Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 05:08:15 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #692 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Mon, 7 Jun 93 Volume 16 : Issue 692 Today's Topics: DC-1 costs John Young and "The Right Stuff" NASA AMES people: please forward this to Bob Arnold at the SETI Inst. T-38's nickname 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: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 18:09:16 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: DC-1 costs Newsgroups: sci.space In article <4JUN199317064572@rigel.tamu.edu> craigk@rigel.tamu.edu (KERR, ROBERT CRAIG) writes: >Assuming Joe Blo corp can buy a DC-1 if and when it becomes operational, >what would it cost? A rough guess would be $250M to $350M. >I have heard it compared to an airliner repeatedly, >how accurate is this? Well, the flight software for the DC-X was lifted right off the MD-11 airliner. In a sense, much of the software for DC-X 'thinks' its a MD-11. >Using numbers this hypothetical corporation would >be faced with instead of the numbers that have been used to compare it to >the shuttle, what would the cost per pound be? See my previous post. A fleet of four vehicles, each flying 50 times a year wold cost roughly $450/pound. That would be the same if the fleet where government or privately owned or any mixture of the two. This cost includes amortization of all development costs and interest. >My point is, how likely is it to be used for commercial purposes since Uncle >Sam is paying for R&D? No reason it can't be. There is a civilian HMMV and a military DC-10 so why not a civilian DC? 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." | +----------------------10 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 1993 17:51:59 GMT From: Claudio Egalon Subject: John Young and "The Right Stuff" Newsgroups: sci.space This phrase was published in the June/July issue of the Air and Space magazine, and was attributed to John Young it reads: "All the stuff I know, would make "The Right Stuff" look like a Sunday school picnic." I am wondering if John Young has ever published a book about his experiences as astronaut if so, I would certainly like to read it! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 18:24:23 GMT From: James Salsman Subject: NASA AMES people: please forward this to Bob Arnold at the SETI Inst. Newsgroups: alt.sci.planetary,sci.space I promised Bob Arnold, a research assistant in public affairs at the SETI Institute that I would get him these references and notes, but I understand that he has no e-mail address, so could you at NASA Ames that are near his office (Moffett Field mail stop SI:244-11/Arnold) please print this out and pass it to him? Thanks; please let me know. :James ----- "Is Bacteriophage \phi X174 DNA a Message from an Extraterrestrial Intelligence?" Hiromitsu Yokoo and Tairo Oshima, _Icarus_ vol. 38, pp. 148-153 (1979.) "SV40 DNA---A Message from \epsilon ERI?" Hiroshi Nakamura, _Acta_Astronautica_, vol. 13, No. 9, pp. 573-578 (1986.) ----- This information is from a technical report written by A. V. Arkhipov of the Akademiya Nauk URSR Kharkov Institute of Radio-Physics and Electronics in the Ukrane. The Arkhipov article is available from NTIS under the report number INIS-SU-25/A. It was published in 1986, but has not yet been translated by any of the American SETI labs that I have contacted. According to the tranlation of the abstract, there are four stars within 20 parsecs that are "solar-type" and also are in the same direction as "continous isotropic radioemmision" sources in the hundred to thousand megahertz range. The probability of such emmissions being accidental was declared to be 2x10^-4. This information below was gleaned from the text, with the help of several European star catalogs and a technical Russian-English dictionary from the Carnegie-Mellon University Engineering and Science Library, the SIMBAD database, courtesy S.A.O./Harvard and a friend from Pittsburgh fluent in Russian (Thanks, Inna!) These are the four stars that Arkhipov says are the probable locations of extraterrestrial civilazations: Catalog Right (1950) Dec- Visual Absolute Spectral Distance Radial Number Ascention lination Magnitude Type (light Velocity ======== ========= ======== ====== ======== ======== =years)= =(km/s)= HD 21899 3h28m27s -41d 32' 6.11 6.60 F6V 39.3 +16.2 or HR 1076 or GC 4199 (In southern Eridanus, near the 4th mag. y Eridani) HD100623 11h32m03s -32d 34' 6.06 6.00 dK1V 33.1 -23 or HR 4458 or GC 15873 or DM-32 8179 (In middle Hydra near Zeta Hydrae) HD187691 19h32m03s +10d 17' 5.16 3.75 dF8V 68.0 -1 or Omicron Aquillae or CG 27480 or GL 768.1A or 54 Aql (Just north of Altair) HD187923 19h49m43s +11d 30' 6.15 3.1 G0V 135.9 -17 or HR 7569 or GC 27510 (Just about twice as far north of Altair) Here are the frequencies at which these stars were said to emit continous isotropic and/or periodic radioemmissions: Star Signal (MHz) Current (see note) ========= ============ ================== HD 21899 408 1.64 +or- 0.17 2700 0.19 +or- 0.03 HD 100623 408 0.86 +or- 0.05 1415 0.13 +or- 0.03 (In the Waterhole Band) 2700 0.21 +or- 0.02 HD 187691 178 2.4 +or- 0.5 408 0.85 +or- 0.05 HD 187923 178 2.4 +or- 0.5 408 2.02 +or- 0.77 1420 2.8 +or- 1.0 (In the Waterhole Band) 3200 <0.5 Note: I am not sure what units "current" is being expressed in. Neither the Russian-English dictionary that I consulted or my Russian-speaking friend could help me figure out the discussion of this unit, which apparently included thermodynamics as well as electromagnetic technicalities. The Cyrilic symbol used for this unit looks like . The waterhole band is that area of the radiofrequency sprectrum between the primary emission lines of H and OH, which many scientists think would be indicative of water, and therby life, and therefore an ideal place for interstellar communications. On a related note, I think that all of Arkhipov's stars are emitting at 408 MHz is remarkable. Maybe he only had a few settings on his tuner. -- :James Salsman ::Bovik Research Dear Tipper, please help start Divorce Education programs for parents of minors ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jun 1993 17:55:00 GMT From: Claudio Egalon Subject: T-38's nickname Newsgroups: sci.space I read in the book "The All-American Boys" by ex-astronaut Walter Cunningham, that, for being such a sexy aircraft, the T-38 was nicknamed "The Golden Leg Spreader". I am wondering if the people at Houston, or anywhere else, could confirm this since I saw it only in Cunningham's book. ------------------------------ Received: from VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU by isu.isunet.edu (5.64/A/UX-2.01) id AA01763; Sun, 6 Jun 93 13:29:14 EDT Received: from CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU by VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU id aa13510; 6 Jun 93 14:23:21 EDT To: bb-sci-space@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Xref: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:64168 Newsgroups: sci.space Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!nigel.msen.com!hela.iti.org!aws From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: Re: 1992 NASA Authorization Budget- shuttle Message-Id: <1993Jun6.180328.23003@iti.org> Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow References: <1uo7c4INNacu@phantom.gatech.edu> <1993Jun4.201740.14600@iti.org> <1uofnrINNdhs@phantom.gatech.edu> Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 18:03:28 GMT Lines: 72 Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In article <1uofnrINNdhs@phantom.gatech.edu> matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >You are assuming that the NASA budget is fixed in stone. It is not >necessarily true that no more money can be appropriated to fund development >of a new vehicle Barring a MAJOR change in public attitudes, the NASA budget IS fixed for the foorseeable future. NASA simply doens't have the political clout to get more. In fact, support for expensive and unproductive programs like Shuttle and Station will actually cost support down the road. People opposed to manned space point to these programs as wasteful and proof that people in space will never be affordable. When supporters come to the defense of these programs, all you do is prove them right. >canning the Shuttle will [not] automatically free up money for another project. Granted but it is far more likely that we could get the money than not. We woldn't get all of it, of course, but we don't need all of it. Just as Shuttle was a bone tossed to NASA after Apollo, SSTO could be a bone tossed to NASA after Shuttle. Having NASA embrase streamlined procurement, simpler requirements, and other reforms would make it more likely. But major increases for NASA just ain't going to happen. Pick any analyst you like, they'll agree with me. >Depends on what you mean by 'defend'. Sure, a Ken-style defense of >the Shuttle is not a good thing, but saying "Yes, the Shuttle is expensive >but we know that we can do better, and we'd like to keep it flying until >we get this lower-cost (whip out the plans here) replacement going" may be >quite constructive. And the answer is: "see, I told you, they know it's expensive and doesn't work well, but they STILL back it because it's pork for their special interest!". Saying 'we know it's too expensive but let's fly it anyway' only plays into their hands. >Fortunately, space scientists don't control the budget. no, but they are considered the space experts by many in Congress. >Nobody said we need a new Shuttle costing tens of billions, and as for the >Russians, unless we see a fairly steady upward trend in their economic >situation starting in the next couple of years, nobody in their right mind >is going to entrust the care and feeding of our space station to a nation >that may well be disintegrating. Sorry, but that's the trend. >Further, I doubt anyone in their right >mind is simply going to abandon the manned space field to the Russians; >there are factors other than strictly economic at work here. Get with the program guy! The cold war is over. That stuff doesn't work any more. >(This is interesting...I don't have the old posts, but I would have sworn >that you denied wanting to can the shuttle before the replacement was in >place in the past. Am I going senile?) No, I have changed my mind in recent weeks. Now, I don't think it is politically possible at this time so I'm not going to act on it, but for the reasons I have stated above, flying Shuttle only helps our enemies and hurts us over the long run. 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." | +----------------------10 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+ ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 692 ------------------------------