Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_5/V15NO544.TXT

Text File | 1993-07-13 | 30KB | 758 lines

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 05:05:47
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #544
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon, 14 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 544

Today's Topics:
                      DoD launcher use (2 msgs)
                       Ephemeris satellite info
                         fast-track failures
                 Galileo probe imaging, lack thereof
                        liquid fuels (2 msgs)
                       Mach 8+ Space/Spy Plane?
                      Micro-g in KC-135 (2 msgs)
                             Nssd CD-ROM
                        Range Safety and DC-X
                  Relay to Follow Galileo? (3 msgs)
                   The invitation to collaboration
                            Titan IV Costs
                Workshop about Eta Carinae - Nov/1993

    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: 13 Dec 92 21:57:04 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: DoD launcher use
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>... SR71s and U2s that can fly above anything Iraq had right?

I don't know whether Iraq had any of the Soviet heavy SAMs, but unless
those aircraft have capabilities far beyond what's revealed, they can't
fly above *those* missiles' ceilings.  Remember, 1950s-vintage Soviet
missiles have a proven ability to knock down U-2s.  Quite apart from
the Powers incident, China has parts of several shot-down U-2s on display
in its aviation museums.  Blackbirds reportedly had some close calls over
Vietnam.

>...after 28 years of trying, the SU never managed to down a
>SR71 right?

As far as I know, SR-71s never actually overflew the USSR, although they
did fly around the fringes (presumably close enough for side-looking
sensors) frequently.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 23:31:07 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: DoD launcher use
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>>... SR71s and U2s that can fly above anything Iraq had right?

>I don't know whether Iraq had any of the Soviet heavy SAMs, but unless
>those aircraft have capabilities far beyond what's revealed, they can't
>fly above *those* missiles' ceilings.

Just what is the ceiling on those missiles?  And it should be noted that even
if they can reach the required altitude they probably are no match for SR-71
speeds and ECM.

>Remember, 1950s-vintage Soviet
>missiles have a proven ability to knock down U-2s.  Quite apart from
>the Powers incident, China has parts of several shot-down U-2s on display
>in its aviation museums.

The mainland Chinese shot down quite a number of U-2s in the 60s.  There was
enough shooting going on then to make me think the name "Cold War" was a
misnomer.

>>...after 28 years of trying, the SU never managed to down a
>>SR71 right?

>As far as I know, SR-71s never actually overflew the USSR, although they
>did fly around the fringes (presumably close enough for side-looking
>sensors) frequently.

According to Burrows' _Deep Black_ "The Russians have repeatedly charged that
they have been overflown by SR-71s, and the Cubans have made the same
allegation: the Pentagon has denied the former and admitted the latter."  Now
just who you believe (and what definition of "overflown" you use) is up to
you.  But the Soviets have repeatedly expressed frustration over the fact that
they can't shoot Blackbirds down.  That may have changed in the last few years
but it was true for a very long time.
--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
                        Ho^3     !=L

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

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 19:00:32 GMT
From: Jape <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ephemeris satellite info
Newsgroups: sci.space

Could someone explain what 'Mean anomoly' is when talking
about satellite ephemerous information?  How would one
calculate such a thing?

Thanks.

JP Fournier

[e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Dec 92 21:48:57 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: fast-track failures
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>There are numerous examples of aircraft programs where the fast
>track success orientation led to unacceptable aircraft. Look at
>all the gaps in the P and F series aircraft. Those gaps represent
>aircraft that never made it past the prototype stage because of
>unacceptable problems that cropped up with the design as development
>progressed...

Actually, if you look at the history of the P/F series, most of the gaps
(at least, in recent times) are aircraft that the USAF simply decided it
did not want as production fighters.  F numbers were assigned at the drop
of a hat, often to projects that never had any guarantee of getting off
the drawing board.  The bulk of them did *not* run into technical trouble
(although some might have if continued).

The F-23, F-20, F-17, and F-12 were all fine aircraft, technical successes,
that the USAF didn't buy because it liked alternatives better or did not
want the capabilities they offered.  The F-19 and F-13 never existed
(unless you believe, as many do, that the stealth fighter was supposed to
be the F-19 -- "F-117" is technically not a proper designation).  There
are no gaps before F-12, although there are some pretty obscure Navy
aircraft in there as a result of the Great Number Unification.

Back before that...  The numbers ended at F-111.  The F-110 was renumbered
F-4 in the G.N.U. (no need for two numbers for one aircraft).  The F-109
never bent metal.  The F-108 and F-103 were cancelled during prototype
construction because they were expensive and the USAF didn't want Mach 3
interceptors; both were technically challenging but, as far as I know,
were on track with no show-stoppers visible.  The F-107 worked fine but
lost to the F-105; the prototypes flew as experimental aircraft for years.
The F-99 and F-98 were "unmanned interceptors" -- missiles -- renumbered
into other code sequences before operational service (I think one was
the Falcon and the other the BOMARC, but my references aren't handy).
I *think* the F-97 was the little delta-wing experimental prototype that
proved the delta concept for the F-102.  That's where my memory gives
out... and we're back into the early 1950s.

Just which aircraft were you thinking of, Gary?  I can think of one
aircraft that had a bad performance shortfall but was redesigned and
continued into a successful program (the F-102).  I can't think of
*any* F-series "gap" in the last 40 years that fits your description.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 13 Dec 92 22:26:03 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Galileo probe imaging, lack thereof
Newsgroups: sci.space

I wrote:
>There is an imaging system of some sort on Huygens...
>(My personal opinion is that the omission of this on Galileo's probe was
>a mistake, although admittedly it would have taken a major redesign
>because the probe's data rate is too low for imaging.)

Actually, I'm told that there was a proposal to put an imager on the probe.
It *was* hampered by the low data rate; even with modest resolution and
heavy data compression (not easy with mid-1970s electronics!), only a small
number of images could be sent in the limited time available.  It lost
out in the instrument selection because the resulting science return was
thought to be too limited.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:19:54 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: liquid fuels
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>
>>The major problem with cryogenic fuels is that they boil off and the
>>gas must be vented.  This becomes a real problem if the upper stage
>>is located inside the shuttle cargo bay.  The modifications that must
>>be made to the shuttle are non-trivial.
>
>Sorry, wrong.  Cryogenic fuels fly in the payload bay on every extended-
>duration shuttle flight.  The shuttle's fuel cells use liquid hydrogen
>and liquid oxygen, and the extended-duration pallet for the cargo bay
>(first flown recently) is basically a set of LH2 and LOX tanks.
>

Are you disputing that the modifications that must be made to the shuttle
to accomodate Centaur are non-trivial?  I.e., would *not* require a
major refit to an orbiter including special arrangements to handle venting?

Sure, the EDO pallets are located in the cargo bay but they are permanent
plumbing, so to speak, that were added during another "major" refit and
modification.  And they certainly don't vent boil-off into the cargo bay.  But
I assume that the dewars which hold the EDO LH2 and LOX are better insulating
than the tanks of a Centaur and therefore won't vent nearly as much during
the wait on the pad and during ascent (if at all)...

I suppose that once one is on orbit, and if Centaur is kept in the shade,
the boil-off problem diminishes rather rapidly thanks to the rather fine
insulating characteristics of vacuum.

Can anyone point to a detailed description of the Shuttle-Centaur mods
that were proposed long ago?   I guess back issues of AW&ST would provide
some info.  What about conference proceedings from somewhere?


--
Dave Michelson
[e-mail]

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

Date: 14 Dec 92 03:26:37 GMT
From: Ryan Korniloff <[e-mail]>
Subject: liquid fuels
Newsgroups: sci.space

What does the payload of the shuttle have to do with how screwed up the
design of the SRB o-rings??? That is what caused the accident in the first
place. Why would limiting payload perpellent make a difference???

        -- Ryan Korniloff
        -- [e-mail]

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

Date: Sunday, 13 Dec 1992 12:45:39 MST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Mach 8+ Space/Spy Plane?
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Rich (the Wiz)
Silva) says:
>
>    Apparently reported in some English Aeronautic Journal was
>    a story claiming that the US has a new spy plane capable of
>    Mach 8+ (at least) in test.  Apparently said plane has a
>    glide path over Catalina while landing in Nevada.  The story
>    claimed that this plane was responsible for the periodic
>    "mysterious sonic booms and window shaking" (Thursday mornings?)
>    that have been occuring here in Southern CA.
>
>    Anyone know anything more?
>
>

I was in Joshua Tree national forest last May when I saw a plane in the upper
atmosphere fly across the sky about as fast as metors do I didn't here any
sonic booms but I't couldn't have been a jet airliner it was moving too fast
I did notice it's contrail was lumpy like -+-+-+-+-+-+ like a pulse.

>--
>Rich Silva
>Locus Computing Corporation                [e-mail]
>                  {uunet,ucivax,trwrb}!lcc!rich
>       {randvax,ucbvax,trwspp}!ucla-se!lcc!rich

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

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 21:15:20 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Micro-g in KC-135
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Claudio Egalon) writes:
>What causes the microgravity in the KC-135, the centripetal
>acceleration at the top of the parabola, which may cancel the gravity
>acceleration,  or something else???

You don't "cancel" the gravitational acceleration, you fall with it.  The
KC-135 flies the exact trajectory that it would follow if it were falling
free in a vacuum.

That trajectory isn't exactly a parabola; it is in fact a segment of an
elliptical orbit (one that intersects the Earth's surface).  It's very
close to being a parabola.  It would *be* a parabola if the Earth were
flat and gravity did not diminish with altitude.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 14 Dec 92 00:30:00 GMT
From: IGOR <[e-mail]>
Subject: Micro-g in KC-135
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Claudio Egalon) writes...
>What causes the microgravity in the KC-135, the centripetal
>acceleration at the top of the parabola, which may cancel the gravity
>acceleration,  or something else???

No this is it. But you begin to be in microgravity conditions BEFORE the top
of the parabola since you still have the thrust of the engine before they
are reduced to simply counteract the air drag.
 The trajectory then used is an ellipsoid
from a family that includes the vertical straight line...

But Mc Elwaine or Snarfy could prove us otherwise :-) (existence of antigraviton
in high atmosphere or another use of ballbearings)

>
>[e-mail]
>
>Claudio Egalon
>
>


Igor Carron
Nuclear Engineering Department
Texas A&M University

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 04:08:52 GMT
From: Ryan Korniloff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nssd CD-ROM
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Newsgroups: sci.space
>Path: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!rkornilo
>From: [e-mail] (Ryan Korniloff)
>Subject: Re: NSSDC Datata on CD-ROM
>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
>Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
>Date: Sun, 6 Dec 92 22:36:15 GMT
>
>>Path: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!mercury.cair.du.edu!copper!vexcel!ncar!elroy.j
>l.nasa.gov!kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke
>>From: [e-mail] (Ron Baalke)
>>Newsgroups: sci.space
>>Subject: Re: NSSDC Data on CD-ROM
>>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>>Date: 6 Dec 92 07:49:21 GMT
>>References: <[e-mail]>
>>Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet)
>>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>>Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
>>Lines: 55
>>News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4
>>Nntp-Posting-Host: kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
>>
>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
>u.edu (Ryan Korniloff) writes...
>>>>Xref: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu sci.space:27435 alt.sci.planetary:363 alt.cd
>r
>>>m:6194
>>>>Path: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!mercury.cair.du.edu!copper!vexcel!ncar!ames!
>l
>>
>>>>>Has anyone looked at these images?  Are the pictures very detailed an
>
>>>>>diverse?
>>>>
>>>>Yes.  Keep in mind the images are the raw unprocessed data from Voyage
>.
>>>>The images are black and white.
>>>>
>>>Black and white!? Well, I understand that Voyager's camras took 3 pictu
>es
>>>to make a complete color image - in a green, then red, then blue (was i
>
>>>yellow??) filter. Then, on the ground, the images were processed to mak
>
>>>the color image.
>>
>>This is true, except the color filters normally used by Voyager are oran
>e,
>>green and blue.  From a scientific viewpoint, the raw data is more impor
>ant.
>>As new image processing techniques are developed, you can always go back
>>to the original data and squeeze out more information.
>>
>>>Can this be done with IMDISP or any other image
>>>displaying software?
>>
>>With IMDISP, no.  I have looked into it, and it is not a trivial process
>
>>First, the three images have to lined up properly. Second, you have to a
>count
>>for differences between the images due to spacecraft movement and planet
>moon
>>rotation.  Third, you have to adjust for the orange filter (Voyager didn
>t
>>have a red filter).  The only software I know of that does all of this
>>is VICAR, which was developed by the Image Processing Lab at JPL.
>>
>>>I was relly excited with the prospect of purchasing
>>>CD-ROMs of the images. Now I'm not so sure it would be worth it for me.
>>>Is it the same for Magellan??
>>
>>The Magellan images are different.  Its images were derived from radar
>>bounced off the surface of Venus.  You cannot get a true color image fro
>
>>the Magellan data.  Magellan did not have a camera - it would
>>of been useless on a cloud shrouded planet like Venus.  So yes, the Mage
>lan
>>images are black and white, too.  However, in some of the press released
>>photographs, a yellow-orange color palette was applied to the image.
>>This color palette came from a Venera lander image from the surface of
>>Venus.
>>
>>>And what about the Mars Observer in the
>>>future? Are thoes images going to be in B/W?
>>
>>Yes, and this is true for Galileo, too.  In fact, all of the cameras
>>carried by  planetary spacecraft were black and white cameras.
>>     ___    _____     ___
>>    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
>a.gov
>>    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
>> ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The 3 things that ch
>ldren
>>/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | find the most fascin
>ting:
>>|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | space, dinosaurs and
>ghosts.
>
>Ok, then I will there be any way of obtaining VICAR?? I guess that it
>would be hands off to ordinary people like myself.
>
>Also, there is a program for the IBM PC called Vista Pro. To be as short
>as possible in explaining this, it is a 3D landscaping gernerator that
>accepts the U.S. Geological Survey's Digital Elivation Model images. You
>can also creat liniar flybys with it. Can I do this with the Magellan
>images or any other that are available? And if so, what other images are
>available??? And, where can I get them?
>
>
>        -- Ryan Korniloff
>        -- [e-mail]
>

I posted the above message last week.^^^ I'm hoping this time somone will
answer my questions...

        -- Ryan Korniloff
        -- [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Dec 92 03:43:31 GMT
From: Paul Campbell <taniwha!paul>
Subject: Range Safety and DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>>I just got back from the NSS Policy Committee. There I was told the
>>following interesting tidbit:  The DC-X will NOT have destruct charges
>>when it flies. They convinced the range safety people that they
>>simply wheren't needed.

>With the glide characteristics of a bullet, and a max altitude of 30,000
>feet, and White Sands being a *big* empty place, I can see why. 50 cal
>machinegun bullets can travel higher, and they don't use destruct charges
>on them either. It's the ones that can climb a 100 miles you've got to
>watch.

Those of us who do go out and fly our own 'big' (at least by our standards,
5-30ft long) rockets in the desert don't have range safety either - just lots
of range and someone to yell 'duck' if required. At BlackRock this year the
altitude record for a 'cardboard' (really non-metalic) rocket was set at ~53,000
feet - we regularly get FAA waivers to 100,000. Flights to ~20,000 are becoming
pretty common and 10,000 is easy.

Of course what we do is all drive out into the middle of a flat lake, stand
together and launch them straight up - maybe we should paint bulls-eyes all
around :-).

        Paul
--
Paul Campbell    UUCP: ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul     AppleLink: CAMPBELL.P
Use up your Quayle jokes now while they're still good "Quayle for Pres. in '94"
     Q: Why is Marilyn Quayle like Marion Barry?
     A: They both suck a little dope.

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

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 21:10:34 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Relay to Follow Galileo?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Why not send a craft along behind Galileo to relay information back to
>Earth at a suitable rate?

Because it would have required putting that craft and its launch together
in a considerable hurry, starting a couple of years ago, and funding for
doing that could not be found.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 14 Dec 92 03:49:18 GMT
From: Ryan Korniloff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Relay to Follow Galileo?
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Path: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!mercury.cair.du.edu!copper!vexcel!ncar!destroyer!gumby!yale!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!utcsri!utzoo!henry
>From: [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)
>Newsgroups: sci.space
>Subject: Re: Relay to Follow Galileo?
>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>Date: 13 Dec 92 21:10:34 GMT
>References: <[e-mail]>
>Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
>Lines: 10
>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>Why not send a craft along behind Galileo to relay information back to
>>Earth at a suitable rate?
>
>Because it would have required putting that craft and its launch together
>in a considerable hurry, starting a couple of years ago, and funding for
>doing that could not be found.
>--
>"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

Well why did the HGA have to be cloed up in the first place? If it is too
big, then couldn't they have used a more powerful transmitter? I would
have rather tried to avoid such a chance for failure. If thay don't get
that HGA open then %30-%40 of the mission objectives will be lost. Or is
the radio frequncy have something to do with he size of the HGA???


        -- Ryan Korniloff
        -- [e-mail]

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

Date: 14 Dec 92 05:30:28 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Relay to Follow Galileo?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ryan Korniloff) writes:
>
>Well why did the HGA have to be cloed up in the first place? If it is too
>big, then couldn't they have used a more powerful transmitter? I would
>have rather tried to avoid such a chance for failure. If thay don't get
>that HGA open then %30-%40 of the mission objectives will be lost. Or is
>the radio frequncy have something to do with he size of the HGA???
>

There was no reason to expect the HGA deployment to fail since the same
design had unfurled flawlessly on several previous TDRSS comsats.

Some have suggested that excessive storage times and mechanical vibration
associated with hauling Galileo back and forth between KSC and JPL caused
a loss of lubricant in one of deployment mechanisms...

I don't know off hand what the gain of the HGA it could be estimated using
the expression

                         G = 4 n pi A
                             --------
                               l^2

where n is the efficiency of the aperture illumination (typically about 0.7),
A is the physical area of the aperture (= pi r^2), and l is the wavelength.

One would be hard-pressed to replace the antenna with an efficient and reliable
high power amplifier with similar gain, to say the least.

--
Dave Michelson
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 10:07:44 +0100
From: [e-mail]
Subject: The invitation to collaboration

                   /-------------------\
                   |  THE INVITATION   |
            |        to         |
                    | a collaboration   |
            |  in development   |
            |  of novel space   |
            |    technology     |
             -------------------------
                  \                     /
                    \                 /
                      \             /
                        \         /
                           \     /
                         \ /

ad-------------------------------------------------------------ad
|     I know how to produce shock-wave direct from solar        |
| radiation and to  use  it both in jet engines and by movement |
| of bodies. It is possibility to force solar light to pump     |
| liquids, separate of components in solutions or cut materials |
| in space.                                                     |
|    I have been developing  a project  based on my terrestrial |
| experiments in sphere of light/liquid interaction.            |
|    I am going to discuss all questions with anybody from      |
| space community who would be interested in the future project.|
|                                                               |
|   Dr Anatoly Sukhodolsky                \   |   /             |
|    Visiting Scientist of               \  |  /              |
|   LESP URA CNRS 230-CORIA              ---- o ----            |
|     INSA de Rouen BP8                    /  |  \              |
|    from General Physics                 /   |   \             |
| Institute of Russian Academy       -------------------        |
|     Moscow, Vavilov 38               -  -   -  -  -           |
|           Current:                  - -   - -             |
|    Fax: [phone]                  - - -               |
|    Tel: [phone]                   - -                |
|     Internet: sukhodol                      -                 |
|     at marcel.coria.fr             LET LIGHT COME TO BE       |
|_______________________________________________________________|







   
------- End of Forwarded Message

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

Date: 13 Dec 92  21:21:26
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Titan IV Costs
Newsgroups: sci.space

Brian Stuart Thorn writes

>On the topic [Titan IV], does anyone know how much has been spent
>on Titan IV since first flight? AvLeak shows launch costs at
>between 186-207 million dollars, or about half what a Shuttle costs
>(being charitable and not counting the kitchen sink at the KSC
>cafeteria). I'm curious how much we have paid for Titan IV to
>launch six payloads versus how much we paid for four times that
>number of Shuttle missions in the same amount of time.

    Hmmmm...  I don't have the cost to date, but the current
estimated cost for the Titan IV program can be found in the DoD
Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs) which are released quarterly.
The most recent one was released in October.   It didn't get a lot
of attention, but the Titan IV program cost increased by about $
4,300 M.  Current expected Titan IV program cost is $22,674 M in
current dollars, for 65 vehicles.  That's an average cost per
vehicle of $342 M. However, some this cost includes a share of the
specific Titan-IV development cost and some costs of the Titan-
Centaur program.  The Titan-Centaur program is about $700M, and the
development cost is about $1500M, so we have for 65 vehicles, an
adjusted cost of about $20,474 M, or about $315 M/vehicle (no upper
stage).  A Centaur upper stage is about $ 45 M, for a cost of about
$ 360 M (including upperstage for GEO delivery)

    Titan IV                      $ 360 M (w/ Centaur upper stage)
    Titan IV                      $ 315 M (no upper stage)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                         Space Technology Investor

--- Maximus 2.00

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

Date: 13 Dec 92 23:37:38 GMT
From: Alejandro Clocchiatti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Workshop about Eta Carinae - Nov/1993
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

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

Workshop "The Eta Carinae region:
a laboratory of stellar evolution"

   November 22/26 1993, La Plata, Argentina

In commemoration of the 110th anniversary of La Plata Observatory
______________________________________________________________________________
_

Scientific Organizing Commitee:

L. Bronfman (Chile), A. Feinstein (Argentina, chairman), M. Roth (Chile),
R.G. Smith (Australia), M. Tapia (Mexico), P.S. The (Holland), N. Walborn
(U.S.A.)

Local Organizing Committee:

M. Arnal, H.G. Marraco, N. Morell, V. Niemela (chairperson), R.A. Vazquez,
I.Vega.

______________________________________________________________________________

The topics include:

         1. Stellar contents
         2. Open clusters
         3. The nebula
         4. The Eta Carina object itself
         5. Galactic structure in this region
         6. Comparison with other HII regions

____________________________________________________________________

Contact address:
                 e-mail: [e-mail]
                Tel/Fax: [phone]
-------------------------
                 Postal: Alejandro Feinstein
                         Observatorio Astronomico
                         Paseo del Bosque s/n
                         1900 La Plata
                         Argentina

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 544
------------------------------