Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 05:00:10 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #613 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 31 Dec 92 Volume 15 : Issue 613 Today's Topics: Acceleration Aluminum as Rocket Fuel? Astro FTP list - December issue averting doom (2 msgs) DC vs Shuttle capabilities Justification for the Space Program Moral Justification (2 msgs) Saturn lift capabilities Space List Flame Wars Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity (2 msgs) 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: Wed, 30 Dec 92 08:47:52 EST From: John Roberts Subject: Acceleration -From: gene@wucs1.wustl.edu (_Floor_) -Subject: Re: Acceleration -Date: 29 Dec 92 16:22:35 GMT -In article roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes: -] -Small force? I think they said the probe would feel an acceleration of 350 g's. -] ------------ -] -It's receiving a force 350 times that of Earth's gravity at the surface of -] -the Earth. That's quite a bit of force if you ask most people. -] ----- -] -] - Gene Van Buren, Kzoo Crew(Floor), Washington U. in St. Lou - #1 in Volleyball -] -] Acceleration and force are not the same thing. In this case, acceleration -] is force *per unit mass*. If you can keep the mass down on any given -] component, then the force isn't too great, even under high acceleration. -F=ma, right? So if the mass is the same, then an acceleration 350 times -that experienced on earth is due to a force 350 times that on earth, right? That's right. So if you can make "m" small enough, then you can keep "F" manageable even if "a" is large. Of course, strength also decreases with decreasing mass, but not linearly - I believe strength per unit mass generally increases with decreasing size [2]. So if you scaled an ant or daddy longlegs spider up to a mass of ten tons, the poor critter wouldn't be able to move (numerous science fiction films notwithstanding). If you dropped Big Ben onto a concrete surface, it probably wouldn't fare as well as a wristwatch subjected to similar acceleration. :-) [2] There are at least two relevant factors - the square-cube law, and surface effects. John Roberts roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 92 15:41:48 GMT From: John Thompson Reynolds Subject: Aluminum as Rocket Fuel? Newsgroups: sci.space In article , 0004244402@mcimail.com (Karl Dishaw) writes: |> I dug into my notes from Aero/Astro project lab, we tried to make a |> fuel feeder for an aluminum/oxygen rocket: |> |> Isp = 118 sec (after accounting for loss due to solid particles) |> Must run oxidizer-rich since Al2O3 is a solid. |> Main hazard--oxygen getting into Al storage tank. |> |> I'd love to see some info on the Wickman project. The Isp is too low to |> be really useful, but it would be great for circularizing orbits on mass |> driver-launched payloads, or maybe cheap transport on the lunar |> surface. Thanks for the info. My thoughts were along the line of constructing a hollow cylinder of powdered aluminum, into which you would pump LOX at a controlled rate. The Aluminum particles might need to be held in some sort of a matrix material, both to keep them in place, and to prevent the buildup of an Aluminum Oxide casing. I wonder what the effective Isp of Aluminum laced epoxy is? I seem to remember a somewhat similar design which pumps LOX into a tube of rubber? To stop the "engine", stop the flow of LOX. Obviously such a design would only be useful in a vacuum, and is probably no more reusable than an SRB. John Reynolds ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 09:56:59 GMT From: M{kel{ Veikko Subject: Astro FTP list - December issue Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space # # A S T R O - F T P L I S T # Updated 28.12.1992 # # This is a short description of anonymous-ftp file servers containing # astronomy and space research related material. I have included only those # servers where there are special subdirectories for astro stuff or much # material included into a general directories. This list is not a complete # data set of possible places, so I would be very happy of all kind of notices # and information depending on this listing. # # The newest version of this file is available via anonymous-ftp as: # # nic.funet.fi:/pub/astro/general/astroftp.txt # # There are also many mirror (copy) archives for simtel-20.army.mil (PC) and # sumex-aim.stanford.edu (Mac) which are not included into this list. Only some # of mirroring sites are listed. # # # Veikko Makela # Veikko.Makela@Helsinki.FI # *Computing Centre of Univ. Helsinki* # *Ursa Astronomical Association* # Server, IP # Contents # Directories akiu.gw.tohoku.ac.jp images 130.34.8.9 /pub/gif/astro /pub/gif/nasa ames.arc.nasa.gov spacecraf data and news,images,NASA data, 128.102.18.3 Spacelink texts,VICAR software,FAQ,files /pub/SPACE from mandarin.mit.edu atari.archive.umich.edu Atari 141.211.164.8 /atari/applications/astronomy archive.afit.af.mil Satellite software,documents,elements 129.92.1.66 /pub/space baboon.cv.nrao.edu AIPS document and patches,radioastronomy 192.33.115.103 image processing,FITS test images /pub/aips c.scs.uiuc.edu ROSAT,Starchart(PC) 128.174.90.3 /pub capella.eetech.mcgill.ca garbo.uwasa.fi c.,archive.umich.edu c., 132.206.1.17 other mirrors /wuarchive/mirrors3/ ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz PC 130.216.1.5 /msdos/astronomy (*) overseas connections refused chara.gsu.edu Electronical Journal of ASA 131.96.5.10 /asa daisy.learning.cs.cmu.edu Space technology texts 128.2.218.26 /public/space-tech explorer.arc.nasa.gov Magellan, Viking and Voyager CDROMs 128.102.32.18 /cdrom epona.physics.ucg.ie Some software,predictions,images 140.203.1.3 /pub/astro /pub/space/pics fits.cv.nrao.edu FITS documents, OS support, sample data, 192.33.115.8 test files, sci.astro.fits archive /FITS ftp.cco.caltech.edu Astronomy magazine index 1991 131.215.48.200 /pub/misc ftp.cs.tu-berlin.de PC,Amiga,general 130.149.17.7 /pub/astro ftp.funet.fi PC,Mac,CP/M,Atari,Amiga,databases,Unix, 128.214.6.100 HP48,OS/2,texts,News,solar reports,images, /pub/astro Satellite elements,FAQ ftp.uni-kl.de iauc,Vista image reduction,asteroids 131.246.9.95 /pub/astro garbo.uwasa.fi PC 128.214.87.1 /pc/astronomy gipsy.vmars.tuwien.ac.at images 128.130.39.16 /pub/spacegifs hanauma.stanford.edu Unix, satellite program 36.51.0.16 /pub/astro ics.uci.edu images 128.195.1.1 /astro idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov IDL routines 128.183.57.82 / iear.arts.rpi.edu images 128.113.6.10 /pub/graphics/astro iraf.noao.edu IRAF Software 140.252.1.1 /iraf iris1.ucis.dal.ca images 129.173.18.107 /pub/gif julius.cs.qub.ac.uk Space Digest 143.117.5.6 /pub/SpaceDigestArchive kauri.vuw.ac.nz Astrophysical software 130.195.11.3 /pub/astrophys kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov Satellite elements,spacecraft info 128.149.1.165 /pub/space lowell.edu Vista image reduction 192.103.11.2 /pub/vista mandarin.mit.edu Comets,asteroids,SAC,databases,Ephem,PC 18.82.0.21 (*) unavailable since December 1992, /astro no information about the future minnehaha.rhrk.uni-kl.de Starchart,iauc index 131.246.9.116 /pub/astro mcshh.hanse.de PC 192.76.134.1 /pub/msdos/astronom ns3.hq.eso.org Test images 134.171.11.4 /pub/testimages nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov HST,IUE,Astro-1,NSSDCA info,Spacewarn, 128.183.36.23 FITS standard / osgate0.mei.co.jp images 132.182.49.2 /free/others/SPACE pioneer.unm.edu spacecraf data,catalogs,image processing 129.24.9.217 / plaza.aarnet.edu.au images,docs,garbo.uwasa.fi c. 139.130.4.6 /graphics/graphics/astro /micros/pc/garbo/astronomy pomona.claremont.edu Yale Bright Star Catalog 134.173.4.160 /YALE_BSC puffin.doc.ic.ac.uk archive.umich.edu c.,other mirrors 146.169.3.7 /mac/umich/graphics/astronomy ra.nrl.navy.mil Mac 128.60.0.21 /MacSciTech/astro rascal.ics.utexas.edu Mac 128.83.138.20 /mac rigel.acs.oakland.edu PC 141.210.10.117 /pub/msdos/astronomy rusmv1.rus.uni-stuttgart.de Atari 129.69.1.12 /soft/atari/applications/astronomy scavengerhunt.rs.itd.umich.edu Mac 141.211.164.153 /mac/graphics/astronomy simtel20.army.mil PC,CP/M 192.88.110.20 /msdos/educ /cpm sol.deakin.oz.au garbo.uwasa.fi c. 128.184.1.1 /pub/PC/chyde/astronomy sola.fcit.monash.edu.au HP48 130.194.224.224 /HP48/seq/astronomy /HP48/seq/misc solar.stanford.edu Solar reports 36.10.0.4 /pub solbourne.solbourne.com some PC programs 141.138.2.2 /pub/rp/as-is/astro stardent.arc.nasa.gov Martian map 128.102.21.44 /pub stsci.edu HSTMap(Mac),HST info 130.167.1.2 /Software sumex.stanford.edu Mac 36.44.0.6 /info-mac/app sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de PC,misc 129.206.100.126 /pub/msdos/astronomy tetra.gsfc.nasa.gov FITSIO subroutines 128.183.8.77 /pub/fitsio unbmvs1.csd.unb.ca Space geodesy,solar activity info 131.202.1.2 pub.canspace vab02.larc.nasa.gov images 128.155.23.47 /gifs/space vmd.cso.uiuc.edu Weather satellite images 128.174.5.98 /wx xi.uleth.ca Solar reports,auroral activity forecast 142.66.3.29 maps,solar images,x-ray plot,coronal /pub/solar emission plots # Some abbreviations: # # c = copy (mirror) of other archive # ----- # My other e-communication projects: # * E-mail contact addresses of interest groups in amateur astronomy # * European astronomy and space-related bulletin boards # * E-mail catalogue of Finnish amateur astronomers ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 92 13:54:55 GMT From: Andrew - Palfreyman Subject: averting doom Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.physics,sci.environment I like the simplicity of this idea (moving the Earth instead of trying to shield it), but what the heck's all this "elastic collisions" stuff? Surely you're not serious about the "broken Kepler" business? Instead, I'd use the "tame asteroid" in a resonant slingshot configuration between (say) Mars and Earth, in order to bring Mars "down" and Earth "up" the Sun's gravitational potential well. Hell, use a string of 'em to speed things up..... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | lord snooty @the giant | Would You Like Space Potatoes With That? | | poisoned electric head | andrew_-_palfreyman@cup.portal.com | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 92 14:10:19 GMT From: Len Evens Subject: averting doom Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.physics,sci.environment In article jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes: >from a U.P. story [Some very interesting speculation about the possibility of moving the planet to avoid the consequences over hundreds of millions of years ---the last estimate I saw in a news story was just under a billion--- of the gradual heating of the sun.] > > >By the way, it seems to me that if the above idea is sound, it settles >the question of the stability of the solar system - in the negative. If you don't mind a quibble from a mathematician, the mathematical question of stability refers to whether a dynamical system following Newton's laws and which is an idealization of the solar system stays bounded for all time (or some related question of this type). McCarthy's speculation proposes the use of nuclear explosions to deflect an asteroid. This takes us out of the realm of dynamics. If we depart from that realm, it is perfectly obvious that the solar system is not a stable system. For example, what is likely to happen if the the sun goes nova? >Very likely an asteroid could be tamed over a sufficiently long time >with as small an expenditure of delta-v as might be desired. Once >tamed it could be used with infinitesimal external force to expel a >planet from the system. This tells us that the current trajectory of >the solar system is arbitarily close to one in which a planet is >expelled. Of course, the probability that a planet actually would be You would need a whole lot more mathematics than the rough estimates made in McCarthy's exposition to establish this. I suspect the clever people studying celestial mechanics have looked into all the obvious small perturbations of this kind long ago, but perhaps not. I will ask my local expert. >expelled by this mechanism in some particular finite time is extremely >low, because maintaining the required sequence of encounters requires >an improbable precision in the initial conditions. I suppose a lower >bound on the probability could be computed and from it an expected >upper bound on the gravitational lifetime of the solar system could be >obtained. > >Criticism and comments are welcome. For a certain reason, I even >welcome comments, however uninformed, to the effect that the whole >idea is preposterous. I prefer such comments to be postings rather >than email. > It seems to me that this type of speculation takes us a bit beyond science but perhaps not inexcusably. Those interested in the earth's history, particularly future history, certainly can't propose experiments or observations which will directly confirm such predictions over what is often called deep time. McCarthy's point is basically that the existence of intelligence may have profound effects. This point has been made before. For example, Dyson proposed that advanced civilizations might move all the mass in a star system into a sphere surrounding the star thus capturing all its radiation and living on the inside of the sphere. As Steven Jay Gould has pointed out, this may be a limited perspective. We tend to think of evolution as an upward process leading to us where it more or less stops. In fact, it is quite possible that intelligence is an evolutionary side show which will shortly disappear. There may be no ancestors around to engage in planetary engineering when the time comes. >What would be most welcome is a collaborator on a paper that could >be published in _Nature_. >-- >John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 >* >He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense. > I think the analysis needs a lot more mathematics than arithmetic. Unforutnately, I don't know enough of the right kind to help, but I will pass this idea on to my colleagues who do. Leonard Evens len@math.nwu.edu 708-491-5537 Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208 ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 92 04:15:57 GMT From: Rich Kolker Subject: DC vs Shuttle capabilities Newsgroups: sci.space In article ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >In <1992Dec29.202546.12526@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> hack@arabia.uucp (Edmund Hack) writes: > >>5. The weight margins on the vehicle are very tight, a historical source >>of problems in spacecraft and aircraft design. > On the contrary, the weight margins are quite generous. They include not only a "dry weight" margin, but a margin for lower isp than expected and a couple of things I don't remember (i'll be getting the report I read soon). The 10,000 lb to polar orbit, or 24,800 to LEO are based on worst case of all these margins. If they turn out better (i.e. if expected values are reached) the payload increases. ------------------------------------------------------------------- rich kolker rkolker@nuchat.sccsi.com < Do Not Write In This Space> -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 92 16:01:58 GMT From: Josh Diamond Subject: Justification for the Space Program Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space,alt.rush-limbaugh In article <1992Dec29.232413.25117@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: (2) Estimates of the metal content of the Gorda Ridge polymetallic sulfides -- which are in the US economic exclusion zone -- range up to 10^9 tons (although noone knows for sure, as they are not economical at this time.) These deposits are somewhat different from nodules, containing significant silver and gold. Also, some of the Pacific nodules are within 200 miles of various island nations, so only those nations, not the UN/etc., must be dealt with the exploit those resources. Did it ever occur to anyone out there to consider the environmental impact of large scale disruption of the sea floor? I could result in severe problems with algal blooms and plankton die-offs, with effects all the way up the food chain... Spidey!!! -- You don't hunt ducks with a turnip! /\ \ / /\ Josh Diamond jmd@bear.com //\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!! ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd //\(( ))/\\ / < `' > \ Do whatever it takes. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:32:34 GMT From: Hartmut Frommert Subject: Moral Justification Newsgroups: sci.space 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes: [stuff deleted] >Sorry. Valuable, perhaps, but not moral. >1) If it has such a good return, why do we need the gov. to pay for it? Who needs a gov ? :-)) >2) How do you convince that factory worker that lost his job to a robot > that his money should be spent to help put him on the street? If I'm not totally misinformed there are at least as many jobs created by modern technology as go lost to robots. At least in Europe there was a debate on the dangers of the computer in the late 70s: many people feared that they could destroy their jobs, and that the government could introduce a "Great Brother" system supervising and controling them. Now everybody has a PC which often changed the job but in no way destroyed it, and there are extra jobs that are now possible and could not be done w/o comp. The problem for the worker will probably be (on longer terms) that he must qualify again for a new job, and some people will fail, since hightech usually requires more skilled workers. Hartmut Frommert Dept of Physics, Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany -- Eat whale killers, not whales -- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:43:30 GMT From: gawne@stsci.edu Subject: Moral Justification Newsgroups: sci.space > 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) asks: > >>2) How do you convince that factory worker that lost his job to a robot >> that his money should be spent to help put him on the street? I guess there are two issues here. First is the question of "fair" use of tax revenues and second is the question of automation. While I agree that governments often spend tax revenues foolishly, I think that subsidies to industry can be good. If the subsidy is in some part funded by revenues obtained by taxing those who become unemployed as a result then it is in the interest of both the taxing authority (govt) and industry to provide new employment opportunities. If the source of revenue (the taxpayer) stops paying taxes then what? As for the second implicit point, that of a worker being replaced because of change, it sort of reminds me of the story of the farrier who went to court to try to get automobiles outlawed in his town because it threatned his horseshoeing business. Or as my grandmother used to say, "Time and tide wait for no-one." You can either change along with the world or let it leave you behind. -Bill Gawne, Space Telescope Science Institute ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 1992 16:24:49 GMT From: Pat Subject: Saturn lift capabilities Newsgroups: sci.space Henry. Given the opinion of the science community on ASTP, why didn't we have the ASTP mission meet at Skylab? Then a Full-up CSM could have been used to give skylab a push, the vehicle could have been flown fora fourth mission, and the soviets could have docked on the other end. Was skylabs orbit too low in inclination for them to hit it? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 08:42:00 From: Subject: Space List Flame Wars I subscribed to this list in order to try to inform myself about the latest news about US and other coutnries' space programs. I thought that this would be a list of technical discussions, not a religious debate that has turned into ad hominem attacks and flame wars as virulent as any I've seen in the religious news groups. Then I see things like this, from Herman Rubin: >Let those who want to support research decide. But get the governments >out of the way, including out of levying taxes on money going to research. >If the government was not involved in the business of vainly trying to >manage charity, which it does in such a way as to make it financially >advantageous for at least many of those on welfare to do nothing about >the problem, and in the business of keeping our children very poorly >educated, and in general making it expensive to do anything of which >the government diasapproves, there would be the money for space activities. and this from Henry Spencer: >We'll be mining in space long before we exploit any of the sea-bottom >resources. The socialists rule the oceans and don't want any dirty >capitalist mining venture making money off the "common property of >mankind". The US State Department was on the brink of giving them the >rest of the universe too, but the L5 Society (may it rest in peace) >managed to block Senate ratification of the infamous Moon Treaty. Such political ranting belongs in the alt.talk.politics or alt.religion groups. Could we please take them out of the space list? In addition, there is much too much signal to noise ratio in the flame wars and the ad hominem attacks. Could we move them out of the list and into private emails? There is too much heat and not enough light coming out of them. I know that I have now left myself wide open to being attacked from all sides, but I just thought that, considering the size of the mailings that I'm getting, there is too much of this stuff to wade through to get to anything worth reading. ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 92 13:43:00 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity Newsgroups: sci.space In article jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes: >If someone proposes a new reusable vehicle for going to earth orbit, >it is reasonable to ask why its maintenance costs can be expected to >be a lot less than those of the Shuttle. Any answer you get needs to >be evaluated skeptically. DC-X is being built so that the answer can be evaluated experimentally. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------115 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 30 Dec 92 14:53:49 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity Newsgroups: sci.space In article <72596@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes: >>Sorry for the misunderstanding. No, I suspect 10 flights a year is possible. >>I doubt 12 can be done without MAJOR changes. >>But given the very poor record of Shuttle performance to schedule, I assert >>the burden of proof is on you to show 12 can be done. I'll accept any two >>consecutive calendar years with 24 launches. > One year doesn't go a long way statistically, but 1992 had a pretty > good record. For eight flights. That doesn't mean an increase of 25 to 50 percent is easy. > Agreed, the proof is in the pudding. Alas, political pressures being > what they are, NASA is unlikely to get the chance to prove it. What exactly are these pressures you are talking about? As to wether these pressures exist or not is not relevant. The bottom line is that Shuttle can't fly (for whatever reason) much more than it is now. > Will sixteen launches in two years at least give you some cause > to believe that Shuttle is not yet working at maximum capacity? That's why I said ten flights. > By the way, > if Endeavour flies on January 13, that will be nine launches in a > twelve month period. Means nothing. >>A DC is simple and reliable enough that 50 flights a year is reasonable > Essentially the same thing was said in 1972 regarding Shuttle. True enough. So what are we to do? In these situations I like to look at the design of the vehicle, not worry about claims made by dis-similar vehicles in the past. When one builds a complex vehicle which pushes the technology everywhere, it comes as no suprise that it doesn't work very well. But when one looks at a simple vehicle which makes maximum use of exsiting technology it is a lot easier to expect success. > It wasn't true then, but this is the first time I've ever seen > you use the phrase "if DC works". Then you aren't reading my postings very carefully. > Heretofor it has been "there's no reason it won't work. I also say that. Both are true statements. To date nobody has proposed any real show stoppers to SSTO. Not you, not gary not NASA. Your matra of 'shuttle failed so DC will fail' simply isn't a good technical arguement. Now it you do want to see a good arguement against SSTO, see John Roberts recent posting. There he does a good job of identifying the risk areas and showing the technical problems. > As you just said, ten per year is 100% of Shuttle's capacity without > raising costs. So why is Shuttle flying only eight times per year? You need to ask NASA for the final answer. It could well be that I am wrong and 8 is the max flight rate. > That is the argument used to justify cancellation of all manned > space activities. Is that what you are suggesting, Allen? Manned space has a reputation for being horendously expensive. Currently it is but need not always be expensive. By blindly supporting vehicles which are so hugely expensive simply because they are manned we: 1. Give ammunition to our enemies who can point to Shuttle and argue that manned space is too expensive. 2. Stifle efforts to reduce costs. 3. Lure us into a false sense of complacency by thinking that progress is being made when in fact it isn't. I am a strong supporter of manned space and the current stagnation we are seeing distresses me. Seeing other supporters working to maintain that stagnation is even more distressing. > Your claims as to DC's performance before the thing ever flies > doesn't wow the public, either. I disagree. I was recently interviewed for an upcoming article on DC in a British newspaper. I have received requests from other papers as well. I know of other media interested in covering the DCX tests. Hundered of people have volunteered to meet with their representatives on this. These are not the actions of disinterested people. > I pointed out four recent high > tech space programs that failed to meet their goals. so what? You cannot conclude from that anything about any future program. Pick your favorite future effort. Do you think it will fail just because some past efforts failed? > unless we go buy Soyuz from Russia, what options do we have? I think that's a hell of a good option. It saves money and promotes commercial space. What more do we want? >>There isn't a payload in existance today which can't go up on either. > Some people say GRO and Hubble are examples, I'm not sure. The USAF has a Titan IV faring which is fully Shuttle compatible. > into LEO. Then you can dig up Delta facts and figures and justify > its construction. Sure. >>More of the same; I'll bet you $50 that it starts flying regularly. Well? > I'm sure it will too, my point is that it wasn't easy getting there. No disagreement. It may also be hard for DC. Let's find out. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------115 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 613 ------------------------------