Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_6/V15NO632.TXT

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

Date: Tue,  5 Jan 93 05:10:14
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #632
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue,  5 Jan 93       Volume 15 : Issue 632

Today's Topics:
              Chiron (was Re: asteroids beyond Jupiter)
                      Energy production on Earth
                Fabrication (was fast track failures)
                     fast-track failures (2 msgs)
Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
                        Insects in Biosphere 2
                    Latest Pegasus news? (2 msgs)
      Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
      Overly "success" oriented program causes failure (2 msgs)
                         russian solar sail?+
                         satellite costs etc.
   Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity (2 msgs)
     Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use) (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: 4 Jan 1993 19:10:35 GMT
From: Jeffrey Alan Foust <[e-mail]>
Subject: Chiron (was Re: asteroids beyond Jupiter)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <stephens.726164789@gdim> [e-mail] (Dave Stephenson) writes:
>
>Now that you mention Chiron, could someone give me a few references
>to popular articles on Chiron. I know a space artist who wants to
>paint as it in its outgassing phases. Sky and Telescope articles would
>be ideal. He wants to make the painting realistic.
>Thanks.

Hmmm... the closest thing I have to a 'popular' article on Chiron is an article
by Alan Stern in the September 1992 issue of Astronomy, "Where Has Pluto's
Family Gone?" (pp 41-47).   Chiron is mentioned in a couple of paragraphs on
pp. 46-47, with just some basic information.  Your best bet would be to look
at the research literature on Chiron -- there are a few papers published each
year about Chiron.  For information about outbursts I'd recommend Luu and
Jewitt (Astron. Jour., 1990) and Buratti and Dunbar (Astrophys. Jour., 1991)
as two examples of recent papers about outbursts on Chiron.

(Incidentally, I'm doing some research on Chiron, and will be going up to
Palomar this week with Bonnie Buratti to get some more data.  Unfortunately,
it doesn't appear that the weather will be cooperating for most of the run...)
:-(

Followups to sci.astro.

--
Jeff Foust                        Senior, Geophysics/Planetary Science, Caltech
[e-mail]                       [e-mail]
       Final score of the Interstellar Space        Deep Space 9
      Station Softball Championship Game:        Babylon    5

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

Date: 4 Jan 93 19:30:26 GMT
From: Woody Ligon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energy production on Earth
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
Roberts) wrote:
>
>
> Regarding the utilization of energy sources on Earth, which was discussed
> in the context of importing energy from space:
>
> A report on the radio this morning described a genetically engineered
> bacterium, in which two genes were spliced in to allow it to do a very
> good job of converting complex carbohydrates (including celluose) into
> ethanol. Evidently the project is far enough along that there are plans
> to build a plant in New York, to produce 15(?) million gallons of ethanol
> per year from paper mill sludge.
>
> Now, let's hope the bacterium doesn't get loose in the environment, or
> that it requires something to live that's found only in the culture tanks. :-)
>
> John Roberts
> [e-mail]

Well yes I guess that could be a problem, but if most attempts to grow
microorganisms in "megaculture" offer any lessons then just the opposite is
more likely.

Usually what happens is that the cultures become contaminated with
something far more competitive than the "special bug"  and the special bug
just gets killed off by the competition.  Alternatively the special bug may
grow competitively only under very narrowly defined conditions. Such
conditions are quite hard to maintain with a heterogenous feedstock like
forest products.  Also variables as simple as temperature control are not
always easy to maintain between for example--winter and summer.  I would
like to hear comments from the people who make antibiotics by fermentation
on the probability of success here.

It is a very long jump from the lab to tons and tons of paper pulp which
may be none too sterile. This particular dream (cellulose ---> ethanol) has
been around for a long time.  I, for one, will believe it when someone
actually makes a buck on it.

Woody Ligon
Standard Disclaimer Applies
([e-mail])



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

Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:24:21 GMT
From: Thomas Clarke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fabrication (was fast track failures)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward
V. Wright) writes:
> >
> Most engineering *is* paperwork, or workstation work today. Otherwise
> it's just tinkering on a wing and a prayer. You have to bend metal to
> *test* your engineering, but bending metal *isn't* engineering. It's
> fabrication done by tradesmen.

I can't let this go by.  This is a common attitude in America.  It
leads to low pay for production engineers and inefficient production
methods etc. etc.  Result is the current economic morass with most
production going overseas.

I think engineering must consider how something is to be made.  The
most elegant design is useless if it can't be manufactured.
Knowledge of what can be made is obtained by bending metal, or
at least by interacting with those who do.

This probably has nothing to do with space.  But then maybe it
has a lot to do with why no really new space rocket designs have
come out in the last 30 years except for the star-crossed shuttle.
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
[phone], FAX: [phone], [e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Jan 93 17:03:34 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: fast-track failures
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
>But then, I'm not working for Gary Coffman, Inc.

And not the remotest chance in Hell that you ever will either.
Actually there is no Gary Coffman, Inc, though I should start
a holding company. There's Southern Microsystems, Southern
Software, Mattingly Farms Inc, and Destructive Testing Systems,
plus the odd consulting job. I've been running small companies
for 30 years, I know which end of the pencil is pointed.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv![e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Jan 93 17:12:13 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: fast-track failures
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
>The difference is, he spent most of the money on engineering, rather
>than paperwork.

Most engineering *is* paperwork, or workstation work today. Otherwise
it's just tinkering on a wing and a prayer. You have to bend metal to
*test* your engineering, but bending metal *isn't* engineering. It's
fabrication done by tradesmen.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv![e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Jan 93 19:18:00 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>I've had people tell me that the media doesn't cover the space program very
>much because people aren't interested.
>
>But here's somethin to think about: did people lose interest and the media
>reduced it's coverage in response, or did the media cut back coverage and then
>convince people that they weren't interested in it?

After the first Apollo landing, TV ratings for space coverage dropped
sharply. The media took their cue from that. It's only climbed into
the top 50 *once* after that, that was the launch after Challenger.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv![e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 15:02:00 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Insects in Biosphere 2



There have been some questions regarding insects in the Biosphere
which I can say something about.

When first looking at the insects that would be needed for Biosphere 2
we looked at them by function, what do they do in Biosphere 1 and what
do we need the insects to do in Biosphere 2.  This can be broken down
simply as follows: Pollinators, detritivores, herbivores, insects as food for
other animals and beneficial insects used in  Integrated Pest
Management (IPM). We have not included predatory insects among our main
insect lists, excepting those used for IPM as we have many other insect
predators in the form of lizards, frogs etc. and we needed the insect
populations to establish themselves before we started putting heavy
predatory stress on them.  However, some scorpions and many spiders
volunteered their presences in the Biosphere as have dragon and damsel
flies.

For the pollinators we wanted to use mainly bees that are generalists, that
would visit many different types of flowers.  We did not want them as
energy intensive as the honey bee which makes large colonies which
would probably not make it in the Biosphere in the start-up years of the
the Biomes.  Unfortunately the pollinators have not done well and we will
be doing a lot more work on establishing colonies of solitary bees, such as
the Carpenter bee which is a local insect, and colinizing bees, such as
bumble bees.

The detritivores have done very well for the most part.  The ants,
millipedes, cockroaches and sow bugs have all done extremely well and
we will most likely be looking for a good cockroach predator.  We will be
doing a detailed survey of all the insects at the end of this 2 year
experiment at which point we will be able to determine how well the
aquatic detritivores have done.

We have tried to eliminate the herbivores from the agriculture area as
much as possible, but they are needed in the Wilderness biomes for
nutrient cycling.  The fly screen between the the 2 areas is the only
physical barrier between any of the biomes with the exception of the
human habitat, although the air does cycle through all biomes.  The
insects and other animals in the wilderness areas are free to roam
wherever they will within the wilderness biomes.

When we looked at what insects we would need for the other animals to
be included in Biosphere 2 we tended to look at them morphologically.
For example, for one particular kind of frog we may have needed a 0.5"
soft bodied, nocturnal, arboreal insect.  We then had to find out how
many of these insects this frog would eat in a day and then extrapolate
from that how many such insects we would need to introduce into the
Biosphere to sustain this one species of frog.

Regarding the IPM insects many species of predators and parasites were
introduced on several occasions into the agriculture area, and also into the
wilderness.  However, a number of these species have not survived and a
great deal more work is needed to make the food web much more
complex to withstand the fluxes of pest populations, and more perrennial
habitats available for these beneficial insects to survive during "off"
seasons.

The major survey of the insect populations will be done at the end of the
2 year experiment.  It will be compared with the survey done prior to
closure to see how the populations of insects have faired and adjustments
to species and population numbers will be made where necessary.

Jane Poynter


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

Date: 4 Jan 93 17:47:20 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Latest Pegasus news?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>You misrepresent my position. All I'm saying is that new systems are
>>rarely as cheap and easy in metal as they are on paper.
>
>Gary, I refer you to my recent posting where I compared DC costs to
>Shuttle costs. I encoumbered DC with development costs but not Shuttle.
>I doubled DC's DDT&E, production and operations costs. It still came up
>a winner.
>
>Nobody is saying it will be a piece of cake. Are you saying that a factor
>of two isn't enough to cover the risk? If not, then what's your point?

Yeah, I'm saying a factor of two isn't enough to cover the likely
stretchout in the development timeline as problems appear. I said
in the other post that realistic numbers based on other new spacecraft
development programs would be a tripling of MacDD's projected base costs
and a tripling of their projected development timeline. That would still
be cheaper than the monsterous delays and costs of Shuttle development.
I think *everyone* agrees that the Shuttle development program was about
as badly managed as is possible while still getting a working system in
the end. Even if that system is mostly bandaids on top of bandaids that
have to be torn down and inspected after every flight. At least it flys.
I think comparisons to new airliner construction, such as the references
to the progression of the 7xx series, is bogus because SSTO is attempting
something no other craft has ever done, with an engineering tean that has
no experience with similar reusable spacecraft to draw on. I don't expect
them to make major mistakes, like mounting the engines upside down, as
happened in a California nuclear power plant, but I do expect them to be
bitten by numerous smaller gotchas as the program progresses. Each of those
will cause schedule slips and additional development time.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv![e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Jan 93 18:35:23 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Latest Pegasus news?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>You misrepresent my position. All I'm saying is that new systems are
>>rarely as cheap and easy in metal as they are on paper.
>
>You're setting up another strawman, Gary.  No one ever said that
>building launch vehicles was cheap or easy.  If it was, teenagers
>would be building them in the family garage.

Talk about strawmen!

>IMHO, anyone, in any industry, who believes a million dollars is
>a small amount of money deserves a pink slip.

Sadly, a million just doesn't go as far as it used to. That's one
payroll for a modest 300 employee service operation. It'd keep GM
or AT&T in postage for a week. And the Federal government would
go through it in 23 seconds. Keeping track of the pennies is a good
plan, but not if you lose sight of the real money in the process. It's
far too easy to be penny wise and pound foolish. I'd much prefer an
employee who grasps return on investment strategies and rough order
of magnitude profit/loss estimates than one who counts paper clips.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv![e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Jan 93 19:14:52 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Is this relevant? Yes if we want to compare
>>*vehicles*, no if we want to compare *programs*. It's important to realize
>>that DC is projected to operate under a completely different set of rules
>>than Shuttle is forced to use.
>
>Which is indeed half the battle. But since you back Shuttle no matter what
>it costs, I don't see your point.

I back Shuttle because it's flying *now* and nothing else flying *now*
has it's capabilities at *any* price. When that changes, I'll be happy
to see it retired, but not one second before that.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv![e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Jan 93 16:45:16 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Overly "success" oriented program causes failure
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>Well, thank you, Gary.
>
>I asked you to name one example of a program run under your failure-
>oriented management system ("Gosh, we know this isn't going to work,
>but if we keep the program running long enough, we've got lifetime job
>security, so don't try too hard, boys") that was a success.

Since *your* failure oriented system is totally your own strawman invention
out of whole cloth, I won't bother to address it further.

>Instead, you gave one example of a success-oriented program that
>failed.
>
>I guess by evading my question, you answered it. ;-)

I gave an example of a "success" oriented program that went sour
for the typical reason. If you want a megaprogram that came in on
schedule and on budget despite thousands of engineering change
orders during development, I'll point you to GM's Saturn line
of automobiles. A less grandiose development program would be
the automated shirtmaking machine project of one of my companies,
Southern Microsystems. It came in on time and on budget desipite
having to change the cutterhead from laser to hydro, change the
shade marking sensors three times, change the feeder belt from
mesh to resin, the folder from stainless to teflon coated cast
aluminum, and rewriting the control software for the Singer
heads. That's because the most likely developmental bottlenecks

were identified in the planning process and allowance made in
the Pert charts for alternative workaround development time and
money. It actually came in three weeks ahead of schedule and
nearly $3,000 under budget. That's pretty good for a $170,000
6 month project. The several hundred machines working today on
shop floors have easily made this a highly profitable product
*because* we didn't *assume* our intitial design would work
and made allowances in the program for alternatives, some, like
the cutterhead change, quite radical.

It's not "success" orientation versus "failure" orientation,
it's unrealistic rose tinted glasses expectations against sound
management practices. Sometimes the wild hare flyers pay off, but
9 times out of 10 it's the plodding conservative engineer that
wins the race on time and on budget. Unless a program has deep
pockets behind it, and an endlessly patient customer, fast track
"success" oriented programs *are* the ones that are truly "failure"
oriented since they have less than a 10% chance of delivering the
product on spec, on time, and on budget. Often they never deliver a
product at all, or so late to market, so over budget, and so under
spec that it won't sell.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv![e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Jan 93 17:21:08 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Overly "success" oriented program causes failure
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>According to [e-mail] (Gary Coffman):
>>                        Tzu-Pei Chen
>>"The design of AUSROC II was in many ways too "positive". [...]
>>Obviously, greater testing of each component may have shown up some
>>of these problems earlier.  This simply highlights the very limited
>>resources with which the group currently works.
>
>What an obvious straw man, Gary!  You picked an underfunded project,
>which by simple lack of money was _forced_ into a schedule that
>allowed for little unit testing.  You then use its almost inevitable
>failure as a bludgen to beat up the well-funded DC-1 program.
>
>For shame.

DC-1 is well funded? Last I heard MacDD hadn't found *any* sugardaddy
to fund it *at all*. They've latched onto some SDIO money to fund
DC-X, but that's just an atmospheric test article, not a SSTO vehicle.
Their strawman paper budgets for an eventual DC-Y prototype and follow
on DC-1 production vehicle are underfunded by historic standards of
new spacecraft development programs. No actual money has been allocated
for either proposal.

For shame indeed.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv![e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Jan 93 19:26:38 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: russian solar sail?+
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Victor Laking) writes:

>Actually, using a solar sail to just go to the moon would be pointless as
>they are only practical over a distance.

Using an airplane to go from one one sandhill at Kitty Hawk to another
was rather pointless, too, wasn't it?  The proposal was more a proof of
concept than a scientific mission.


>Remember, they use the solar winds to carry them.

Most solar-sail designs use light pressure rather than the solar
wind.

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

Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:16:58 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: satellite costs etc.
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Redundancy is always desirable if it's affordable, but there is a practical
>difficulty with having *cold* spares in orbit. Will they work when we need
>them?

A cold spare is unlikely to be completely cold.  More likely it will
operated in a low-power mode so that you can still run diagnostics
and self-tests on the hardware.

>They have to be cold spares if they share the same orbital slot and
>frequencies.

Not true.  You can put two birds in the same slot but only use
half the transponders on each one.  If the transponder frequency
X transponder fails on bird one, you switch to the frequency X
transponder on bird two.  If bird one fails entirely, bird two
can take over the entire service til a new backup is launched.

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

Date: 4 Jan 93 18:58:56 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>>The Space Shuttle is simply the highest cost (per pound) launch vehicle ever
>>>operated.
>
>>At $37,500 a pound Pegasus is over three times the cost of Shuttle.
>
>A pegasus flight is more like $12,000 a pound. However, if you used
>the same accounting methods, Peagasus would be far far cheaper. Remember
>that OSC paid the cost of development for Pegasus and charges it to
>customers. Shuttle costomers however aren't required to pay for the
>billions spent on Shuttle.

Arrgh! That should have been $37,500 a *kilogram*. That's about $17,000
a pound. OSC initially claimed 600 pounds to LEO for $10 million, but that's
slipped a bit. OSC cribbed the gross characteristics of Pegasus from X-15,
they even use the same government B-52 as carrier, and from other programs
ranging from Polaris to Peacekeeper, their propulsion partner is Hercules.
OSC didn't spend any government money *directly* to develop Pegasus, but
they certainly benefited from government funded programs, and DOD guaranteed
them a starter market. Nothing wrong with any of that of course, but they
didn't start with a blank piece of paper or an empty order book. And the
system still hasn't had a completely successful flight.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv![e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:15:01 GMT
From: Brad Whitehurst <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brad Whitehurst) writes:
>
>>    If men are part of the payload, the Shuttle is (currently) the
>>only way to fly!
>
>I think if you consult the Russians they can show you the error in
>this statement.
>
>BTW, the team evaluating Soyuz has finished its work. They concluded that
>there is no reason Soyuz couldn't be used as ACRV. It should also be
>possible to use Soyuz on an Atlas or Titan for US manned space.
>
    Come on, Allen, don't get even more retentive on us!  The
realistic chance of significant U.S. manned presence in orbit in
Russian hardware in the next few years is miniscule.  Political as
well as practical considerations dictate that.  (e.g.: national
security concerns, power systems, space for people & gear, interface
problems, scheduling, etc....  As a practical matter, I'd be willing
to bet that even moderate effort on a reusable SSTO (DC or otherwise)
could be available within a year or so of the time frame it would take
to convert our manned space program from Shuttle to Soyuz.  It's not
just Spam-in-a-can, as you've pointed out before...they've got to be
able to do useful work once they get there.  Would everything go to
Russia for launch, and depend on an uncertain foreign infrastructure,
or convert part of Canaveral to launch Russian rockets?  Convert our
command, control, and communications on the ground, or refit the
Soyuz?  Can you get enough power and life support from Soyuz/Mir for
5-6 people + our experiments?  Etc., etc.,... I don't have time for an
exhaustive search of necessary systems.
    Flawed as it is, Shuttle is the only American (non-russian for
that matter) manned system.  There's little point in being
anti-Shuttle...rather, be pro-DC (or whatever).  Trying to dictate the
demise of the competition, rather than proving by doing, is what you
excoriate NASA for doing.
    BTW, I use the term "bet" above in the figurative sense.  I
don't want the usual set of juvenile responses that I should put $X on
my supposition.  If you (plural...not necessarily Allen) can't deal
with idiomatic American English (esp. if it is your native tongue),
too bad.  Go crawl back into your workstation.
(FLOoomp....flame off.  Sorry about that but the last time the "bet"
word came up, the silliness went ad inifitum.)
--

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

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

Date: 4 Jan 93 16:55:23 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Only the US and the former USSR have demonstrated knocking out orbital
>>satellites. Those other nations have the ability to achieve precision
>>orbits, so they should be able to do the same, but they haven't attempted
>>to do so.
>
>Achieving a precise orbit is not necessary to knock out a low-orbit
>satellite.  All of the nuclear powers have ballistic missiles capable
>of lofting a warhead to orbital altitude, if not into orbit.  Detonating
>a small nuke in the general vicinity of a satellite, at the right
>altitude, would do the job.

Technically possible, but militarily dangerous. You've just escalated
a brushfire conventional war into a nuclear exchange.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv![e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 20:55:08 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>Achieving a precise orbit is not necessary to knock out a low-orbit
>satellite.  All of the nuclear powers have ballistic missiles capable
>of lofting a warhead to orbital altitude, if not into orbit.  Detonating
>a small nuke in the general vicinity of a satellite, at the right
>altitude, would do the job.

Sure. Technically speaking.

Actual use of a nuclear weapon in anything other than a superpower conflict
would result in political consequences for the snot-nosed nation far and above
what you'd want.

Not to mention the EMP problems you'd cause for commercial sats and (possibly)
electronics on the ground.

It would be bad. And a waste of good fissionables for other purposes.


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

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 632
------------------------------