Date: Tue, 1 Jun 93 05:00:01 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #652 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Tue, 1 Jun 93 Volume 16 : Issue 652 Today's Topics: LE-7 CAPTIVE FIRING TEST (May 31) May Meeting of Canadian Space Society Mining on the Moon? (2 msgs) Moon Base (6 msgs) non-solar planets Space Marketing would be wonderfull. Story Musgrave (Was: Carl Sagan, respected astronomer) The crew is toast The Musgrave Maneuver(was: Story Musgrave) (2 msgs) Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction? (3 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: Mon, 31 May 1993 12:14:54 GMT From: Kazuo Yoshida NASDA/TKSC Subject: LE-7 CAPTIVE FIRING TEST (May 31) Newsgroups: sci.space PRESS RELEASE LE-7 CAPTIVE FIRING TEST May 31, 1993 NASDA HQ, Tokyo National Space Development Agency of Japan (NASDA) successfully conducted a captive firing test of LE-7 engine for H-II launch vehicle at the Yoshinobu (H-II) Launch Complex, Osaki Range, Tanegashima Space Center(Address: Minamitane-machi, Kumage-gun, Kagoshima 891-37). Ignition time: 14:00, May 31, 1993 Firing Duration: 100 seconds Firing Condition: Good **************************************************** For further information, please contact the following: Yoko Inomata, Akiko Suzuki/NASDA Public Relations Office, Tokyo Phone:03-5470-4283, Fax:03-5470-4130, asuzuki@rd.tksc.nasda.go.jp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 15:00:05 GMT From: "Kieran A. Carroll" Subject: May Meeting of Canadian Space Society Newsgroups: sci.space The May meeting of the Canadian Space Society will be held tonight, May 31, at 7:30 P.M. The location is Room 252, at 155 College Street in Toronto (south side of College, just west of University Avenue). This month's meeting features a talk by sci.space guru Henry Spencer, who will be reviewing the "Making Orbit '93" conference that he attended a few months ago in California. His talk will examine many of the advanced earth-to-orbit launch systems that are currently under development or being proposed for development at the moment, including the DC-X single-stage-to-orbit demonstrator. All are welcome to attend, and admission is free of charge. -- Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 15:28:34 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Mining on the Moon? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <24906@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes: >> Titanium's limited use and high-tech reputation, as a metal, arises from >> the extreme difficulty of refining and working with it, not the rarity of >> titanium ores. > >That difficulty disappears on the moon (and elsewhere in space), since there >won't be any annoying oxygen or nitrogen to contaminate the titanium. :) Alas, it's not that easy -- almost anything contaminates titanium. :-) The SR-71 project had considerable trouble with the cadmium in the plating on ordinary wrenches, as I recall. Also, there will be plenty of oxygen, since the titanium is already intimately associated with it in ilmenite and similar minerals. The problem on Earth is getting the last little bit of oxygen *out*, not keeping more from getting in. And titanium is a pain even if contamination is not an issue. It's very hard and wears out cutting bits in a shocking hurry. Unless you really, really need titanium's special properties, aluminium is a whole lot less hassle. -- SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology between SVR3 and SunOS. - Dick Dunn | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 19:29:36 GMT From: Nick Janow Subject: Mining on the Moon? Newsgroups: sci.space henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > Alas, it's not that easy -- almost anything contaminates titanium. :-) The > SR-71 project had considerable trouble with the cadmium in the plating on > ordinary wrenches, as I recall. > > Also, there will be plenty of oxygen, since the titanium is already > intimately associated with it in ilmenite and similar minerals. The > problem on Earth is getting the last little bit of oxygen *out*, not > keeping more from getting in. Cadmium and other protective coatings won't be required in space. Also, isn't a significant part of the problems with working titanium due to forming, welding, or other high-temperature treatments? These problems, at least, would be eliminated. > And titanium is a pain even if contamination is not an issue. It's very > hard and wears out cutting bits in a shocking hurry. Hmmm, since titanium reacts quite happily with carbon, would diamond coated cutters be useless (except at low speeds)? :-/ > Unless you really, really need titanium's special properties, aluminium is > a whole lot less hassle. I agree. Also, magnesium is fairly common on the moon, and will be more useful than on Earth (no corrosion of flammability problems if used externally). There's also the potential for alloys that can be prepared in lunar gravity but not in Earth gravity, and still more that can be made in zero-g. There are also alloys that aren't used or even studied much on Earth due to problems with atmospheric interaction (both in forming and use). Who knows, calcium alloyed with bismuth and lithium (for example) could turn out to be an important material. I think metallurgists are going to have fun. :) -- Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 14:47:24 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Moon Base Newsgroups: sci.space In article <24747@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes: >gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: > >> ...but most importantly *they would have no application to space >> processing*. Therefore they are a waste of time and money unless they can >> stand on their own economic merit. > >That's like saying that fossil fuel technology was a waste of time, and that >early humans should have gone directly to solar or fusion energy. Do you >really think that the technology to mine and process an asteroid in zero-g >can be developed for a similar price tag and time frame as a lunar base? I >expect the asteroid project would require a decade or so of LEO missions just >to figure out a processing system that will work in zero-g, and there would >probably be a lot of failed missions (more expense). Sorry, fossil stood on it's own economic merits from the very beginning. Solar and fusion still haven't. I do think that asteroid and comet processing can be developed for similar expenditures as a lunar base. I also agree that it'd take at least a decade, probably longer, to do that development. But it would be cheaper than trying to support a lunar base going through *it's* teething pains for a similar time. LEO is cheaper than Luna. The Russians already have an operating base, and we can visit with the Shuttle for a week, or longer with the LDO pallets, not to mention unmanned expendible launches or the fabled DC-1. And a few comet and asteroid prospecting probes are cheap indeed. Unless you can show that a Lunar base has more economic return than open space processing, all of your arguments boil down to looking for your car keys under the streetlamp. Experience on Luna doesn't translate to operations in open space. >> That depends on where you start your telepresence development. If you do it >> in LEO, the delays are even less than at Luna. And if you do it in the next >> room, with suitable delay lines, it's cheaper still. There's nothing about >> telepresence or closed cycle environment development that *requires* bases >> on the Moon, or even in orbit. > >True. However, a lunar base would be a major incentive for R&D in >teleoperation. If the political decision is made to build a lunar base, >money will be made available for teleoperation R&D, since it should reduce >the final cost. The same is true for asteroid mining, but the total project >cost may be so much higher that the project won't get approval. :-/ I don't think the costs would be higher, and I certainly am not sanguine that either will be done for political reasons. If there's no economic benefit, I don't expect political reasons will carry the day. The Cold War is over, and with it the incentive to score political points with space spectaculars. Something with the cost of Hubble is about the top limit the government is likely to fund in the next several decades. That won't get you a moonbase, but it could buy a starter comet program for volatiles for in space refueling. And *that* could make the next step in open space mining feasible. >> As I pointed out, oil companies, and others, are already operating in >> extreme environments even though lower grade temperate climate ores remain. >> That answered your objection. > >Yes and no. A mining company might find the lower cost of mining/processing >higher grade ore in a harsh environment pays for the extra R&D and other >costs. However, much of the R&D has already been done and paid for, and the >uncertainty is relatively low. Zero-g mining/processing is essentially >completely new technology. Try getting funding for a mine at the bottom of >the ocean, based on technology that isn't even firmly on a drawing board. Get the Law of the Sea treaty repealed and more companies would invest in deep sea mining. Frankly right now there's no incentive to invest in sea bottom mining because there's no legal framework for the companies to keep the rewards of their investments. In addition, the rigors of the environment 7 miles down are much harsher than those 200 miles up. Keeping 1 atm *in* is a lot easier than keeping several thousand *out*. Also, when oil exploration moved into the Arctic, the experience *wasn't* there, yet the companies paid to develop it because the high grade was worth more than the cost of extracting from the low grade fields in the temperate areas. >>+ Private investors might be more likely to invest in a space manufacturing >>+ station if there were people regularly working in orbit, and there were >>+ supplies and services in place for them to use. >> >> I agree, but a Lunar base is "in orbit" only in a pedantic sense. That's >> why we need stations in orbit, to generate the traffic to make commercial >> ventures palatable. > >Yes, and the construction of those stations would help justify the lunar >base. The savings from not hauling all the mass from Earth probably wouldn't >be enough to repay the investment, but it would help, and the mines would >still be there for other construction projects. "We lose money on each sale, but we make it up in volume." Sorry, I don't buy that. >> Delta-v requirements to some near Earth asteroids and comets are lower than >> injection into Lunar orbit and landing. The processing facility can be >> built in LEO mostly by short lag teleoperations from major components >> assembled on the ground. This course is cheaper and more direct than adding >> the unnecessary complication of a Lunar base. > >I like the idea, but I'm not convinced that the total cost would be lower. Getting rid of that dive into, and climb out of, a gravity well is a big cost win. The delta-v has to be delivered quickly, and that means high power engines and lots of reaction mass. In space transport, the delta-v can be built up slowly using much cheaper low power/low reaction mass propulsion. Staying away from gravity wells is a big cost win. Structures need only be strong enough to deal with tiny forces, not multiple G launches and landings. >> Metals and silicates are available from asteroids that are energetically >> less expensive to reach than the lunar surface. Add in the unavailable on >> the Moon hydrogen and carbon from comets and certain classes of asteroids, >> and you have an unbeatable combination. There's no material on the Moon >> that we can't get elsewhere, and without the penalty of fighting that >> gravity well twice. > >Are the metals and silicates in a form as easy to process? The moon's >minerals are already finely ground, and differentiated to some degree. >Extracting an asteroid's aluminum, although feasible, might be relatively >expensive. Worse, it might require a lot of R&D time, which would make >aluminum unavailable for a long time. :-/ We don't have much data yet on the asteroid population, and even less on comets. From the meteorite samples we do have, however, we find that almost pure metals are available for the cutting on some bodies. Once we're freed of the necessity of hauling it's mass out of a steep gravity well, aluminum holds little advantage as a structural material over good old nickel-iron. From what little we know of comets, we can expect to find abundant water, methane, and ammonia. Not only does that supply us with fuels in plenty, but if we find sources of potassium, we'll have the bulk constituents needed to support life. In time we may be treated to the sight of steam powered cast iron rockets speeding past leisurely solar sailing ships for those time critical shipments; and hot oxy-hydrogen torch ships screaming past those on military missions where cost is no object. But few will bother to stop at Luna, climbing in and out of that well is too expensive for a visit to a slag heap of light metals and silicates. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 15:05:20 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Moon Base Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May28.200304.29032@leland.Stanford.EDU> bill@leland.Stanford.EDU (William Mills) writes: >> investment. It's akin to attempting to plant a colony in a malarial swamp >> when there is nice fertile high ground just over the next rise. The first > > Remember Jamestown: a colony in a malarial swamp near fertile high ground. >It survived for about 90 years because it was on the water, and had easier >transportation back to England. A Moon Base would have a similar advantage >over Mars or asteroids. Only if it could import Negros and grow tobacco. Remember the story of Virginia Dare, the first Englishwoman to be born in the New World? Her colony simply disappeared between voyages from England. Jamestown went through "the starving" when the ships from England failed to return on schedule. The colony wasn't self sufficient, it was an appendage of the English mercantile explorers. It wasn't until the fertile areas were settled that English presence in the New World became secure. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 15:10:24 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Moon Base Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May30.081330.1725@wisipc.weizmann.ac.il> ward@agamit.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) writes: >In article <4238@spikes.mdavcr.mda.ca> gopinath@mdavcr.mda.ca (Gopinath Kuduvalli) writes: > >>Pray tell, what *are* these other reasons for long-term permanent presence >>on the moon, mars or wherever in space? > >I dunno. What are the reasons for long term permanent presence here on earth? >I guess we live here. So why not live on the moon, mars, or wherever in space. > >(To put it another way, this whole discussion must closely resemble what >Columbus must have gone through, trying to get funding to reach India.) India/Cathay were known to exist, they offered spices and silks unavailable in Europe. Trade had existed for a long time, but it was dangerous and slow because it travelled overland. Columbus offered a way to lower the cost of the spice trade. Instead he found the Bahamas, and spring break. He died penniless and in prison. Party animals never prosper. So it goes. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 14:53:02 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Moon Base Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May28.194323.28169@leland.Stanford.EDU> bill@leland.Stanford.EDU (William Mills) writes: >>Closed cycle environments can be tested on Earth or in LEO much more >>easily than on Luna. Luna isn't a realistic simulation of either deep >>space or Mars environments, so testing on the Moon is no more relevant >>than testing in the Mojave or LEO. Unless we have real reasons for going >>to Luna, testing doesn't cut it as a reason to spend the money. > > Any closed cycle environment is going to rely on biology. We really >know nothing about how Earth life will react to Mars gravity. LEO can only >give you zero-g, unless you put up a big centrifuge. (The Space Station, >at least before the current redesign, included a small centrifuge, which >could handle some biology testing, but not a whole biological closed system.) >The Moon at least gives you low gravity: if Earth life can do well in long >term lunar gravity, it's a good bet it can handle Mars gravity. Luna offers 1/6 G, but any convienent G, from micro-G to multiple Gs, can be generated on a rotating space platform. Any amount of sunlight, from none to continous, is available in space, but on Luna you are trapped into the lunar cycle of 2 weeks sun and 2 weeks darkness. Luna seems a one note pony when it comes to life science experiments under the highly variable conditions found in the solar system. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: 31 May 93 16:53:37 GMT From: Gopinath Kuduvalli Subject: Moon Base Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May30.081330.1725@wisipc.weizmann.ac.il> ward@agamit.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) writes: >In article <4238@spikes.mdavcr.mda.ca> gopinath@mdavcr.mda.ca (Gopinath Kuduvalli) writes: > >>Pray tell, what *are* these other reasons for long-term permanent presence >>on the moon, mars or wherever in space? > >I dunno. What are the reasons for long term permanent presence here on earth? >I guess we live here. So why not live on the moon, mars, or wherever in space. > >(To put it another way, this whole discussion must closely resemble what >Columbus must have gone through, trying to get funding to reach India.) >-- Eventually, if a long-term permanent settlement is established on the moon (say), the question "why moon?" might be moot in the minds of those that are settled there. Who knows, a moon (/mars/add your favorite planet here) "colony" might be even fighting for independence from Earthly colonizers in some distant future. However, the question is: what are the percieved benefits of long-term settlement on the moon *now*? Without an incremental commercial or political advantage, it is hard to convince anyone to venture into a settlement on the moon, mars, or wherever in space. (I think of a few possibilites though.) >Paul Cheers, -- Gopi gopinath@mda.ca MacDonald Dettwiler & Associates ------------------------------ Date: 31 May 1993 17:58:53 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Moon Base Newsgroups: sci.space It is also a comment on the industrial infra-structure at the time, That columbus's first voyage went with 3 ships and returned with one, but his second voyage had 17? ships and his third voyage had 74? The equivalent in Apollo, would have been 1 year after Armstrong landed, 30 "Nova" class vehicles would have followed up with a permanent base. pat ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 14:59:37 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: non-solar planets Newsgroups: sci.space matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >In article <1ualv3$dho@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: >>Actually does the Sun Have Rings or disks? If IRAS has imaged them >>around numerous stars, then have we any way to see if there is >>one around Sol? If we could measure the behavior of our own Ring, >>it may give a good characterization for other solar rings. >The Sun does indeed have a ring of matter about it, but the majority of that >mass seems to have coalesced into a few dozen clumps... Think, though: how much mass was in the Beta Pictoris disk, or the Vega disk? I'll have to chekc the papers, but I'm starting to remember a discussion I heard a while back (that may have been published itself)... -- +-----------------------+---------------------------------------+ |Phil Fraering | "...drag them, kicking and screaming, | |pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu | into the Century of the Fruitbat." | +-----------------------+-Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_---------+ ------------------------------ Date: 31 May 1993 14:32:03 -0400 From: James Wetterau Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull. Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines In article <9512.27023@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM> jane@soave.swdc.stratus.com (Jane Beckman) writes: >Of course, I doubt that folks have allowed that if they can >put a billboard in space, they probably can also put a >billboard-killer in space, send up something that would turn >the orbiting advertisement into small shreds of debris. I'm >sure you could find LOTS of people willing to donate a few >hundred dollars to such a good cause! It could give a whole >new aspect to the concept of monkey-wrenching. Actually, I see no reason why that same group of people couldn't just put a *blank* billboard right in front of the offending commercial billboard. It would be very frustrating to the people behind the ad and very discouraging to anyone hoping to put up a billboard; all this assuming that the whole process is unregulated by any national governments, the U.N., etc. Now, if it be regulated, there would be many other means of blocking a billboard and undoubtedly 100's of millions of people (People who don't think that space marketing would be wonderfull, sp) trying to do so. ^ Clearly this thing has a *lot* of obstacles in its path before anyone does it. James Wetterau (jwjr@panix.com) "There is great disorder under heaven, and the situation is excellent." -- G. B. Trudeau -- | Hold fast to the spirit of youth James Wetterau, Jr. | let years to come do what they may! jwjr@panix.com | - Philolexian Society Toast ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 05:08:58 GMT From: "Robert B. Love " Subject: Story Musgrave (Was: Carl Sagan, respected astronomer) Newsgroups: sci.space > > Story has the following degrees: > > 1) B.S. Math and Statistics (Syracuse) > 2) M.B.A (UCLA) > 3) B.A. Chemistry (Marietta College) > 4) M.D. (Columbia, surgical internship at UK Medical Center) > 5) M.S. Physiology and Biophysics (University of Kentucky) > 6) M.A. Literature (University of Houston) > > And, as if this wasn't enough, he has flown more than 17,000 hours in > 160 types of aircraft. And he has something like 6 kids. Damn overachiever! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 21:14:31 GMT From: "Ian R. Ameline" Subject: The crew is toast Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993May28.153050.17655@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >In <1u2rpp$384@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: > >>I suppose, the STS crew compartment could be arranged with a >>drogue chute for not a lot of penalty, slow down witht he drogue >>to appx 100 mph and then the crew bail out individually, >>or count on toughing out the impact and un-ass the sinking >>vehicle at high speed. But not my idea of fun. > > Third, consider terminal speed of a falling human body is >only about 125 MPH. Would you be willing to 'tough out' a bailout >from an aircraft without a chute? I wouldn't -- yet you're talking >about 'landing' (crashing) your escape capsule at almost that high a >speed. Certainly an impact with anything other than a huge airbag at 100 mph is not going to be survivable. All slowing it down to 100 will do is to make the bodies easier to identify. Hitting water at 100 is roughly equivalent to hitting concrete at 100 -- actually, I suspect concrete is more compressible than water. But all you need to do is slow the darn thing down enough so you can get out of it -- the emergency chute I wear when flying aerobatics weighs in at about 10 pounds. I expect that if I ever have to use it (lets hope not), By the time I pull the ripcord, I may already be heading towards the ground at upwards of 100 knots. Regards, | "I believe OS/2 is destined to be the Ian Ameline, | most important operating system, and C-Set++ Development, | possibly program, of all time." IBM Canada PRGS Laboratory. | --- Bill Gates ------------------------------ Date: 31 May 1993 15:35:50 GMT From: Claudio Egalon Subject: The Musgrave Maneuver(was: Story Musgrave) Newsgroups: sci.space >> >> Story has the following degrees: >> >> 1) B.S. Math and Statistics (Syracuse) >> 2) M.B.A (UCLA) >> 3) B.A. Chemistry (Marietta College) >> 4) M.D. (Columbia, surgical internship at UK Medical Center) >> 5) M.S. Physiology and Biophysics (University of Kentucky) >> 6) M.A. Literature (University of Houston) >> >> And, as if this wasn't enough, he has flown more than 17,000 hours in >> 160 types of aircraft. >And he has something like 6 kids. Damn overachiever! I read in the book "The Making of an Ex-Astronaut", by Brian O'Leary, that the astronauts used to refer to Musgrave's over-achievement as the "Musgrave Maneuver". Gosh!!! And he still have six kids!!! That is really impressive! I have the feelling that he was also in the military, is it true? ------------------------------ Date: 31 May 1993 12:04:20 -0400 From: Pat Subject: The Musgrave Maneuver(was: Story Musgrave) Newsgroups: sci.space So are his kids going to write a book? "Daddy Dearest" is available. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 13:13:23 GMT From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.books In article , henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: |> [...] |> The movie is even worse than the book. I recently read Buzz Aldrin's EXCELLENT book "Men From Earth". In it he traces the history of the space program from easly theorists through the Nazi ricket program through the space race with the Russians to the Apollo landings (the chapter describing the last 15 minutes before touchdown is worth the price of the book). Anyway, he points out a number of inaccuracies in the "Right Stuff" version of the events. --Brian ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 16:59:00 GMT From: kate Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.books In article , brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us writes... >I recently read Buzz Aldrin's EXCELLENT book "Men From Earth". In it he >traces the history of the space program from easly theorists through >the Nazi ricket program... You mean those Nazi bastards conspired to deprive their poor astronauts of Vitamin D along with everything else? Kate Oh - right - never mind... ------------------------------ Date: 31 May 1993 17:41:41 GMT From: "Jeffrey A. Del Col" Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.books In a previous article, c_mcdon@pavo.concordia.ca (kate) says: >In article , brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us writes... >>I recently read Buzz Aldrin's EXCELLENT book "Men From Earth". In it he >>traces the history of the space program from easly theorists through >>the Nazi ricket program... > >You mean those Nazi bastards conspired to deprive their poor astronauts >of Vitamin D along with everything else? Why of course; there wasn't much room in those V-2s so they had to mold their astronauts to fit, nicht wahr? J. Del Col > > >Kate > > >Oh - right - never mind... > -- Jeff Del Col * "The night, it teems with moon and promise." A-B College * --Krazy Kat-- Philippi, WV * * ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 652 ------------------------------