Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_1/V16NO142.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 29KB

Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 10:15:22
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #142
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 11 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 142

Today's Topics:
          An 'agitator' replies (was: Clinton's Promises...)
                 Cooling re-entry vehicles. (2 msgs)
                   Expensive shuttle toilets (Why?)
     Killer Icecap Melters and Innumeracy (was Re: Solar Mirror)
                        leading-edge anonymity
 Obsvn (was Re: Russian solar sail flight possibly set for Feb. 4th)
                  parachutes on Challenger? (4 msgs)
                           Retaining Goldin
                    Saving an overweight SSTO....
           Silly distortions of the Japanese space program
                 So what's happened to Henry Spencer?
                        suicides" of sdi scien
            Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger (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: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 18:53:49 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: An 'agitator' replies (was: Clinton's Promises...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>They go up three times a year, we go up eight.  They send up two or three
>people, we send up five to eight.  So for every ten people they send up, we
>are sending somewhere between forty and seventy.  I wouldn't say they are
>doing 'far far' more than we are.

Don't forget that it takes a week or two to really adapt to free fall and
get good at working there, even if you don't get spacesick.  At just about
the time when a shuttle crew is becoming really effective, the mission ends.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 17:51:01 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cooling re-entry vehicles.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>If you coat your vehicle's skin with water on-orbit and cause it to
>freeze, you have instant heat shielding...

Might work... but I think you'd need to reinforce the ice with something.
Ice's mechanical strength is poor, and heatshields are exposed to some
rather fast airflow :-).  Designers of ablative heatshields work hard to
make sure that the ablative material stays put and isn't mechanically
removed before it can do its proper job.  The Apollo heatshield went so
far as to have the ablator filling the cells of a composite honeycomb,
to make sure it didn't wander off.

I would worry about flow of liquid water, too.  You don't really want
the stuff leaving until it's had a chance to boil.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 18:15:20 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cooling re-entry vehicles.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Haines) writes:

>I wouldn't suggest it as a skin heatshield, though. Maybe as an layer
>just inside your titanium skin; I would expect it to melt/sublime in
>layers that can then be circulated or dumped. Still, seems a waste to
>carry all that water into orbit and then just throw it away.

Yeah, water in either the solid or liquid form is rather heavy.
In an "ice-sculpture" glider, the weight of the ice would be
more than any metal skin.



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

Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 18:06:58 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Expensive shuttle toilets (Why?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>...wanted to know why the toilets installed in the shuttle were so
>expensive...

(I've deleted sci.astro from the Newsgroups header.)

It was a combination of things:

1. It's a somewhat tricky problem.

2. NASA has a strong institutional bias toward reinventing the wheel rather
    than using working existing designs (like the Skylab toilet).  This
    is hard to avoid when NASA is perceived by Congress as being partly
    a high-tech welfare program for aerospace contractors.

3. NASA is used to paying much more than it should for almost everything,
    and the contractors exploit this enthusiastically.

4. NASA is also used to interfering with its contractors' work rather than
    leaving them to get the job done.  Design meddling and retroactive
    changes of specification make life much harder for contractors,
    who naturally respond by raising the price.  (I'm told that this
    was a particular problem in the work on the new toilet.)

5. NASA often demands the best rather than settling for a 90% solution
    at 10% of the price.  Making everything as lightweight and reliable
    as humanly possible is particularly difficult and costly.

6. Standard government procurement procedures are monstrously bloated and
    inefficient, and produce bloated and inefficient contractors.
    (When Maxime Faget -- once NASA's chief engineer for the Apollo
    spacecraft -- wanted a big high-tech company as a partner for his
    small company's ISF project, he went out of his way to find one
    that didn't do much government business.)
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 5 Feb 93 11:20:06 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Killer Icecap Melters and Innumeracy (was Re: Solar Mirror)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Terence Chua) writes:
> What's the purpose behind this solar mirror that the Russians are
> putting up? Call it hysteria, but I have this vision of it being used
> to melt ice-caps...

Thanks for the invitation, Terence.

It's hysteria.

The mirror is a circle of 10 meters radius.  Therefore it has an area
of about 310 square meters.  This is less than the area of many
billboards, and about equal to the area of my two-bedroom condominum.
Ask yourself whether the sunlight falling on this reflector could be a
threat to any icecap.  It *might* be big enough to thaw out snow
that's fallen on your car, or even a fair-sized truck, after a
blizzard.

Basically the Russian Znmaya experiment is an inexpensive
demonstration of using "large" reflectors on a modest scale.  It
serves to test some solar-sail techniques (though it is not a true
solar sail) and some ideas for illuminating limited areas on the Earth at
night.

With this knowledge the Russians will be able to build Giant Killer
Icecap Melters In Space.  Then, next time Saddam Hussein gets out of
hand, they can threaten to melt his icecaps.  Right.

Bill Higgins                           | Every so often, Innumeracy
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | strikes.  Out of all Americans,
Bitnet:     [e-mail]        | a lot suffer from it.  But
Internet:  [e-mail]       | we can win the fight against
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS       | Innumeracy with your help.
                                       | All it takes is a few pennies a day.

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

Date: 5 Feb 1993 16:38:24 GMT
From: Dances with Drums <[e-mail]>
Subject: leading-edge anonymity
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>[e-mail] (Tesuji) writes:
>>I believe that fast adapters are accepting
>>anonymous postings as the next step in personal
>>freedom in communication.
>
>Perhaps but it also guarantees that a large number of people won't
>bother reading what you have to say.  If you're not willing to take
>responsibility for waht you write, why should it be given any credence?
---

    This is not a flame.

    I also know of people who believe that if you can't take the time
to proof your postings (and get rid of typos), you shouldn't be
be given credence either.  Seriously -- I have seen that sentiment
expressed.  Unless the spelling/types/style interferes with my reading
the article, I don't agree with that.  As for who a posting is
from -- the article poster is generally the *last* thing I read -- unless
I recognize a particular *style*.

    I mean suppose an anon poster says something *valuable*?  Given the
average 'value' of most of the articles here on USENET, I doubt that
anon posters are significantly higher or lower in value.

    Also, there are plenty examples of when anonymity would be desirable --
for example, if I were to list alot of problems with some product Sun
puts out, I might not wish to have my name associated with it since
it could jepardize my job.  This doesn't mean that the information would
have no value, however.  There are alot of other circumstances where
anonymity is valuable as well.


-wat-
--

:: If pro-choice means choice after conception, does this apply to men too? ::

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

Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 15:59:16 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Obsvn (was Re: Russian solar sail flight possibly set for Feb. 4th)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>I saw three things:

>1) A very bright polar orbiter moving southward from high in the sky,
>passing close to Polaris, but west of it, and gradually going into
>shadow (obviously unrelated to the Mir complex but kept me
>entertained).

>2) A flashing spacecraft, I would guess considerably brighter than
>Mir. It might have been slightly yellowish.  I saw a double-peaked
>flash with a period of between one and two seconds, like this:

>BRIGHTdimBRIGHTdimdimdim...

>I found it puzzling since I didn't expect the Progress to be spinning
>and I couldn't easily explain the bimodal flash.  Range between
>brightest and dimmest was perhaps one or two magnitudes.  Both bright
>and dim parts of the cycle became gradually dimmer as it moved
>eastward. It was following the path I expected for Mir, appearing
>suddenly in the northwest about 30 or 35 degrees above the horizon.

I saw something on CNN (I think) about this last night.  The flashing
object was definitely the Progress and the mirror (85' or so across
when unfolded, according to the story).  Part of the test involved
spin stabilization of the aluminum-coated kevlar mirror, and the story
described it as flashing.  They also reported that there were mirrors
of about 10x this size on the drawing boards in Russia, but that in
order to get what the project is supposedly aimed towards, they would
need mirrors perhaps 100x as large and in geosynch orbit.  There was
an interview with an English (well, he sounded English) scientist that
accompanied the piece.

Has anyone thought that this is exactly the sort of technology that a
ground-based ASAT/ABM laser would need (with the exception that there
is apparently no 'rapid-pointing' capacity, since the mirror is
spin-stabalized)?

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: 5 Feb 93 17:25:26 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: parachutes on Challenger?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeff Bytof) writes:
>Were parachutes available to the crew of the Challenger?

No.  If they'd had what the crews now have -- partial-pressure suits,
oxygen, and parachutes -- they would have had a fighting chance of
survival.  The breakup of the orbiter is unlikely to have killed them,
although it may have injured them.   What killed them was the water
impact.

Given pressure suits and oxygen, they would have stayed conscious.
Bailing out of a fragment of an aircraft is not exactly easy or safe,
but there would have been some chance.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 5 Feb 93 17:29:55 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: parachutes on Challenger?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Correct me if I get this wrong netters, but the Shuttle now does
>have an escape mechanism involving parachutes and a pole to get
>clear of the orbiter so as to avoid ditching in a relatively intact
>gliding Shuttle. I seriously doubt this system would have been of
>any use to Challenger's crew since it would take considerable time
>to deploy and use.

The current bailout system is meant for escape from a reasonably
intact orbiter that can't make it to a runway.  The pole wouldn't
be of much use in a Challenger-type accident, but then it wouldn't
really be needed either -- its whole purpose is to get you clear of
the orbiter's wing after bailout (the hatch is relatively high up
and the wing is low and not very far aft), and that isn't an issue
if the wings aren't attached any more.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 17:42:02 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: parachutes on Challenger?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>As I understand it, it is pretty much acknowledged that the new escape
>mechanism doesn't really buy a whole lot in the way of survivability
>for the most likely classes of accident...

Depends on what you consider likely.  There are several classes of failure
that could lead to a more-or-less intact orbiter being unable to reach a
suitable runway; that's what the new escape system is for.  (The orbiter
is too fragile to have much chance of surviving a ditching or off-runway
landing.)

>It is also widely
>acknowledged that NO reasonable escape mechanism would have made
>Challenger survivable (no way to install ejection seats for some of
>the crew, even if willing to take the weight penalty -- and above a
>certain speed, ejection isn't survivable, either).

Actually, Martin-Baker thought they could build an ejection system for
the shuttle... and they are the world's most respected manufacturer of
ejection seats.  The upper-deck crew would go first, followed by the
mid-deck crew, whose seats would follow rails up through the upper deck.
I don't think anyone has done a system quite like that before, but
"sequenced" ejection systems, in which seats fire in a preprogrammed
sequence to avoid collisions etc., are fairly common.

The weight penalty would be substantial, and ejection seats are not
entirely safe to have around.  They're also rather bulky.

It is also problematic to get the crew clear of the SRB exhausts.
A Challenger-type accident would be pretty iffy even with an ejection
system, although the speed was not impossibly high.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 5 Feb 93 17:32:19 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: parachutes on Challenger?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Duane P Mantick) writes:
>    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...

Correct.  There's no way to shut them down that isn't violent enough to
cause structural failures, and there's no practical way to get orbiter
or crew clear of their exhausts.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 5 Feb 93 17:34:48 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Retaining Goldin
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (forrest.e.gehrke) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>
>>Goldin is, by the way, a Democrat.
>>--
>
> From the way you threw that comment in, Henry, one would assume
> that you think that would endear Goldin to Clinton.  Just like
> Senator Nunn is a Democrat, huh?  (;-)
>
> Forrest Gehrke [e-mail]
>

I think that the point is, that it is better than being a dyed in the wool
republican, who actively campainged against Clinton.

(And by better, I mean that it increases his chances of survival somewhat.)

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

Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 18:08:27 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saving an overweight SSTO....
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>And then you've added the additional cost of a huge civil engineering
>project, plus maintenance costs on same.  Bad idea.  Think about how
>much this proposed rocket sled would cost, vice the cost of simply
>stuffing things into a cargo airplane and flying them to the parking
>lot where SSTO happens to be sitting today.

That may not be significant.  A spaceport is going to be a
huge civil engineering project no matter what.  Look at the
capital budget for your local airport sometime.

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

Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 18:11:54 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Silly distortions of the Japanese space program
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:

>I think you may have a few things twisted around here.  There is indeed a rather
>"interesting" man named Shimizu but I don't think he actually has a position of
>authority in the Shimizu construction company.  I'm fairly sure that the
>company does have a branch (admittedly quite small, but it does exist) which is
>charged with research on space design.  They are specifically interested in
>lunar engineering.  The company does not deserve your low opinions of it.

Now, now.  You didn't really expect Nick Szabo to endorse
any concept that didn't originate with Gerard O'Neill or
Nick Szabo, did you? :-)

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

Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 18:13:05 GMT
From: "Craig B. Huffnagle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: So what's happened to Henry Spencer?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>I wrote:
>>Second, I visited Edwards and Dryden, and finally met Mary Shafer.
>>It was a great visit, even though I wasn't entirely well by that point,
>>and Mary's every bit as nice in person as on the net.
>
>I should say, though, that Mary did one unkind thing:  she warned the
>Dryden tour guide (Mary seems to know everyone at Dryden) not to let me
>try to sneak off with one of the SR-71s.  Rats.  I was looking forward
>to making a run for the border at Mach 3...
>--
>C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

Only Mach 3?  You can do better than that!

- Craig

--
Craig Huffnagle             [e-mail]        pilot gonnabee
"My mom always said that rain was God crying,
    She also said it was because of something I did."      Jack Handey
------------------- Think of a disclaimer, it applies. -------------------

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

Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 15:00:20 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: suicides" of sdi scien
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <1993Feb3.4287.600@dosgate> "richard attenborough" <[e-mail]> writes:


>JR>-About five years ago, there were quite a few suicides by scientists in
>JR>-Europe who were asociated with the US led "strategic defense initiative."
>JR>
>JR>Since this corresponds extremely closely to the classic 1951 short story
>JR>"Breeds there a Man...?", written by Isaac Asimov, and available in the
>JR>collections "Nightfall and Other Stories" and "Nightfall One", I'd say
>JR>there's a significant chance that you read either this story or a reference
>JR>to this story, and now you remember it as an historical event.

>Sorry to dissapoint you, John, but I ALSO remember the news stories the other
>gentleman was talking about. Some very "Strange" suicides DID take place among
>some of the employess of, I believe, Marconi. They were working on SDI related
>projects. The one that I recall in particular was the fellow who tied one end of
>a rope around a tree, the other end around his kneck then got into his sports
>car and floored it! Not your average suicide.(whatever average means in this
>context.)

I also remember these stories.  Marconi is the right company, but SDI
is the wrong project.  I've heard a number of things, ranging across
various weapons technologies, crytologic intercept and analysis, etc.
This is the first time I've heard the claim that it was SDI related
work they were involved in.

[Why is that such an unusual way to suicide?  If you want to hang
yourself and be *sure* the drop would break your neck, this sounds
like a pretty good way to do it.  More 'inventive' than
'unbelievable', but these are supposed to be quite inventive people.]

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 17:47:05 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Dumoulin) writes:
>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?
>>
>  For the past few days, I've read responses to this post and have hoped
>the flurry of responses would die down.  Each post stirs up emotions most
>of us would rather forget and I've been reluctant to add my experiences
>to the heap.   My feelings were, "It's over and we've finally put it
>behind us.  Let's get on with it."
>
>  Well, last night I was walking past my bookshelf and next to the 20 or
>so books I have about the accident in my SPACE collection, I remembered a
>book I have called "To Engineer is Human".   I bought it because it had a
>picture of Challenger on the cover. It was mostly about other notable
>failures in our transportation system, primarly the failure of bridges.
>The reoccurring theme of the book was that engineering design is a cyclic
>process of inovation and optimization followed by catastrophic failure.
>The author stated that we learn more from any one failure than we do from
>an entire string of successes.  I suppose Challenger is the "Talcoma Narrows"
>of our generation and something that none of us will ever be allowed to
>forget.
>
>Where was I when it happened?
>
>   I worked for NASA in the Spacelab and Experiment Integration Divison.
>Every test stand in the Operations and Checkout (O&C) building was
>filled with payloads awaiting their turn for launch.  Normally, I worked
>the C-1 console (Payload Operations) in Firing Room 1 for horizontal
>payloads. However, the primary payload on 51-L (TDRSS) was a vertical
>payload and the secondary payload (Spartan-Halley) didn't have any
>telemetry that could possibly cause a Launch Commit Criteria Violation,
>so our team wasn't working the launch.  We flipped thru a number of pad
>camers and then went down to wave to the crew as they left for the launch
>pad.  I continued working and at the 20 min hold, I hopped in my car and
>drove to as close to the pad as allowed.  I was at the park site for the
>Mobile Launch Platform (MLP) in front of the Launch Control Center (LCC)
>about 3 miles away from pad 39-B at the time of launch.
>
>I listened to the count on my 2-meter while a friend nearby had a hand held
>scanner flipping thru the KSC RF nets.  It was a cold  day and we listened
>to the ice inspection teams clear the pad and watched them drive to the fall
>back point.  A the time of the launch it was a crisp clear and starting to
>get a little warmer.  We watched the explosion in shock and disblief
>and scanned the falling debris with binoculars hoping to see the shuttle
>intact.  I remember hearing the KSC security officer stationed on the roof
>of the LCC ( with the astronaut families).  He'd seen enough launches to know
>it was bad but didn't know what to say to them.  I turned behind me and
>looked up to the roof as well.
>
>  We knew it wasn't possible but we kept hoping.  I focused the binoculars
>on an SRB parachute that was fluttering down and listened to a chatter of
>rescue crews being told it was too dangerous to enter the area.  Debris
>seemed to fall forever.
>
>  We hopped into my car and quickly drove back to the O&C building.  There
>were no other cars on the road and we wanted to get back before the
>road's opened up. KSC policy keeps the road clear of tourists after a launch
>incase emergency personnel need to travel somewhere in a hurry.   In the
>O&C, most of us crammed into our payload test area and tried to get more
>information.  We had plenty of camera views of an empty launch pad but the
>NASA select channel was silent.  Nobody was trying to cover up anything but
>the PAO crews were in as much shock as we were and were having difficulty
>concentrating on getting information out to the public.  We didn't even have
>a TV set to find out what the networks were saying.
>
> Emergency procedures went into effect at KSC. Off site phone lines were
>automatically cut to all but select stations.  This keeps the limited
>number of phone circuits into the center free for emergency use.  The firing
>room, payload control rooms and the data center was sealed off.  Computer
>memories were dumped and stored.  All data and video tapes were duplicated
>and all paper and notes (including anything in the trash cans) were bagged
>and sealed.  Preserving information that could help understand the problem
>was the number one priority.
>
>
>The entire experience and the years of recovery leading up to STS-26R
>deeply affected everyone here and thru failure has made space transportation
>a little safer.
>--
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Jim Dumoulin                      INTERNET: [e-mail]
>   NASA / Payload Operations      SPAN/HEPnet: KSCP00::DUMOULIN
>   Kennedy Space Center
>   Florida, USA  32899
>
>

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

Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 17:50:10 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marc G Fournier) writes:

>>My apologies if my posting was inapropriate. I forgot about the aerospace
>>personel who might have known the Challenger crew.
>>
>    Why sorry?  For making sure we remember those who risked, and still
>risk their lives for the continued enlightenment of man-kind about their
>surroundings?
>
>    i think more of us need a reminder of things that  matter, or should
>matter.
>
Well, later on I felt bad about dredging up bad memories, but at the same
time I thought perhaps a small tribute was in order.

Simon

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 142
------------------------------