Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_1/V16NO150.TXT

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 10:38:13
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #150
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 12 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 150

Today's Topics:
          An 'agitator' replies (was: Clinton's Promises...)
                        Annonymous Postings!?
                        Clinton Email Address
                 Cooling re-entry vehicles. (3 msgs)
                         Fred is dead again.
                              hilarious
                 Ideal fuel for 'anti-matter' engine
                             KSC Weather
                          Money->Shuttle/SSF
       New Russian Solar Sail results - data to help you see it
                             Polar Orbit
       Tethers for electricity generation (was Re: Beanstalk?)
                 The day before Challenger exploded.
            Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger (2 msgs)
                    Znamya/Mir over Nome Alaska..

    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: 6 Feb 1993 23:03:35 -0500
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:

>>Agreed.  However, next time they go up they're way ahead of the game and
>>can adapt much more quickly.

>Uh, no, it doesn't work that way.  Once you come back to Earth, you
>have to start all over again.

I'd be surprised if that was the case.  Physiological reactions to
weightlessness will occur at the same rate, I am sure, but learned
reactions and skills such as how to physically move about and how to
perform basic functions should be picked up much faster than the first
time around.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 03:41:39 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Annonymous Postings!?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:

>I can think of one good reason for Annonynous postings, and that is whistle
>blowing.. If anything to get someone to look into the "problem" and such..

A fairly common reason for anonymous postings is privacy.  Given the number of
things one can learn about someone through the net (and other means) this can
be a legitimate concern.  I tend to be pretty skeptical of much of the stuff
posted by unfamiliar people unless it sounds reasonable.  In that sense it
doesn't matter too much whether you're anonymous or just someone I don't know.
I would strongly recommend however that people use a nickname or pseduonym if
they wish to post anonymously so that they have a chance to build up some
respect.
--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]

Q:  Why did the chicken cross the mobius strip?
A:  To get to the other... er, uh...

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

Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 02:45:54 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clinton Email Address
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

I would urge people seeking to promote space *NOT* to use this
address. Email is so easy that it will soon loose any influence
it may have. Writing and phoning will be far more effective.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------129 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Sat,  6 Feb 93 15:34:36 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cooling re-entry vehicles.
Newsgroups: sci.space

>The British navy also (I believe the original idea was that of a
>British engineer). Works really well, too. The main advantage from a
>navy's point of view is not strength (although ice+sawdust _is_ a
>surprisingly strong and not particularly brittle material) but another
>property of ice. You can blow many truck-sized holes in an ice
>aircraft-carrier, and it won't sink. (n.b. the project was for
>carriers and other large (or extremely large) vessels; don't think it
>was ever mooted for battleships).

  Armed Forces Network TV runs a little spot about "American Military
  Heritage", and they have a spot about Picrete (sp?) which was a
  mixture of ice and sawdust for use in the construction of aircraft
  carriers. Supposedly would have made carriers impervious to torpedo

  attack. The Navy didn't buy it, though. :-)

  The title of the spot suggests that the concept was an American
  innovation.

  -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
[e-mail]                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 7 Feb 93 01:46:54 GMT
From: Tracy Ratcliff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cooling re-entry vehicles.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>>The British navy also (I believe the original idea was that of a
>>British engineer)[...]
>
>  Armed Forces Network TV runs a little spot about "American Military
>  Heritage", and they have a spot about Picrete (sp?) [...]
>  The title of the spot suggests that the concept was an American
>  innovation.
>[e-mail]

Am I the only person who remembers "Pyke Speaks"?  There used to be an NBC news
show anchored by Lloyd Dobbins and Linda Ellerby that alternated once a month
with _Saturday Night Live_ called (I believe) _Weekend_.  A regular feature
was "Pyke Speaks", where they let an eccentric British physicist (or is that
redundant?) rattle on stream-of-consciousness.  I first heard of 'pykecrete'
here.  It was a creation of Prof. Pyke's brother (I think... it's been 15
years).  Not uniquely for the time, the British defense bureaucracy didn't
want to have anything to do with it, so it went to the Americans.

footnote:  if it's not clear, I'm talking US television.

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

Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 05:12:04 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cooling re-entry vehicles.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>
>  Armed Forces Network TV runs a little spot about "American Military
>  Heritage", and they have a spot about Picrete (sp?) which was a
>  mixture of ice and sawdust for use in the construction of aircraft
>  carriers. Supposedly would have made carriers impervious to torpedo
>  attack. The Navy didn't buy it, though. :-)
>
>  The title of the spot suggests that the concept was an American
>  innovation.

From J.E. Gordon, "The New Science of Strong Materials," 2ed. Penguin,
pp. 175-176:

  For a time in the Battle of the Atlantic, the worst shipping losses were
  taking place in the central regions of the Atlantic where it was not then
  possible to provide air cover.  It occurred to that very eccentric genius,
  the late Geoffrey Pyke, that one solution would be to tow an iceberg into
  the middle of the Atlantic and use it as an aircraft carrier...

  [description of mechanical properties of natural ice and resulting problems]

  Pyke countered these objections by adding a little wood-pulp to his ice.
  He was able to show that about two per cent of ordinary paper pulp added
  to water before freezing very greatly improved the properties of the ice
  and also rendered it more consistent.

  [description of strength and toughness curves]

  The idea was to add the pulp and allow the water to freeze naturally in
  a sea-loch in Newfoundland.  The scheme was abandoned when the increasing
  range of aircraft and the general trend of the Battle of the Atlantic made
  it unnecessary...

This isn't exactly "primary source material" but it is rather specific..
It certainly explains why the ice/pulp composite was called "Pykrete" on the
documentary that you mentioned.

---
Dave Michelson                             University of British Columbia
[e-mail]                                  Antenna Laboratory

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

Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 01:27:01 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Fred is dead again.
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John S. Neff) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>From: [e-mail] (Henry Spencer)
>>Subject: Re: Fred is dead again.
>>Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1993 04:17:29 GMT
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>>... Director of OMB Panetta is proposing (and Clinton seems
>>>to be accepting) a $12 billion NASA budget. The money is to come from
>>>ending Freedom and ASRM.
>>
>>Latest news:  Clinton has denied any plan to terminate Fred, although
>>he has not ruled out cutting it back.
>>--
>>C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>>effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry
>
> According to a New York Times article Saturday the proposals to cut SSF and
> the super collider were trial balloons. The Clinton proposals recieved a
> hostile reaction from the supporters of these projects in congress. The NYT
> called both of these projects scientific pork barrel. If the
> congressional opponents of these projects make an attempt to
> eliminate them, the Clinton administration probably would not fight to keep
> them.


Send email to Clinton friend: see follwoing email address..

Clinton's email address
[e-mail] (Peter Webb), Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorenson,Inc.
Date: 1 Feb 93 06:40:46 -0800

[ fwd's removed ]

Communications Daily, January 19, 1993
CLINTON WHITE HOUSE TO MAKE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY
BODY:
Carrying through successful campaign operation, Clinton Administration this
week will become first White House to set up office dedicated to making
official Presidential documents available electronically for widespread
distribution. There has been limited distribution of White House press
information in past through now-defunct Dialcom, but nothing on scale that
Clinton staff is contemplating.

  Clinton transition effort has named Jonathan Gill as director of Electronic
Publishing and Public Access E-Mail. Gill, software developer from Medford,
Mass., signed onto Clinton campaign as electronic mail coordinator. He
originally worked from home, later moved to Little Rock as demands on system
became more intense. At one point, Clinton E-mail operation was answering
5,000 queries daily, most sent out automatically. Gill will work in White
House Office of Communications with Jeff Eller, who was named deputy asst.
to President and dir.-Media Affairs. Eller is credited with moving electronic
computer communications for first time into mainstream of political
campaigns.

Clinton's address is:  [e-mail]

Ramona Curry


--
Peter Webb                                      [e-mail]
Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc.              Voice: 401-727-4200
1080 Main St, Pawtucket RI 02860                FAX: [phone]



Let Clinton know that there is more important things than cutting SSF budget..

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

Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 01:20:24 GMT
From: Patrick L Humphrey <[e-mail]>
Subject: hilarious
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy

On Sat, 6 Feb 1993 22:11:00 GMT, [e-mail] (RASKU, JASON T.) said:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tesuji) writes...
>>X-Anon-To:sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy
>>
>>The response the Challenger transcript has gotten
>>has been hilarious.
>>
>>If you guys can't joke about bone cancer,
>>childhood leukemia, and facing certain
>>horrifying death, then you guys don't have
>>the perspective to call yourself adults.
>>
>>Get a life.  Get *seven*.  Ha ha.

>Is there anything that can be done to prevent anon postings in groups that
>there is no reason to post anonomously?  I CAN see some people who don't
>have access to a group posting anonomously but I'm sure that consideration
>can be made for them.  Is there ANY way that a UNIVERSAL kill file can be
>created in order to keep people from posting GARBAGE anonomusly?  There is
>NO reason to not post publicly if you are posting something you feel is of
>worth unless you CAN'T post any other way.  What does the rest of the net
>think of this?

This corner of Usenet thinks you're another clueless newbie who could use
learning a few tenets of common sense.  I don't think any more highly of
Tesuji's appalling humor than you do -- but I don't spend my time trying to
make sure he can't post it.  If you don't like it, there's one simple option
-- your "n" key.  Once you've figured that out, then you can try a killfile,
which will prevent *you* from reading his junk -- there is no such thing as a
killfile that will prevent anyone from posting, and that's a good thing, I
think.  Otherwise, it could be used to silence opinions that might not mesh
with those of the powers that be -- which means it could be used to shut YOU
up.  Finally, be a little more accurate, and say there's no reason YOU can
think of to post anonymously -- just because you can't think of a reason why
in no way implies that none exist...

--PLH, we now return you to our regularly scheduled food fight...

--

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

Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 00:43:48 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ideal fuel for 'anti-matter' engine
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>The subject pretty much says it all.  If you had close to unlimited
>energy for input to the fuel (say from anti-matter reactions) as you
>exhausted it, what would be the best fuel to carry from a performance
>standpoint?

What does "performance" mean?  You're going to have to be more specific.
In particular, you'll get different answers depending on whether you
optimize for thrust or for exhaust velocity.  With plenty of energy,
you can get reasonable exhaust velocities without having to optimize
hard for them, and other considerations can take priority.

For example, a really exhaust-velocity-optimized antimatter engine uses
just enough hydrogen to react completely with the antihydrogen, and has
an exhaust consisting mostly of proton-antiproton annihilation products
(charged pions if the engine is compact, muons if it's big).  Exhaust
velocity here is a large fraction of the speed of light, although you
have to discount it some to allow for losses to gamma rays etc.  But
the mass flow is probably going to be limited by gamma-ray heating of
nearby systems, so thrust will probably be low.  This is an interstellar
engine, giving high final velocities with modest mass ratios but long
acceleration times.

(Actually, there has been some speculation that you might get more
charged particles and fewer neutral pions and gamma rays if you combined
antiprotons with heavy nuclei, but I don't know if anyone has investigated
this yet.)

By contrast, antimatter rockets for local work (within the solar system)
will probably accept lower exhaust velocity to obtain higher thrusts and
more rapid acceleration to more modest final velocities.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sat,  6 Feb 93 15:36:10 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: KSC Weather
Newsgroups: sci.space

>The problem with Florida weather is not that it's worse than anywhere
>else -- although you can make a case for this, it's not an accident that
>KSC gets used by people doing lightning research -- but that it is very
>hard to predict very far in advance.  The advantage of landing the shuttle
>at Edwards is not that Edwards's weather is better (although it is) but
>that an Edwards weather prediction is fairly reliable.  KSC not only gets
>lots of thunderstorms, it gets lot of *surprise* thunderstorms, including
>some that go from "chance of a thunderstorm today" to "major thunderstorm"
>in the time from de-orbit burn to landing.

   The lightning is true enough. You can count on alot of it between
   3:00 and 5:00pm every day from April to October. Lesson: Don't
   bother scheduling a launch or landing for late afternoon. The weather
   at KSC (and the Florida peninsula in general) is very good most of the
   rest of the time. Anyone who has lived in Florida for any period
   of time will readily agree. You get bad weather in the non-afternoon
   hours only from a storm front, which can be seen coming easily
   (the local TV weathercasters seem to have no trouble telling us that
   "Wednesday's going to be a real wet day.") and is no different
   than Vandenberg or Kourou.

   I can think of only one or two Shuttle missions which were scrubbed
   because of thunderstorms (STS-51I in August, 1985, for one, I think.)
   The other weather delays were because of crosswinds on the SLF or
   high altitude winds, etc. On the other hand, NASA tried to launch
   an Atlas-Centaur into a storm front in 1987. It became a flying
   lightning rod. Zap, kaboom. No more Atlas-Centaur. Lesson: Don't
   launch expensive boosters into storm fronts.

>Ever wondered why they always roll the shuttle out to the pad in the wee
>small hours of the morning?  It's because the chances of a surprise
>thunderstorm are lowest then.  For the Saturn V this didn't matter,
>because it had an umbilical tower on the mobile pad to carry a lightning
>rod, but that tower got removed for the shuttle program.  The orbiter
>has no lightning protection between the VAB and the pad, so they worry
>about the weather during a rollout.  (By contrast, the first Saturn V
>rolled out to the pad in weather so bad that they had to stop for 20
>minutes or so because the visibility was too poor for safe driving.)

   Not exactly, Henry. They roll-out in the wee hours so as to not be
   on the road in the afforementioned 3 to 5pm hours, when the thunder
   storms are as reliable as clocks for telling time. Pre-dawn is
   usually calmer, but remember what happened to STS-8? Those pictures
   of lightning dancing around Challenger are still used in weather
   books.

   I'm still chuckling that they had to stop a <1mph crawler because
   of visibility. Good grief! At that speed, a guy can walk along
   ahead with an umbrella!

   -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
[e-mail]                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 01:17:45 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Money->Shuttle/SSF
Newsgroups: sci.space

Seems liek we are stuck with the Shuttle wether we like it or not.. Also seems
like we are stuck with SSF. So lets all do what we can to support them.. Even
if we don't like it.. It seems liek the best we have for the moment and we have
spent all that money and we as might as wel get something from it..


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

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

Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 03:29:40 GMT
From: Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Russian Solar Sail results - data to help you see it
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Claudio Egalon,
[e-mail] writes:

>From what I could read, the solar sail now is flying separetely from
>the Progress. My question is was it supposed to be this way or the
>separation occured because of a problem with the solar sail and
>Progress ship?

I heard an interview today with one of the Russians on this project. I
infer from what he said that they "had to jetison it". There may have
been a control problem with Progress (my speculation).

Leigh

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

Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 05:24:40 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Polar Orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris Jones) writes:
>
>Well, one of us (you, me, or the "director of aerospace studies at the
>University of Toronto") is mistaken.  I don't have a detailed reference, but
>everything I can recall says that there's no advantage to being near the poles
>to launch into a polar orbit....
>
>It's just a guess, but I think it would be more advantageous to look for a high
>mountain from which to launch rather than a northerly latitude.  That way you'd
>have less of that thick air to punch through.

Once again, thanks for the reply.  Here's the exact quotation from
"A Space Race" by John Greenwood from the Financial Post Magazine, Dec. 1992.
(pp.30--36):

  Most small satellites [of the type used in systems like Iridium and such]
  will orbit around the poles of the earth.  "Theoretically, you can send a
  satellite into polar orbit from anywhere on the globe," says Rod Tennyson,
  director of the University of Toronto's Institute for Aerospace Studies.
  "But it's most economical to do it from a pad close to the pole.  And the
  people who can do things for the lowest cost are going to come out on top
  in this business."

One of the major players in the proposal to re-open the Churchill rocket
range for commercial business is the originator of the proposal, Bob Richards.
Prior to joining `Canadian Space Technologies' in 1990,

  Richards was one of the founders of the Cambridge-based International
  Space University, a prestigious training ground for some of the world's
  top space entrepreneurs and academics.

===

Once again, I admit that *my* calculations don't show much of an advantage
to launching into polar orbit from a polar latitude either.  But if these guys
think there is, I have to concede the possibility that I'm missing something.

The best route, I suppose, would be to contact Professor Tennyson directly.
It's entirely possible that he was "misquoted out of context".

Henry, since you obviously have a UofT directory handy, could you let me
have his address so that I can send him a brief note?  Thanks, in advance.

---
Dave Michelson                             University of British Columbia
[e-mail]                                  Antenna Laboratory

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

Date: 7 Feb 1993 05:32:16 GMT
From: David Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tethers for electricity generation (was Re: Beanstalk?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
 >as well. Shuttle had an experiment to try it out. Remember the stuck
 >reel? The main problem is the return circuit. It takes two wires to
 >make a light as we say in the electrical contracting business. A tether
 >moving through a magnetic field has a current induced into it, but a
 >return wire would have an equal and opposing current induced into it,
 >so no net current would flow. To get around that, you use brush discharge
 >contactors to use the global circuit as your return path. One of the
 >things our stuck reel satellite was supposed to test was how well that
 >would work.
 >
 What about a coaxial cable?  I should think a current would be generated in
the sheath but the center conductor would be shielded?  Or am I forgetting
my physics here?
--
David L. Smith
[e-mail] or [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat,  6 Feb 93 15:35:27 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: The day before Challenger exploded.
Newsgroups: sci.space

>But December 1985 was Jake Garn's flight.  It was do to land on a Thursday,
>I think.  (I may have the day of the week wrong, but that doesn't affect
>what follows.)  The following is what really began scaring me...

   Close, but no cigar.

   STS-61C Columbia carried Bill Nelson, then-Congressman from the
   Florida district encompassing Cape Canaveral. Senator Garn flew
   in April, 1985. STS-61C was scheduled for launch before Christmas
   in 1985, but was repeatedly delayed until January 12, 1986.

   The multiple setbacks (two launch scrubs within one minute of
   liftoff) for STS-61C and the nuisance bugs which afflicted
   Challenger on January 27, *should* have been enough warning to
   the NASA brass that something was seriously wrong.

   There has been word here that some of the pre-Challenger pressures
   are re-emerging. Maybe so, but there has been *nothing* like
   what was going on at the Cape in December '85 - January '86.
   The closest they've come was the STS-52 mission which was launched
   into weather conditions which may, or may not, have been out of
   RTLS requirements. That's not exactly pressing on with the schedule
   ten days after finishing a seriously problem-plagued flight.

   -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
[e-mail]                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 04:34:44 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Jarvis) writes:
>
>PJ - What has to happen for it to *be* a national tragedy? Being part of
>PJ - the job doesn't make it less tragic. What word would you use?

IMHO, a *good* example of a "national tragedy" are all those people
who were left homeless by hurricane Andrew because state building
codes had been circumvented by greedy developers.  Or all those people
who lost money when the Savings and Loans had their problems.  The "system"
failed "the people" on a very large scale in both cases due to nothing
more than the greed of a relatively small group of people in positions
of trust.

But that's just *my* opinion.

---
Dave Michelson                             University of British Columbia
[e-mail]                                  Antenna Laboratory

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

Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 04:04:51 GMT
From: Barbara Trumpinski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

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

mary says:  [   ]
>>it's regrettable, but it happens.  I still accept any ride I can...

>Well, Mary exaggerates slightly... I don't think Rosamond Boulevard
>is named after dead aircrew (it's named after the town at its west
>end)... but only slightly, because the rest are.  The NASA History
>book on Dryden (NASA SP-4303, "On The Frontier") is punctuated by
>quiet little notes like "he was killed a year later when the XYZ-5
>crashed", and it's not even discussing a lot of the USAF activity.
>We know that Mel Apt was the first man to reach Mach 3 only because
>we can read the machmeter on the cockpit camera film that was dug
>out of the wreckage of the X-2...

>This is why Jerry Pournelle is so fond of saying that the DC-Y should
>be flown by test pilots, not astronauts.  If a test pilot dies, you
>sigh, hold a memorial service, name a street after him at Edwards,
>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

i normally thicopyinga previous speakers words verbatim are a waste of
bandwidth, but you said a mouthful, henry....i don't think the
challenger astronauts wanted to die...but they sure as hell wanted to
LIVE... that's why they took the chance they did.  death is a part of
the cycle...and if you are afraid to die you are afraid to
live...and if weare to go to spacee and be successful there, some
people might have to die.  it is sad.  but it is better than the
alternative.

barb

--
***************************************************************************
conan the librarian a.k.a. kitten           /\ /\  barbara ann
"my life's a soap opera, isn't yours?"      {=.=}
                                              ~   [e-mail]
"scrambled eggs....gee, i really love your legs..."  lennon/mccartney

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

Date: 7 Feb 93 01:01:43 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Znamya/Mir over Nome Alaska..
Newsgroups: sci.space

Can anyone email me when Mir and the Solar Sail next pass over Nome, Alaska..
About 90 miles east of the Date Line and 90 miles south of the Arctic Circle..
Times and such..

Quyanna for your time..


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

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 150
------------------------------