Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_0/V15NO080.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 31KB

Date: Fri,  7 Aug 92 05:05:08
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #080
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri,  7 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 080

Today's Topics:
               basic electrodynamic tether description
                        DSN Update - 08/06/92
                     Fwd: Origin of Life article
                   listserver for this conference?
                    Meteor Soaks Daytona Beach, FL
                       Mission to Planet Earth
                            Soyuz as ACRV
                                space
                  Star Trek (anti-)realism (3 msgs)
                           Tether Questions
                     What is the ASRM?? (5 msgs)

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 1992 14:13 EDT
From: Greg Macrae <[e-mail]>
Subject: basic electrodynamic tether description
Newsgroups: sci.space

There seems to be quite a bit of confusion about electrodynamic tethers.
I hope that this brief desctription will clarify some of that:

Basic Tether Orbital Mechanics:
Assuming 2 masses attatched by a tether, the most stable position
will be with one mass at a higher altitude than the other.  The principle is
called gravity gradient stabilization.  This occurs because the center
of gravity is not at the same location as the center of mass.  In fact
the center of gravity changes with attitued and where the CM and CG
separation is greatest is the most stable attitude.

The orbital velocity of the system is determined by the orbit of the center
of mass.  The mass at the lower (higher) altitude moves slower (faster) than
is normal for a single mass in a similar orbit.  To understand the variation
in center of gravity, neglect the mass of the tether, and examine the 2
bodies (masses).  One is orbiting too slowly for its low altitude.  Thus,
the gravitational acceleration is higher than the centripetal acceleration.
The imbalance is countered by a tension in the tether.  The other body is
orbiting too rapidly for its high altitude, so the centripetal acceleration
is higher than the gravitational acceleration.  In order to prevent
oscillations and dynamic motion of the tether, the forces must be equal.
From this desctription, it should be easy to see that the greater the
separation (length of the tether) the more stable the system will be.
I.e. a higher tether tension translates to higher frequency, lower amplitude
oscillations and greater gravity gradient stabilization.

Electrodynamic aspect:
Now we have a long cord stretched between two masses.  Both masses and the
cord are orbiting the earth in a plane (mathematical) that is approximately
perpendicular to the earth's magnetic field.  If that cord is carying a
current, there will be a force associated with the motion of the cord.
One can either supply a current in order to generate a force, or exploit
the electrical potential between the two ends to generate a current.
In either case, the circuit between the tether ends is completed via the
plasma in the upper atmosphere.  Many systems can be used to 'contact'
the plasma.  Hollow cathodes, electron guns, and large conductive surfaces
have all been used in previous experiments.

TSS specifics:
The level of confusion is not too surprising considering the complexity
of this experiment.  It seems obvious that few of the media representatives
understand the theory, so it follows that the explanations that have appeared
are inadequate.  The satellite is basically a 2 meter diameter conducting
sphere.  Plasma contact is soley through this surface.  The shuttle maintains
plasma contact via an electron gun.  The satellite appears to have been
deployed to a higher altitude than the shuttle.  Note that this is different
than half of the media description.  At a higher altitude, is trails the
shuttle slightly, so the half of the media description that claims the
satellite was pulled along appears correct.  The entire system, shuttle
satellite and tether, is above the ionosphere.  (The atoms that are
present at this altitude are still ions.)  The greatest tether length
achieved appears to have been 870 ft.  This generated about 40V.  The
cold gas thrusters on the satellite were designed to prevent spinning
and oscillations.  The RCS and VRCS on the shuttle were used to control
attitude and tether tension.

The source for this TSS information is pre 1990 tether conference papers, not
current mission and design data.  Some of the details may be inaccurate, but
it is the best information I have at hand.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
     MacRae                  |       Friend, that open mouth
                             |     Reveals your whole interior
  [e-mail]  |         Silly hollow frog!
                             |                      -Anon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 00:56:43 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: DSN Update - 08/06/92
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

                         DEEP SPACE NETWORK STATUS REPORT
                                August 6, 1992

     The Deep Space Network at Goldstone, California experienced an earthquake
on August 5 at 2215Z.  All of the antennas were stowed to be checked out for
any damage.  All antennas were found to be in good shape.  The Pioneer project
was in the process of sending the downlink off command.  DSS-42 (Canberra
34 meter antenna) was brought up at 2200Z to support Pioneer Venus.

     On August 5 at 1710Z, SPC60 (DSN's Signal Processing Center in
Madrid, Spain) experienced a severe electrical storm causing all antenna's
to go to brake and all data lines to JPL was lost. DSS-61 (34 meter antenna)
and DSS-66 (26 meter antenna) suffered damage to their encoders, and DSS-61
also had subreflector problems.  Because of the antennas being down,
support for Nimbus-7 and Ulysses were missed, and a SAMPEX support is in
doubt.

     The Nimbus project delcared a spacecraft emergency on August 5 at 2220Z,
but due to the DSS-66 being down, DSS-46 (Canberra 26 meter antenna) was
brought in to support the emergency at 0003Z on August 6.  The spacecraft
emergency was lifted at 0049Z.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | You can't hide broccoli in
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | a glass of milk -
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | anonymous 7-year old.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 92 15:59:27 GMT
From: Bob Beauchaine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Origin of Life article
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David O Hunt) writes:
>
>
>As to the few problems that arise in the evolutionary support...suppose
>I give you a coin.  You flip it 1,000,000 times, and 999,999 times it comes
>up heads, once tails.  Are you _seriously_ going to tell me that the odds
>of the next one being tails are favorable?  Definite?  Because that's what
>you're claiming with the _overwhelming_ evidence for evolution.

   Just to nit pick, but given a fair coin, the previous 1,000,000
   tosses have absolutely no bearing on the next.  The odds of the
   next toss being tails are still 50-50.  I understand your point,
   but your analogy is flawed.


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

Bob Beauchaine [e-mail]

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
     Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 92 14:52:00 GMT
From: Mark Goodman <[e-mail]>
Subject: listserver for this conference?
Newsgroups: sci.space

I am new to this conference, but I have been reading some of
the recent postings and I thought I would jump in with a
couple of questions:

First, a practical question:  Is there any way to partipate
in this conference by email with a listserver?

Second, are there other conferences that I should know about?
I am interested in discussions of space policy, especially
regarding 1) remote sensing and 2) international cooperation
in space.   I would appreciate any suggestions.
______________________________ ______________________________
|                             |                             |
| [e-mail] -- econet | What a terrible thing it is |
| [e-mail]  | to lose your mind.          |
|_____________________________|_____________________________|

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Aug 92 10:42:25 PDT
From: "UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER"@utspan.span.nasa.gov
Subject: Meteor Soaks Daytona Beach, FL

Several people have asked for more info about the possible meteor strike off
Daytona Beach, Florida.


I saw a UPI (or was it AP?) article about this on America Online on August 3.
A professor at the University of Florida, Dr. Doug Smith, speculated it could
have been a meteor because
1) Any sort of seismic event, underwater landslide included, would have
   shown up on his instruments, but nothing did show up,
2) The wavelength of the wave, 15ft (5m) high, 20 miles (32km) long, was
   too short to correspond to seismic activity,
3) A man told Dr. Smith he was boating off Daytona Beach on the night in
   question, July 3rd, and saw glowing object "about the size of a
   grapefruit", compared with the rest of the sky, fall from the sky with
   a whoosh.  Shortly afterwards, the man said he had to steer into a
   large and steep wave that made his 42ft (13m) boat "feel like a surfboard".
   I assume that the man's reference to a grapefruit meant that it appeared
   to be the size of a grapefruit held at arm's length, but for a 1 meter
   object to appear that size, it could only be about 10 meters away, and
   I didn't get the impression from the article that the guy was that close.
   The sphere of glowing plasma surrounding the meteor, combined with the
   darkness at the time of sighting would make it appear larger than 1 meter,
   but how much larger I don't know, and the article didn't say what the time
   interval was between the whoosh and the wave.

From this man's testimony, and from the size of the wave that struck Daytona
Beach, Dr. Smith and a colleague whose name I can't remember just now,
calculated that a 1 meter meteor could explain what happened.

_____________
Dale M. Greer, whose opinions are not to be confused with those of the
Center for Space Sciences, U.T. at Dallas, UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER
"Mars is essentially in the same orbit.  Mars is somewhat the same
 distance from the Sun, which is very important.  We have seen pictures
 where there are canals, we believe, and water.  If there is water,
 there is oxygen.  If oxygen, that means we can breathe."
 -- J. Danforth "Just-A-Heartbeat_Away" Quayle, 11 August, 1989

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 92 14:53:00 GMT
From: Mark Goodman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mission to Planet Earth
Newsgroups: sci.space

I am new to this conference, and I have not yet seen any
discussion of the issues that interest me most.  So I figure
I'll have to start the ball rolling.

I am most interested in the near-term practical uses of
space, rather than space exploration for its own sake or for
long-term and speculative benefits.  This consists
essentially of three things: 1) telecommunication, 2) remote
sensing, and 3) navigation.

I am most interested in remote sensing, especially as a way
to help understand changes in the human and natural
environments, i.e. the so-called Mission to Planet Earth
(MPE).  What do people think are the most important issues?
I have a few suggestions to toss out:

1) Is NASA's Earth Observation System (EOS) a cost-effective
approach to the problem?  Does it focus on the most critical
measurements?  Is NASA putting too many eggs in too few
baskets?  EOS has been split from two huge platforms to six
large ones, but is that still too few, or would another
redesign just increase costs and cause delays?

2) Is there any way to make the program more flexible, so
that new special-purpose satellites can be deployed with
shorter lead-times?  Should NASA be doing R&D on lightsats
for remote sensing and space science?

3) How are we going to use all that data?  Does NASA have a
workable plan for the EOS Data Information System (EOSDIS)?
How much processing and filtering does it require before it
becomes useful in answering policy questions about
environmental change?

4) Does MPE focus on the technical measurements of greatest
importance for policy-making, and what are those
measurements?

5) Does MPE place enough emphasis on the environmental issues
facing other countries, especially developing countries?
Again, what are those issues?

Feel free to direct me to other conferences where these
questions might be more appropriate.
______________________________ ______________________________
|                             |                             |
| [e-mail] -- econet | What a terrible thing it is |
| [e-mail]  | to lose your mind.          |
|_____________________________|_____________________________|

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 14:09:04 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (University Space Society) writes:

>the large payloads that need returning will have to use Shuttle

To date this is not proven.

>any delicate experimental result must also use shuttle due to the much milder
>G environment than is possible with any type of ballistic trajectory be it
>a tether or retropropulsion.

Let's take a DC-Y shell and fill it with cargo instead of fuel. We teather it
down and it lands with either parachute and/or a small engine. Since the
DC-Y is designed to provide a ride at least as mild as shuttle this shouldn't
be a problem.

Besides, in an earlier post you stated that ALL shuttle cargo's had to be
certified to 10 G in the direction of motion and 6 or so transverse. Any
capsule can do that easy.

>Allen the dynamics for tethered return are not right to support station reboost
>You have to have a mass that is a significant fraction of the Station's weight
>before the reboost scenario becomes attractive.

We are talking about 10% of station mass so I agree it may not be much but
it will help. If it doesn't, so what? We are still saving billions by doing
without the Shuttle.

>It turns out that the only mass
>that satisfys this requirement is the SHUTTLE. This will lower the costs of
>Shuttle ops since the momentum transferred to the station will be subtracted
>from the Shuttle allowing for a greater payload to be carried up on the
>Shuttle per flight.

I don't think so. An uncrewed logistics module can hang around if the
teather breaks; a shuttle can't. For safety reasons the Shuttle will need
to assume that the teather will fail and bring enough fuel to return with
the OMS.

Besides, using HLVs to deliver cargo reduces launch costs to $1,000 or
so a pound. There is no possible way you can save enough money to make
any difference.

>Also I have not seen your derated values for your Atlas payloads to 270 nm. I
>think your numbers are for a 105 nm transfer orbit. Subtract a VERY significant
>amount for this.  Is that right Wales?

I don't have those figures here but if your correct I will use my backup
(as a good engineer I always have a backup) and go with Titan II or Titan
III to launch. This will add about $300M to my costs (minus discount for
buld purchase of Titan's). I'm still $3.5 billion per year below Shuttle.

>Allen please look a little closer at the numbers they do not lie.

I have been posting numbers and they look pretty good. What are you
refering to?

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------260 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 12:47:30 -0700
From: "Craig R. Sadler" <[e-mail]>
Subject: space

please add me to:
space-related topics Discussions (daily digest).




--
  z------Craig Sadler--------------------It's easier to want what-----z
  |     [e-mail]             ^^        you get, than it         |
  | <*>   San Diego    <*>         ^^       is to get what you        |
  *_____* California *_____*_____*_^^_*_____*___ * Want!*_*_____*_____*

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 15:09:55 GMT
From: Buzz McDermott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Star Trek (anti-)realism
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
|> Well, my two favorite Star Trek anti-realisms are both from the old
|> series:
|>
|> 1) The time when they flew back to the 20th century and picked up that
|> pilot (etc., etc.).  I distinctly remember that when flying inside the
|> Solar system (they were rounding the Sun, to go ahead in time or
|> whatever...), there were *stars streaming by them*!

Personally, I like the fact that it took them about 10 minutes to accelerate
from earth to Sun (for their spring-board acceleration for time travel)
despite the fact that they were, at one point, going 'warp 8' and then 'off
the dial'.  Isn't 'warp 8' supposed to be equivalent to something like 256
times the speed of light?  Gosh, the Sun must be further from earth than I
thought.....

============================================================================
Buzz McDermott                   Internet: [e-mail]
On contract to:                  NEC America Radio Systems Division
                                 Richardson, Texas
============================================================================

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Aug 92 17:06:54 GMT
From: Dave Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Star Trek (anti-)realism
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Buzz McDermott) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
>|> Well, my two favorite Star Trek anti-realisms are both from the old
>|> series:
>|>
>|> 1) The time when they flew back to the 20th century and picked up that
>|> pilot (etc., etc.).  I distinctly remember that when flying inside the
>|> Solar system (they were rounding the Sun, to go ahead in time or
>|> whatever...), there were *stars streaming by them*!
>
>Personally, I like the fact that it took them about 10 minutes to accelerate
>from earth to Sun (for their spring-board acceleration for time travel)
>despite the fact that they were, at one point, going 'warp 8' and then 'off
>the dial'.  Isn't 'warp 8' supposed to be equivalent to something like 256
>times the speed of light?  Gosh, the Sun must be further from earth than I
>thought.....
>

So a little time dilation leaked thru the spatio-temporal compensation
shield dohickey.  It was the same effect that pressed them back in their
seats to make it look like they were under acceleration.



--
||)) Finding a good Unix system is like finding an eel in a bag of snakes ))|
||)) Even if you succeed, all you've got is a slimy eel ))))))))))))))))))))|
||))))))))))))) (trad.  arr. DJ)      ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||Dave Jones ([e-mail]) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY   |

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 92 18:35:07 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Star Trek (anti-)realism
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Buzz McDermott) writes:

> Personally, I like the fact that it took them about 10 minutes to accelerate
> from earth to Sun (for their spring-board acceleration for time travel)
> despite the fact that they were, at one point, going 'warp 8' and then 'off
> the dial'.  Isn't 'warp 8' supposed to be equivalent to something like 256
> times the speed of light?  Gosh, the Sun must be further from earth than I
> thought.....

Yeah, well, with the stars streaming by them, I guess they had to do a
few laps...

By the way, to have stars streaming by you, you'd have to be going
several parsecs per second - and at that kind of speed, you could cross
the Milky Way in eight hours (work it out yourself). Hmmm, I guess when
they say "real space travel wouldn't look like that, it's just an easy
video effect," they're right!

Practical content: if you ever want to explain the Solar apex to a
class of humanities freshmen, just say "the stars are streaming by,
like in Star Trek," and they'll get the concept immediately.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Aug 92 14:28:22 GMT
From: Dave Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tether Questions
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael K. Heney) writes:
>I have a question or two about tethers.  I've heard two primary uses for
>thethers - one being an energy exchange with the ionosphere, which either
>generates/uses electricity and raises/lowers the systems orbit, and the
>other as a way to exchange momentum between masses on opposite ends of the
>tether, boosting one and lowering the other.
>
>First question - is the above correct?
>
Essentially, except that the energy exchange is orbiter kinetic energy
-> electricity, with the Earth's magnetic field as part of the process
and the ionosphere as a conductive medium.

>On the electrical generation - I'm a bit confused as to which way the
>tether is deployed.  On the current shuttle flight, the talk is that the
>TSS is "lowered" on a 12.5 mile tether.  Is "lowered" the correct term?
Purely conventional, like most such usage in space.  The orbiter and
satellite separated so that the satellite moved towards the Earth, this
being best for the orbiter which uses the payload bay doors as
radiators, and thus should not be exposed to direct sunlight in the bay
unless necessary.  In the sense that the altitude of the satellite
decreased, it was lowered.  Had they elected to reverse the experiment
and let the satellite out in a direction away from the Earth, the forces
involved would have been identical, but the altitude of the satellite
would have increased.

What really happened is that the center of gravity of the whole system
remained where it was, and both satellite and orbiter moved away from
it: the satellite moved much more than the orbiter because it's much
less massive.

>I have trouble with the orbital mechanics if that's the case.  It would
>seem to me that the TSS would have to be in the same orbit as the shuttle,
>trailing it by the length of the tether.  Also, what mechanism is used to
>actually get the tether to extend, as opposed to forming a bunch of
>conductive spaghetti?
>
No, in fact any non-spherical object in orbit will tend to adopt an
attitude that has the long axis pointing through the center of the
primary.  How much time it takes for this to happen depends on the
moments of inertia.  For instance the Shuttle orbiter is often set
in "gravity gradient" mode, with the long axis pointing down to Earth,
in order to conserve propellant in the attitude jets and also allow
the astronauts to work and sleep in a quiet environment.  Other
attitudes where the long axis is tangential to the orbit are better
for various kinds of work, but require intermittent firing of the
attitude jets.  I think the onboard computer does this - the noise
of the jets at unpredictable intervals was one of the problems for
astronauts in the early missions.

The TSS used gas thrusters to maintain tension in the cable until the
enough was paid out to induce tension due to the gradient effect.

>Similarly, on the momentum transfer idea (I've seen shuttle/SSF as the
>pair of masses) - how would you "lower" the shuttle (since the tether isn't
>rigid, you can't just push against it)?
>
I think I covered this above.  The "lowering" is really an orbit
transfer.  High orbits have lower tangential velocity than low orbits.
If you go "down" on a tether you still travel at the original velocity.
When you let go of the tether, you're going too slow for orbit at your
new altitude, which in fact means that you are now in elliptical orbit
and will get down even closer to the Earth.  Typically at some point
you encounter the atmosphere low enough down to do a re-entry.
Meanwhile the other object on the tether wound up at higher altitude
going too fast, so it went into elliptical orbit and reached an
even higher altitude at the apogee, at which point it could use thrust
to get into circular orbit at that altitude, with considerably less
propellant used than if it did the whole transfer with thrust.  Thus
a re-entering vehicle doesn't have to use thrust to de-orbit, and an
orbiting vehicle gets a reboost, also without using thrust.  Since
the atmosphere drags down objects in low orbit, occasional reboost is
a must - look what happened to Skylab - and tether seems to be a win-win
method of doing it for space stations.



--
||))) If you build it                          )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||))) They will cancel it   - Field of Dweebs. )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||Dave Jones ([e-mail]) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY   |

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 06 Aug 92 14:26:15 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is the ASRM??
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Armando Fortuna) writes:

>Or unless they use a Saturn V rocket. Rumors say that NASA is thinking
>about "resurrect" the Saturn V to launch fred in fewer flights than
>it would take by using the Shuttle.
>Of course, rebuilding the launch pads for the Saturn, and getting the
>original contractors to build the parts, would not be easier, and one
>may say cost-effective.

SEI wants it so they can go directly to wherever they want on the moon.
                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 1992 12:36:31 GMT
From: "keith a. grimm"@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: What is the ASRM??
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Armando Fortuna) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James B. Pettengill) writes:
>
>>>the asrm program is dead for now but not for long. it should be resurrected
>>>latter this year or next.
>
>>Don't count on it.
>
>>>fred can't get off the ground without asrm.
>
>>Unless they use Energia.
>
>>  Allen
>
>>--
>>+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
>>|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
>>+----------------------262 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
>
>Or unless they use a Saturn V rocket. Rumors say that NASA is thinking
>about "resurrect" the Saturn V to launch fred in fewer flights than
>it would take by using the Shuttle.
>Of course, rebuilding the launch pads for the Saturn, and getting the
>original contractors to build the parts, would not be easier, and one
>may say cost-effective.
>
>Armando

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 92 14:31:39 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: What is the ASRM??
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James B. Pettengill) writes:
>>the asrm program is dead for now but not for long. it should be resurrected
>>latter this year or next.
>
>Don't count on it.
>
>>fred can't get off the ground without asrm.
>
>Unless they use Energia.

Don't count on it. The CIS appear to be our friends today, but don't
forget that only a year ago Soviet tanks were firing on civilians in
the Baltics. International relations have a way of changing rapidly.
Even if the CIS remains friendly, they can't yet be considered a
reliable business partner. Dealing with them now would be like letting
Frank Lorenzo run your airline. The odds of bankruptcy are too high.

Gary

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 92 12:04:21 EDT
From: "John F. Woods" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is the ASRM??
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
>SEI wants it so they can go directly to wherever they want on the moon.
>                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia

>  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --


You may want to put a blank line between your messages and your signature.

Unless you think Serbia is responsible for the lack of Saturn V's and you're
hoping the UN can put that right.  :-)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 06 Aug 92 17:19:45 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is the ASRM??
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John F. Woods) writes:
>[e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
>>SEI wants it so they can go directly to wherever they want on the moon.
>>                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia
>
>>  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --
>
>You may want to put a blank line between your messages and your signature.
>
>Unless you think Serbia is responsible for the lack of Saturn V's and you're
>hoping the UN can put that right.  :-)

Perhaps we could put a saturn v on top of Serbia?


                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

------------------------------

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 080
------------------------------