Space Digest Fri, 6 Aug 93 Volume 16 : Issue 991 Today's Topics: 11 planets Cost of Shuttle (was Re: Budget figures) (3 msgs) Current Sub AIP, and can it be used in space to? (2 msgs) DC-X Prophets and associated problems Future War? Ideas! Ghost Wheels & HenrySpancer_Zoo Karla, name thereof Kelly Act Mars Observer's First Photo (2 msgs) NASA's planned project management changes (2 msgs) Shuttle Waste Management Why I hate the space shuttle 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: 5 Aug 1993 18:43:10 -0400 From: Pat Subject: 11 planets Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: | |1. Modern theories of formation of the solar system produce an asteroid |belt in that vicinity without requiring a planet as an intermediate stage. |The asteroids are leftovers from planet formation. | Leftovers always taste worse then the original meal. |2. All the asteroids put together would make an object only about twice |the size of Ceres -- a planet only in the loosest sense of the word. | Another re-statement of the Astronomers Missing Mass problem. >3. There is no obvious way of making a planet explode. Sure there is. Give Alan, Fred, Ken and Doug, unlimited time to post to Usenet :-) pat -- I don't care if it's true. If it sounds good, I will publish it. Frank Bates Publisher Frank Magazine. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 93 02:06:19 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Cost of Shuttle (was Re: Budget figures) > Similarly, when you buy a car, you usually figure the cost as > the dealer price + tax + registration; some of the numbers used > for [Fr]ed and STS recently are equivalent to figuring car cost > as that + insurance for 20 yrs (assuming two tickets per year but > no fatal crashes) + gas + routine maintenance + change of tires + ad > nauseum. The truth is, it would be a wise man who did so. Particularly if you watch the curve of costs/year and trade in when the total cost of the current vehicle (including amortization) exceeds the cost of the new vehicle. Maybe some day we'll have cars that will keep all the data for us and trade themselves in :-) -- ======================================================================= Give generously to the Dale M. Amon, Libertarian Anarchist Betty Ford Home for amon@cs.qub.ac.uk the Politically Correct Greybook: amon%cs.qub.ac.uk@andrew.cmu.edu ======================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 93 02:22:54 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Cost of Shuttle (was Re: Budget figures) > I would argue that by _ignoring_ the compound interest on your house, the > insurance costs for your car, and so forth, you are using meaningless figures. > This is the big smoke-and-mirrors game of marketing. Maintenance, meaning > everything you put into something over its life, is a perfectly valid part > of the total cost! Has anyone around here taken any accounting courses, > had to justify any expenses in a job working for a regular company? When > I start a project here at work, I have to figure in man-hours, equipment used, > the cost of keeping my computer running, the lights on above my office (such > things are usually all wrapped up into a "human resources" column), training, > maintenance, and so forth and so on. Further, a full cost analysis then looks > at what money I'm saving by doing the project, how much I might be wasting > when compared with cheaper alternatives, and so forth and so on. > I heartily agree. In a business course I once took, the instructor asked the question: what is the cost of the wastebasket beside your desk? If you don't include the cost/sqft of rent/mortgage/heat/light/etc you shouldn't be in business. Actually not true: you won't BE in business very long. -- ======================================================================= Give generously to the Dale M. Amon, Libertarian Anarchist Betty Ford Home for amon@cs.qub.ac.uk the Politically Correct Greybook: amon%cs.qub.ac.uk@andrew.cmu.edu ======================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 93 02:38:35 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Cost of Shuttle (was Re: Budget figures) > Ah, but you see, if you hadn't got a car in the first place > you wouldn't have been able to live 10 miles from work... > You being so silly buying a car (or conversely getting a > place to live[job] that far from your job[house] forcing > you to have a car in the first place) has > now cost you enormously, get rid of the house, and car, then > go look for a place closer to work! And not to forget that the calculations did not include the part of taxes going into creating a massive road infrastructure. Which everyone is forced to pay for, regardless of usage. In reality there should be a rental fee for your 20 miles/day, compact car class road use. If the fee covered your total share of repair, expansion, amortization, pollution, etc... it might change the balance. My, my. We just might have space shuttle pricing logic being applied to the automobile in every day life without our having really thought about it :-) -- ======================================================================= Give generously to the Dale M. Amon, Libertarian Anarchist Betty Ford Home for amon@cs.qub.ac.uk the Politically Correct Greybook: amon%cs.qub.ac.uk@andrew.cmu.edu ======================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 21:54:00 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Current Sub AIP, and can it be used in space to? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Aug5.041151.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >Saw whis on sci.military, and much of it I think can be used in space.. Since >submariens and space ships share much in common... Spacecraft have been using fuel-cell technology for nearly thirty years. Stirling engines have been considered for space use, but they tend to be awfully heavy. Nobody has seriously considered Diesels or gas turbines for space power -- they are heavy and they specialize in large amounts of power for short periods, where spacecraft tend to want smaller amounts for much longer periods. Most anything that is being thought about for subs has long since been looked at for spaceflight. The usual reason for rejecting it is that it weighs too much for its power output. -- 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 ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 1993 17:42 CDT From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: Current Sub AIP, and can it be used in space to? Newsgroups: sci.space In article , henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes... >In article <1993Aug5.041151.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >>Saw whis on sci.military, and much of it I think can be used in space.. Since >>submariens and space ships share much in common... > >Spacecraft have been using fuel-cell technology for nearly thirty years. >Stirling engines have been considered for space use, but they tend to be >awfully heavy. Nobody has seriously considered Diesels or gas turbines >for space power -- they are heavy and they specialize in large amounts of >power for short periods, where spacecraft tend to want smaller amounts for >much longer periods. > >Most anything that is being thought about for subs has long since been >looked at for spaceflight. The usual reason for rejecting it is that it >weighs too much for its power output. >-- >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 There are some things from the sub programs that are of great benefit to the space program. The Navy is far ahead of everyone else when it comes to work in vibration suppression. This technology is sorely needed by the space program when it comes to reducing the disturbing influences of motors, fans, astronauts, etc. It is unfortunate that the Navy is not very forthcoming with such information. We do have an ex subjock working with us on vibration isolation of payloads but there is a lot of work that can be done on this subject. A quick look at some of our SpacHab accelerometer data shows that fans are one of the biggest culprits of continious noise in the Spacehab locker. If anyone wants a challenge to design something better, here it is. Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 21:56:40 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems Newsgroups: sci.space In article schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes: >>The story I hear is that the X-30 management -- in this and other ways -- >>had a whole lot to do with the project's problems. > >Who were the managers? Gummint or private employees? NASA or DoD? It was one of these glorious multi-way joint projects, run by its own project office. The long-time boss was Robert Barthelmy, who's a USAF civilian employee I think; he was reputed to be NASP's single biggest technical obstacle. :-) -- 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Aug 93 14:59:17 PDT From: Charlie Prael Subject: Future War? Ideas! Newsgroups: sci.space fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: > >Second, tanks are notoriously difficult to keep up, treads fall off > >and bad land can make combat with them impossible (see desert storm > >for evidence). There is an absolutely essential need for a much more > >mobile system, (read man with gun!). > > The problem is even worse: Tanks are _heavy_ and the specialists, > tools and parts needed to keep them working are even heavier. You'll > notice that the airmobile/air assault divisions have very few tanks > and those are 30-year old, unusually light ones. In terms of the > intersterllar war question, I suspect transporting an armored division > would be harder than sending an entire (unmechanized) infantry army. A few things to think about. First, U.S. airborne/airmobile units are now re-equiping with much more modern "armor". The preferred unit seems to be a LAV-25 variant with a 105mm low-recoil gun system, which fires the same 105mm shells as earlier models of the M1 Abrams. Note that this is light enough to heli-lift beneath a CH-53, or drop from a C-141. Second, whether you want to use infantry or armor depends, largely, on what kind of terrain you are fighting in. To use your two examples, in the Australian outback, I would *take* the armored div over an all-infantry Corps-sized group. Why? Because the mobility you have is simply unmatchable, as is the shock effect. In something like the Amazon, the infantry force is much more desirable. Terrain dictates the most effective equipment. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Charlie Prael - dante@shakala.com Shakala BBS (ClanZen Radio Network) Sunnyvale, CA +1-408-734-2289 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 21:09:23 GMT From: Dillon Pyron Subject: Ghost Wheels & HenrySpancer_Zoo Newsgroups: sci.space In article <52936@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, sr600uab@sdcc16.ucsd.edu (S.H.) writes: >In article <2827427880@hoult.actrix.gen.nz> Bruce@hoult.actrix.gen.nz (Bruce Hoult) writes: > >> >>Welcome to the kill file. > >Really ? > >What else are you going to Kill ? > >Socrates was killed too. > >I still read about him. Socrates also gave careful thought before he wrote. Maybe if you spent more than ten minutes reading this group before you posted, you'd get a little more respect. And, if you learned a little about the tools you are using, people might respect you more. As the man said, please step into the kill file. BTW. If you had a stable id, I would have mailed this. -- Dillon Pyron | The opinions expressed are those of the TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support | sender unless otherwise stated. (214)462-3556 (when I'm here) | (214)492-4656 (when I'm home) |Please send mail to pyron@dseg.ti.com pyron@dseg.ti.com |since skndiv is going away. Thanks PADI AI-54909 | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 93 01:01:46 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Karla, name thereof > The question has been raised in the past as to whether we should even > bother to continue naming asteroids, but the conclusion was reached that > if the IAU didn't do it, then some money-making operation like the > International Star Registry would start doing it. > Sounds like a rather good idea to me. Sell the right to name them to the highest bidder and use the money to fund R&D. Let someone like the Space Studies Institute parcel them out. There are eccentric multi-millionaires out there who would cough up a lot of dough to immortalize their deceased pet poodle. Why not help part them ease their loss :-) More seriously, the post makes it sound like it would be a terrible thing if someone made money off it. Well, there is absolutely nothing wrong with making money. -- ======================================================================= Give generously to the Dale M. Amon, Libertarian Anarchist Betty Ford Home for amon@cs.qub.ac.uk the Politically Correct Greybook: amon%cs.qub.ac.uk@andrew.cmu.edu ======================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 93 01:11:15 BST From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk Subject: Kelly Act > The Kelly Act is a series of bills passed in the 1920's and 1930's. It > played a key role in establishing the US Airline industry. It also, if my memory serves me correctly, had several other effects. The vested interests were worried about the profusion of small operators, and were horrified about the bad image that the barnstormers and their Jennies were having. They wanted some means of putting them out of the picture. What happened was worse than even the main players expected. A government official took them into a meeting and parcelled out the air mail routes. They were told who would live and who would not; who would merge with whom... The end result was a massive scandal that was the reason that the Army pilots were called in to take over the mail routes. After the Army pilots killed themselves off in droves over the "Hell Stretch", the Allegheny Mtns, private mail plane service was reinstated. I'd really rather see a bit less of a Central Planning model than the Kelly Act. PS: And in the Did You Know That category: USAir, formerly Allegheny Airlines, started off life doing flying hook and wire mail pickups in Western Pennsylvania and West Virginia? -- ======================================================================= Give generously to the Dale M. Amon, Libertarian Anarchist Betty Ford Home for amon@cs.qub.ac.uk the Politically Correct Greybook: amon%cs.qub.ac.uk@andrew.cmu.edu ======================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 22:29:56 GMT From: Dave Michelson Subject: Mars Observer's First Photo Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >> >>And, of course, it's available by FTP, right? > >That's either sarcasm or naivete; no way to tell which. :-) > >It won't be available for FTP until somebody gets a copy and scans it in. >NASA's PR people are still in the dark ages when it comes to electronic >availability of such things. Didn't the public affairs office at JPL recently set up an FTP host specifically to act as clearinghouse for such things? Maybe someone in know could refresh my memory... -- Dave Michelson -- davem@ee.ubc.ca -- University of British Columbia ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1993 00:35:26 GMT From: Rod Beckwith Subject: Mars Observer's First Photo Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary In article DPierce@world.std.com (Richard D Pierce) writes: >> The B & W photograph is available by calling NASA's >>Broadcast and Imaging Branch ... > >And, of course, it's available by FTP, right? =========================================================================== ====== (Henry Spencer)wrote: >>That's either sarcasm or naivete; no way to tell which. :-) >>It won't be available for FTP until somebody gets a copy and scans it in. >>NASA's PR people are still in the dark ages when it comes to electronic >>availability of such things. =========================================================================== ===== Henry, The images are coming in & converted to a viewable format, unless Polariod technology has come a long way 8->......zero's & ones could be made readily available for FTP format. Distributing things in a soft manner is so much quicker, nah that would make to much sense, besides, the Postal service must love their archaic ways. I tend to agree that NASA is a BIT slow on getting things out. Efficiency is so unbureaucratic! Rod -- Rod Beckwith |$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$| The Datacom I/S |"The great obstacle of progress is not ignorance,| Nite rodb@corp.sgi.com|but the illusion of knowledge." | Net |$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$| Knight ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 93 15:50:14 From: Steinn Sigurdsson Subject: NASA's planned project management changes Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Aug5.132628.27134@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: Why does government procuremnt NEED to be different from accepted industry practice? Different purpose, different scale. Both the accounting methods and procurement practises of a single-proprietor business differ from those used by GM (and, funnily enough, the differences don't get you thrown in jail [sic]). What's more, Matsushita and GM use different accounting methods and procurement practices. A "working" scheme is not unique. Of course that leaves the question open as to whether the particular scheme used by government is any good wide open :-) | Steinn Sigurdsson |I saw two shooting stars last night | | Lick Observatory |I wished on them but they were only satellites | | steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? | | "standard disclaimer" |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983 | ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 1993 19:21:45 -0400 From: Pat Subject: NASA's planned project management changes Newsgroups: sci.space In article <23rgbaINN7eu@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes: | |>| Second, unlike your commercial customers, DoD (whatever agency) has the |>|unilateral right to revise its contracts [...] |>It's called a termination for convenience. | |No, read it again. They have the right to REVISE at will. Termination is dealt |with in the separate clause below. | I would suggest you either talk to some people who do government procurement, or get some more experience in the industry. Contracts, can't be revised at will. DoD doesn't say, we know you promised to deliver typewriters for $300/each, but we want M1 tanks, so cough up them at $300 each. What DoD does is use their right to terminate a contract to open a contract for re-negotiation as needed. For Instance, I have seen contracts for T&M engineering, at a negotiated rate, have that rate re-negotiated, when money got tight. the firm had the option of walking, or taking the new rate. that's not quite the image you ar epresenting. |>| Third, DoD obtains extensive audit and work surveillance rights under its |>|contracts. [Much less so with other agencies, but still, the guv'ment may |>|come in at any time to look at the books; this is NOT the case with a |>|commercial entity] |> |>Lot's of contracts include this. |>Any CPFF or T&M contract includes the right to audit cost basis |>materials and hourly timesheets. | |Including stationing their own employees on site to monitor all goings on? | Have you seen the methodologies for Agricultural programs? To participate in pesticide free programs, often inspectors will be at farms on a regular basis. the USDA inspection program for tuna, involves the participating firms (Starkist i.e.) paying for the inspectors who stand around and stamp the cans. As i pointed out, in the movie business, auditors will routinely show up to count tickets and heads in the theaters. |Hardly. Even the TQM prayer groups don't go to the monitoring extremes |which the government does... and that was before TQM became hip :) | I am pretty sure, GM for the Saturn program, puts GM employees into the subcontractors plants to monitor process and production. |>| Fourth, DoD uses its procurement program as a vehicle for attaining |>|numerous national, social, and economic goals. |>So do every other business in the world. All contracts carry an |>implied social and economic policy in them. | |I realize this is your typical socialistic garbage, but you're wrong. | I realize you like to call people names and deride their ideas rather then admit that you may be wrong. You must have had a bad life doug. Examine a contract, it is an promise for a consideration. All contracts must conform to public policy, ie no contracts for prostitution or slavery. Right there is some social policy. The contract is awarded by some mechanism. ( Right there is your socio-economic policy) i.e. GM has their approved vendors list. if you aren't on that list, you will never be allowed to bid. Right? Do you think that might include a social policy? Contracts may go to the perceived best quality vendor, that's an economic/ social policy. COntracts may go to the cheapest vendor, that's a policy. Contracts may go to the guy who last did this work (Old Boy system) that's a policy. COntracts may go to the first guy in the door. or the one who promises the fastest deadline. I realize in your world, there is no such thing as policy, but there are more things in the world then are dreamt of in your philosophy. |>Look at detroits boycott of japanese products for years | |Detroit? Ah, yes the two-faced types who yell "Buy American" with one |mouth and end up cutting deals with japanese companies on the other hand |for joint production... ho hoho. All to improve the bottom line. | Ah Yes, Detroit. The firms that won't let their employees drive Japanese cars or Wouldn't deal with Non-white business people until the Feds jumped on their case. Ford, the firm that won't do business with jewish people. The not so big three finally went crying to the japanese in the 80's only after having no choice. If you had ever been to detroit even in the 70's you would have a whole different take on reality. I would suggest you read some history on Ford, before you laugh. |There's nothing "social" in that. It's money and greed. Why else are most |companies building products overseas? Not for the good of the United States, |but cuz it's CHEAPER. | And is that not a social and economic policy? Build the product in the cheapest manner. Reaganism is a social policy. it's not very nice, but it is a policy. |> ATT, IBM, and the |>fortune 500 usually have policies to help small and disadvantaged |>business too. | |Only because it suits their public image and because they are required by |law to have a certain percentage of small/disadvantaged businesses on-board |in various government contract work, due to the SBA act. | Does it matter why? |It's not because they want to be nice guys. Standard Oil found out that it was in their interest to cultivate suppliers from non-traditional sources. it gave them leverage over their traditional suppliers. | |>| Fifth, under certain types of contracts, there are limitations on the |>|amount of profit you can earn and on the amounts and types of costs you may |>|recover. |>Same thing on T&M, and CPFF contracts in the priovate sector. | |Sure, but if DoD decides to revise the contract, you're screwed regardless. | And same thing in the private sector. See how in construction, companies are killing each other. builders are getting hosed by the clients. they may have a negotiated rate for services, only to be told, that the rate is changing. |>| Finally, DoD [and any other agency] has an absolute to terminate all or any |>|part of your contract at any time.... |>Lot's of contracts carry a termination for convenience clause, actually |>all contracts by law are terminable, | |Certainly. But the government has lots more lawyers on staff and they make the |rules, not a neutral party. Care to rethink that? | They may make the rules, but they are bound by their rules. I've been involved in claims against the feds for contract terminations. I'll tell you this, I'd rather deal with the Feds, tehn any state government. the Feds, are ruled through the District courtts. An independent arm of government. the states run administrative claims. And It doesn't matter how many lawyers the feds have, i've participated on numerous winning claims. Plus, if they lose the claim, they have to pay your court costs. | |>>Now, did you want a further exploration on why the government is not quite |>>the capitialist business entity which you'd like to think? |>Do you want to rethink your position first? | |Hardly. DoD is lots bigger than any single company on earth. And their |enforcement branch has guns as well as lawyers :) | Do you want to re-think your position some more? I'd rather do business witht he DoD then Herbert Haft any day. |Now, you're the raging socialist, Pat. Government does not maximize profits. |Nor does it go out and excessively borrow :) | Government does what it does. Policy is seperate from administration. If you wish to discuss the policy of administration please talk to congress. if you wish to discuss the administration of policy, please talk to your COntract officer. If there is any doubt, please see the General SErvices Administration, unless this is a DoD contract, then see the DSCA or NASA, then see the NASA Administrative directorate. > >No, actually, it's not. It's made out of old 8" gun tubes and designed >to blow up underground bunkers. Made from scratch. Good stuff. Works well, of course, if the bunker is full of civilians and not Command staff, that's a whole nother problem. >>program. given that they are only purchasing one vehicle and >>no other products are critically pathed upon it, it's not high risk. > >What happens if the one vehicle dies? They don't have a lot of spares sitting >around. I'd call that significant risk, hm? Well, they either fix it, or they build another one. the second one is a lot cheaper. Besides DC-X is already 50% successful. it's already demonstrated rapid turnaround and servicing >> >>The new variant OV's were not compatible on asystems level >>with the old OV's which meant twice as much training, and >>more operational twists. > >Well Pat, you seem suddenly Risk Adverse for someone so adament to launching >SSF in a higher inclination because it'll be "tougher." Understanding why they wouldn't make their logistics problems 200% more difficult is far different from advocating a far more productive Space station. Different OV's will reduce productivity in the STS program. A different station orbit will increase productivity. > > >C'mon Pat, I got 20 pages of FARs for a small solicitation. Gimme a break. I'd >hate to think what they look like for larger amounts of money. About the same size. How many RFP's do you read? I read any where between 20- 100 in a year. A large contract will often have more task orders and more detail on proposal specs, but, the included FAR's are about the same. > >>One local washington company with about 200 employees, had to write >>a policy, do you know what their policy was? >>If you bring drugs to the office, you must share them. > >So what do you think would happen if the government goes back and looks at that >particular policy? Do you think that Uncle Sam will think that's cute and >continue to hand them money? No-one from the government is tasked to enforce this policy. and besides, they won the contract, i doubt the contracting officers give a damn. when i read how some of the RFP'sa re written, i figure at least half of them are on drugs. pat -- I don't care if it's true. If it sounds good, I will publish it. Frank Bates Publisher Frank Magazine. ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 93 12:21:24 -0500 From: cecce_aj@corning.com Subject: Shuttle Waste Management Newsgroups: sci.space In article , jhardin@splat.com ("John Hardin at home") writes: > Would it be feasible to include large amounts of ferrous materials in the > astronauts' diets - large enough so that the solid wastes could be > manipulated magnetically? > > Possible drawbacks might include: > > - The astronauts themselves become subject to magnetic fields. Does the > cabin shield the astronauts from the earth's magnetic field? What about EVA? > > - That much iron might have negative effects on their health. > How about gentically engineering them with chicken DNA. That with a high calcium diet should allow them to lay their waste.... Sorry, I couldn't resist. 8^) Tony ------------------------------ Date: 5 Aug 93 15:44:48 From: Steinn Sigurdsson Subject: Why I hate the space shuttle Newsgroups: sci.space In article tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes: Henry Spencer writes: > No, with enough engines that they can survive loss of 1/2 of them instead > of only 1/4 like a 747. (1/2 is nominally survivable on a 747, but note > what happened in Amsterdam.) ... And I recall reading about a United trans-Pacific flight to Tokyo even longer ago that had first one engine shut down, then a second, and I believe a third, though I recall a second engine was restarted for landing, but it may have been flying on one engine there for a while. Does somebody have a better memory than me about this incident, and if true, what was determined to be the cause? That sounds like the one that flew into the Pinatubo plume? There was at least one 747 on a trans-Pacific flight that lost three engines when it ran into the plume and made it out with one restart. Both 747s, by the way. | Steinn Sigurdsson |I saw two shooting stars last night | | Lick Observatory |I wished on them but they were only satellites | | steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? | | "standard disclaimer" |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983 | ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 991 ------------------------------