Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_1/V16NO128.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 31KB

Date: Thu,  4 Feb 93 05:39:08
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #128
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu,  4 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 128

Today's Topics:
     An 'agitator' replies (was: Clinton's Promises...) (5 msgs)
                   Expensive shuttle toilets (Why?)
Flame it all...re:Challenger, Tragedy, Acetylene Torches and other...
                           HELP!!! (2 msgs)
                      parachutes on Challenger?
                             Polar Orbit
                             porsche sale
                            Space Colonies
                      Space Grown Semiconductors
                 The day before Challenger exploded.

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 22:11:18 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: An 'agitator' replies (was: Clinton's Promises...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>Ah, you're changing the topic; we're talking about manned space here.

If most of the US manned space effort goes into missions that
don't need man, and the astronauts go along for the ride only
because we have a launcher that requires them even if the mission
doesn't, exactly what does that gain us?


>The fact of the matter is Sherzer's claim that they are doing
>far more manned space activity is incorrect.  They're logging
>more time, sure, but we're logging more people.

More people?

More pilots.  Government employees.  Congressional freeloaders.
A few scientists.  How many entrepreneurs do you see going into
space?  Grad students?  Doctors?  Lawyers?  Writers?  Artists?
Businessmen?  Those are the kind of people you need you need to

develop a frontier.

All the cosmonauts and astronauts put together would fit comfortably
onto one deck of a Boeing 747.  Those numbers don't impress me.


>>>Believe it or not, there's more to space than the almighty dollar.
>>Oh, yeah?
>Yeah.

Well, you just go on believing that, kid.  You'd probably
make a lousy billionaire anyway.


>Uh-huh.  But during the first decade or two of this century, when planes were
>still new, the primary consideration was *not* the cost of the plane itself,
>but getting the plane to *work*.  Once airplanes were well enough understood,
>*then* people became concerned with cost.

No, you have it backwards.  The planes started to work reliably
when people became concerned with cost.  The DC-1/2/3 was the
first reliable airliner because it was designed with operational
characteristics in mind.  When you're out for the almight dollar,
you have to make it reliable.  If aviation had continued as a
government project, like NASA, then airplanes would have continued
to be about as reliable as the Shuttle.


>Same thing with automobiles; first you get them to work, and understand the
>principles fully, *then* you worry about interchangeable parts and mass
>production.

We understood how rockets worked thirty years ago.  Now it's time
to get off our duffs and build the dang thing.


>Sherzer is talking about mass-producing the space equivalent of
>the Wright Flyer (Soyuz capsules on expendable rockets) which may be cheap
>in the short term, but a disaster in the long.

Interesting observation, since the Soyuz has a better safety
record than the Shuttle.  Perhaps you think that Congress will
allow your little program to continue after you lose the next
orbiter (and you will)?  Think again.


>Yes, it did.  *After* they learned how to do it.  When they were working on
>the first trans-continental railroad, they weren't trying for the cheapest
>railroad possible, they were trying for one that *worked*.  I'm sure Allen's
>distant relative was there, pointing out that if they would only use cheap
>Conestoga wagons strung together in trains, they could move goods for a
>fraction of the cost.

Read some history.  The men who built the trans-continental
railroad were in it for the almighty dollar you disdain.
They wanted to move people and freight quickly and cheaply
because that was the only way they could make money.  Someone
with your attitude wouldn't have lasted ten minutes in their
employee.


>And, if the Japanese can confidently say they can build massive space
>structures for only $1 billion, even though they have no experience
>whatsoever, why can't they build a cheap launch system?

What makes you think they can't?  As Robert Heinlein said, it
is not decreed that Americans will be the ones to develop and
colonize space.  Something for you to think about while you're
waving your flag.  You aren't going to get there without a bunch
of hard, tough capitalists, who aren't afraid to soil their hands
in the world of money and commerce, leading the way.

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

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 22:39:17 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: An 'agitator' replies (was: Clinton's Promises...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:

>More importantly, we're putting up a diverse set of people, relative to Mir.
>PhD grade mission specialists, rather than Ivan-the-handiman. Putting up
>lots of skilled people *will* have tangible benefits when SSTO goes to orbit.

Agreed, but what makes you think we're doing that now?  Diverse?  Where
are the businessmen, the entrepreneurs, the science-fiction writers,
journalists, artists, dancers, athletes, entertainers, priests, rabbis,
ministers, doctors, nurses, students, and construction workers?  Hell,
where is Joe the Handiman.

Sure, instead of Ivan the handiman, we send Dr. John Smith, PhD, but
he spends almost all his time doing tasks that would be done by a lab
tech on Earth.  When was the last time you saw someone on the Shuttle
doing work that actually required a scientist?


>If the Space Zealots crowd would cut this crap about Soyuz/Atlas
>and put their energies into ASSURING funding for follow-on hardware to DC-X.

The best way to assure funding for SSTO launchers is to
stop NASA from stomping all over programs that might
compete with the Shuttle.



>The U.S. budget is in a state of finite resources. SSTO concepts help to
>advance U.S. aerospace technology, rather than make companies subcontractors
>wtih the Russians.

I hope not.  We don't want to advance US aerospace technology,
we just want to build the dang thing.  Go advance technologies
on your own nickel.  (Or let NASA do it -- that's what it's
charter for, anyway.)


>The more telling thought is reflected in Japan's committment to Freedom. If
>they had been so impressed with the Russian space program, they could have
>bought space on Mir long ago.

The Japanese government is committed to Freedom.  You won't see
Fuji or Fujitsu or the Japanese construction companies or hotel
chains putting money into it.  Governments can put $35 billion
into a tin can that houses eight people.  Industry operates on
a totally different level.


>Or, if you believe the press reports, BOUGHT a new Mir, for that matter.

They did.

>As the saying goes, money talks, bullsh*t walks.

When Merrill Lynch talks, people listen.

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

Date: 3 Feb 93 23:29:09 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: An 'agitator' replies (was: Clinton's Promises...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>Agreed, but what makes you think we're doing that now?  Diverse?  Where
>are the businessmen, the entrepreneurs, the science-fiction writers,
>journalists, artists, dancers, athletes, entertainers, priests, rabbis,
>ministers, doctors, nurses, students, and construction workers?  Hell,
>where is Joe the Handiman.

*snore* Space for Everyman is a quaint idea.

However, there ain't no bucks yet for students, rabbis, priests, entertainers,
blah-blah-blbah :)

Or are you meaning to tell me John Denver would sound better singing in orbit?
I know of a few people who want to LEAVE him in orbit, however. (Donations to
"Young Cynics for Space)

>Sure, instead of Ivan the handiman, we send Dr. John Smith, PhD, but
>he spends almost all his time doing tasks that would be done by a lab
>tech on Earth.  When was the last time you saw someone on the Shuttle
>doing work that actually required a scientist?

Nope. Mr. PhD goes back to his company, writes up a nice paper about his
experiment. Sooner or later, one of the papers comes up with a money-making
process which needs zero G.

You send up the handi-people AFTER you establish real ways to make money in
orbit. But someone of note needs to establish the processes. And fix the
experiments. If it were that easy, we'd send up trained monkeys.

>>If the Space Zealots crowd would cut this crap about Soyuz/Atlas
>>and put their energies into ASSURING funding for follow-on hardware to DC-X.
>
>The best way to assure funding for SSTO launchers is to
>stop NASA from stomping all over programs that might
>compete with the Shuttle.

That's a nice thought. But it does little to address the thrust of my point:
Soyuz/Atlas is going to suck time, energy, and cash away from SSTO development.

>>The U.S. budget is in a state of finite resources. SSTO concepts help to
>>advance U.S. aerospace technology, rather than make companies subcontractors
>>wtih the Russians.
>
>I hope not.  We don't want to advance US aerospace technology,
>we just want to build the dang thing.  Go advance technologies
>on your own nickel.  (Or let NASA do it -- that's what it's
>charter for, anyway.)

You miss the point. We do not want to be subcontractors with the Russians.

>>The more telling thought is reflected in Japan's committment to Freedom. If
>>they had been so impressed with the Russian space program, they could have
>>bought space on Mir long ago.
>
>The Japanese government is committed to Freedom.  You won't see
>Fuji or Fujitsu or the Japanese construction companies or hotel
>chains putting money into it.  Governments can put $35 billion
>into a tin can that houses eight people.  Industry operates on
>a totally different level.

Japan is not committing $35 billion to a tin can. *shrug* And perhaps you'd
like to review MITI investments into advanced technologies? The Japanese aren't
afraid to use government to invest in key technologies. Or maybe you've been
asleep on the discussion of "industrial policy"?

If Mir was a better investment, they would have bought it and fly Japan-nauts
to it.

>>Or, if you believe the press reports, BOUGHT a new Mir, for that matter.
>They did.

Oh really? Do tell. So when did they launch it and put their flag on it?

>>As the saying goes, money talks, bullsh*t walks.
>When Merrill Lynch talks, people listen.

That's cute. So what's your point? Merrill Lynch isn't putting money into
space.


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

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

Date: 3 Feb 93 13:26:46 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: An 'agitator' replies (was: Clinton's Promises...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>The fact of the matter is Sherzer's claim that they are doing
>>far more manned space activity is incorrect.  They're logging
>>more time, sure, but we're logging more people.

>More people?

>More pilots.  Government employees.  Congressional freeloaders.
>A few scientists.  How many entrepreneurs do you see going into
>space?  Grad students?  Doctors?  Lawyers?  Writers?  Artists?
>Businessmen?  Those are the kind of people you need you need to
>develop a frontier.

More people.  Sure, pilots.  The occasional Congressional creature...I think
there have been two.  However, what about the employees of private companies
that have been going up?  Doctors and physicists?  Sure, you're sneering now,
but let's face it; with the exception of the occasional Russian publicity
stunt, the U.S. program is the *only* place where private citizens can end
up in orbit doing real work.  You should be cheering it on.

The grad students and artists and other people will come...you have to walk
before you can run.

>All the cosmonauts and astronauts put together would fit comfortably
>onto one deck of a Boeing 747.  Those numbers don't impress me.

So?  Sorry if you're not impressed, but it's the best we have at the moment.

>>>>Believe it or not, there's more to space than the almighty dollar.
>>>Oh, yeah?
>>Yeah.

>Well, you just go on believing that, kid.  You'd probably
>make a lousy billionaire anyway.

What's with this kid stuff, pops?  Feeling your age?

If you are going to try and open up a new frontier, you have to be willing
to put some money into it.  That's what we are doing now.  Sure, I suppose we
can do stuff for less, and in many cases we should; government waste and
bureaucratic stodginess are costing us, and should be cut whenever and wherever
possible.  But saving money by abandoning new development and sticking with
foreign old technology is a recipe for failure.

I may make a poor billionaire, but you'd make an even worse investor.

>No, you have it backwards.  The planes started to work reliably
>when people became concerned with cost.  The DC-1/2/3 was the
>first reliable airliner because it was designed with operational
>characteristics in mind.  When you're out for the almight dollar,
>you have to make it reliable.  If aviation had continued as a
>government project, like NASA, then airplanes would have continued
>to be about as reliable as the Shuttle.

You're looking at it from the wrong direction.  The DC-3 came about in
response to a demand.  Currently, there's not a signifigant demand for
space; we're not ready to cut the development and go into production.  We
are getting there, but slowly.  Don't try and rush it.

>>Same thing with automobiles; first you get them to work, and understand the
>>principles fully, *then* you worry about interchangeable parts and mass
>>production.

>We understood how rockets worked thirty years ago.  Now it's time
>to get off our duffs and build the dang thing.

To go back to the plane analogy, we knew how the Wright Flyer worked just
fine.  Are you saying we should have tried commercial service with it?

Obviously not...there is a period of development required first.  We're
hopefully getting into the tail-end of that development period with space,
but we're not done yet.

>>Sherzer is talking about mass-producing the space equivalent of
>>the Wright Flyer (Soyuz capsules on expendable rockets) which may be cheap
>>in the short term, but a disaster in the long.

>Interesting observation, since the Soyuz has a better safety
>record than the Shuttle.  Perhaps you think that Congress will
>allow your little program to continue after you lose the next
>orbiter (and you will)?  Think again.

How did we get onto the topic of safety records?  Sure, the Soyuz record
might be slightly higher, bet neither is perfect.  And yes, the Shuttle
program will likely continue after another accident; the U.S. Congress isn't
*quite* that weak-livered.  Besides, the Shuttle is too useful to just throw
away with no replacement.  If we have a good replacement for the Shuttle we
can give it up, but undercutting development efforts by going Russian will
guarantee that we never get that replacement.

>>And, if the Japanese can confidently say they can build massive space
>>structures for only $1 billion, even though they have no experience
>>whatsoever, why can't they build a cheap launch system?

>What makes you think they can't?  As Robert Heinlein said, it
>is not decreed that Americans will be the ones to develop and
>colonize space.  Something for you to think about while you're
>waving your flag.  You aren't going to get there without a bunch
>of hard, tough capitalists, who aren't afraid to soil their hands
>in the world of money and commerce, leading the way.

You ignored my question: if the Japanese can do so much in space, why does
it fall to us to build the spacecraft to get them there?

And as far as your assumption of flag-waving goes, I'm not saying that only
the U.S. can do it.  However, if you look at it, the U.S. is the only country
in the world that has even a glimmer of real private enterprise participation
in its space program.  By your own reasoning, we're it.  Hell, you even
practically say so yourself that the U.S. has to do it; twice you've said that
we have to develop the transport to get the Japanese up there.

--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 3 Feb 93 13:28:33 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: An 'agitator' replies (was: Clinton's Promises...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
>>Or, if you believe the press reports, BOUGHT a new Mir, for that matter.

>They did.

They bought a ground engineering mockup.  It's another way of giving a
handout to the Russians.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 22:47:11 GMT
From: Joe Cain <[e-mail]>
Subject: Expensive shuttle toilets (Why?)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

Hey people, put this over to sci.space.shuttle at least, and maybe not
bother with sci.astro...

Joseph Cain        [e-mail]
[e-mail]        scri::cain
[phone]        FAX [phone] or -0098

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

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 22:38:24 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Flame it all...re:Challenger, Tragedy, Acetylene Torches and other...
Newsgroups: sci.space

Saw a lot of posts I wanted to comment on but I want to do it all in
one fell swoop.  Forgive me (don't really care one way or the other).

CONTENTS:

SPACE CAMP
CHALLENGER TRANSCRIPT
AECETYLENE[sic?] TORCHES AND SHUTTLE TILES
TRAGEDY? or LIFE IS HARD...? 51-L/STS-25

1) SPACE CAMP

Because of the elite traffic that flows through both "SpaceCamp" locations,
(Huntsville AL & Titusville FL) some counselor's (especially an astronaut's
daughter), may be privy to some "not for public consumption" knowledge.  I
met a lot of knowledgable people and learned a ton of accurate and INACCURATE
 information while working
and teaching at SpaceCamp Huntsville, 7 years ago.  It was up to me and my
ability to do diligence on "facts" in order to verify or refute them.  As it
is with the current personell who work at these facilities.  For the most
part, I would say that both Camps are very accurate but because they are
primarily attended by children (ages 7 to 18) it is distinctly possible
that inaccurate "facts" are remembered or one or two employees spoke in-
accurately.  This segue's [sic?] nicely into the second topic...

2) CHALLENGER TRANSCRIPT

I too, find it interesting that the person who posted, posted anon. and was
very vague when referring to sources.  As for the transcript contents...
WHO CARES???   Even if they were 100% accurate, it is a morbid curiosity
that would drive towards justice and then contend that conspiracy is in-
volved.  How about just decency.  As for the young man who posted that his
SpaceCamp counselor concurred with the uh-oh, Mike Smith statement, and then
carelessly attached that fact to the idea that they were conscious (yes, they
were by all official NASA observations) and then put all of that in the con-
text that someone had offered a transcript of those last two minutes, well,
that is where silly rumors and some conspiracy theories derive (derange)
from.  The transcript was tasteless.

3) Acetylene TORCHES AND SHUTTLE TILES

This is really for a guy at NIST, "Roberts" I think.  I correct myself and
apologize for breaking the 5 second rule when entering your sci.space thread.
It may have been a "nitroacetylene" torch that I was using (is that possible?)
but even if I was right and it was an oxoacetylene torch, I used it on the
friggin shuttle tile and who in the world cares if YOUR torch could cut it in
two?!?  :)  Mine didn't and that is an accurate statement.  By thye way, if I
don't know how to use the spell checker while I'm on-line, that doesn't mean
I am to be referred to as "you people" (my name is Paul) or that I am "in-
accurate" or whatever other derogatory [sic?] label you implied or actually
used.  Also, torches have to be held in one spot in order for their point
temperature to be efficiently utilized/exploited.  The purpose of the demo
with the torch and tile was to show the great radiation and dissipation
capability of the glass/silica fibers and tile structure as a whole, which
BTW, we did very well.  I believe that was the point I didn't catch that the
lady who posted the tile statement was getting at.  Refresh my memory with
contrary context if you can recall...

TRAGEDY? or LIFE IS HARD...?  51-L/STS-25

Many people have posted in reference to the Challenger mistake anniversary.
Some have spoken of what a "tragedy" it was.  Others have commented or berated
those that speak in such tragic language.


                1)  If my father dies in an accident, I will feel a tragic loss.
                2)  If my friend's father dies in an accident, I will feel a
                    sense of tragic loss for my friend and his family.
        3)  If your father dies in an accident, and I knew it, I would
                    have removed sympathy for you (not knowing you and all
                    that).

Analogies are poor, because they never are the real thing but in this case, I
simply point out that it's all relative as to the sense of loss or tragic
feeling that one individual has versus another.  If that sense of loss is blown
out of proportion, then I can understand the criticism thrown at them.  Other-
wise, get over it.  If people want to feel REALLY SAD about it, let them feel
that way.  NOW, ALL BETS ARE OFF IF MY FATHER, MY FRIENDS FATHER, OR YOUR
FATHER IS KILLED IN AN ACCIDENT ON NATIONAL TV AND THEN SHOWN DYING OVER AND
OVER AGAIN FOR THE NEXT FEW MONTHS ON EVERY CHANNEL IN THE WORLD...THEN, I'D
SAY, "IT'S A TRAGEDY"...

P.S  Roberts, sorry for all the typos, I guess I am not as standardized or
totally comprehensive as you, yet.  One must have their goals though.  :)


Paul Sylvester Shanley
[e-mail]
[e-mail]


 n
 #
If your

;l;n
    0

X not

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

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 22:55:56 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: HELP!!!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] writes:
> Hey, does anyone know the rest mass of the universe and its radius? I need to
> check out a theory.
> --Ray Cote

Both are 1 in properly normalized units.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 (the humor impaired may insert smiley faces after the period above)

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

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 23:07:43 GMT
From: "Kenneth C. Jenks [GM2] (713" <[e-mail]>
Subject: HELP!!!
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] wrote:
: Hey, does anyone know the rest mass of the universe and its radius? I need to
: check out a theory.
: --Ray Cote

I can definitively say, No, nobody knows the rest mass of the universe
and its radius.  If you find out, please post it here -- after
collecting your Nobel prize, of course.  They do have Internet access
in Sweden.

I hope this isn't bad news for your theory.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "NASA turns dreams into realities and makes science fiction
      into fact" -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator

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

Date: 3 Feb 93 22:19:29 GMT
From: Duane P Mantick <[e-mail]>
Subject: parachutes on Challenger?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Robert F. Casey) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeff Bytof) writes:
>>Were parachutes available to the crew of the Challenger?
>>
>From what I remember, no.  Problems like no easy way to get out of the
>Shuttle during going up, And even if you did manage to get out, you'd
>be bailing out into near vacuum.  And ejection seats would  mean more weight
>(mass) that you couldn't fly as payload, and also the risk that something
>might screw up and eject you during an otherwise good flight.

    I could be wrong, but my understanding is that nearly anything that
goes wrong during the Solid Rocket Motor phase of launch is still
considered pretty much non-survivable.  Presumably that is because
once you light those babies off, there isn't a good way to stop them
that wouldn't be just as hazardous as riding it out, if not more so.

    Please correct me if this is wrong.....

Duane

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

Date: 3 Feb 93 22:39:56 GMT
From: Dave Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Polar Orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

fred j mccall 575-3539 ([e-mail]) wrote:
> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
> >Why does the US launch polar orbit missions from Vandenburg? other than for
> >military missions? I wonder is they know about Poker Flats here in Alaska
> >which has many of the same benfits as Vandenburg (open spaces) but nicely is
> >near the pole.. Actually more like near or at the Arctic Circle..
>
> They launch from Vandenburg because the facilities exist, the weather
> is nice and warm, and they have lots of open water to the south for
> range safety purposes.  Alaska is a bad choice for regular operations.
> It's too cold for too big a part of the year.
>
Unlike, say, Baikonur - or whatever its real name is now.....

Actually Alaska does have heavy polar maritime weather which is a whole
different kettle of fish from mid-continental weather, even if the
temperature is similar.

--
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Marketing is the business of selling
|| Honk if you like Einstein |||||||||||projects to management.
||------------------------------------------------------------------------
||Dave Jones ([e-mail])|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY  |

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

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 22:55:29 GMT
From: Ed Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: porsche sale
Newsgroups: alt.california,msu.admin,msu.general,alt.antiques,sci.aeronautic,sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.engr.chem,sci.engr.mech,sci.med,sci.physics,sci.space,rec.auto,rec.autos

: Thax for putting up with this post and sorry I could not post it to
: a more ideal newsgroup.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I wonder what would be more ideal than:
alt.california
msu.admin
msu.general
alt.antiques
sci.aeronautic
sci.bio
sci.chem
sci.engr.chem
sci.engr.mech
sci.med
sci.physics
sci.space
rec.auto
rec.autos

:-)

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

Date: 3 Feb 93 12:10:55 GMT
From: Nils Hammar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Colonies
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Paul C. Dolber) writes:

>society -- a good source, I had thought -- is long since moribund.  Can
>anyone out there point him (through me) in some interesting directions?
>The paper can deal with any and all issues relating to colonization of
>space (meant to include moons, planets, etc.), including why, and when,
>and at what cost, and how.  If you can help, please drop me a line
>at [e-mail].  Thanks, Paul Dolber.

I think that you should look at the book "The high frontier" by
Gerhard K O'Neill.

If you mail me at "[e-mail]" i will be able to give you the ISBN
number!

Be aware of my misspellings, I don't have the book by hand, and looked
in it last for more than 6 months ago.

Please send all replies to: [e-mail]
Thank you!

--
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: 3 Feb 1993 14:38:59 GMT
From: Claudio Egalon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Grown Semiconductors
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.materials

I do not know much about semiconductors however I DO know
something about growing single crystals optical fiber in microgravity
and maybe this may also apply to semiconductors. There is a guy that
has proposed a Shuttle  experiment for growing single crystal optical
fibers and he told me that it is advantageous to grow only CERTAIN
crystals in microgravity. The same may apply to semiconductors.

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

Date: 3 Feb 93 22:24:05 GMT
From: Duane P Mantick <[e-mail]>
Subject: The day before Challenger exploded.
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:

>|>If the Challenger hadn't flown that day, would the seal problem
>|>have eventually been found and fixed without loss of life?

>I guess it depends on how cold the day they eventually chose was.  There is no
>reason to think anyone would have discovered the problem before launching, even
>if it were several more days, is there?  I can't remember now whether it was
>thought that all would have been well on a warmer day or not.
>I guess the ideal scenario in some senses would have been that the booster
>took about 1 minute longer to burn through so that SRB sep happened just about
>the same time.  That way, there would be a big hole in the SRB to scare the
>bejeebers out of NASA and perhaps get a lot of the problems fixed, but
>Challenger would have kept going.

    If I recall the book I bought from Gov't Printing Office correctly,
there had been other instances of blow-by and erosion around o-rings
*before* the Challenger accident.  Obviously, none were of the same magnitude.
The book has charts and so forth documenting all of this stuff, and
reading the information and then *thinking* about what it meant sure
as hell gave me the creeps.  The suggestion that somebody knew what
was going on and wasn't doing anything about it or thinking about it
made me feel rather angry.....but other information also suggests that
there WERE people trying to make improvements.

    That such an accident occurred before any such improvements
were actually implemented is sad and very unfortunate, indeed.

Duane

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 128
------------------------------