Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_1/V16NO105.TXT

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

Date: Mon,  1 Feb 93 05:00:09
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #105
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon,  1 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 105

Today's Topics:
                     ** INTERSTELLAR HYDROGEN **
         A challenge of the alledged "Challenger transcript"
         Active Space Research/Home Sewage Recycling (2 msgs)
                    Challenger transcript (3 msgs)
Fluidic envelope on a point gravitational source suspended in a uniform field
                         IRAS - 10 Years Ago
 ISSECO, Space Now, Biosphere Project. Private Space Company (2 msgs)
             Making Orbit 93 - Collected Papers Available
                     Microgravity Research Today
                            Riding Comets
            Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger (4 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: 31 Jan 93 22:15:39 GMT
From: Jack Coyote <[e-mail]>
Subject: ** INTERSTELLAR HYDROGEN **
Newsgroups: sci.space

In sci.space, [e-mail] (Jason Cooper) writes:

>Does anybody here know what the state of interstellar hydrogen is?  IE,
>is it molecular or atomic?

From fair to hazy recollection of my ISM class:

    Phase                 T(K)          Density (#/cc)        Composition

   "Hot" ISM              10^6              .01  (?)           Ionized H  (H II)

   "Warm" ISM             10^4           .1 - 1              H II

   "Cool" ISM             100              1 - 100             Atomic H  (H I)

   Dark Cloud            3 - 10           10^3 - 10^6          Molecular H2




  In general, these can be thought of as non-mixing types.  The central cold
cloud of molecular hydrogen condenses a "cool" shell, which condenses a "warm"
shell from the general "hot" ISM.

  Space filling is approx:

  Hot:    50%
  Warm:   30%
  Cold:   19%
  Other:   1%


  Again, all of this is from memory. For accurate numbers, try _Astrophysics II:
Interstellar Matter and Galaxies_, Bowers & Deeming, (Jones & Bartlett),1984
ISBN 0-86720-047-2, or _Physical Processes in the Interstellar Medium_, Spitzer,
(Wiley & Sons), 1978, ISBN 0-471-02232-2.

                    Michael Kellen
--
"Pound for pound, lame puns are your best entertainment value." -- Gogo Dodo

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

Date: 31 Jan 93 21:54:29 GMT
From: Richard D Pierce <[e-mail]>
Subject: A challenge of the alledged "Challenger transcript"
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

The first place I saw this transcipt printed was in, I believe, the
National Enquirer over two years ago. I fear that this alone leads to a
serious questioning of the validity of the transcript, but we'll ignore
that point.

The N. E. transcript differed in some ways from one posted here. For
example, one of the voices was alledged to say something like "Can't
breath... no air" and then the rest of the crew goes on talking. There's
some serious problems with that. All indications are that the crew cabin
lost pressure quickly (and that would certainly be supported by the
alledged quote above). This would lead to several things that would
contradict the validity of the transcript.

First, at those altitudes, conciousness would be, to put it mildly, brief.
So given that, it would be doubtful that anyone was awake to talk. But
let's ignore that, for the purpose of argument.

There is a second problem: At those altitudes, how much air is available
for the propogation of sound? Probably not much, but it would be
interesting to figure it out.

A third problem: the entire forward fuselage of the Challenger separated
relatively cleanly from the payload bay, but what was left was undoubtedly
far from aerodynamically clean. As such, whistling through whatever air
there was (and there was certainly a lot more as it approached the ocean),
I would suspect the level of aerodynamic noise was pretty spectacular and
would have provided pretty fierce competition for someone trying (even in
panic) to talk.

The whole issue of impact velocity is something which is easy to resolve
and, such being the case, provides a fourth serious problem for the claims.

Let's take the impact time of 3 minutes after destruction as reasonably
accurate. The failure took place around (as I recall) 42,000 feet at a
speed of about mach 2. A first order guess at what the trajectory looked
like (granted simplifying things such as estimated mass and effective drag
and so on) leads to a conclusion far different than a 2000 mph impact
velocity.

Making the assumptions that the crew cabin has about 1/4 the mass of the
entire orbiter (or about 17000 kg), that it has an airframe diameter of 6
meters and it has a drag coefficient of about 0.3 (probably a little low,
given it was probably tumbling a bit and dragging lots of stuff, this is
supprted by the fact that it di not hit nose-first, with the impact being,
I believe, well to the left of center), and plugging it into a simulation
that accounts for the the velocity and altitude components of drag, we
find that the crew cabin probably continued to rise for about 25 seconds
until it reached about 17,000 m (55,000 feet), though it had decelerated
to subsonic speeds quickly (in maybe 5 seconds, it's greatest
acceleration, about 12 G, of the whole trip).

It then reached its maximum downward velocity of about 190 m/s (about 420
mph) at about 13,000m (or 40,000 feet) from there its velocity slowed as
it encountered denser and denser air. The model predicts impact about 160
seconds after breakup at a terminal velocity of about 100 m/s, or 225 mph.

A figure of 2000 mph requires completely implausible numbers for the crew
cabin mass, drag and a whole range of other numbers.  Well, my model could
be wrong. For example, I could have underestimated the mass of the forward
fuselage and overestimated the drag coefficient. I don't think I am off by
any more than a combined factor of 2 (although I would certainly
appreciate some correction by Henry Spencer or anyone else who might know
better).

Look at the mass estimate as one example. The center of lift for the wings
is well aft of the fore-aft geometrical center of the entire shuttle, yet
it flies reasonably well, suggesting most of the mass is in the tail. So,
I may well have overestimated the mass.

I am unable to find a solution, given some probably reasonable assumptions
about the aerodynamic conditions of the front fuselage, that can in anyway
come up with an impact velocity of 2000 mph 3 minutes after breakup. I
believe, then, that this 2000 mph number is a complete fantasy.

And from the rest of the above challenges to the assertions of the
alledged transcript, it's hard for me to accept the rest of the
story as nothing other than fabrication.

And if it isn't, so what. The JAL 747 that lost its tail section on
takeoff and then wandered all of Japan (about 8 years ago?) for 20 minutes
or so before crashing was in evry way an equal or greater tragedy. Here,
the entire crew and all the passengers were acutely aware thet they were
doomed. Many are known to have written letters and made recordings to
their loved ones. Should the contents of those letters and tapes be made
public?
--
|                Dick Pierce                |
|    Loudspeaker and Software Consulting    |
| 17 Sartelle Street   Pepperell, MA  01463 |
|       [phone] (Voice and FAX)      |

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

Date: 31 Jan 93 16:02:47 GMT
From: Greg Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Active Space Research/Home Sewage Recycling
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>One benefit of space research is a possible self recycling of home sewage.. Why
>must the home send all its sewage farther than its own sewage recycling tank..
>Where most or all the water is pressed out, and the solid waste is then taken
>away.. The water being used again.. Or am I to wierd..
>

    Two comments on this.
First of all, you have an economy of scale as far as a single sewage
treatment plant is concerned.  Even pressing out the water, treating and
reusing it again takes space.  Imagine large skyscrapers doing it?

SEcdonly, where you do have the room, like in the country, something
similar is done currently: septic tanks and leaching fields.  Now, in a
proper leaching field your field is located downhill from your well,
but eventually the water inthe field leaches out and makes it down
to the water table one way or another.

    At my dad's house when I was mowing the lawn, I could always
tell where the leaching field was.  Erma Bomback was only partly right,
the grass is always greener (and thicker I might add) over the leaching
field.

>==
> Michael Adams, [e-mail]
> Im not high, just jacked

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

Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 16:01:51 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Active Space Research/Home Sewage Recycling
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>One benefit of space research is a possible self recycling of home sewage.. Why
>must the home send all its sewage farther than its own sewage recycling tank..
>Where most or all the water is pressed out, and the solid waste is then taken
>away.. The water being used again.. Or am I to wierd..

Not weird, you just described a home septic tank system, though instead
of pressing out the water, gravity is allowed to do the separation. The
solids remain in the settling tank and the liquid is recycled as lawn
fertilizer via the drain field. No moving parts, low cost, low tech,
and there were millions in use before the first space shot. Every few
years you have the settling tank pumped out by a truck and the residue
carted away for use as farm fertilizer.

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     |                     |

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

Date: 31 Jan 93 15:15:35 GMT
From: Tom A Baker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Challenger transcript
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

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

>cursed and prayed for three hellish minutes before they slammed into the
>Atlantic and perished on January 28, 1986.
>
>  The tape is said to begin with a startled crewman screaming,"What happened?
>What happened? Oh God - No!"  Screams and curses are heard- several crewmen
>begin to weep- and then others bid their families farewell.
>
>  Two minutes forty-five seconds later the tape ends. That's when the shuttles

...

>T+3:15 to end. None. Static, silence.

If the explosion is at one minute plus, then the cabin takes three minutes to
fall, then the crash is at about four minutes?  Does the tape indicate nothing
said for the last half minute or so?

>Atlantic, hit the ocean at over 2,000 miles per hour, instantly killing the

Umm, wasn't it pretty established that impact was at 217 mph or
thereabouts?  That is consistent with the pictures of the cabin as it
was pulled from the water.  The tiles and structure did not look like
they had hit at thousands of mph.  This was a hollow airframe and had a
low terminal velocity.

tombaker

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

Date: 31 Jan 93 18:52:48 GMT
From: John F Carr <[e-mail]>
Subject: Challenger transcript
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

Can someone who does not insist on remaining anonymous comment on the
credibility of this?

I won't comment on the alleged tape transcript, but I thought the crew
capsule hit the water at far less than the claimed 2000 mph.  3 minutes
should be long enough to reach terminal velocity, which I would expect to be
subsonic.



--
    John Carr ([e-mail])

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

Date: 31 Jan 93 20:24:01 GMT
From: "John S. Neff" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Challenger transcript
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John F Carr) writes:
>From: [e-mail] (John F Carr)
>Subject: Re: Challenger transcript
>Date: 31 Jan 1993 18:52:48 GMT
>
>Can someone who does not insist on remaining anonymous comment on the
>credibility of this?
>
>I won't comment on the alleged tape transcript, but I thought the crew
>capsule hit the water at far less than the claimed 2000 mph.  3 minutes
>should be long enough to reach terminal velocity, which I would expect to be
>subsonic.
>
>
>
>--
>    John Carr ([e-mail])
Recall that during the investigation of the accident that reporters and
members of the comission were provided with back channel information
from astronauts, NASA employees, and contractors. If such a transcript
existed at that time the probability is very high that it would have been
leaked. My guess is that the transcript is bogus.

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

Date: 31 Jan 93 22:05:03 GMT
From: Bill Hyde <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fluidic envelope on a point gravitational source suspended in a uniform field
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:
|>
|> where
|>     m = molecule mass = 5.31e-23 g  (O2, for example)
|>         T = temperature = 250K  (Why not?)


    A good characteristic temperature for the exosphere
    (the "escape zone" of the atmosphere") is about 600K.
    This is mostly caused by high energy UV.  If Ted's
    saturn/star were very red, perhaps a lower value could be
    used, but since human eyes are adapted to the current
    solar spectrum I doubt he'd use that argument.

    The escape velocity you've caluculated is lower than that
    for mars.  Despite being cooler than earth, and having once
    had an atmosphere/hydrosphere, the surface pressure on mars
    is about 10 mb.  In Ted's scenario earth would lose its
    atmosphere far more rapidly than mars lost its.



                        Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
[e-mail] or hyde@dalac

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

Date: 31 Jan 93 19:32:58 GMT
From: Angelo Campanella <[e-mail]>
Subject: IRAS - 10 Years Ago
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Ron Balke's resume of IRAS is a good reminder of the future of astronomy.

From a crass point of view, I  say that the IRAS data and all the leads into
new astronomical investigations assure the job security for astronomers
throughout the 21st century!

Seriously, I feel the the true impact has yet to be felt in the astronomy
community, chiefly because of the gross vested interest in visual optical
equipment, facilities and personnel.  That is, astronomy bureaucrats, virtually
all products of the visual (1/3 to 2/3 micrometers wavelength) technology
absolutely will not pay homage to this upstart and largely foreign technology,
akin to the anethma of ancient Galileo.

At the ASA meeting in Columbus, last summer, after beimg assured by my (visual)
astronomer friend that 'little' was going on in infrared astronomy, I saw at
least a half-dozen poster papers on infrared investigations.  They featured the
synergistic combination of infrared and visual astronomy, i.e. looking at
prominent infrared objects identified via the coarse resolution of the IRAS
survey.  They correlated much finer detail infrared imagery with coincident
visual obejcts.  Payoffs lay in the increased liklihood of identifying
planetary systems among stars.

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

Date: 31 Jan 93 14:11:06 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: ISSECO, Space Now, Biosphere Project. Private Space Company
Newsgroups: sci.space

#315 ACAD3A::FSRRC       Sun 31 Jan 1993  00:26:05  (  39/ 2385)

Here is the 'postcard':

                       SPACE COLONIZATION
     Are  you keen?  Do you want to go?  Are you frustrated  with
the slow pace?  If so ISECCo was created with you in mind!
     The International Space Exploration and Colonization Company
(ISECCo)  is  a  certified non-profit  organization  doing  space
oriented  research  and  development.  We  are  concentrating  on
realistic  goals,  with  dreams that extend  far  into  the  22nd
century.   To  turn  dreams into reality we  need  your  support.
Opening  up the final frontier requires the concerted efforts  of
all involved.  If you are interested: Get Involved.
     ISECCo's  first  major project is a closed  ecological  life
support  system  (commonly  known as  a  biosphere)  designed  to
support 1-2 people.  Our "garden in a house" is named Nauvik  for
the Eskimo word meaning nurturing place.  Construction on  Nauvik
began  in  1989.  Once complete, we will use it  to  develop  the
technology   of   biologically   closed   systems,   with   space
applications  in  mind.  A prototype for  ecological  systems  in
space, it is the launch pad for human life support.
     Since founding ISECCo in 1988 we have emphasized  developing
critical   biosphere   components   such   as   hydroponics   and
aquaculture.   We  continue to gain the experience  necessary  to
build a successful biosphere with these on-going experiments.
    We  are  primarily supported by donations of time  and  money
from  our members.  Our president covers all operating  expenses.
Since the majority of our labor is volunteer, your donations  are
spent  only on projects, not payroll or overhead.  For those  who
want to direct their money toward specific projects we offer that
option.   Future  funding  will be supplemented  through  venture
capital,  grants,  and companies wishing to operate in space.
     Space   colonies  are  feasible  with  today's   technology.
Tomorrow's  technology   will  make   them  economically  viable.
Help  us   turn  today  into tomorrow and start  mankind  on  the
ultimate migration: to the stars!
     For more information, to join, or to send a donation, please
respond to ISECCo, Department PC-V, P.O. Box 60885, Fairbanks  AK
99706.   Though not required, a  business-sized,  self-addressed,
stamped envelope will expedite our response.

(Address is [e-mail])



Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 21:06:51 GMT
From: Herman Rubin <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISSECO, Space Now, Biosphere Project. Private Space Company
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>#315 ACAD3A::FSRRC       Sun 31 Jan 1993  00:26:05  (  39/ 2385)



>                       SPACE COLONIZATION
>     Are  you keen?  Do you want to go?  Are you frustrated  with
>the slow pace?  If so ISECCo was created with you in mind!

I agree with the goal, BUT ...

>     The International Space Exploration and Colonization Company
>(ISECCo)  is  a  certified non-profit  organization  doing  space
>oriented  research  and  development.  We  are  concentrating  on
>realistic  goals,  with  dreams that extend  far  into  the  22nd
>century.   To  turn  dreams into reality we  need  your  support.
>Opening  up the final frontier requires the concerted efforts  of
>all involved.  If you are interested: Get Involved.
>     ISECCo's  first  major project is a closed  ecological  life
>support  system  (commonly  known as  a  biosphere)  designed  to
>support 1-2 people.  Our "garden in a house" is named Nauvik  for
>the Eskimo word meaning nurturing place.

If this is the way you are starting, I do not see it as even necessarily
being in the right direction.  The effects of low or no gravity are
likely to be more important than the losses from a biosphere.  And
these losses are going to be of a totally different nature, and require
totally different technology, out in space than on earth with the
presence of a dense and biologically active surrounding.

I submit that the necessary experimentation needs to be done out there,
and that little we do in the biosphere direction on earth is likely to
be worth much.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail] (Internet, bitnet)
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)

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

Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 20:33:32 GMT
From: Bruce Dunn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Making Orbit 93 - Collected Papers Available
Newsgroups: sci.space

This message is a repeat announcement of the availability of collected papers
from the "Making Orbit 93" conference held in Berkeley in mid January, 1993.
To get the collected papers at the pre-publication price requires an
immediate order.


Bill Nicholls will be organizing and producing a collection of papers given
at the conference.  To quote Bill:

"This is intended to be a best efforts collection of electronic and written
materials for sale subsequent to the conference....    Availability of the
final product is 2 to 3 months after the conference.    While we plan to
incorporate photos taken at the conference and any available transcripts, I
want to make it clear that we do not expect to have a complete record of the
conference, especially the panel sessions.  Any profits from sale of the
"Collected Papers" will be returned to Henry's [Vanderbilt, not Spencer]
SPACE ACCESS organization."

The pre-publication price for the collected papers is $15  US.  To order,
send money, name, and address to:

Bill Nicholls
PO Box 28
Roy, WA 98580

The order form that I have in front of me indicates that the deadline for
orders at the pre-publication price is January 31, 1993 (ie.  don't waste any
longer to order).  Cheques can be made out to Bill Nicholls.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


For those not familiar with the nature of the conference, the material below
may be helpful:


The "Making Orbit 93" conference was held in Berkeley over the January
16 weekend.  I had a great time, learned much, and met many people who I knew
by reputation or E-mail, but whom I had never met.  The total attendance
might have been something like 75 or 100 - small enough so that meaningful
discussions could be held.

The conference was about 75% rocket science (focusing on alternatives to the
Shuttle and conventional launchers for reaching orbit), and about 25% science
fiction (including the participation of both Larry Niven and Jerry
Pournelle).  Congratulations are due to David and Terry Berry who organized
the conference, and to Henry Vanderbilt who organized the program.

For those not familiar with the content of the conference from pre-conference
publicity, I reproduce below some of the titles of talks:


Alternative SSTO Design Approaches - Jurmaine  (General Dynamics)

Clementine (lunar survey spacecraft) - Kare

Delta Clipper  - Gaubatz (head of McDonnell-Douglas SSRT program)

The "Frequent Flyer" Space Plane Project - Gary Hudson (orbital launch via a
composite spaceplane)

The Japanese Mars Program - Shimizu (mars probes)

Laser Launch - Kare

Perestroika in the US Space Industry - Can Commercial Activity Take up the
Slack - Bennett

Power for Lunar Surface Applications - Mayer

Rocket Science for Amateurs - Cobb, Vanderbilt

Soviet/CIS Space Launcher Characteristics - Bozlee

Space Launch by Gas Gun - Hunter

Space Policy 2000 Prime - Graham

The SSTO Operational Environment - Stine   (economics etc.)

A Storable Propellant SSTO - Burnside Clapp


In addition to these talks, there were numerous panel discussions.

--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 18:56:00 GMT
From: Venkatraman Chandrasekaran <[e-mail]>
Subject: Microgravity Research Today
Newsgroups: sci.med,sci.bio,sci.materials,sci.space

There is an article on microgravity materials processing in the January issue
of Ceramic Industry. The article is mainly on the U.S Microgravity Lab shuttle
mission with Bonnie J. Dunbar as the payload commander. The article also
features an interview with her.

- chandra
[e-mail]

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

Date: 31 Jan 93 22:24:28 GMT
From: "Robert F. Casey" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Riding Comets
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Terry Ford) writes:
>What is the possibility of creating a craft that could land on either a near
>earth asteroid, or a comet, and hitch a ride?  From what I have heard, comets
>and the likes travel at impressive speeds, which would be a great way to
conserve energy on a deep space mission.  Landing on a comet that is
passing through the solar
>sytem, on its way into deep space would be a great way to get out, without
>having to use all the energy for propulsion.

You'll still need to propell your spacecraft to match speeds and orbits
of the comet you want to hitch a ride on.  Or else you'll just get a
collision and a destroyed spacecraft if you don't match speeds within,
what, a few meters a second at most?  Objects move around at sppeds of
several miles a second.  With orbital paths on the order of a billion
miles long, this high speed isn't apparent.

Hitching a ride makes sense in environments with friction around, like
a diver grabbing the dorsal fin of a friendly dolphin.  But there is
no friction of this sort in space.

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

Date: 30 Jan 93 21:54:10 GMT
From: Russ Forster <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

        Where was I when the shuttle blew up?

        I was at work.  I remember a college coming in and telling me.  I
        just couldn't believe it.  I worked at a community college then and
        the only TV was in our TV studio.  I remember going there and
        watching in disbelief on a 6'' BW monitor.  This was the first
        launch I had not watched live on TV but I had set my VCR to record
        the event.  After watching it at work, I went home and watched CNN
        as they replayed the launch over and over again.  I then watch my
        tape to see it for the 'first time' and listened to the commentary.
        The one thing I didn't do and still regret is saving that tape.  I
        will never forget that day.

        To this day, I watch or tape every launch, I had the greatest
        thrill by seeing STS-52? launch in October when I was on vacation.
        I will never forget this day either.

        To this day, my heart pounds when I hear 'Go for throttle-up'
--
Regards,

Russ Forster (postmaster), Sr. Technical Analyst, MultiVendor Group
BC Systems Corp., 4000 Seymour Place, Victoria, B.C., V8X 4S8
Internet: [e-mail]       Phone: [phone]

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

Date: 31 Jan 1993 13:13:15 -0600
From: Robert Fentiman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>Just a reminder- 7 years ago today- 11:38am EST....
>
>So, where were you when the Challenger disaster took place?

I was twelve years old and home from school, sick, and watching the
launch on "live" TV.  I always get excited about shuttle launches
(It's been my dream from age 3 to be an astronaut, you can even ask
my mom).  I wathced the shuttle clear the tower, thinking to myself
that someday I'd be doing something like that.  NASA's announcer was
reading off data.  All I could see was the smoke trail.   I then heard
the words "Go for throttle up".  The announcer kept reading data, I
noticed the odd shape of the smoke trail, but thought nothing of it at
first, just had a strange feeling in the back of my head.  A couple
seconds later, I started to get a sinking feeling in my stomach.  I was
devistated when they officially said something was wrong.  I think my
mom was concerned later because she knew how much I wanted to be an
astronaut.  Somehow, though, the accident made me re-affirm my commitment
to try my hardest to do so.  Hopefully I'm on the right path now -
first year at college and going for a major in physics (to be folled
by a master's degree in Astonomy or Astrophysics, and hopefully a Doctorate).

    Thanks
    Robert Fentiman

InterNet: [e-mail]
At: University of Minnesota, Duluth

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

Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1993 22:53:40 GMT
From: THIS SPACE FOR RENT <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
> and then figure out what happened, fix it, and carry on flying.  If
> an astronaut dies, the entire program comes to a screeching halt for
> two or three years, and no sacrifice of schedules, usefulness, or
> customers is too great to ensure it doesn't happen again.  Except
> that it will anyway, no matter how badly you cripple the program
> in the name of safety, unless you ground the thing permanently.
>
> If we are ever to have routine spaceflight -- the sort that might
> get you or me up there -- this absolutely requires tolerance for the
> occasional crash, especially during a new vehicle's early test
> period... that is, its first (say) 100 flights.  If your response
> to thinking about Challenger is "never again!", you are part of the
> problem, not part of the solution.
>
> When you remember Challenger, remember also that the devastating
> effect it had on the space program was unnecessary and unwarranted.
> --
> "God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>        -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry
>

The grounding of the shuttle fleet after the Challenger was a very
serious blow to the space program.  About the only thing I can think
of that would have been worse would be pressing on and then having
another shuttle blow up two months later because they hadn't figured
out the problem yet.  As for people who say "never again" being part
of the probelm, I accept that deaths are inevitable in space
exploration, but I think we _must_ say "never again" to deaths caused
by managers who don't want to hear bad news.

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

Date: 31 Jan 1993 15:34 PST
From: "Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In an attempt to put a slight positive glimmer on this otherwise depressing
subject...5 months after the loss of Challenger, at my graduation from MIT,
on what was an otherwise miserable day (it was pouring and the graduation was
held outside!), the president of MIT, Paul Grey, in his address, announced
that they were renaming the Center for Space Research after Ron McNair, who
had received his doctorate in physics from MIT.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Horowitz                        |
Astronomy Department                  |"Whoever heard of a female astronomer?"
California Institute of Technology    |--Charlene Sinclair, "Dinosaurs"
[e-mail]                |
[e-mail]                 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 105
------------------------------