Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_1/V16NO169.TXT

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 93 20:51:45
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #169
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 12 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 169

Today's Topics:
             Getting people into Space Program! (3 msgs)
Hey, BooBoo, let's steal some moonrocks(was Re: hardware on the moon)
                          hilarious (2 msgs)
     Killer Icecap Melters and Innumeracy (was Re: Solar Mirror)
                   leading-edge anonymity (2 msgs)
                             non-US SSTO
     Other shuttles (was Re: Getting people into Space Program!)
                           PEGASUS QUESTION
            Pt 1/2: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY For Spacecraft
                 Refueling Freedom/Japanese Business
                     Rent Mir/Commercial SS Fred
         Russian Solar Sail Results and Obervations pointers
                         SETI TARGETED SEARCH
                           Soyuz I re-entry
                              SSTO news

    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, 10 Feb 1993 16:22:26 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

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

>>Disney is a corporation and can do whatever they like; the space program
>>runs off of my tax dollars, and I'd much prefer to see useful astronauts
>>and payload sent up as opposed to Erma Hornswaggle from Dubuque, Iowa going
>>up and losing continence.

>So?  How many "useful" astronauts has NASA launched today?  How
>much useful payload has flown out of Kennedy Space Center, as
>compared to JFK or DFW or Atlanta Hartsfield?  And why do you
>believe that something is not useful unless it's useful to the
>United State government (i.e., the only entity on Earth than
>can afford something as wasteful as the Space Shuttle)?

None, to the same destinations.  And that *does* make some difference,
or is it your assertion that moving freight from North Dallas to Plano
(a distance of a few feet, if your arrival and departure points are
carefully selected) is the same as moving it from North Korea to
Portugal?

>>>As soon as there's another Shuttle
>>>crash (and there will be, denying that is just whistling in the dark),
>>>Congress is going shut down your little space program for good.

>>Baloney.  Number one, Congress isn't *quite* that stupid, and number two,
>>NASA has quite a constituency.  Do you have any evidence for you claim,
>>other than your wishful thining?

>Ah, yeah.  I was paying attention the last time a Space Shuttle
>crashed.

Apparently not enough, if you consider that an answer.

>>>Go out to your local airport and count the number of jets
>>>taking off in one five-minute interval.  Compare that number
>>>to NASA's five-flights-per-year, which you call a great
>>>accomplishment.

>>Get with the nineties, Ed...they're running eight to nine flights a year
>>now, three times as many as anyone else with ten times the people.  Not
>>as good as it should be, but by far the best in the world.

>Three times as many?  Phui!  Call up American Airlines and get
>their flight schedule.

I did.  They had *ZERO* flights to my destination and had never had
any flights going there, moving either cargo or people.

Phui, indeed.



--
"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: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 18:03:09 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>So?  How many "useful" astronauts has NASA launched today?  How
>much useful payload has flown out of Kennedy Space Center, as
>compared to JFK or DFW or Atlanta Hartsfield?

Since exactly *zero* payloads or astronauts have been launched
from JFK, DFW, or Hartsfield, Cape Canaveral has launched
*infinitely* more useful payload to space than they have.
Funny thing about *air*liners, they only work in *air*.

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: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 18:18:03 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>
>>What is this fascination you have with airliners?
>
>An airliner has about the same number of parts as a typical launcher. The
>tollerances to which those parts are built are about the same. It takes
>about the same amount of fuel to get to LEO as an airliner takes to get
>to Australia.

An airliner takes 22 hours to get to Australia while it's wings do the
work of fighting gravity and it's engines only push it along. It's subsonic
and operates at no more than 40,000 feet altitude. A spacecraft burns the
same amount of fuel in 4 or 5 minutes fighting gravity and air resistance
to get to 8 km/sec and 200 km altitude. The stresses on engines and
airframe are considerably different.

>Getting to space should cost no more than a small multiple of the cost
>of getting to Australia.

And pigs would fly if they only had wings.

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: 10 Feb 93 09:46:37 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey, BooBoo, let's steal some moonrocks(was Re: hardware on the moon)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:
>>And the Apollo 11
>>site has been designated a National Monument, belonging to the
>>National Park Service.
>
> :-)
>
> Yeah.  And the nearest Ranger station's only 250,000 miles
> away.

Don't worry.  The chances of a forest fire starting on the Sea of
Tranquility are extremely remote.

--
     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: 10 Feb 93 18:21:55 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: hilarious
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy

In <[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.

Still an idiot, I see.  You would seem to be the one that needs a
life.  Poor little thing.

--
"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: 10 Feb 93 18:26:18 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: hilarious
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

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

>>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...

Well one need hardly be a newbie to react this way.  I've got a guy
who's been around a while (even gave a talk on security at the last
USENIX, I think) who has threatened me with everything from
intervention by the Internet Police to going to my company for legal
action; from writing to my Postmaster (which he has done) to writing
to my boss's boss's boss.

Of course, some amount of cluelessness *does* seem to be required,
even if the individual doesn't happen to be a newbie.

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



--
"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: 10 Feb 93 16:05:22 GMT
From: Titch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Killer Icecap Melters and Innumeracy (was Re: Solar Mirror)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:
> Okay how's this for hysterics?
>
> When I take my little telescope out in the yard I can't get the cretin
> nextdoor to turn off her damn spotlight, how much luck am I going to have
> asking whatever passes for a government in the CIS to stop shining their
> mirror in my eyes?

Absolutely. As if astronomers haven't got enough problems with light pollution
(in Europe, anyway). The mere fact that someone (the Russians) have experimented
with this idea - and shown that it works - may prompt 'further investigations'
by some lunatic sub-committee somewhere (probably belonging to the EEC) who may
just decide it's a viable proposition to replace all that troublesome street
lighting.

> T.Freebairn

Rich.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Rich Browning ([e-mail])   *  ASTRO SCOOP! ASTRONUT TO LAND ON SUN!
Department of Computer Science    * "I've got it all worked out," says Jim
University of Brighton            * Biggles, "I'm landing at night!".
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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

Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 16:28:27 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: leading-edge anonymity
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jason Cooper) writes:

>I really had to reply to some of the JUNK being posted here about
>anonymity.  To say that anonymous stuff is automatically junk _IS_
>prejudice, plain and simple.  The reason people post anonymously is so
>that they don't have to put up with some of the CRAP I've seen around
>here.  If you think this guy's just out to stir things up, why are you
>giving him what he wants?  _HE_ never stirred things up.  If you took a
>look around you, you'd see that, in fact, YOU have been the ones stirring
>things up!

Right.  And applying similar logic, it isn't the terrorist who planted
the bomb that created all that havoc.  It was all those people running
around and screaming after it went off.  There *are* some valid uses
for anonymity.  What this idiot was and is doing isn't one of them.
That makes him automatically junk.

--
"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: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 16:35:00 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: leading-edge anonymity
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Gardner) writes:

>    This is really on target.  Thank you.  I wish the folks who live
>    vicariously through the space program would get a life and get
>    that trekkie-monkey off their back.  It makes them unable to
>    think rationally about what was a rather silly thing to get mad
>    about.

You seem to have this obsession with 'trekkies'.  Were you frightened
by a Vulcan when you were just a baby, or what?  Speaking of people
"unable to think rationally", I mean.

--
"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: 10 Feb 93 06:24:45 GMT
From: David Becker <[e-mail]>
Subject: non-US SSTO
Newsgroups: sci.space

Henry Spencer writes (in his much appreciated AW&ST summaries):
"ESA Space Transportation Investigation
" will assess ... SSTO concepts.

This item made me notice that in all the hot air about creating an SSTO
around here in sci.space, no mention has been made of other countries
trying it out.  Much ado has been made about why NASA can't/won't do it
and the markets it would take for private backing...

What about other countries?  If is SSTO is as promising as hoped and been
feasible as long as has been claimed, building a few would be a cost effective
way for a nation or nations to claim space preeminence (not to mention putting
egg in NASA's face).


--
                Use the Source, Luke.
David Becker [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 17:37:12 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Other shuttles (was Re: Getting people into Space Program!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> utz@asterix (Herby Utz) writes:
>
>Why must a capsule be disposable? It's much easier to build a reusable capsule
>than a shuttle. And on the other hand: The capsule is more efficient and much
>more safer. Is the shuttle really a step forward?

This cuts to the heart of spam-in-can-->Shuttle-->SSTO.

With spam-in-can you discard 90% of the vehicle on the way up, including
avionics and the expensive engines with their precision pumps. You get a
very small payload and maybe up to 3 crew to orbit and back. A new booster
must be built and stacked, and probably the capsule refurbished, before
you can launch again. Systems have been in use since April 12, 1961
in basically unchanged configuration.

With Shuttle, about 90% of your vehicle is recovered, only the external
tank is lost. You get 40,000 pounds of payload to orbit, up to 7 or 8
crew, 1 to 2 weeks on orbit for experiments and other work, and return.
Once back on the ground, the SRBs have to be refurbished, a new tank
built, the Orbiter inspected and repaired as necessary, and the whole
thing restacked and relaunched. System in use since April 12, 1981.

With SSTO, as envisioned as DC-1, you get the entire vehicle back after
sending up a crew of two and perhaps up to 10,000 pounds of payload for
a 1 day on orbit time. Hopefully, you just inspect, refuel, and relaunch.
System does not yet exist.

As to safety, the Soviets have lost two crews in capsules, we've lost
one crew on the pad in a capsule, lost one capsule in the ocean, and
one crew in a Shuttle. SSTO hasn't flown and has no safety record.

As a crew ferry, the capsule appears to be cheapest, until and if SSTO
can prove lower costs. As a combination cargo hauler and experiment platform,
Shuttle has no peer at any price today. A combination space station, unmanned
heavy lift, and capsule system such as Mir and it's support systems can
approach it for some tasks, and surpass it for long duration experiments,
but ex-Soviet pricing is suspect. The hypothetical SSTO promises reduced
costs *if* the payload can be sent up in <10,000 pound chunks and assembled
in orbit at a currently non-existant US space station of some kind. SSTO
can't launch Freedom, but a hypothetical heavy lift expendable could.

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: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 15:26:27 -0500
From: Lawrence Curcio <[e-mail]>
Subject: PEGASUS QUESTION
Newsgroups: sci.space

Why a winged rockets?

(Just thought I'd come right out and ask :)

-Larry C.

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

Date: 10 Feb 93 16:35:02 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Pt 1/2: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY For Spacecraft
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rob Healey) writes:
>    Assuming the process actually works, which projects do you think
>    get the funding bucks, small and useful or huge and esoteric? Which
>    one's make you shine in the eyes of your piers? Certainly not the
>    small, unglamourous stuff...
>
>    In watching the allocation of money at my old alma mater alot of
>    small, doable projects were usually overlooked in favor of bigger,
>    riskier projects that would get more press and more impressive looking
>    papers in the journals. Remember, the name of the game in the
>    research community is to get published not actually implement
>    things that are practical although unglamourous and mundane journal
>    copy... B^(.

The small, the useful, the unglamorous and mundane, the *practical*,
all can safely be left to the engineering departments of private firms.
It is precisely the risky, huge, or esoteric programs that need government
funding because private industry is afraid to touch them since the payoff
is too risky or too far off to show in their quarterly report.

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: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 17:05:04 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Refueling Freedom/Japanese Business

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>   Your basic argument is sound, but I wouldn't use "flash in the
>   pan" to describe the Shuttle. For all its faults and failures,
>   its been flying for nearly twelve years. Thats no flash in the
>   pan.

I think the time the Shuttle's been flying is more like one year.
It's just been spread out over a 12-year period.

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

Date: 10 Feb 93 16:12:27 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rent Mir/Commercial SS Fred
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("F.Baube x554") writes:

>fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
>> [e-mail] ("F.Baube x554")
>> > Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
>> > > Sure, we can do as some people have suggested and rent Mir and buy
>> > > Soyuzes and use Energia and save lots of money, but the end result
>> > > would be the complete stasis of the space arm of the U.S. aerospace
>> > > industry, coupled with Russian dominance of space down the line.
>>
>> >Did you ever hear about the benefits of free trade ?
>>
>> I suggest you look in a good text on international economics under
>> "optimum tariff" for a lesson on "the benefits of free trade". This
>> is a buzz-phrase that is most often used to hand-wave away better
>> formulated arguments.

>The buzz-phrases cut both ways.  And don't forget the
>benefits of mutual specialization.

Benefits of mutual specialization assume the existence of a 'mutual'
society.

>Is the "optimum tariff" point that we should lean towards
>autarky and avoid buying Not-Invented-Here because:

No.  I merely mentioned the concept of optimum tariff to point out
that waving the hands and muttering of the magical mantra "benefits of
free trade" is *not* an economically sound argument.

>> >I thought re-entry capsules and disposable multi-stage
>> >boosters were supposed to be the means, not the end.
>> >A big Russian buy could be a short-to-medium term expedient [..]
>>
>> Except, of course, we wouldn't be.  We'd be buying Russian hardware
>> INSTEAD OF spending the money to develop our own.

>I didn't really choose a position re. cancelling our own development
>versus stretching it out.

You didn't, but are you really naive enough to think that that isn't
*exactly* the position that Congress would choose?  Why, we could
cancel all this high-tech stuff over in opposition Congressman X's
district (since we can now show that the mission can be achieved more
cheaply in the short term by buying stuff from the Russians) and we
can take the 'savings' and use them to buy pork for my constituents.

Of course, that shoots long term prospects for any sort of aerospace
development here, but Congress is even more known for short-term
thinking than the typical business.

>> Also, what about keeping OUR skills alive?  Or doesn't that
>> matter to you?

>OF COURSE it does.  Like I said, there seems to be plenty of work
>around that is starved for money and closer to the horizon of the possible ..

And what makes you think that any of it will get funded, given that
the mission can be met more cheaply (in the short run) by using
Russian hardware?  What will happen is that the money to buy the
Russian hardware would get appropriated, and the rest would go to
social programs or something.  And that just makes having to continue
to purchase our capability more likely in the future, since the work
isn't being done here anymore.  And another industry moves offshore
due to short-sighted policies.

--
"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: 10 Feb 93 18:21:10 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Russian Solar Sail Results and Obervations pointers
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]> writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> Glenn Chapman, [e-mail]
>writes:

>>[a very helpful prediction report for Znamya, and] ...
>>By the way on Radio Moscow they announced
>>that the sail, when reflecting on an area, will illuminate a ground area
>>4 km in diameter.

>I guess I should point something out which has not been mentioned here,
>perhaps because any physicist will say "of course" to this, and many
>others don't care. That size is not a function of the size of this
>particular sail; it is the minimum size spot the best optical converging
>mirror in the universe could make from 400 km up, no matter how large you
>make it. The minmum size depends only on the angular diameter of the sun
>(which is approximately .01 radians) and the distance from the mirror to
>the ground (400 km). The minimum spot size is the product of those two
>numbers, and that would obtain not for Znamya, but for an ideally
>focussed off-axis f/20,000 paraboloid of focal length 400 km. A floppy
>mirror flat to a small fraction of a degree will produce an image a scant
>twenty meters larger in diameter, so don't order a mirror from Roger
>Angel's optical shop yet. The image on the ground is the same as would be
>formed by a pinhole box camera 400 km long.

So why do you find it necessary to point out the obvious?

>You terrified Yankee ants can come out of your bunker-anthills now.

You have a point, other than a little offhand Yank-bashing?


--
"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: Wed, 10 Feb 93 18:43:18 BSC
From: [e-mail] (Francisco da Fonseca Rodrigues)
Subject: SETI TARGETED SEARCH

    Could someone send me, by email, the list of stars in SETI Targeted
Search? I know this subject is related to sci.astro, but I don't know the
eletronic address of this list.

    If the list exist on computer, how can I get it?

    Thank you very much.

    Francisco Rodrigues

-----------------------=====================================----the stars,----
|    ._,               | Francisco da Fonseca Rodrigues    |       o   o     |
|  ,_| |._/\           |                                   |     o         o |
|  |       |o/^^~-._   | COTUCA-Colegio Tecnico da UNICAMP |   o             |
|/-'    BRASIL      | ~|                                   |  o      o o     |
|\__/|_            /'  | Depto de Processamento de Dados   |  o    o  o  o   |
|      \__  Cps   | .  |                                   |   o  o  o    o  |
|        |   * __/'    | InterNet : [e-mail] |     o o      o  |
|        >   /'        | BitNet   : cotucamp@brcfetmg      |             o   |
|      /'   /'         | Fone/Fax : [phone]        | o         o     |
|     ~~^\/'           | Campinas - SP - Brasil            |    o   o        |
-----------------------=====================================----like dust.----

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

Date: 10 Feb 93 16:41:48 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Soyuz I re-entry
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy

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

>X-Anon-To:sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy

>And the horror that occurred aboard the Challenger was not limited to the
>U. S. space program.

>I'm sorry all you NASA engineering 'droids don't like the human side
>of space exploration -- probably reminds you of your cowardice.

Still a clueless idiot, I see.

--
"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: 10 Feb 93 19:16:39 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO news
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

I have been told that the Joint Chiefs of Staff will issue today or
soon a new set of mission requirements for next generation spacecraft.
This set of requirements MAY form the basis for the proposed Spacelifter
(if built).

These new requirements can only be met by an SSTO vehicle. This could
make Spacelifter a good idea after all.



If you want to help keep Delta Clipper alive, please write to each of
the following people and ask for full funding of the SDIO SSRT program.

1. President Bill Clinton,1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington DC 20500

2. Vice President Al Gore, Office of the Vice President, Old Executive Office
Building, Washington DC 20501.  In addition, send a letter to Gore's Senate
office (not many write there so it has more impact) at: Vice President Al Gore,
S-212, Washington DC 20510.

3. Secretary Less Aspin, Secretary of Defense, The Pentagon 3E880, Washington DC
20301.

4. Director Leon Panetta, Office of Management and Budget, Room 252 Old
Executive Office Building, 17TH Street & Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington DC
20503.

Ask them to support full funding for the SDIO Single Stage Rocket Technology
Program and ask that DC-Y construction be made a priority. If you only do one
thing to support this program, this should be it.

  Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------125 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 169
------------------------------