Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_4/V15NO478.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 28KB

Date: Tue,  1 Dec 92 05:06:18
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #478
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue,  1 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 478

Today's Topics:
                          Breasts in zero-g
            Clinton's address (was Re: Feynmann's legacy)
                  Comparative Launcher Reliabilities
       Detonavion vs Deflagration (was Re: Shuttle replacement)
                  Evil wicked flying bombs! (2 msgs)
                         HST black hole pix?
                    manned vs unmanned spaceflight
                          Observing Toutatis
                         physiology in zero-G
                   Shuttle and Mir elements needed
                     Shuttle replacement (6 msgs)
                                Soyuz
         Soyuz escape system (was:  Re: Shuttle replacement)
             Spaceborne Artificial Intelligence, Anyone?
                        Space formulae source?
                        Space suit facilities
           Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
                            Two stage DC-1
                        What comes after DC-1

    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: Mon, 30 Nov 1992 20:51:33 GMT
From: Saccio Vanzetti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Breasts in zero-g
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Magnus Olsson) writes:
[... bunch-o-stuff deleted ...]
>One would think there'd be some more or less official NASA policy on
>this, and that they would have put some effort into research on this
>topic before sending women into space (I wouldn't be too surprised if
>there really were a special "flight version" as mentioned above).
>Would anybody at NASA care to comment?


So now that we know the specs for micrograv bras, What does NASA plan to
do about menses in space? To the best of my knowledge gravity lends a helping
hand with this here on Earth. In the shuttle would female astronauts have to
use a minivac? Sit in a centerfuge? return to Earth for a few days off every
month? Or does the lack of a gravitational field change the length of time
between periods?  Whats the point of going to Mars if we cant bring the
womenfolk along? (Mars needs women!)

[e-mail]

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

Date: 30 Nov 92 07:04:44 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Clinton's address (was Re: Feynmann's legacy)
Newsgroups: sci.space

 help netnews etiquite
qquit
qq
qquit
QQUIT

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

Date: 30 Nov 92 22:41:07 GMT
From: "John S. Neff" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comparative Launcher Reliabilities
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Claudio Egalon) writes:
>From: [e-mail] (Claudio Egalon)
>Subject: Re: Comparative Launcher Reliabilities
>Date: 30 Nov 1992 16:56:31 GMT
>I am wondering if it makes sense at all to compare reliability of a
>manned rate spacecraft with unmanned rate spacecraft. Of course, a
>manned rate spacecraft is supposed to be more reliable...
>
>Claudio O. Egalon
>
>
>
What is the formal definition of a manned rated spacecraft? I thought that
it meant that the booster was liquid fueled and could be turned off if
necessary. Obviously that is not the case, because the shuttle uses SRBs.

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

Date: 1 Dec 92 04:23:33 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Detonavion vs Deflagration (was Re: Shuttle replacement)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>         What's the difference between detonation and, uhm, deflagration
>         (that's a new word on me, by the way). Don't both result in a
>         big ball of fire in the sky?

At least in the language of supernovae research, a detonation involves
a flame front that propogates supersonically, whereas a deflagration has
a subsonically propogating flame front.  In the case of supernovae you
get a VERY big ball of fire in the sky.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute

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

Date: Mon, 30 Nov 92 22:17:26 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Evil wicked flying bombs!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:

>From "International Herald Tribune", Thursday, May 24, 1990:
>COMPUTER POINTED TO FLAW IN SHELL
>By R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post Service

[sky-is-falling text cut for brevity]

The nuke shells were pulled because of a 1 in 1,000 possibility of an
accidental detonation under certain conditions.

For some odd reason, they're very neurotic about such stuff :)

however, under "normal" handling conditions, it IS difficult to get 'em to go
boom.


                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 1 Dec 92 01:00:20 GMT
From: Tarl Neustaedter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Evil wicked flying bombs!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> >Just a quibble, but it's real damned hard to get a n-weapon to go off in
> >a crash.  This  is a direct correlary of the fact that it's hard to get
> >one to go off at all.
> Not entirely true (see below).                               J. Pharabod
> [article about flaw in safety of nuclear artillery shells]

Nowhere in the article does it say that it's easy to cause the shell
to detonate inadvertently. "unacceptable risk" means "there is a way",
not "it's an easy way".

From the fact that it took 3D modelling to find it, it's apt to be
non-trivial to exercise.

>   One scientist said that the W79 and a slightly smaller version,
> W82, "are right on the edge of safety by virtue of their design
> alone."

This is the key. "Safety" in nuclear terms does not mean the same as
"safety" in rockets. A 1% rate of catastrophic failure in rockets is
acceptable. A 1% rate of catastrophic failure in nuclear safety is not.
--
         Tarl Neustaedter    [e-mail]
         Marlboro, Mass.    Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.

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

Date: 1 Dec 92 02:34:41 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: HST black hole pix?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Craig Fifer) writes:

> Just out of curioisity, how was it that I saw pictures of the
> black hole on my local evening news if they are not being
> released?  The images were some sort of animation that samcked
> of computer enhanced graphics.
>
> -Craig Fifer

Well Craig, I've no idea what you saw on TV but there IS a public domain
image of something that looks a lot like an accretion disk around a
(suspected -- with pretty good reason) black hole.

The image released by the Space Telescope Science Institute office of
Education and Public affairs has been debiased, flat-fielded,and deconvolved
using a standard point-spread-function reference.  None of these steps are
abnormal in the reduction of astronomical data.  No "computer enhanced graphics"
in what we released.  You're welcome to write for a copy.  Unfortunately,
as Henry Spencer has already pointed out, our public domain images are not
generally available in .gif format.  We give them away as hard copies to the
press and just about anybody who can prove an educational need.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 92 00:32:21 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: manned vs unmanned spaceflight

-From: [e-mail] (Dave Batchelor, Space Phys. Data Facil. 301/286-2988)
-Subject: Re: manned vs. unmanned spaceflight
-Summary: a good article appeared this year in American Scientist
-Date: 30 Nov 92 18:54:00 GMT
-Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center

-A fine article on this subject appeared earlier this year in _American
-Scientist_.  The title was approximately "An Argument for Manned Space
-Exploration."

I think both manned and unmanned missions have their advantages. The best
choice depends on what you're trying to do on a given mission.

By the way, your boss (Goldin) has gone "politically correct", and discourages
the use of the term "manned". (I suspect the female astronauts are not as
sensitive about it as he is. And I doubt that most people would consider
a Shuttle mission with an all-female crew to be "unmanned". :-)

-And does anybody explore places like Antarctica with robots?

Well, yes. :-)

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 1 Dec 92 02:22:26 GMT
From: Dave Tholen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Observing Toutatis
Newsgroups: sci.space

Bill Higgins writes:

> Ben Zellner has also been trying to get Hubble to observe Toutatis;
> according to Dave Tholen and J.R. Spencer, the asteroid should be
> "barely resolvable" (i.e., it will appear as bigger than one pixel) if
> its size is as big as their estimate of about 2.7 km-- it should
> subtend about 0.15 arcsec.  Dave had planned to observe Toutatis at
> opposition this summer, so maybe he has better estimates now.

This summer's observations tend to confirm the earlier estimates,
though due to the slow rotation rate, I can't say whether the 2.7 km
refers to a long dimension, a short dimension, or something between,
though the last of these possibilities seems most likely.  We'll be
doing our best to get a real lightcurve starting next week.  My sparse
data to this point suggest that the long dimension isn't much longer
than 2.7 km (four nights of data show three with comparable brightness
and one that is fainter; the size estimate is based on the brighter of
these).

Oh, and I believe that one of the two HST projects involving Toutatis
was approved.  Imaging scheduled for Dec 8 and 10, as I recall.

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 92 01:28:20 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: physiology in zero-G

>From: [e-mail] (Magnus Olsson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Date: 29 Nov 92 23:17:18 GMT
Organization: Theoretical Physics, Lund University, Sweden

-[General discourse on why it's a good idea to wear clothing while operating
-a blender or a circular saw.]

I presume you've read "Rendezvous with Rama".

So - when is Sweden going to buy a Shuttle flight and make some of the
movies it's famous for, but in zero-G? And is your research the groundwork
for such an undertaking? :-)

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 1 Dec 92 04:06:36 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Shuttle and Mir elements needed
Newsgroups: sci.space

I urgently need orbital elements for coming space shuttle mission and Mir.
Can anyone help please?
Tony D Ryan

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

Date: 30 Nov 92 16:30:10 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

GC>They're at 10,000 feet, closing fast with the ground, and half their
GC>engines don't start (that's what happened in the recent failures). So
GC>they just stop the others, get out and fix the problem, and proceed
GC>to land? I don't think so. I think they'll smear all over the landscap
GC>before they even have time to realize they have a problem. A failure
GC>on the pad is one thing. A failure coming down is something altogether
GC>different. Yeah I know they're lighter coming down, but asymetric
GC>thrust still sounds bad when you're close to the ground and have to
GC>make a perfect 4 point touchdown. Can you gimbel the remaining engines
GC>enough to still stay perfectly upright as you descend? Can you do
GC>it quickly enough if the failure is close to touchdown?
GC>
GC>Actually I suspect they'll static test the engines a bunch of times
GC>before trying to light them in flight. But let's consider a different
GC>scenario. DC-1 is supposed to receive airliner grade servicing. We
GC>know that airliners receiving that grade of service have engines *fall
GC>off* in flight. Suppose a fuel feed line fatigues from multiple flight
GC>It wasn't X-rayed before flight because this is airliner grade servici
GC>So the thing lets go as they pass through 10,000 feet on their way to
GC>a landing at O'Hare. A couple of tons of rocket fuel starts streaming
GC>down among the firing engines as they pass over the Loop. What's their
GC>abort mode? Or assume it's at takeoff and they have a full fuel load.
GC>Airliner servicing isn't zero defects because that costs too much and
GC>stresses are fairly low and an engine falling off or a fuel line ruptu
GC>is generally survivable due to the presence of wings and a fire bottle
GC>Spacecraft stresses are much higher and DC-1 will glide like a flaming
GC>rock. This is high risk stuff, not airliner grade hazard at all. It
GC>costs a lot more to do zero defects, recall that standing army at the
GC>Cape? And things still sometimes go boom. DC-1 better stay away from
GC>populated areas until it's been crash tested a few times.



OK, OK - you can bet that DC-1 will be extensively tested before they
let it land at LAX or Kennedy International.

And yes, there is an element of risk in the landings.

___ WinQwk 2.0b#0

--- Maximus 2.00

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

Date: 30 Nov 92 22:37:38 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

On 30 Nov 92 21:49:55 GMT, [e-mail] (John F. Woods) said:

J> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:
>If the DC-X is going to be so safe, why are they testing it at White
>Sands instead of, oh, say, John Wayne Airport?  And why is the test
>team limited by how many people will fit in the blockhouse?
>I think that Allen is the only one who doesn't think there's any risk.

J> Oh, my.  I would have expected better of you.

Obviously, I was wrong to think that a group like this didn't need
smilies to mark irony.

I mean, John Wayne Airport?

Oh, well....

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
[e-mail]                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

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

Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1992 22:30:21 GMT
From: "Robert B. Whitehurst" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>
>>Now here's a question: How is the DC to be refuelled and reloaded
>>between missions? That is, it won't necessarily land on a pad and it
>>has no wheels (?) so how will the ground crew handle it?
>
>I believe current plans are to put weels on it after it lands and tow it
>to a hanger or the launcher. Empty weight is only 80K pounds so this isn't
>hard.
>
>If it works out as expected, it can fly a few missions with just re-rueling.
>In this case it is towed to the launch pad, re-fueled, the payload is
>integrated, and off it goes. The launch pad is nothing more than a simple
>support structure; the landing system can't take the weight of a fully
>loaded vehicle.
>
    I'd be very surprised if the pad is "just" a support.  One of
the problems with the recent (test? use?) of an MX booster as a
commercial launcher was severe acoustic loading due to its launch from
an unimproved site.  I think I read about it in AW&ST.  At the least,
I would expect a pad with exhaust diverters, water quenching, etc. to
reduce similar loads on a DC (or any big rocket for that matter).

>Total turnaround is expected to cost around $10 million. I have seen figures
>for ground crew size and from memory is was on the order of 10 people.
>
    I'd be REAL skeptical of this.  Even if they cut the manpower
by an order of magnitude over the shuttle, I'd guess we're still
talking 100+ personnel (pretty good, all things considered).


--

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
[e-mail] |   We like it hot...and fast.

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 92 01:45:57 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement

-From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
-Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
-Date: 30 Nov 92 17:05:05 GMT
-Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

-Of course you said that the DC lands on nearly empty tanks. Knowing
-how fuel hungry rockets are, I was questioning this margin. How many
-minutes of hover, or retreat to higher altitude, are available in
-those nearly empty tanks? Five minutes? Ten? Airliners declare low
-fuel emergencies when they're down to those kinds of margins.

If the mass of DC is indeed almost entirely fuel at takeoff, the hover
time could be surprisingly long, since the longer you hover, the less
weight there is to hold up. (In fact, this could be a problem if you
really want to get down quickly, and there isn't any other way to
deplete the fuel.)

-If you're going to treat DC like an airliner, it has to play by airliner
-rules.

How long does it typically take a commercial airliner to circle around and
make a second attempt at a landing? (Somehow, I don't envision a DC
circling an airport, waiting for a landing slot. :-)

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 1 Dec 92 03:32:42 GMT
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

>You misunderstand. I'm talking about a DC *landing*, not an Atlas-
>Centaur takeoff. The parenthetical expression was meant to convey
>that *half* the engines, on the Centaur stage failed to ignite in
>the recent failures.
>
>Gary

Whoops, you're right. Sorry 'bout that! :-)

-Brian

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

Date: 1 Dec 92 03:33:23 GMT
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Please dont confuse the re-entry phase from the  landing hover phase.
>certainly a phine guidance error at re-entry results in  hundreds of
>miles in terminal descent.  but shuttle has that same problem and you
>dont seem to scream about that.  the key point that DC-1 will have
>over STS is that when they punch out of the blackout zone they can
>get a guidance update from GPS,LORAN, Ground radar or visual and if they
>are significantly off course  they cna look for a convenient emergency
>descent location and make a powered landing.

    The Space Shuttle no longer has a 'blackout zone'. The TDRS satellites
    eliminated it. I don't know about the DC, but it probably will avoid
    a blackout zone, too, if Mc-D leases TDRS space from NASA or something.

>Your screwball scenarios require a guidance failure early in and major
>loss of control surfaces or better then 3/4 loss of power.

>I would hope that all aircraft try to land with more then 20 seconds fuel on b
>board.  usually 747s dont land on dry tanks.
>
        Is there a point in here, somewhere? I must have missed it.

>You see.  there you go.  proving my point.  what you saw of challenger was
>uncontrolled burning.  it didn't detonate it deflagrated.

        Why do I feel like Jimmy Carter in the '80 Debate?
        What's the difference between detonation and, uhm, deflagration
        (that's a new word on me, by the way). Don't both result in a
        big ball of fire in the sky?

        -Brian-the-screaming-screwball
           (hey! I *like* that!)

        Heretofor, this discussion had not resorted to name-calling and
        insults to prove points. Congratulations.


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

Date: 30 Nov 92 16:30:08 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Soyuz
Newsgroups: sci.space

GC>
GC> Atlas can't
GC>loft a loaded Soyuz anyway

Soyuz mass = 14,500 lbs.

Atlas/Centaur II payload to LEO =  18,000 lbs.

no problem!

___ WinQwk 2.0b#0

--- Maximus 2.00

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

Date: 30 Nov 92 23:14:02 GMT
From: Pawel Moskalik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz escape system (was:  Re: Shuttle replacement)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Soyuz DOES have an escape rocket. It was actually used once,
when the rocket caught fire on the launch pad and then exploded (27 Sep 1983).
Thanks to escape system both cosmonauts are alive today. One of them is
right now in Houston, training for a shuttle mission next year (Vladimir Titov).

Pawel Moskalik

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

Date: 30 Nov 92 18:49:02 GMT
From: Erik Horstkotte <[e-mail]>
Subject: Spaceborne Artificial Intelligence, Anyone?
Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (R. S. Statsinger) writes:

|> Anyway, I've been wondering if this has ever been kicked around
|> here in the Wonderful World of Usenet, and these two groups seemed
|> like a good place to start. I'll try to follow these two groups
|> for a while, but if anyone has anything to say on the subject
|> PLEASE don't hesitate to send me email.

You might want to look into some of the work that has recently been
published by Dr. Robert N. Lea of NASA Johnson Space Center in
Houston.  He's been working on applying fuzzy logic and fuzzy expert
systems to such things as the Space Shuttle autopilot, remote
telepresence systems, spacecraft systems management, etc.

Unfortunately, I don't have any references for you.  You might try
calling JSC to see if you can get his phone number, or try sending
email to [e-mail].
--
Erik Horstkotte, Togai InfraLogic, Inc.
The World's Source for Fuzzy Logic Solutions (The company, not me!)
[e-mail], gordius!til!erik - [phone]
[e-mail] for info, [e-mail] for fuzzy mail-server

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

Date: 1 Dec 92 03:42:15 GMT
From: Greg F Walz Chojnacki <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space formulae source?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Can anyone point me in the direction of an ftp site with a collection
of formula. I was looking in particular for orbital velocity, but
realized that someone must have compiled a bgunch of them into one
handy file. BASIC or C would be extra handy.

Thanks.

Greg

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

Date: Mon, 30 Nov 92 23:11:01 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space suit facilities

-From: [e-mail] (Legene)
-Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
-Date: 30 Nov 92 19:51:25 GMT
-Organization: San Diego State University Computing Services

-    I assume this does not include space suits.  Does NASA even have
-space suits for females?  Taking care of unexpected potty breaks for
-someone in a space suit is supposed to be much easier with a male's
-urinary output apparatus.

Look in the "medical supplies" section of your local drug store.

It's no big deal.

Inside the Shuttle, the female astronauts use pretty much the same clothing
and personal supplies that they might if they were in the army. You don't
hear much about it because there haven't been any problems or surprises.

There *is* some concern about what should be done if a famale astronaut
on a long mission were to become pregnant.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 1 Dec 92 01:08:39 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Thomas Clarke) writes:

>By the way.  Why not use a parachute to get rid of the final 50
>meters per second or so.  Would a chute be lighter than the extra fuel?

I believe the trade studies suggested that parachutes wouldn't save very much
mass and that the extra effort required to repack the 'chutes after every
mission would be significant.  Parachutes for vehicles that massive get pretty
large and complicated themselves.
--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]

    "Why put off 'til tomorrow what you're never going to do anyway?"

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

Date: 30 Nov 92 16:30:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Two stage DC-1
Newsgroups: sci.space

An excellent design for an inexpensive launch vehicle!

I believe that the Space Echo has proven that the folks here can come
up with better launch vehicles designs than *anyone* at NASA has to
date. Unfortunately, all too many space activists spend more time
designing imaginary launch vehicles than creating the environment for
these vehicles to come to pass.

The inexpensive space launch systems that will allow reliable, safe
and affordable access to low earth orbit will be:

Financed by folks with lots of money
Built by rocket engineers
Designed by rocket engineers

Who will only be motivated to do so if there is a financial incentive
to perform. That financial incentive can only exist in the form of
a market for the space launch service they provide.

Space activists won't fund the launcher, they won't build the rocket,
and they won't design the system. They can, however, help create
the market that motivates these folks to do the job.



___ WinQwk 2.0b#0

--- Maximus 2.00

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

Date: 30 Nov 92 16:30:06 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: What comes after DC-1
Newsgroups: sci.space

DR>Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
DC-1, the commercial orbital version of the Delta Clipper is
a long way off - kind of like the commercial version of NASP:
don't hold your breath.

Next spring, MacDac will launch the DC-X, a 1/3 scale (although
there are rumors now that it will be 2/3 scale) version of  DC-Y,
a hopefully orbital Delta Clipper.

After that, nothing is funded.

___ WinQwk 2.0b#0

--- Maximus 2.00

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


Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!world!ksr!jfw
From: "John F. Woods" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Nov 92 21:49:55 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>     <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>     <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Lines: 23
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:
>If the DC-X is going to be so safe, why are they testing it at White
>Sands instead of, oh, say, John Wayne Airport?  And why is the test
>team limited by how many people will fit in the blockhouse?
>I think that Allen is the only one who doesn't think there's any risk.

Oh, my.  I would have expected better of you.

Allen certainly doesn't believe there is no risk.  Allen believes that the
Delta Clipper (which is *not* DC-X) can be constructed to operate with a risk
similar to that of a commercial airliner -- which, as numerous airliner
crashes attests, is not zero.

DC-X is being tested at White Sands because no one has ever built one before.
Delta Clipper Airframe #0001 will (presumably) be tested somewhere quiet
because only a *few* things like it will have been flown.  If everything
checks out during the development process, however, Delta Clipper
Airframe #0100 will probably be tested by delivering it from the factory
to the customer's front door.

Note that I have no connection with the DC-X team, and am just guessing based
on common sense (which seems FRIGHTFULLY scarce recently).  For all I *know*,
they are testing at White Sands because the like the nearby Chinese restaurant.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 478
------------------------------