Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_5/V15NO580.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 32KB

Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 05:07:19
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #580
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 22 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 580

Today's Topics:
                     Aerospike engines/SSTO/DC-?
                         aerospikes (2 msgs)
                       Apollo 13 book (2 msgs)
                      Breeder reactors (2 msgs)
                 cryptocraft photography, Re: Aurora
                      DC vs Shuttle capabilities
              Did HGA suffer from heat? (Re: : Relay to
             funding for Lunar Prospector urgently needed
              Help needed looking for info on Internet!
         Polar Retrograde Orbits (was: cryptocraft photo...)
                    Protons and Spacecraft Events
                           SSTO vs. 2 Stage
                        STS-1 DISASTER/COVERUP
 Subject!! (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...))

    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: 21 Dec 92 18:20:29 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aerospike engines/SSTO/DC-?
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Lets make an assumtion here that the military has a super secret
>spy plan (Aurora?) that can go (atleast) mach 8 to 10.
>An engine such as this would need to be built to support a SSTO
>vehicle.

Ah, there's nothing like a little raving anti-military
paranoa to fuel a good conspiracy theory.

Aurora, if it exists, uses an airbreathing engine.  Such an
engine is not needed to build an SSTO vehicle.  It's not even
clear that such an engine would help.

On the other hand, an aerospike engine would certainly
not help an Aurora-type vehicle.


>The military could not have some non classified project
>stumble on their working design. What then is the goal of the
>military as it comes to SSTO research?

To keep it out of the hands of Elvis Presley?


>The military will oversee the research in this area. Any designs
>which could work (or would lead to the program developing the
>same engine) will be discouraged or lobbied as non workable
>designs. In short the objectives of the military is to assure
>that this country does not have a working civilian SSTO craft.

No doubt that's why the SSTO is being financed by the military.

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

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:31:11 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: aerospikes
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:


>Substantial cross-range is indeed primarily a military requirement,
>driven by the one-orbit mission, whose basic rationale is deploying a
>spy satellite -- or doing any of a number of other things -- in wartime
>conditions where coming around again in a predictable orbit is likely
>to result in being shot at.

Of course, if the enemy has the capability to shoot at you, he also
has the capability to shoot down that nice, new spy satellite, which
is also in a predictable orbit.  It is not clear to me that this
requirement was well thought-out.

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

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 19:36:04 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: aerospikes
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>
>>Substantial cross-range is indeed primarily a military requirement,
>>driven by the one-orbit mission, whose basic rationale is deploying a
>>spy satellite -- or doing any of a number of other things -- in wartime
>>conditions where coming around again in a predictable orbit is likely
>>to result in being shot at.
>
>Of course, if the enemy has the capability to shoot at you, he also
>has the capability to shoot down that nice, new spy satellite, which
>is also in a predictable orbit.  It is not clear to me that this
>requirement was well thought-out.

Now now...

We more-or-less know where all the KH-whatevers and Lacrosse SAR sats are; I'm
sure the proper information can be pulled off of Compu$erve or Internet within
a matter of minutes without a lot of sweat work. Or a couple quick phone calls
to snotty schoolboys in England :).

This process is helped along by DoD announcing they are launching a classified
mission and everyone with half an interest, including (but not limited to)
curious U.S. citizens and the KGB watches the Shuttle/Titan IV go up from the
Cape/Vandenburg, and works the math, all the while having their telescopes
turned upward to watch what's happened within a 90 minute interval.

Contrast this with one (or more) flights out of Nevada or White Sands which may
or may not be significant (helps if you've been running up and back to LEO for
a while as a regular habit) and kicking out the sat on one of those runs.

The cheap-sat may be in a predictable orbit, but you are now faced with
detecting it without the benefit of CNN coverage. To make life more difficult,
you transmit UPward to a relay station in geosync (TDRS, take your pick), which
then routes the information automagically to wherever you want/need it.

Now, unless you have information from umm.. SPACETRACK? in NORAD, you have to
pick cheap-sat out of all the other man-made objects in orbit via some optical
means (hope it's not a cloudy night, but that cuts both ways) or with radar.

I don't think it's all THAT easy to find something in orbit if you don't
already have a clue as to what it is and if it isn't emitting so a ground-based
receiver can "hear" it. I'll punt to the North, and let Henry tackle THAT
particular issue...

Add to the equasion a couple of Iridium-ish constellations and life gets real
interesting.

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

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

Date: 21 Dec 92 05:54:35 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Apollo 13 book
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>> "Houston, We've Had a Problem" is a NASA/Government Printing Office
>> non-technical account of the Apollo 13 accident. It is about a ten
>> page magazine-sized booklet.
>>
>> I only know of one other "book" about the accident, that being
>> "13: The Flight That Failed". I think the author was Henry S.F. Cooper...
>
> Correct.  H,WHaP is pretty lightweight.  Cooper's book is the most detailed
> treatment I've seen.  I'm not aware of any other books entirely on the
> accident.

There exists a multi-volume investigatory commission report on the
accident.  I've seen it in a university library but haven't read it.
A little work with Internet library catalogs might turn it up.

There's also a made-for-TV docudrama on Apollo 13.  I watched about
twenty minutes of it once.  Not too impressive.  I think it is also
called *Houston, We Have a Problem.*

> Murray&Cox's "Apollo" does a good job on Apollo 13.

Yup.  Apollo spacecraft had a crew much larger than three... but most
of them were not aboard.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "Enough marshmallows
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | will kill you
Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | if properly placed."
Internet:       [e-mail]  | --John Alexander, leader of
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | "disabling technologies"
 [*Aviation Week*, 7 Dec 1992, p. 50]  | research, Los Alamos

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

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:44:26 GMT
From: Martin Connors <[e-mail]>
Subject: Apollo 13 book
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry
Spencer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart
Thorn) writes:
> > "Houston, We've Had a Problem" is a NASA/Government Printing Office
> > non-technical account of the Apollo 13 accident. It is about a ten
> > page magazine-sized booklet.
> >
> > I only know of one other "book" about the accident, that being
> > "13: The Flight That Failed". I think the author was Henry S.F.
Cooper...
>

You might try these others as well. The first of them is quite
entertaining but I have not seen the second.

CALL NO:     TL   795 P38 1985                         type k for copies
info
   LOCATIONS: SCI
 TITLES:        Chariots for Apollo: the making of the lunar module/ /1st
ed.--
 AUTHORS, ETC.: Pellegrino, Charles R.
 PUBLISHERS:    Atheneum,  New York:  1985.
 SUBJECTS:      Lunar excursion module
 NOTES:           PUBL.DATES: 1985.   AUTHORS: by Charles R. Pellegrino
and Jos
  hua Stoff. --   COLLATION: xiii, 238 p., <16> p. of plates : ill. ; 24
cm.
  BIBLIOGR: Bibliography: p. <234>-238.
 OTHER AUTHORS: Stoff, Joshua.
 OTHER TITLES:  The making of the lunar module.
 OTHER NUMBERS: 39884694
 ISBN/ISSN:     0689115598
 LC CARD:       84045629


 CALL NO:     TL   521 U58SP no.4205                    type k for copies
info
   LOCATIONS: SCI
 TITLES:        Chariots for Apollo: a history of manned lunar spacecraft/
 AUTHORS, ETC.: Brooks, Courtney G.
 PUBLISHERS:    Scientific and Technical Information Branch, National
Aeronauti
                cs and Space Administration, Washington:  1979.
 TITLE SERIES:  NASA SP.    /  4205              NASA SP;  4205
 SUBJECTS:      Project Apollo- History. / Astronautics- Accidents- 1967
 NOTES:           PUBL.DATES: 1979.   AUTHORS: by Courtney G. Brooks,
James M.
  Grimwood, Loyd S. Swenson, Jr. --   COLLATION: xvii, 538 p. : ill. ; 25
cm. -
  -   UNT.SERIES: The NASA history series   GENERAL: Includes index.
BIBLIOGR
  : Bibliography: p. 485-502.
 OTHER AUTHORS: Grimwood, James M. / Swenson, Loyd S.
 OTHER NUMBERS: 39498749
--
Martin Connors         |
Space Research         | [e-mail]  [phone]
University of Alberta  |

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

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:10:18 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Breeder reactors
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

> Maybe it's just as well.  The way I heard it, France is already reaching
> the point where the costs are becoming dominated by uranium ore
> recovery, as it gets rarer & rarer.  And they've had nukes for what,
> 15 years?  That's pretty short, especially considering all the other
> high-tech-costs in reactor operations.

You heard wrong.  Uranium prices are so depressed that mines are
closing.  Spot market price is around $10/pound; the U-235 in one
pound of uranium can produce about 20,000 kWh of electricity.  It
could increase in price by a factor of 20 or more and still not
dominate costs.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 19:14:02 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Breeder reactors
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes:
>
>> Maybe it's just as well.  The way I heard it, France is already reaching
>> the point where the costs are becoming dominated by uranium ore
>> recovery, as it gets rarer & rarer.  And they've had nukes for what,
>> 15 years?  That's pretty short, especially considering all the other
>> high-tech-costs in reactor operations.
>
>You heard wrong.  Uranium prices are so depressed that mines are
>closing.  Spot market price is around $10/pound; the U-235 in one
>pound of uranium can produce about 20,000 kWh of electricity.  It
>could increase in price by a factor of 20 or more and still not
>dominate costs.

Plus you can get processed stuff Really Cheap from mother Russia these days, IF
you can outbid DoE's contracts :)

Or are we accusing Russia of DUMPING uranium to keep prices down and drive
(inefficient, goverment-subsidized) U.S. companies out of business.


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

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

Date: 21 Dec 92 17:02:46 GMT
From: Bob McGwier <wahoo!n4hy>
Subject: cryptocraft photography, Re: Aurora
Newsgroups: sci.space

>  Identification: It had all the familiar steady motion of an
>                  Earth satellite, but _not_ in a common Direct orbit from
>                  West to East.  Motion actually more like from NE by N to
>                  SW by S.  If a satellite, it was in a near-polar orbit, but
>                  Retrograde.



From NE by N down to SW by S is <NOT> retrograde.  This is the descending
half of a normal orbit with inclination less than ninety degrees.  Remember
that in June, the north pole is in continuous sunlight.  We could figure out
the EXACT height from your observations since we KNOW where the satellite
will enter the `umbra' of its eclipse given by your observations.  If I have
time, I will do this computation if not, given this someone else should be
able to do the simple calculation.

BMc

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

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:53:04 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:

>    Umm, so?  Tell me, did you see 3 aircraft landing at the same
>time, or flying in formation?  Did you see baggage transferred between
>them while in flight?  I'm not talking about on the ground, I'm talking
>about in space.  If you recall, my original comment was about in-flight
>satellite repair.

You're being led astray by words.

Both airplanes and orbiting spacecraft are said to be
"in flight."  That doesn't mean they have anything in
common, except that neither one is in contact with the
Earth.  We also say that ships and islands are "at sea."
That doesn't mean that ships and islands have very much
in common.

An orbiting spacecraft is not flying like an airplane.
There is no air rushing past the wings.  It isn't using
aerodynamics to stay up and isn't using its engines to
maintain velocity.  If it runs out of fuel, it does not
come crashing back to Earth like an airplane.

When two spacecraft touch each other, they are not "in
flight" relative to one another.  They are said to be
"docked," like ships at sea.  So, if you want to base
your analogies on words like this, you should argue that
the US Navy is the only organization that can navigate
two ships to the same dock, then transfer fuel from one
to another.


>    Ayup.  And the US Air Force is the ONLY one that regularly does
>inflight air-refueling.  I haven't seen Delta or Virgin Atlantic do it.
>Remember, again, we are talking about in-orbit, not on the ground.

We aren't talking air-to-air refueling either.  In-space refueling
does not require split-second timing, only hooking up the hoses
properly.

So, what's so special about the ground?


>>>    Hint, they are flying.  You are talking about a paper=airplane
>>>and saying it will do all this and more.  I'm saying, build it, fly it,
>>>and see what happens.

>>I thought that was what we were doing.

>    No, some people are telling me, DC-1 will do this, do that, and
>hey, we can add this, we can add that... it's all going to be easy.
>I'ms aying, "sounds good, but prove it."

Again, I thought that was what we are doing.

What are *you* doing, except standing on the sidelines carping?

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

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:19:36 GMT
From: "Don M. Gibson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Did HGA suffer from heat? (Re: : Relay to
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>In article <roelle.724695444@uars_mag>, roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
>> Is there a possiblity that, despite Galileo's HGA parasol, solar heat
>> could have still been a factor in its failure to deploy?  Especially
>> when one considers that for the nine successful deployments out of
>> ten, cited above, every corresponding spacecraft never left earth
>> orbit, while Galileo got as close to the sun as the planet Venus.
>
>My guess: No.  Good question, but also a very obvious one (launch was
>in October 1989, Venus encounter February 1990, HGA attempt April
>1991).  I would presume that the Galileo people investigated this idea
>very thoroughly, although I don't have first-hand knowledge about
>their inquiries.
>
>They've never publicly suggested that solar heat was involved in the
>problem, so I presume they have reason to be satisfied that the cause
>lies elsewhere.  Their best guess is loss of lubricant between the
>alignment pins on the ribs and the sockets on the central mast,
>possibly due to excessive vibration as Galileo was trucked  to
>California from the Cape and back again after modifications.
>


For the VEEGA mission, GLL was modified to have an antenna shade.  this
kept the antenna/mast fully shaded upto 14 degrees off sun.  at no time
when GLL was less than 1AU from the sun was it allowed to get more than
5 degrees from sun-point.  thus, the antenna was always shaded and never
heated by the sun.  thermal control via heaters was continuously
maintained for the pre-deployment period, of course.

another point, is that the GLL antenna is a *modified* TDRSS model.
i don't know the extent of the modifications, though.
--DonG

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

Date: 21 Dec 92 18:10:04 GMT
From: "Richard A. Schumacher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: funding for Lunar Prospector urgently needed
Newsgroups: sci.space

Have they tried the Keck Foundation, the ones who donated $90+
million for the telescope? How about that giant Japanese
construction firm, the one that's done some work on lunar
construction methods?

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

Date: 21 Dec 92 17:55:31 GMT
From: broberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help needed looking for info on Internet!
Newsgroups: sci.space

    Hi, I'm new to the Internet, and the amount of information
    seems overwhelming! Can anyone help me find some online
    information about space/science info or any other interesting
    stuff. Thanks alot!

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

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 10:33:39 PST
From: "UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER"@utspan.span.nasa.gov
Subject: Polar Retrograde Orbits (was: cryptocraft photo...)

In Space Digest V15 #573,
I Forgot <[e-mail]> writes:

>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>  description of observation:
>
>>    Observation:  Unknown
>>    Observers:    I. Cooper, W. H. Hathaway
>>    Date:         night of 8-9 JUN 1991
>>    Time:         ~3-5 minutes both before and after 12:40:30 am EDT
>>                  - this time checked via phone while object was
>>                  being followed
>>    Site:         Severn MD,  Long: 76 Dg 38 Mn W, Lat: +39 Dg 11 Mn
>>...
>>  Identification: It had all the familiar steady motion of an
>>                  Earth satellite, but _not_ in a common Direct orbit from
>>                  West to East.  Motion actually more like from NE by N to
>>                  SW by S.  If a satellite, it was in a near-polar orbit, but
>>                  Retrograde.
>
>>Wm. Hathaway
>
>
>Just a couple observations.  Having done some studies of the Soviet space
>programs, I found that most of their lower orbit satellites that need polar
>type orbits, are in retrograde orbits.  This is due to problems with launch
>sites being located inland and having populated areas downrange.

This may be true concerning Soviet satellites, but there is another reason
for polar retrograde orbits: they can be Sun Synchronous, i.e., the
orientation of the orbit plane will remain fixed relative to the Sun as the
Earth moves in its orbit.  So the spacecraft will continuously view the
surface of the Earth at the same local time at any given latitude.  The
table below, from page 69 of _Spacecraft Attitude Determination and Control_,
James R. Wertz, Ed.,  gives an idea of the properties of Sun synchronous
orbits.


  Mean      e=0   |         e=0.1
Altitude     i    |    i       Hp     Ha
  (km)     (deg)  |  (deg)    (km)   (km)

     0     95.68  |
   200     96.33  |
   400     97.03  |
   600     97.79  |
   800     98.60  |  98.43      82   1518
  1000     99.48  |  99.29     262   1738
  2000    104.89  | 104.59    1162   2838
  3000    112.41  | 111.94    2062   3938
  4000    122.93  | 122.19    2962   5038
  5000    138.60  | 137.32    3862   6138
  5974    180.00  | 168.55    4738   7209

i=inclination, e=eccentricity, Hp=perigee height, Ha=apogee height

_____________
Dale M. Greer, whose opinions are not to be confused with those of the
Center for Space Sciences, U.T. at Dallas, UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTDSSA::GREER
"Pave Paradise, put up a parking lot." -- Joni Mitchell

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

Date: 21 Dec 92 17:14:27 GMT
From: frisbee <[e-mail]>
Subject: Protons and Spacecraft Events
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

To Those in the Know,

    Were there any solar mass ejection episodes on Saturday evening
(DOY 355 at about 0100 UTC)?

    We are trying to correlate a spacecraft incident with high energy
proton events.

            Thanks,
                Tyler Brown
                [e-mail]

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

Date: 21 Dec 92 17:34:03 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO vs. 2 Stage
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Dunn) writes:

>Wright:
>The 2-stager is a *much* larger vehicle, so your vehicle fabrication
>costs will be much larger.

>Larger is a slippery word.  Measured by dry mass, the lower stage is four
>times larger than the DC-1.  Measured by fueled mass, it is two times larger.
>Measured by linear dimensions, it is actually smaller than the DC-1 (it uses
>much denser propellants).

Fabrication costs tend to be proportional to dry mass, not fueled mass
or linear dimensions.  So you can expect them to be four times larger.


>Fabrication costs are not only affected by size, but also strongly affected
>by complexity and by how closely material limits are pressed....  In fact
>therefore, the fact that the lower stage has a higher
>dry mass than the upper stage (even though it has smaller linear dimensions)
>is an indication that it is likely to be less expensive than an upper stage.

The patented Gary Coffman "stress" argument.  Hope you paid your royalties
on this one. :-)  But, in fact, there is nothing to suggest that your
lower stage would be less complex or press material limits less closely.


>I am assuming that the first stage will return to the launch site under its
>own power.

That requires a significant delta-v.  Let's assume your first stage
accelerates its payload to 1/3 orbital velocity.  After separation,
the first-stage must kill its forward velocity.  That's another 1/3
orbital velocity.  Then it must do a ballistic shot back the way it
came.  Another 1/3 orbital velocity.  Since 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 =1, your
vehicle needs enough delta-v to put itself into orbit.  If its burnout
velocity is lower, the total delta-v is lower, but the benefit of the
first stage is also less.


>Mating the two stages will take time and manpower, but if the system is
>correctly designed the actual labor need not be too much.  The DC-1 will have
>to be transported in any case from its landing spot to its launch cradle.
>The use of a lower stage would merely mean that the DC-1 would be placed on
>the lower stage, rather than on the launch cradle.

No, not quite.  The upper stage can't simply be placed on top of
the lower one.  It's got to be carefully aligned and attached with
explosive bolts to make sure it stays there during launch.  Very
careful handling is necessary, not only to avoid damaging one of
the vehicles, but also because you're dealing with explosives.

Once the vehicles, you no longer have access to the second-stage
engines.  If a problem is detected before launch, you have to
disassemble the stack again.

Consider commercial airlines.  If they had to repaint an
airliner after each flight, the cost of an airline ticket
would double.

If they had to mate the airliner with a first stage after
every flight, the cost of an airline ticket would probably
go up by a factor of ten.

That's why no one operates two-stage airliners any more.


>Reply:
>OK, in this case two flights of the two stage vehicle can deliver the desired
>total payload in a time of 2 days, as compared to 5 days and 10 flights for
>the DC-1.  The advantage remains - what is your point?

My point is, a single-stage vehicle can be turned around, potentially,
in less than an hour.  Unload the passengers, download the inflight
maintenance log, refuel the vehicle, and load the next batch of
passengers.  Airlines do this all the time.

A two-stage vehicle will add days, if not weeks, to that turn-around
time.  How often a vehicle flies is the most important factor in
determining how much it costs to operate.


>Should the DC-1 have engine ignition trouble on staging, it has both the
>fuel and thrust to land at the launch site.  With only some engines working,
>it can burn off fuel until it has a thrust to weight ratio of greater than
>1, hover to get its weight down further,  and then land.

At what altitude above (or below) water? :-)


>       I will assert that turnaround cost of the lower stage will not exceed
>the turnaround cost of the upper stage (the lower stage is much less stressed
>than the DC-1 upper stage, and uses cheap kerosene and LOX as propellants).

I can assert that the cost of a luxury car is the same as a compact 1/3
the size.  I don't believe it, but I can assert it.


>Assuming, as a worst case, that the turnaround costs of the lower stage equal
>the turnaround costs of the upper stage,

Your "worst case" would be overly optimistic, even as a best case.


>        I will further note that using the DC-1 as an upper stage does not
>prevent it being used in SSTO mode for lighter payloads when this would be
>desirable.  It also offers the opportunity to boost individual payloads 5
>times greater than that achievable in SSTO mode.  A two stage design is thus
>more flexible than the SSTO.

No, for the development cost of this vehicle, you could build a "big DC"
five times the size.

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

Date: 21 Dec 92 19:28:00 GMT
From: Brad Whitehurst <[e-mail]>
Subject: STS-1 DISASTER/COVERUP
Newsgroups: sci.space

    Here goes McElwaine again!!!
In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>STS-1 DISASTER/COVERUP
>
...drivel...
>   My three special topics for this AUDIO LETTER are:
>
>Topic #1--THE ADVANCE PREPARATIONS FOR THE SPACE SHUTTLE MISSION
>Topic #2--THE ABORTED FLIGHT OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE "COLUMBIA"
>Topic #3--THE NASA COVERUP OF THE "COLUMBIA" DISASTER.
>
...
>   What changed it all was the secret "Battle of the Harvest
>Moon" in space September 27, 1977.  This secret space battle,
>which I made public that month in AUDIO LETTER No. 26, took place
>barely one month after the first gliding tests of the space
>shuttle Enterprise.  Russia's military take-over of space was
>under way!
>   Only the next month, October 1977, a newly operational Russian
>Cosmos Interceptor shot down SKYLAB.  SKYLAB, along with its crew
>of five American astronauts secretly aboard, died in a giant
>fireball over the United States.  I reported on SKYLAB's fate
>that month in AUDIO LETTER No. 27, and also revealed that NASA

...stranger and stranger...
...then Columbia gets blasted!...
>   Then the armed Cosmospheres opened up with their neutron
>beams.  Firing at point-blank range, each Cosmosphere fired just
>two bursts from its beam weapon.  The first salvo flooded the
>cockpit area and an area near the engines in the rear.  Young and
>Crippen died instantly, the neutron radiation having totally
>disrupted all activity of their nervous systems, brains, eyes,

    Anybody got an idiot-seeking missile we can launch at
Wisconsin?? :-)   <---smiley for humor impaired

--

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

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

Date: 21 Dec 92 05:48:06 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Subject!! (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...))
Newsgroups: sci.space

Has it occurred to *anybody* in this thread to change the damn subject
line? We are now ranting about the costs of EVA time, which seems to
me to have very little to do with the terminal velocity of DC-X, hmm?

That goes for the rest of you in other threads, too!

(Pretty cranky for Christmas week, eh?  Blessings of the holidays to
you all.)


     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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


          id aa08738; 21 Dec 92 13:18:28 EST
Received: by CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU id aa06617; 21 Dec 92 13:15:04 EST
To: [e-mail]
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!ogicse!uwm.edu!linac!convex!convex!ewright
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:25:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: convex.ewright.724958720
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: news access account <[e-mail]>
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Lines: 8
Nntp-Posting-Host: bach.convex.com
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>I don't think McDD plans to be in the operations business for the DCs,
>any more than they are for their airliners.

In the long run, I don't think the antitrust laws would allow that,
anyway.  The airplane makers aren't allowed to own airlines any more.
It would be what antitrust lawyers call a "vertical monopoly."

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 580
------------------------------