Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_4/V15NO483.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 33KB

Date: Wed,  2 Dec 92 05:02:04
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #483
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed,  2 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 483

Today's Topics:
                             Kupier Belt
                  Light Pollution Makes the Papers.
NASA has 5 hand grenades still on the moon from Apollo missions (3 msgs)
Satellites more expensive on STS? (was Re: Shuttle replacement) (3 msgs)
                     Shuttle replacement (2 msgs)
     Soyuz escape system (was:  Re: Shuttle replacement) (2 msgs)
                     Soyuz escape system - aborts
                  Space Calendar - 11/28/92 (2 msgs)
                        Space formulae source?
                             Space ports
            What is the SSTO enabling technology? (2 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: Tue, 01 Dec 92 18:28:45 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Kupier Belt

>>> Now that objects have been sighted that could possibly prove the existence
>>> of the Kuiper belt, ...

>>     The one such object recently sighted apparently is not a Kuiper belt
>>comet, but a possible member of the Saturn family of asteroids or comets. All
>>other searches for Kuiper belt objects have so far proved fruitless.  And the
>>reasons for expecting a Kuiper belt at all have now been called into
>>question.

Jonathan Bode predicted the asteroid belt on pretty shaky grounds, as well,

a good 200 years before the first one was found (I think.  My history is
a bit shaky).  The Kupier Belt was only predicted a relatively short time
ago, so some patience is in order.  Comparable objects in the asteroid
and kupier belts have a brightness difference of several magnitudes, and
the number density is also comparably smaller, so they are much harder to
find.  "It's never too late for a wait-and-see attitude...:-)"

Also, disks have been detected around other stars, which is pretty good
evidence that a kupier belt can exist.  Said disks are calculated to
start around 30-50 au. from their star, consistent with current predictions
about 'our' kupier belt.

>Gee, I was not aware that 1992QB1 was NOT a Kuiper object.  Actually,
>as I understand it (unless there is a new orbit in the last week) there
>are two possible solutions.  One is a circular orbit with the distance
>putting it as a Kuiper Belt distance and the other is the Saturn
>family object that Tom mentions.  But, as of a little over a week ago,
>the orbit was still indeterminate.

The January Sky & Telescope has a decent article on this very subject,
if anyone would like more on this.  One thing they point out is that,
whichever orbit this thing has won't be well determined for months,
simply because it's moving so slowly, which makes heliocentric orbit
calculations difficult.

-Tommy Mac
-----------------------------============================================
Tom McWilliams              | What a tangled web we weave, when at   ". |
[e-mail]      |              ,  .first we .practice .*'  .|
[phone] -or- 353-2986|            '. '  . . to decieve    ,      |
a scrub Astronomy undergrad | After that, the  ,          +             |
at Michigan State University| improvement is tremendous! '.  , .'       |
------------------------------===========================================

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

Date: 1 Dec 92 19:20:37 GMT
From: Larry Klaes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Light Pollution Makes the Papers.
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.environment,talk.environment,sci.misc

        The negative aspects of light pollution are finally beginning
    to appear in the mass media literature.  In the Sunday, November 29,
    1992 edition of THE BOSTON GLOBE, an article entitled "Astronomers
    criticize plan to light ski trails" written by Yvonne Daley appears
    on the front page (73) of the "New England" section.

        In summary, the article tells of a plan by the Mount Mansfield
    Resort in Stowe, Vermont, to install 65, 25-foot high wooden utility
    poles, each holding two 400-watt lights, along 8,800 feet of land
    atop the highest mountain in the state.  The lights would illuminate
    20.9 acres of snow-covered forest each night during the ski season
    for a three-year test trial.  It will cost $200,000 to install this
    lighting system.

        The Vermont Astronomical Society has naturally complained on how
    this light pollution would ruin one of the more pristine views of
    the night sky in the region.  Judging from the reactions of skiers
    interviewed by the GLOBE, they neither know nor care what will happen
    to everyone's evening view of the heavens - or how constant light will
    affect plants and animals in the area - just so long as they get to
    ski.

        My question is, has the VAS contacted the International Dark Sky
    Association (IDA) for help and does the IDA know of the VAS's plight?
    Their address is:

        International Dark Sky Association
        Dave Crawford, President
        3545 N. Stewart
        Tucson, Arizona 85716
        U.S.A.

        In the Monday, November 30, edition of THE BOSTON GLOBE, there
    is a front-page article on light pollution by Scott Allen.  It
    describes how Boston and many other cities have lost their views of
    the stars to growing light pollution, detailed by SKY & TELESCOPE
    associate editor Stephen J. O'Meara.  The article also explains how
    poor lighting not only makes life difficult for astronomers, but
    wastes billions of dollars in fuel each year and is apparently not
    a deterrent to urban crime.

        I consider this attention a good start at least.  I think it is
    about time that human ignorance and apathy were kept from doing any
    further harm to the world, don't you?

        As the Editor of the Electronic Journal of the Astronomical
    Society of the Atlantic (EJASA), an electronic periodical dedicated
    to the promotion and enjoyment of astronomy and space exploration
    published each month on USENET, I wish to make available to all the
    following EJASA articles on light pollution:

        "Stopping Space and Light Pollution", by Larry Klaes and Phil
    Karn - September 1989

        "When the Light Gets in Your Eyes, You Shouldn't Have to Drive
    to the Country", by James Smith and Ken Poshedly - February 1991

        "Curbing Light Pollution in Ohio", by Robert Bunge - June 1991

        "Street Lights: The Real Cost", by Steve and Stephanie Binkley -
    August 1991

        "The Battle Against Light Pollution in Central Ohio", by Earl W.
    Phillips, Jr. - September 1991

        You may find these EJASA articles through anonymous FTP at
    chara.gsu.edu (131.96.5.29), or you may E-Mail me for the issues.

        Larry Klaes  [e-mail]
             or - ...!decwrl!verga.enet.dec.com!klaes
                 or - [e-mail]
                     or - [e-mail]

             "All the Universe, or nothing!" - H. G. Wells

        EJASA Editor, Astronomical Society of the Atlantic

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

Date: 1 Dec 92 17:17:45 GMT
From: Brad Wallet <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA has 5 hand grenades still on the moon from Apollo missions
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Edmund Hack) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] () writes:
|> >I was listening to the radio this morning when the announcer
|> >stated "The most expensive junk yard is out-of-this world".  He
|> >went on to say that NASA has over $500 million of salvageable
|>                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^
|> Dubious use of "salvageable", but then most in the press never took a
|> science course beyond "Rocks for Jocks" or "Twinkle, Twinkle Little
|> Star" (as we called the science for the math-illiterate in college).

The way they calculate the worth is undoubtably flawed.  They probably
use the original purchase price.  They may even adjust it for inflation.
Didn't IC's cost about $1k a piece back then?  IMHO, most is probably
worthless except for perhaps historic value.

-------------------------------------------------
Brad Wallet                 Mathematician
[e-mail]  Naval Surface Warfare Center
[phone]               (AVN)249-4950
DSMAC - "Tomahawk's Eyes"

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 92 20:29:01 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: NASA has 5 hand grenades still on the moon from Apollo missions

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Bradford B. Behr) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Dave Jones) wrote:
>>Wasn't there an Urban Legend to the effect that Armstrong & Co. were
>>issued .45 automatics just in case?
>
> Just in case of bug-eyed moon monsters or giant mutant space goats or
> secret Nazi bases? Not likely. It is quite possible that they had
> sidearms in the command module in case they splashed/crashed down in
> the wilderness somewhere and had to hunt for food or defend themselves
> from ravenous but terran beasts.
>
>   Bradford B. Behr                   [e-mail]
>      Sacramento Peak National Solar Observatory, Sunspot NM 88349

\Ordinary firearms wouldn't work in a vacuum anyhow.
/The gunpowder couldn't burn. The same might be true at high
\altitudes on the Earth's surface, as I've heard that in a
/particular South American city (I think it was La Paz, Bolivia),
\there's not enough oxygen in the air for them to really require
/a fire department.

\--KB

How did the mortars work, then? Heavy boots to hold down an atmosphere?

Phil

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

Date: 1 Dec 92 21:39:04 GMT
From: "Bradford B. Behr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA has 5 hand grenades still on the moon from Apollo missions
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Jones) writes:
>Wasn't there an Urban Legend to the effect that Armstrong & Co. were
>issued .45 automatics just in case?

Just in case of bug-eyed moon monsters or giant mutant space goats or
secret Nazi bases? Not likely. It is quite possible that they had
sidearms in the command module in case they splashed/crashed down in
the wilderness somewhere and had to hunt for food or defend themselves
from ravenous but terran beasts...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Bradford B. Behr                   [e-mail]
     Sacramento Peak National Solar Observatory, Sunspot NM 88349
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 1 Dec 92 06:43:41 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellites more expensive on STS? (was Re: Shuttle replacement)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <7#[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>Yes. I can buy and fly between two and three satellites for what it costs to
>>build and fly ONE on Shuttle.
>>
>>If the first fails, I can launch a second and save money over Shuttle. If
>>the second one fails, I can send a third and still be ahead of the game.
>>
>
>     No, you can LAUNCH 3 satellites for the cost launching one from
> the shuttle.  You can't build them though.

Hold it.  Doesn't it cost somewhat more to build a satellite for
launching aboard the Shuttle than it does to build it for expendable
launchers, because of safety issues?  I have no idea what the numbers
might be.

If this is so, than Allen is correct in comparing (Shuttle buy + fly)
vs. (expendable buy + fly), rather than simply comparing launch costs
and assuming that the satellite construction costs would be equal.

I suppose this might be a smaller difference in the case of
standardized satellites such as the Hughes HS-393, which are designed
to be launched on either the Shuttle or expendables.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey         | "I'm gonna keep on writing songs
Fermilab                          | until I write the song
Bitnet:      [e-mail]  | that makes the guys in Detroit
Internet:  [e-mail]  | who draw the cars
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS  | put tailfins on 'em again."
                                            --John Prine

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

Date: 1 Dec 1992 14:07 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Satellites more expensive on STS? (was Re: Shuttle replacement)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes...
>In article <7#[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) write

>Hold it.  Doesn't it cost somewhat more to build a satellite for
>launching aboard the Shuttle than it does to build it for expendable
>launchers, because of safety issues?  I have no idea what the numbers
>might be.
>
Na, you go by the same Saftey documentation (ESMC something something) which
is an airforce Document on safety. There is some greater costs associated the
verification pahse relating to propellants an such. Also there is  a ban these
days on LOX/H2 upper stages for the Shuttle. This tends to drive up costs
for very heavy payloads and is the reason that Galielao (sp) had to take
the senic route to Jupiter.


>If this is so, than Allen is correct in comparing (Shuttle buy + fly)
>vs. (expendable buy + fly), rather than simply comparing launch costs
>and assuming that the satellite construction costs would be higher.

Well if Shuttle started delivering sats again, it would not be too hard to
reverse the no LOX/H2 constraint so the cost issue is probabaly moot between
the two. For small satellites on the shuttle (microsats), the Shuttle is far
cheaper than its competition. For 200 lbs or less I pay only 10,000 bucks.
far cheaper than 200,000 on the Arianne. Who cares if it is subsidized Allan
the milk you drink and the corn you eat and the burger you munch is subsidized
by uncle sugar.


Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 1 Dec 92 20:46:46 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellites more expensive on STS? (was Re: Shuttle replacement)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Well if Shuttle started delivering sats again, it would not be too hard to
>reverse the no LOX/H2 constraint so the cost issue is probabaly moot between
>the two.

Shuttle would need to launch over 15 Delta sized satellites to be cost
effective with Delta. It would need to launch about 8 Atlas sized payloads
to compete with Atlas. It simply cannot do that.

>For small satellites on the shuttle (microsats), the Shuttle is far
>cheaper than its competition.

No, it isn't cheaper it's just that NASA found some suckers (us) to pay the
extra. If you where forced to pay the true cost, you would buy the cheaper
Pegasus.

>Who cares if it is subsidized Allan

I care since I am the one paying the subsidy. Given a choice between
a) spending billions of my money and shutting down commercial space or
b) saving billions, reducing costs, and opening up the space frontier
I prefer b.

I wonder if you could tell us just why you prefer a?

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------144 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 1 Dec 92 18:38:27 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shuttle replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

Yes but shuttle for a long time landed blind and you didnt run around
screaming about how the hsuttle might land in hte middle of epcot.
what gives the dc-1,y,x an advatage is that even seriouly off course
they can cruise about looking for a good alternate landing field.
sort of the Damn, we missed miami,  o'hare can you clear us for emergency
final, but :-)
>>Your screwball scenarios require a guidance failure early in and major
>>loss of control surfaces or better then 3/4 loss of power.
>

Note.  is said screwball scenairios, not you screwball..
anyone can have screwy ideas.  that is a valuation of the idea not the person.
>>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 kept screaming about tons of rocket fuel crashing down on peoples heads
well, by that same standard you should scream about tons of JP-4
crashing on peoples heads.

>
>>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!)
>
    You said it, not me.:-)

As it was explained to me, by a friend who had done some analytical work
on explosions.  Deflagration means the flame front precedes the shock wave.
detonation means the shock precedes the flame front.  detonations tend
to have large damage areas and small fires while deflagrations tend to
have small szones of destruction and large zones of combustion.

Firemen fight deflargrations,  they run away from detonations.
terrorists and military engineers like detonation.  deflagration is only
useful for urban renewal projects or arson.

in a nutshell,  a detonation is much more dangerous.  a little insulation
and a vehicle can survive deflagration.  detonation requires over pressure shielding.
>        Heretofor, this discussion had not resorted to name-calling and
>        insults to prove points. Congratulations.
>

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

Date: 1 Dec 92 21:45:23 GMT
From: Brad 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] (Robert B. Whitehurst) writes:
>
>>    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 the fact that they use solids would also be a major factor.
>
    True, solids would likely give higher impulse loads, but you
ARE talking about some seriously large liquid rockets.

>>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).
>
>Nope. In fact, acoustic load is actually better than an airliner since
>it goes straight up and doesn't fly low over populated areas.
>
    "Acoustic load" refers to the high, possibly damaging
vibrational loads imparted acoustically to the rocket structure at and
immediately after ignition, NOT to the issue of noise levels to which
neighbors are subjected.  That's why OSC had problems with the MX
booster they were using on the Taurus.  It was designed to be thrown
out of its silo (pneumatically?  steam?  Somebody here should know for
sure) and lit in the air, rather than close to a solid, rigid surface
(concrete).  Please correct, somebody, if I have the MX part wrong.
    I would expect even an operational unit
would have a fairly remote launch site (shucks, no loading the
congressmen on at National and launching 'em to the moon...darn! :-) )

>>>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.
>
>Well that's what their task analysis says. We will know for sure in a year
>or so.

>   Allen

    Call me a skeptic, but I've never seen one of those kind of
analyses that was less than x2 too low.  My own rule for estimating
manpower for new jobs is make my best guess and multiply by 4!  Makes
my boss whine a little, but I seldom get a rude surprise!
--

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

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

Date: 1 Dec 1992 13:52 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Soyuz escape system (was:  Re: Shuttle replacement)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>>  Apparently
>>the cosmonauts fired the escape rockets when the booster vehicle exploded
>>after lift-off.
>
>This implies that the Titan accident in 86 would also have been
>survivable to a crew in a capsule with an excape rocket.
>

No what this implies is that the propagation of the explosive force in a
liquid fueled vehicle is slower than in for a solid propelled vehicle as has
been pointed out by others here. The speed of propagation of the explosive
force in an SRB is determined by the surface area available for ignition. It
is supposed that a crack in the booster fuel acted to greatly accelerate the
propagation of the explosive force. Boom. There is no chance whatsoever that
anyone would have survived that Titan explosion, none. Look at the picture
in AvLeak it is pretty awesome.

Cracks in fuel is the primary cause for rejection of solid fueled stages during
manufacture.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 1 Dec 92 22:08:08 GMT
From: Jonathan McDowell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz escape system (was:  Re: Shuttle replacement)
Newsgroups: sci.space

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Pawel Moskalik):
> First accident occured on Apr 5th, 1975. The third stage of the Soyuz launcher
> did not work properly (there was no fire) The escape system separated the
> spacecraft from the stack. The spacecraft landed safely in Altay mountains,

Pawel -
 just to be pedantic, the SAS tower had already separated from the launcher
in the 1975 abort. The abort did involve separating the spacecraft from
the stack, but there was no 'Launch Escape System' used, at least in
the conventional meaning of a rocket on top of the ship. Thus the
1983 abort was the first and only time that an escape tower has been
used.

 Regards,
  Jonathan McDowell

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

Date: 1 Dec 92 11:46:53 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz escape system - aborts
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris Jones) writes:
>Your story sounds like a corruption of the two.  One abort involved firing the
>escape rocket

This was on Sept. 26, 1983, crew was Vladimir Titov and Gennadiy Strekalov
on their way to Salyut 7.

>The other launch abort took place after the first two stages of the rocket and
>the escape tower and shroud had all been jettisoned.

This was April 5, 1975, crew was Vasili Lazarev and Oleg Makarov on
their way to Salyut 4.

2 of 4 pyrotechnic latches prematurely fired before upper stage seperation.
When it was time for upper stage seperation the remaining 2 pyrotechnic's
failed to fire and the upper stage did not seperate although it began
firing.  When the flight path deviated by 10 degrees the abort system
seperated the Soyuz which shortly afterward turned around and retro-fired.

Dennis Newkirk ([e-mail])
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

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

Date: 1 Dec 92 18:19:33 GMT
From: Mark Adam <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Calendar - 11/28/92
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
> * indicates change from last month's calendar
> [...]
>    January 1993
>      ?? - Eutelsat II F-5 Ariane Launch
>      ?? - NASA Town Meeting - Denver, Colorado
>     *?? - Galaxy 4 Ariane Launch
>      03-4 Quadrantid Meteor Shower (Maximum: 10:00 UT, Solar Lon 283.13 deg.)
>      07 - 25th Anniversary, Surveyor 7 Launch (Moon Soft Lander)
>     *10 - Geotail, 4th Lunar Flyby
>     *25 - STS-54, Endeavour, TDRS-F
     ^^^^^

when did this change? i haven't heard anything about problems that would push the
date back 12 days. anybody have any info/confirmation?

btw, normally i wouldn't care that much; but, i'm trying to plan a vacation
around seeing the launch. any info would be helpful. thanks.

--

mark ----------------------------
([e-mail])    |    My opinions are not those of Stratus.
                |    Hell! I don`t even agree with myself!

    "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad."

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

Date: 2 Dec 92 06:22:21 GMT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Calendar - 11/28/92
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark Adam) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>> * indicates change from last month's calendar
>> [...]
>>    January 1993
>>     *25 - STS-54, Endeavour, TDRS-F
>     ^^^^^
>
>when did this change? i haven't heard anything about problems that would
>push the
>date back 12 days. anybody have any info/confirmation?

This date was obtained from the Space Shuttle manifest dated Nov. 18 that
someone posted.  In fact, adjustments were done to just about all of the
Shuttle launch dates.

>btw, normally i wouldn't care that much; but, i'm trying to plan a vacation
>around seeing the launch. any info would be helpful. thanks.

Good luck.  Shuttle launch dates are moving targets.  They never stay put.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The 3 things that children
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | find the most fascinating:
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | space, dinosaurs and ghosts.

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

Date: 1 Dec 92 20:53:16 GMT
From: Craig Fifer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space formulae source?
Newsgroups: sci.space

The file you are looking for is FAQ #6 and is located by FTP at
ames.arc.nasa.gov in the pub/SPACE/FAQ directory.  Hope this
helps!

-Craig Fifer
[e-mail]
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
|   Never play leapfrog with              |   Craig Fifer                   |
|   a unicorn!   -Murphy                  |   3736 Heritage Road, S.W.      |
|                                         |   Roanoke, Virginia  24015-4518 |

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

Date: Tue, 01 Dec 92 19:21:18 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space ports

>I'd have no problem with a nearby spaceport.   (Simon)

I think most people would feel this way, especially considering the amount
of revenue such an animal would represent.

Has anyone news of the creation of an International Space Port?  I know
India was particulary pushy about this, for the above reasons, but I've
heard nothing about it.  Is it happening?  Planned?  Being deabted?

-Tommy Mac
-----------------------------============================================
Tom McWilliams              | What a tangled web we weave, when at   ". |
[e-mail]      |              ,  .first we .practice .*'  .|
[phone] -or- 353-2986|            '. '  . . to decieve    ,      |
a scrub Astronomy undergrad | After that, the  ,          +             |
at Michigan State University| improvement is tremendous! '.  , .'       |
------------------------------===========================================

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

Date: 1 Dec 92 19:45:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: What is the SSTO enabling technology?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gregory N. Bond) writes:
>

>According to the assessment of SSX done by the Aerospace Corporation, it
>is now possible dur to slight improvements in the specific impulse of
>engines and some new lighter materials.
>

You might want to back off the ISP statment there Allan. You can't beat the
ISP of the SSME and even if you get close you are going to have heap
big problems keeping any kind of reusablility of the engines. Look at the
Japanese experience in "slight" improvments or even re-inventing current
LOX/H2 engines. It is not easy or cheap or reliable in the long run. How many
hours are the engines supposed to run befor a rebuild? currently with the
SSME's that is only about twenty minutes.

>Others say that it has been possible for a long time.
>
>The main problem (as is often the case) is the preconceptions of the
>people involved. This is a radical departure from the usual and that
>takes time to absorb.

No the main problem is as it always has been bucks. No bucks no Buck Rogers.
Get off that pedestal. The whole space program was a radical departure from the
norm and was carried off in nine years. Why gently reader do you ask? Bucks
thats why.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 1 Dec 92 23:13:49 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is the SSTO enabling technology?
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>According to the assessment of SSX done by the Aerospace Corporation, it
>>is now possible dur to slight improvements in the specific impulse of
>>engines and some new lighter materials.

>You might want to back off the ISP statment there Allan.

Well it wasn't *MY* statement, it was the Aerospace Corporation.

>You can't beat the ISP of the SSME

(I thought we went over this before?)

The RL-10-a4 is just as good as the SSME. the RL-10C1 (if built) will have
about 15 seconds higher ISP than the SSME.

>and even if you get close you are going to have heap
>big problems keeping any kind of reusablility of the engines.

RL-10s seem to do just fine.

   Allen

PS. SSME upgrades are paid for with out tax $$. RL-10 upgrades are paid for
    by the private sector.

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------144 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 483
------------------------------