated interest). It also gives you more flights per vehicle over which to allocate fixed overhead. >The total overhead won't change that much (b/c the ssto with >crossranges will require more servicing which is done inbetween >flights). Maybe or maybe not. With Shuttle crossrange wasn't worth it but with DC it seems to be a fairly simple thing to do. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Lady Astor: "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!" | | W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it." | +----------------------14 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 93 15:55:34 -0600 From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: MESUR Pathfinder (Was Re: space news from April 12 AW&ST) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <21vm04$hsc@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: > In article <21trftINNcj0@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> bafta@cats.ucsc.edu (Shari L Brooks) writes: >>Pardon my ignorance, I'm behind the times. What is NEAR? > Near Earth ASteroid Rendevous. > > The Mission Plan is still kind of vague, but some guy from APL > did this amazingly funny presentation where he showed how one can > play Asteroid Billiards. Just for the record, this was Robert Farqhuar, the Applied Physics Laboratory astrodynamicist who became sorta famous when he proposed diverting the ISEE-3 to fly past Comet Giacobini-Zinner in 1985. He was also involved in planning Giotto's second comet encounter, passing Grigg-Skjellerup last year. I went to the same presentation Pat did at World Space Congress, and it was indeed amusing. I guess the guy is just good with orbits... Engineer of Hijacked Train: Bill Higgins "Is this a holdup?" Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Masked Gunman: (Hesitates, looks at partner, Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET looks at engineer again) SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS "It's a science experiment!" Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1993 20:35:25 GMT From: "Michael J. Black" Subject: Moon Cable/Beanstalk. Newsgroups: sci.space >Actually, you will need to buy up, or at least buy off ALL the local governements >along the equator. In a worst-case catastrophe the cable will come down in pieces >the whole way round. Screw 'em. Ever played the game Civilization? First guy into space wins. All the rest of the countries can just get out of the way. -black ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 93 09:10:18 MDT From: thacker@rhea.arc.ab.ca Subject: problem w/ZHR equation Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In article , ephillip@magnus.acs.ohio-state.EDU (Earl W Phillips) writes: > In trying to write a program around the recently > posted ZHR equation, I am having trouble with 1 > of it's components. The equation for "C" in my > program doesn't give a result anywhere near the > example of 1.72, I get something like 4.6. > > C=2.6 times exp(6.5-5.93)=1.72 > > Anybody got any idea what the problem is? Well, 6.5 - 5.93 = 0.57 Then, 2.6 raised to 0.57 = 1.72 You must have just entered the equation incorrectly. Don ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 93 15:51:22 GMT From: Bob Kirkpatrick Subject: Space Movie/PR.. Newsgroups: sci.space aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: > In article mjb@netcom.com (Martin Brown) writes: > > >Currently, people have very little opportunity to even see ANY space info, > >even when your very interested. > > No, there is a lot of opportunity. The problem is that the public doesn't > want to see it. The media gives us what we want and what we are interested > in. The idea of space is of great interest but the way NASA does it won't > keep public attention for very long. People want a space program which they > can see themselves involved in and NASA gives us hugely expensive efforts > for a small elite group. Sure it can grab headlines for a few days but > since it doesn't involve them, people soon loose interest in favor of > things which do involve them. It's entertainment and nothing more. I read somewhere that American people showed it's greatest interest in the space program when Challenger exploded. :-( As to involving people in space, I've always thought that NASA should run a national lottery --like the one many states do-- that for a buck you get the possibility of a trip into space. Just recently, a man won the Idaho 'Powerball' lottery --took in 110 million dollars (over 20 years). It would seem that if NASA did the same thing, they could fund themselves pretty well. If the state can pay out 110 million and not blink, then think of how much they took in... Not only that, but it may get people behind the push into space. Lotteries attract people in droves. -- Bob Kirkpatrick -- Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA I love my country. I'm just not fond of it's people and I hate the government. ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 93 14:51:57 -0600 From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: The U.S. and Mir Newsgroups: sci.space In article <21JUL199311074443@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov>, dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock) writes: > In article <105755@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes... >> My question is this: has anyone actually talked to the Russians about >>these ideas? > I have never heard of anyone suggesting combining hardware from the > US Space Station program with Mir. Using the Soyuz-TM as a crew > escape vehicle on the US Station, yes. Consideration of using > the Russian docking mechanism, yes. Oh, yes. Buzz Aldrin, for one, has been working on a design that plugs an abbreviated SSF-style station, including the European and Japanese modules, into Mir. I heard part of a talk he gave on this in Huntsville, and I know Dan Gauthier, who did the drawings for him. Sorry I can't report more detail; maybe someone else can. (I had to leave before his talk really got going.) Aldrin's effort was covered in *Space News* but the emphasis of the story was on how the redesign team wasn't paying much attention to "outsider" ideas. Note that he is a private consultant and not working for NASA these days. I also can't assess the extent to which Aldrin had conferred with Russians about his designs, but I bet it was greater than zero... Dave McKissock is one of our best sources of information, especially on Fred and its redesign, so I hasten to add that none of this contradicts what he says about activities between NASA and the Russians. /// Bill Higgins E /// |8D:O: occc))))<)) Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory E /// /// Bitnet: higgins@fnal Bumper sticker seen on a Soyuz: SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS DON'T LAUGH-- IT'S PAID FOR Internet: higgins@fnalb.fnal.gov ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1993 15:43:49 -0400 From: Jon Leech Subject: Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle This notice will be posted weekly in sci.space, sci.astro, and sci.space.shuttle. The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list for sci.space and sci.astro is posted approximately monthly. It also covers many questions that come up on sci.space.shuttle (for shuttle launch dates, see below). The FAQ is posted with a long expiration date, so a copy may be in your news spool directory (look at old articles in sci.space). If not, here are two ways to get a copy without waiting for the next posting: (1) If your machine is on the Internet, it can be obtained by anonymous FTP from the SPACE archive at ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3) in directory pub/SPACE/FAQ. (2) Otherwise, send email to 'archive-server@ames.arc.nasa.gov' containing the single line: help The archive server will return directions on how to use it. To get an index of files in the FAQ directory, send email containing the lines: send space FAQ/Index send space FAQ/faq1 Use these files as a guide to which other files to retrieve to answer your questions. Shuttle launch dates are posted by Ken Hollis periodically in sci.space.shuttle. A copy of his manifest is now available in the Ames archive in pub/SPACE/FAQ/manifest and may be requested from the email archive-server with 'send space FAQ/manifest'. Please get this document instead of posting requests for information on launches and landings. Do not post followups to this article; respond to the author. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 905 ------------------------------