Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_5/V15NO559.TXT

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

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 05:05:39
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #559
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 17 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 559

Today's Topics:
                    "trivial engineering" (2 msgs)
                          cancelled apollos
                          D-21 recon drones
                           DoD launcher use
                       Relay to Follow Galileo?
                    Request for "Space News" info
                            Space Tourism
       Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) (6 msgs)
                The Science of KriyaREAD/NEW/FOLLOWUP
                   what the little bird told Henry

    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: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:00:10 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: "trivial engineering"
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:

>I believe my post was in response to an argument that since designing a new
>engine for a comercial airliner (and establishing its reliability) is so
>easy, that therefore designing and proving a new rocket engine ought to be
>pretty easy too. I was pointing out that designing a new jet engine
>*isn't* particularly easy.

I never said it was easy.  It's not.  That's why you have to *pay*
people to do it.  I don't understand why you fail to see the
difference between "not easy" and "impossible."  (Then again,
I don't understand why you fail to see the difference between
Al Gore and Albert Einstein. Perhaps the similarity of names
has you confused. :-)

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

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 01:15:51 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: "trivial engineering"

-From: [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright)
-Subject: Re: "trivial engineering"
-Date: 16 Dec 92 17:00:10 GMT
-Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA

-In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
->I believe my post was in response to an argument that since designing a new
->engine for a comercial airliner (and establishing its reliability) is so
->easy, that therefore designing and proving a new rocket engine ought to be
->pretty easy too. I was pointing out that designing a new jet engine
->*isn't* particularly easy.

-I never said it was easy.  It's not.  That's why you have to *pay*
-people to do it.

Once again, you have managed to construe sinister opposition from someone
who pretty much agrees with most of what you have been posting, to forget some
of the history of a post, and to pick an argument in which both sides are
saying about the same thing. (On the last, you're not alone - the people
involved in the current heated debate on the merits of DC pretty much worked
it out to the extent that it can be worked out (with the information provided)
a week or two ago - they just haven't realized it yet. Much of what's left
is arguments about who said what, who understands math and who doesn't,
and various claims that really should be presented with extensive
mathematical analysis, but aren't. Not to say that *all* of the posts are
along these lines, but many of them are. The quality of the debate would
be improved if people would be as careful in the claims they make as they
are in finding the errors in other people's posts. :-)

What you posted earlier could be construed as arguing that the supposed
straightforwardness of jet engine design implies that the design of
the rocket engines for DC won't be as much of a problem as Gary thinks it
will be, and that is how I interpreted it. I pointed out that design of
new jet engines *isn't* particularly simple, but I added that some of the
things that make jet engine design so difficult and expensive don't necessarily
apply to rocket engine design. I can drag up the original posts if you like,
but I don't really consider that worthwhile.

-I don't understand why you fail to see the
-difference between "not easy" and "impossible."

I can't figure out where you got that. I think you're confusing something
Gary posted with my post.

-(Then again,
-I don't understand why you fail to see the difference between
-Al Gore and Albert Einstein. Perhaps the similarity of names
-has you confused. :-)

Very good - you're getting better, Ed. :-)

One distinction between the two that you probably don't realize - Al Gore is
not currently featured in a Claymation (TM) animated feature, discussing
some of the errors in physics in popular science fiction movies, as part of
a new permanent display at the National Air and Space Museum, in commemoration
of the sesquicentennial of Columbus' arrival in the New World, entitled
"Where Next, Columbus?", which discusses the prospects for human exploration
and colonization of space in the next 500 years, and which also features
two other movies, seven interactive multimedia programs, a "Mars house",
a hydroponic garden, and which also covers issues such as why people should
explore space, the proper balance of manned and unmanned exploration,
long-term health issues in space, contact with extraterrestrial intelligence,
and the ethics of interplanetary colonization. Einstein, however, is.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:42:20 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: cancelled apollos
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Wilkins) writes:
> >116 (the fifth J CSM) flew the first crew, 117 the second, and 118
> >the third.  111 (the last H) was Apollo-Soyuz.  119 (the last[?] J)
> >was allocated as Skylab rescue if necessary, then shifted to Apollo-
> >Soyuz backup.  Where 115 went I'm not sure.
>
>In the Moscow science and technology park, there is a apollo CSM and
>a Soyuz on display mated with what looks like a fake docking module.
>So maybe this is CSM 115?

There are several leftover CSMs, actually; it's not a question of 115
being the only remaining example.  The mystery is not where 115 went,
but why flight use skipped from 114 to 116 without using 115.  Might
have been some problem with it; might just have been that it was tied
down as an Apollo 17 spare at a time when Skylab preparations had to
get started.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 13:23:57 GMT
From: Dean Adams <[e-mail]>
Subject: D-21 recon drones
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
 >Kelly Johnson claims that SR-71 (and its siblings) would have been
 >competitive with F-15 and B-1 programs but they were kept out by
 >political considerations.

Well, the characteristics of the Blackbird series are pretty vastly different
from either of those two other aircraft.  It would not "compete" all that well
with either the fighter maneuverability of an F-15, or the payload capacity
of the B-1B.  The Blackbird was still obviously a fantastic aircraft, with
a most exemplary and enviable development program...

 >>    The drone in that case was quite a package, too. As I recall, the drone
 >>was a Mach 3+ ramjet design, intended to be a drone recon plane for doing
 >>flyovers of hostile territory.
 >Right, though in the SR-71 realm some people say that Mach 3+ is
 >shorthand for Mach 4.

In the case of the D-21/GTD-21B that would most likely be correct, but few in
the "SR-71 realm" these days would claim it could regularly achieve Mach 4.

 >>It was (bear with me here, it's been a while since I read this) fueled by
 >>boron hydride, with roughly twice the energy density of regular jet fuel,
 >> built almost entirely of magnesium,

The Lockheed GTD-21A/B was not unlike the Blackbird in being constructed
mostly out of Titanium and fueled by JP-7 with a TEB ignitor, however
unlike the Blackbird's P&W J58, it used a Marquardt RD-43 ramjet engine.

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

Date: 16 Dec 92 20:22:19 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: DoD launcher use
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>aircraft is low and the cost is much less. The military, like everyone
>else has to pay attention to costs, even if their threshold is higher
>than most other users. Wars can be lost by simply running out of money
>as surely as losing on the battlefield

Then, gary goes on to say...

>. With a serious opponent, your space assets would be priority targets.

So, uh, gary, where are the serious opponents supposed to afford A-SATs? hmm?

If you can kill recon planes, it's damn sight harder to kill sats.

Furthermore, you assumed that the KH-11 is the benchmark (also known as
the Szabo yardstick) without the resultant drop in costs which would occur if
you could rapidly deliver sats to orbit.

You don't have to add lots of fuel, thrusters, and other sensors, treat the
camera and sat as a throw-away item.

            doug

                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:38:22 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Relay to Follow Galileo?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>  About a year ago, I posted a message asking why NASA did not begin a
>  quick-and-dirty conversion to one of the TDRS satellites...

It would have made sense.  But the NASA budget has very little elasticity.
To fit a new program into it, even a relatively small one, you have to
push hard and persistently over a long period of time.  It simply isn't
geared to react quickly to a crisis, unless you can convince Congress to
do something special (e.g. the package-deal funding for Endeavour).
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:48:09 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request for "Space News" info
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Budd) writes:
>  I have a friend who has a subscription to a weekly newspaper called
>Defense News.  He has told me that the same publishers produce a paper
>called Space News.  Could anyone who has heard of this please pass on
>any opinions as to what it's like? ...

It's pretty good.  Expensive, and you won't see much technical detail,
but if you want the news it's the best source around.  If I had to
choose between SN and AW&ST, I'm pretty sure I'd pick SN.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 16 Dec 92 20:25:22 GMT
From: Del Cotter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Tourism
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Haines) writes:
>Think it was Duncan Lunan (from Imperial (?) College, London). Ask
>around on the .sf. groups, I bet there are others there who remember
>the talk.

It wasn't Duncan (though he was there) but Patrick Collins, of the
School of Management, Imperial College.  He wrote an article on the
subject in Analog about the same time.  He now works in Japan and has
an email address, but I haven't got it yet.
--
 ',' ' ',','  |                                                  |  ',' ' ',','
   ', ,','    |       Del Cotter       [e-mail]      |    ', ,','
     ','      |                                                  |      ','

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:45:37 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>Last I heard they're
>>willing to rent Cosmonaut time at $5 million an hour plus launch costs
>>for any experimental equipment you want them to use.
>
>No offense but I would like some backing for that.

Also, for purposes of this discussion, the difference between cost and
price is relevant.  It's not as if they had any competition; they can,
and probably do, set prices far above their costs.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 10:24:12 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
>Also note that the cost of one Shuttle flight is about the same
>as the entire DC development program.

One Shuttle flight is a bit less than half the projected cost of DCX
development to flight test. It doesn't even begin to cover costs for
the development of DCY which requires different structures and engines,
or of DC-1. That's not to say that the DCX program isn't worth the cost,
of course it is, even if it fails we'll learn a lot, but it's not as cheap
as you claim.

Gary

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 10:55:37 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
>>Also note that the cost of one Shuttle flight is about the same
>>as the entire DC development program.
>
>Not quite. It wold take about 1.5 years of Shuttle funding to develop DC. Now
>for the cost of a Shuttle flight, you could run a program to answer all the
>open technical questions and have enough left over to buy a Titan IV to
>launch the payload which would have gone up in the Shuttle.

According to Wales, a Titan IV with no upper stage costs $315 million
to *purchase*. A little bird told me in Email that flyaway cost is
between $550-$600 million dollars including integration, stacking, fuel,
and that standing army supporting the launch facilities. Now that's higher
than the historical flyaway cost of a Shuttle launch. Wales had figures
showing Shuttle operational costs at $270-1000 million per flight depending
on the number of flights per year, with a demonstrated capability of $170
million per flight in 1985 with 9 flights. Variable cost per flight is
around $55 million and fixed costs are roughly $2 billion a year, so flight
rate is critical to costs.

Now I'm amazed that you could find engineers to do about $1.2
billion in free work to allow them to develop DCX *and* pay you
the $430 million *extra* to allow you to launch a Titan IV instead
of a Shuttle.

Gary

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 11:02:41 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>I'm sure that Truax, who worked alongside Robert Goddard, will
>appreciate your educating him about the main concerns in building
>liquid rockets. :-)

I'm not trying to educate Truax. I'm sure he's aware of the various
causes of vehicle stress. It's not clear that you are, however.

Gary

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:40:58 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <#![e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael V. Kent) writes:

>bating that.  I am dismissing Allen's claim that we could have flown STS-52
>on a $10 million Pegasus and accomplished all of its objectives.

I'll accept that. However, it does look like that for the cost of that
flight we could have accomplished all its objectives AND conducted the
SSTO tests and likely would have enough left over for the entire DCX
development and test series.

Just because Shuttle can do something doesn't mean it is cost effective.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------129 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:44:47 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <c!m2y#[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael V. Kent) writes:

>I think the DC-Y effort was for $1.2 billion (this sounds low to me, but I
>can't dispute it).

That is Max Hunters figure I believe. I figure it will cost about $4
billion.

Note that due to its low operational costs and fast development time
DC could amortize all development costs at current market launch prices.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------129 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:43:33 GMT
From: Bill Garland <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Science of KriyaREAD/NEW/FOLLOWUP
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.space

In article <1992Dec05.234327.10945@crash>, [e-mail]
 (Baruch Schwartz) writes:
>             The Original Kriya Science
>         (How to Attain eternal Realization of the ultimate Self)
>
>                 The Message
>                 -----------
>
>     Can thirst be quenched by merely shouting the word "water"?
> Certainly not! ... etc

Well, upon first glance, I would have to venture a mighty cry of
BULLSHIT to this entire post. I will hesitate however, since (1)
I am not familiar with the culture of sci.philosophy.meta, and (3)
perhaps I have been reading too much sci.skeptic where instant
flaming is the order of the day, and (2) I am not well enough
versed in the writings of philosophers and others to put up
flame-proof arguments showing all this crap to be just that,
and (4) maybe I just can't count, anyway.

I have in the past ventured to flame things only to regret having
done so, and sometimes I have included a word or two that I don't
normally like to use, like "bullshit" etc.

The natural skeptic in me might be arguing with my doubtful self,
in a dialog that goes "Well, how do you _know_ it is bullshit? and
why are you so _sure_ that all this mystical easternism sanskrit
meditation yoga breathing kundalini yaba daba doo shit is _not_
the real stuff...

Be all that as it may, let me make one or two comments about
one or two things.
...
>     Can a person learn how to swim simply by talking to the instructor
> while standing on land?

Take the pebble from my hand, grasshopper.

>     "Dissolve thoughts or the mind (the restless breath) in the very
> Source by any means."

Huh? Misprint? Typos?

>     Realization is relative when the seeker tries to realize something
> outside himself without ***first*** realizing the truth behind himself.
> Relative realization, or relative knowledge, arises from relative existences.

Relatively meaningless garble. Doesn't he realize this?


>     Inquire who is the knower. When the seeker knows himself (the
> knower), this is absolute Knowledge from One Existence, which is both
> subject and object of knowledge.

Mystical gobbledeygook.
...
>     Absolute Realization is simply being the ultimate Self spontaneously.

Absolute realization that this means nothing is spontaneously upon us.

>     What is love? It is Oneness between the seeking self (son) and the
> ultimate Self (father) ***within***. When one achieves it within, one
> knows that the whole world is the reflection of his self.

Wait till the radical pc feminists get a hold of this one.

>     This is the only right way to grow into divine Love and attain eternal
> Realization.
>
>    "... O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I
> had with thee before the world was." John 17:5

One of my religious friends keeps trying to get me to read the book of
John. Perhaps I will, one of these millenia, when I have finished all
my other things to do... However, if this is typical, it wont be _this_ one.

>     "God is a spirit [the word Spirit comes the Latin word Spiritus which
> means "breath". So it can safely be said that God is a definite state of
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
HORSEFEATHERS. Wrong. Nope. BEEP. uh uh. nay. nyet. nix. Not on your life.

> breath, that is, Tranquil Breath]: and they that worship him must worship
> him in spirit [through Breath, that is through the practice of Pranayam or
> Kriya with the help of Sthirabayu, or "tranquil breath"] and in truth
> [Tranquility]." John 4:24

Is this a mixture of John and Bagavadimania ?

>     "The kingdom of God [Tranquil Breath] is ***within*** you [inside the
> physical body in Oneness between the seeking self and the ultimate Self of
> the seeker]." - Luke 17:21

oh shit. I'm not going to comment on every line here...
...
>     Truth (Satya) is permanent, hence its Realization must be eternal.

Truth is a many-headed word that has lost much of its meaning, since
each and every one of us will have a different interpretation of it.
It is better to use 'honesty' than 'truth'.

>     Above all, be true to yourself: Be one with the ultimate Self.

Willie S. finally made it into the dogma, eh? Even though he is misquoted!

>             The Path
>             --------
>
>     The Kriya Path is: Attaining eternal Tranquility by practice of
> Pranayam and continuing meditations on the Formless, i.e. Tranquility.

As Tony Robbins might say, "Picture yourself in a state of eternal
tranquility. What is your posture? what do you see? what do you feel?
What are the submodalities? There. You've got it. Simple, eh! Now,
do you realize that you can put yourself in that place anytime you wish?
...

>     Increasing the practice of Kriya, doing all works without expectations
> for the results thereof, the path aims at achieving Tranquility, observing
> everytjing which is revealed in Yonimudra (Beatific Inner Revelation Kriya),
> and terminating all desired expectations, renouncing every desire before it
> originates, being freed from all thoughts.

Being aimless, without goals, with nowhere to go, and no reason to go there
...
>     It is meditating on the thoughtless state of Consciousness, especially
> holding that state of Consciousness where there is no sun, moon, light of
> fire; still everything is seen eternally.

Thoughtless consciousness? Maybe my problem with this is understanding that
I am not supposed to understand that understanding is not being supposed
to understand that understanding this is limited to the masters of the
universe to whom you will now pay due homage and give all your money.
...
>     One bright, dazzling star of Consciousness is seen very secretly in
> between the eyebrows, and the unmanifested state of Consciousness is
> revealed.

But this is thoughtless, so don't think about it.
...
>             The Keys of the Kriya Path
>             ------------------------
>
>     1. To attain the tranquil state of breath in natural course by
> practicing Pranayam.

Pra-na-yam, pra-na-yam, prana all the way.
Oh what fun we pra-na-yam with a ding dong in the hay-yay.
Pra-na-yeam...

>     2. To see in Yonimudra.

To boldly go where no man has gone before.

>     3. Placing the tongue in the head [Talabya Kriya].

All right you guys. Anyone whose tongue is in their cheek better
get it back into your heads right now, or you're in biiiig trouble.

>     4. Holding onto the divine Spot and listening to the sound of Om
> [Brahmayonimudra].

Is this like the ticklish spot?

>     5. Holding the bright star at the forehead from the throat.

As my friend Andre might say, "Qu'est-ce que c'est le phoque?"

>             Requirements for Kriya
>             ---------------------
>
>     1. The person must be honest and not a liar.

This is a requirement for many things.

>     2. The person should not smoke and drink.

Good advice. No chewing gum either, and no beards. Comb your hair.

>     3. The person should read some portion of the Bhagavad Gita every day.

ok. The person should also read a page of Atlas Shrugged and
A Brief History of Time and write two letters to the editor and
not pick his nose in public.

>     4. The person should lose self-importance to destroy his or her ego.

AHAH. Now we get into it. This altruistic mystical claptrap is probably
what motivated me to reply to this post in the first place, exposing myself
to incoming slings and arrows of outraged mystical followers from all
around the globe. It leads to the 'truth' of the matter - they want you to
give up your self to them... i.e. the mystics who usurp and drain others
because they are too lazy to earn a living by themselves and seek to be
supported by real value producers.
...
>     6. The person should sit a little lower than his or her Gurudev or
> Master's seat and offer everything to him.

Yeah, that Master wants it all, to be sure.

>     7. The person should practice Kriyas every day in strict accordance
> with the instructions personally received from his or her Gurudev.

And who instructed his Gurudev's Gurudev?
And who instructed his Gurudev's Gurudev's Gurudev?
And who instructed his Gurudev's Gurudev's Gurudev's Gurudev?
And who instructed his Gurudev's Gurudev's Gurudev's Gurudev's Gurudev?
And who instructed his Gurudev's Gurudev's Gurudev's Gurudev's Gurudev's
Gurudev's Gurudev's Gurudev's Gurudev's Gurudev's Gurudev's Gurudev's
Gurudev's Gurudev's Gurudev's Gurudev's Gurudev's Gurudev's Gurudev?

>             How to be in the Path
>             ---------------------
>
>     The ultimate Self, being pure Consciousness, is beyond sensation,
> concept, thought, and intellect. A definite mode of action to make the mind
> inward and dissolve it is called Kriya.

Well, I guess that ends this discussion. There it is, gone!

>     The Kriya path is the righteous way to realize the ultimate Self.
>
>     Havig true Kriya depends on three points:
>
>     1. The initiate must receive Kriya personally from the mouth of the
> Master.

See above for questions about the Master's master.
...
>     "Kriya of the inner letters" means vibrations of inner sound (Pm/Aum.
> Amen) resonating from the ultimate Self.

How about Boogie Woogie? Or, better still, Om Pah Pah Om Pah Pah.

>     When the Master utters a letter, the vibrations of the sound of the
> letter come directly from the enlightened state of mystic Energy

Aw Shucks. and I thought it was from the larynx.

> (Kundalini), and penetrates the ear of the initiate, resulting in true
> initiation to the Kriya path.

When the greater god of goombah tells you to jump, the image of a
jumping bean will cross the great divide of the minds coming into
your consciousness with a whalloping thump that lifts your muscles
in a most coordinated way to being in the state of jumpingness.
...
>     Thus following the vibration and inner Sound to transcend concepts,
> thoughts, and the intellect, the initiate can find the trye Path.

So you transcend all that is real and objective and there to be measured
and tested and analyzed and come to the place of the wishy washy by
stream of thoughtlessness moving in your mind by the flow of the
goombalinishnessaramalamadingdong.
..
>     Unfortunately, many seekers do not know this subtle point and they
> try to understand the advice through preconceived concepts, thoughts, and
> meanings and find the intellectual path which is the negative way.

Yeah man, have we negatives found the way! Banish mysticism!
...

>     ".. Except a man be born again [attain the state of tranquil Breath,
> thereby, vibrations and rhythyms of inner Light and inner Sound], he cannot
> see the kingdom of God." John 3:3

This is just great. Putting interpretations [in brakets] to tell you
how to read [and interpret] the words.

>     Initiation is essential. It must be received personally and in a
> righteous
> way.
>             List of Original Kriyas
>             --------------------

More gobbledeygook.

>             The Original Kriya Science at a Glance
>             (The Psycho-physical Discipline)
>             ----------------------------------
>
>     The eightfolds:
...

>
> The Sanskrit Classics
> Copyright 1992, all rights reserved

Well, not one to be ignoring all the cosmic truths in and about our
thoughtless consciousnesses, please sir would you be so kind as to
enlighten me about why I should not be making these somewhat
disparaging remarks about your kriya stuff?

I mean, like, wow, man, like, you know, this is, like, _groovy_ man.

Why am I wasting my time on this?

Sorry folks. I only meant to lurk around a while to see if I
wanted to read this group, and here I go disrupting a
mystic's way of life.

|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| If we had an index file, we could   | In fact, except for protecting |
| look it up in the index file under  | individual rights, no valid    |
| "Index File".                       | reason for government exists." |
|           -- Tegan in "Castrovalva" |      ... Dr. Frank Wallace     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Bill Garland = [e-mail] | Commercial: Send me your money.|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:46:18 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: what the little bird told Henry
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brad Whitehurst) writes:

>    I know about the scramjet test article flown on an X-15, but
>I'd never heard of a serious attempt to propel an X-15 with
>scramjets.  I've read a fair amount of the NASA papers from '67
>forward on scramjet research, and believe me, they had (have) a ways
>to go before they could actually propel something.

Well, maybe you should try reading *all* the papers.  They were
far enough along for the project to appear in a Congressional
budget request.

>The diagnostics were crude in the extreme, and the computational models
>were in their infancy.

Yeah, but they weren't afraid to take risks and build hardware.


>    In short, it is not a matter of just "cojones".  That attitude will
>get you nothing but dead planes, programs, and pilots.  According to
>Yeager, one of the reasons he was successful as a test pilot was his
>aptitude for understanding the hardware and why and what it was
>doing.

The key word there is "hardware."  We don't run many development
programs today.  We run research programs instead.  Very few of
them ever produce hardware.  The NASP program is a perfect example.
There has been a little bit of component testing, but we're years
away from having a flight article, if it is ever built.  Instead,
we've spent gigabucks on computer models and still have no idea
if they're correct because, despite what the simulation advocates
like to say, you cannot repeal the GIGO Law.


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

So, what hot, fast things have you built this week?

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 559
------------------------------