Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_2/V16NO203.TXT

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 05:03:56
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #203
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 20 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 203

Today's Topics:
                          "Late 'L5' Society
                      Any Clinton news on space?
                           CAPE YORK RUMOUR
                          HST repair mission
             ICEBurg/Water Powered Space Ships. (2 msgs)
                  Nobody cares about Fred? (2 msgs)
                       Pictures of Mars found !
                          Sabatier Reactors.
                             Saturn Life
                       SETI and Virtual Reality
                SSF Petition (freedom fighters, etc.)
                       SSTO/DC-X in the Media..

    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: 18 Feb 1993 21:47:27 GMT
From: Anthony Napier <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Late 'L5' Society
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Tanya Sienko) writes:
>[e-mail] writes:
>>Space Studies Instutute...does fantastic work in mass drivers and other
>>nuts-and-bolts designs we'll need up there.
>
>At least it used to do so.  Does anyone know just what they are doing along
>those lines *NOW*?  SSI has unfortunately had some difficulties and doesn't
>seem to quite be the group it was some years ago.  Some of their top
>advisors are concerned that SSI isn't really accomplishing much now.  Can
>anyone shed some light on this please?
>

Gerard K. O'Neill died last year.  I don't know what impact this
has had on SSI.


---
 Anthony S. Napier    |   ...!uunet!meaddata!anthony
 Mead Data Central    |   [e-mail]
 P.O. Box 933         |   Any opinions expressed are
 Dayton, OH  45401    |   mine, not MDC's.

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

Date: 18 Feb 1993 20:46 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Any Clinton news on space?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, Dr. Norman J. LaFave <[e-mail]> writes...
> So did Clinton mention the station last night?
>
No.  No mention of the space station was made in his speech.

> Do the 150 spending cuts he proposes affect spaceflight?

Yes.  The space station under the current design has been cancelled.  It will
be replaced with a cheaper space station.  Clinton has allocated 2.3 billion
dollars this year for the space station.  1.1 billion of that is for
termination costs, 700 million is for the redesign effort.  Goldin will
stay on as NASA Administrator, and will have 60 to 90 days to develop
from scratch the preliminary design for the new space station.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | If you don't stand for
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | something, you'll fall
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | for anything.

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 19:47:31 GMT
From: Gary Hughes - VMS Development <[e-mail]>
Subject: CAPE YORK RUMOUR
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Luke Plaizier) writes...
>    Also, this is the clincher, it has been rumoured that not only
>will the Zenit be launched from Ausralian soil, but so will the
>Proton.

And a couple of weeks ago Lockheed announced that they would be marketing the
Proton in the West. Did the rumour say where the $800M came from? :)

gary

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 23:12:56 GMT
From: Dave Rickel <[e-mail]>
Subject: HST repair mission
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
|> To continue to the next logical step, we need to build and launch SIRTF.
|> The IRTF (Infra-Red Telescope Facility) on Mauna Kea will always be
|> stymied by that same atmosphere.  Using what we've learned from HST we
|> can build a high quality IR telescope for space observations.

There was a proposal in SPACEFLIGHT a couple months back to build a large
passively cooled IR telescope.  I seem to remember that they proposed sticking
it in the L-2 spot (presumably the sun-earth L-2 spot).  Is this SIRTF, or
something else?

Anyway, the article mentioned that there is enough thermal noise that it
really wasn't worthwhile cooling the mirror all the way down to liquid
helium temperatures; if you can passively cool the mirror (they mentioned
temperatures like 40-60 K) you are no longer limited by the amount of He
you carry along (larger mirrors, longer liftimes).


david rickel
[e-mail]

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

Date: 18 Feb 93 20:03:49 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: ICEBurg/Water Powered Space Ships.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Why not combine the methods suggested and their components..
>
>Such as a combined ICEBURG ship with a Solar Sail.. A ICEBURGS major problem
>seems to be getting it moving/changing its orbit/inertia..

The problem with solar sails for moving big payloads is that the sail
exerts very small forces, nano-newtons, while the ICEroid masses megatons.
a=F/m so you get tiny accelerations. Patience, you need *lots* of patience.

>I do like the idea of using the ICEBURG mass as a straight/simple system of
>directing the the water escaping.... Mayeb a combo of the idea of using hihg
>pressure water as like the idea of a cutting "torch" or "saw".. use the
>lasers to free the water, collect the water, then pressurize it
>(using energy from solar power?), then direct the water as
>jets (see ma no air), namely maneuvering jets as well as main drive. Use the

AMSAT has tested a solar-electric steam rocket. Basically a tank of water
and a "combustion" chamber with an electric resistance heater in it powered
by solar cells. This was to be an "inherently safe" upper stage for use
with picky launching agencies like NASA. It's not particularly efficient
since exhaust velocity is only somewhat over 100C. Still it does work.

The problem with using cometary, or asteroidal, water is that it's not
known to be pure, or practically purifiable on a large enough scale.
Current thought, as published in Science News, is that it's really a very
stiff mud. Muds are hard to deal with, eat up pumping equipment, and clog
pipes and valves. In situ retorting using solar energy might work, but at
Jovian distances, on board power sources, such as nuclear reactors, might
be more practical.

Once you have relatively pure water, you can do the electric steam rocket
bit, or if you have excess power available, electrolyze the water to make
H2 and O2 and use coneventional rocket engines. Neither of these systems
is simple or efficient.

Using a mass driver is another option. In this case you take whatever
frozen material that is handy and heave it overboard with one of several
mechanical launching schemes. "Exhaust" velocities of a kilometer a second
or better are possible. Naturally these drivers tend to be large and somewhat
Rube Goldberg in operation.

>Sail to get the ICEBurg moving..

It's moving already, just on the wrong vector.

>Or maybe yet, use the stream of water against the sail kind of like a water
>powered device (to wierd?).. See Ma water power is not out of style...

WHooo boy! Ever hear the one about the sailboat and the fan?

>Does anyone see/watch "Beyond 2000"?

I prefer higher quality science fiction programs. :-(

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: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 22:41:31 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: ICEBurg/Water Powered Space Ships.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Why not combine the methods suggested and their components..
>
>Such as a combined ICEBURG ship with a Solar Sail.. A ICEBURGS major problem
>seems to be getting it moving/changing its orbit/inertia..
>
 Iceberg (Eisberg) = ice mountain

 Iceburg (Eisburg) = ice city

 Let's get that spelling under control, please!

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 19:39:05 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>> [NASA rescued Intelsat because it was good PR]

>This is your statement about NASA's purpose Allen. NASA stated that they
>wanted to do this go gain EVA time. Whom shall we believe?

A good question; let's think about it a bit. NASA says that EVA is important
and that Intelsat would provide good practice. Now an organization that
felt that way would be placing a fair amount of emphasis on EVA since they
said it was so important. For such an organization the rescue would be
nothing more than a minor change to an existing program of EVA.

Yet, as Henry has stated, there was no minor change. This was a 180 degree
change from the past. Very few flights have EVA and almost none of those
are for research. This is not the actions of an organization which finds
EVA important.

I therefore assert that NASA isn't serious about EVA research and their
claim to be serious about it for Intelsat must be rearded with suspicion.

So what are your reasons for believing them?

>NASA that not only got a lot of very valuable EVA time

Except that it is obvious that NASA didn't consider the EVA time
valuable.

>>In fact, even here it is a bit strained. It turns out that the astronauts
>>say they where so busy with the work they didn't have time to try and learn
>>from the experience.

>Where does your information come from Allen.

From NASA.

>>>So, NASA adds EVA time whenever it can on future Shuttle missions.

>>Too little too late.

>Merely your opinion Allen.

No, they have found that EVA now poses serious risk to Fred assembly.
For very very small amounts of money this risk could have been
examined and accounted for at a time when design modification would have
been a lot cheaper.

Are you actually saying you think it was wise to keep such a big design
risk area completely open for so long?

>I am both a student and an Engineer and so I can answer you here. I agree
>with your methodology as stated. I also point ou the fact that due to
>budgetary considerations less EVA was planned during this time period.

Come on now Dennis! Stop grasping as straws. The cost of adding a
research EVA to every other shuttle mission would be less than half
of one percent of the mission. It was an obvious area of risk for SSF.
Please show us the budget numbers and requests indicating that NASA
wanted EVA's but couldn't afford it.

>Since it is three years till first element launch and since in this time
>there will be in excess of 20 shuttle missions, it is my opinion and many
>others that it is not "too little, too late".

Dennis, you claim to be an engineer so you should know better than this.
The time to fix design errors isn't when you begin manufacture but early
in the design. Freedom isn't early in its design so it is indeed too
little too late.

>Allen I seriously question that you have ever worked on an R & D project.

Some of the specific R&D projects I have worked on include: SeaFire
Fire Control System (Navy), Integrated CNI Avionics (USAF), a Digital
Map system I can't remember the name of (USAF), Pilot's Associate (DARPA/
USAF), Emergency Procedures Expert System (TI IR&D), Multi-Agent Planning
(TI IR&D), Mission Planning Workstation (TI IR&D).

This is a partial listing and doesn't include industrial R&D efforts or
things I can't talk about. Many of these projects saw me in a senior
role. All in all, I have been a software engineer for over 13 years
all of which was spent in R&D.

I hope this allays your fears.

>In every project that I have ever worked on, in either private industry or
>at the university, there have been unanticipated problems.

Of course. The problem is you seem to think that the existance of
unanticipated problems absolves the enginner of the responsibility
for prudent risk reduction during design. This is not the case.

>When you identify a problem that had been previously not shown to be a
>problem then you correct the problem. This is what NASA has done.

Not quite. What NASA did was to take a major risk area (EVA) and decided
not to see if it was a problem or not. It isn't the case that EVA was
properly examined and found to involve minimal risk. It is the case
that NASA didn't do much at all and hoped it wold be OK in the end.

>>I applaud these initial experiments...

>No you don't applaud anything that I have seen you post on recently.

If you want to talk about aeronautics then it will give me great
pleasure to praise NASAs work. However that isn't appropriate for

this news group. If you want to talk about NASA's human space
efforts, then I see very little to applaud.

>>>So tell me, Mr. Sherzer, what is the REAL reason why you don't like NASA?

>>Parts of NASA I like a lot. When I was in aerospace I read a lot of the
>>NASA aeronautical work. It was all first rate stuff and we are far better
>>for it.

>Interesting that you are not in aerospace now.

Not when you think about it. There are a lot of unemployed aerospace
workers out there. I have a family to feed.

>If you care so much about lowering the cost of spaceflight why don't you
>go back and show them how it is done?

Not needed. The problems with cost aren't technical; they are political
and cultural. As for the technical end, the DC people are doing just
fine.

>>1. The wake shield facility. NASA cost models say it should cost $93 million
>>to build. A private company is building the exact same thing for $11 million.

>Ever hear of the General Services Administration Allen? It controls ALL
>government procurment.

But you see the builders of DCX also must work with GSA. Yet they found
ways to do it effectively for a fraction the cost NASA spends. They need
to assume more risk but it comes in an order of magnitude cheaper and
far more likely to work.

NASA can get around the FAR any time they want. They lack the
risk taking culture to do so.

>>2. Spacehab. NASA costing says it should cost $1.12 billion. A private
>>company is building the exact same thing for $115 million.

>Where di you get that number Allen?

An editorial by a NASA procurement official in Space News.

>>3. DCX. NASA says eight years and about a billion $$. MacDac says $60
>>million and two years.

>Again state your sources for this accusation.

Ditto.

>>Never applied to NASA. I was offered a space station job (at a 15%
>>increase in pay) but turned it down. No, I'm not upset because I
>>didn't get a job.

>Why did you not take it?

Because Dennis, SSF is a boondoggle which costs too much and will
hamper efforts to explore space. I have no desire to support it just
to get a few thousand $$ more.

>Heck we could already had SSF in orbit and gone
>to Pluto now in the DC clipper with you there.

I'm flattered you think so highly of me Dennis but I doubt I could
have changed much.

>As I have challenged you before and will again. Start a company, start
>bidding on NASA contracts, and with your vision, ideas, and cost cutting
>philosphy you will outdo Rockwell and Lockheed in five years. NASA must
>go for the low bidder by law. Like the commercial says Just Do IT!

NASA need not go for the lowest bidder. There are plenty of ways around
that.

So long as the cultural problems remain, there isn't much point in
starting a company.  If Goldin does manage to change the culture, then
maybe I will.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------117 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 23:10:13 GMT
From: Brad Whitehurst <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>> [NASA rescued Intelsat because it was good PR]
>
[Allen & Dennis going hammer & tongs ...]

>>Since it is three years till first element launch and since in this time
>>there will be in excess of 20 shuttle missions, it is my opinion and many
>>others that it is not "too little, too late".
>
>Dennis, you claim to be an engineer so you should know better than this.
>The time to fix design errors isn't when you begin manufacture but early
>in the design. Freedom isn't early in its design so it is indeed too
>little too late.
>
>Some of the specific R&D projects I have worked on include: SeaFire
>Fire Control System (Navy), Integrated CNI Avionics (USAF), a Digital
>Map system I can't remember the name of (USAF), Pilot's Associate (DARPA/
>USAF), Emergency Procedures Expert System (TI IR&D), Multi-Agent Planning
>(TI IR&D), Mission Planning Workstation (TI IR&D).
>
    Welll, Allen, I'm just a lowly mechanical engineer (hate those
li'l electrons!!), but I would propose that there are some qualitative
differences in forging a large, mechanical assembly out of steel,
aluminum, and composites, compared to primarily software
constructions.  The laws of physics tend to thwart many of my best
ideas! :-) Natural laws, particularly with respect to materials'
behaviours, are far from perfectly understood, especially outside
research labs.  I can well understand how difficulties ("design error"
assumes a goof...sometimes there's no predicting somethings) may
appear in a new project far into the construction.  Software, while
vastly more complicated now than ever, is still a construct of the
mind of man.  The mind of God (nature, whatever) is vastly more
complex, and it is sheer hubris to assume full knowledge of the
physical world, much less that the knowledge will be fully and
perfectly applied to a physical construction.

    All that said, I do agree with most of your assesment of the
political/managerial problems with SSF.  Just don't throw the baby out
with the bath water!

--

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
[e-mail] |   We like it hot...and fast.

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

Date: 19 Feb 93 00:16:00 GMT
From: "NSSDC, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Hughes STX" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pictures of Mars found !
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ed McCreary) writes...
>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Feb 1993 17:40:57 GMT, [e-mail] (Robert Chenina [Chemie]) said:
>
>RC>     Hello Earth!
>RC>     I'm looking for some pictures from the Viking mission. The pictures
>RC>     are details obout the region called _Cydonia Mensae_ (approx. 40.9N,
>RC>     9.45W) and referenced as:
>RC>          35A72, 70A13, 673B56, 753A33.
>
>SYED>  The images you want are of the "face" on Mars.  35A72, 70A12
>SYED>  and others are available for the NSSDC (NASA - GSFC.)  There
>SYED>  is a charge for these photo products and you can obtain them
>SYED>  by calling [phone] or by sending email to
>SYED>    [e-mail].  The same area in also on vol.5
>SYED>  of the MDIM CD-ROM set.  The image on the CD-ROM is a little fuzzy,
>SYED>  and you will have to have a heck of an imagination to find the "face"
>SYED>  and the "pyramids."
>SYED>
>SYED>  Yeah, yeah,...we delibrately made the CDs like that so that the news
>SYED>  doesn't get out !
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The views expressed above are mine, and mine alone.  I do this with the
understanding that the Constitution on the United States of America guarantees
this right to all within its shores.  This message was typed in my own time and
on my own free will.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Syed S. Towheed >>>>>>>>

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

Date: 18 Feb 93 20:23:36 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Sabatier Reactors.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>|In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>|>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>|
>|>|In fact, you could
>|>|*probably* fuel an empty Centaur from residual propellants in the shuttle's
>|>|own external tank, and dispense with the fuel dump.  [...]

Yeah, except we'd use that fuel getting the ET into orbit, and we'd have
to design and install scavenging pumps in the ET to get to the fuel in
micro-G, etc. The ET isn't designed to supply fuel except under acceleration.

>|>If people are going to defend the shuttle as this marvelous
>|>workshop,  then i suggest we see it do some real workshop
>|>type activities.  Refueling satellites is a very reasonable
>|>mission,  and it seems beyond the shuttles capacity.
>|
>|Read what he wrote.  It's not that the Shuttle is incapable of doing it, it's
>|that NASA doesn't want to try it.  Two different things entirely.
>|
>|(Do note, however, that "modest unknowns" is Spencer-speak for "we're
>|clueless"; it's not just a matter of hooking up a pump and pumping away.
>|We should learn to do it, though...we have to sooner or later.)
>|--
>|Matthew DeLuca
>
>I agree. I don't see any reason why it couldn't be tried,
>but NASA is constitutionally unable to do such basic experiments.

No, NASA is just terrified that if they did it Allen Sherzer would
scream in his best McElvane speak that the Evil NASA spent a BILLION
dollars to duplicate what any gas station in the SOVIET UNION could
do for pennies. And that it was all a PLOT to kill SSTO.

>All those people who glorify NASA should push to see Shuttle
>used for such basic technology research studies.

NASA is a government agency, so by definition it is already glorified,
however, they are doing basic research. The Drop Physics Module on
a recent flight was designed to find out how liquids behave in micro-G.
That's applicable to any liquid transfer system that may be designed.
They also did an experiment to refuel a satellite's thrusters on one
flight. The extended duration orbiter will have cryogenics stored on
a pallet in the bay. Etc. Remember that if NASA didn't have a zero
risk attitude, they'd just carry a fueled Centaur in the bay like they
originally planned.

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: 18 Feb 93 22:30:24 GMT
From: "Peter T." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saturn Life
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Enzo Liguori) says:
 Miller in its famous experiment
>which generated from ordinary gases like hydrogen, ammonia, nitrogen, carbon
>dioxide, with the only help of UV light and electric spikes, aminoacids.

Yes I saw the same experiment replecated on Carl Sagan's Cosmos series.
Ron Baalke of J.P.L. wrote that it was actually Voyager 1 which found
organic compounds on Titan (Saturn's moon) so I was more or less on the
right track.

Thanks all for your response.

Cheers
Peter T.

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 21:26:40 GMT
From: Michael Robert Williams <[e-mail]>
Subject: SETI and Virtual Reality
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>At one of these meetings he <Drake> handed out a simple message encoded
>arbitrarily to the other participants, and gave them something like six
>months to solve it. No one did.
>
>He used this to make the point that communication with ET's is *not*
>as simple as a "universal translator" might make it seem.
>
I think the society referred to above was called the Order of the
Dolphin, or something like that. Message was a string of 1's and 0's; the
length of the string was the product of two small primes p and q. If you
arranged the string of 1's and 0's in a p-by-q grid, the 1's made a
simple picture with the 0's being background. If you're interested, this
"message" as well as its decomposition and an anecdotal account of this
incident can be found in Sagan's "Murmers of Earth" (which is a great book).


In Real Life:Mike Williams     | Perpetual Grad Student
e-mail      :[e-mail]|   - It's not just a job, it's an indenture
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you ever have a world of your own, plan ahead- don't eat it." ST:TNG

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 19:30:22 GMT
From: Rob Healey <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF Petition (freedom fighters, etc.)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
|> A little realism and a little thought go much farther than empty words and
|> public works programs. I have really had a lot of fun re-reading the book
|> "The Heavens and the Earth" by Walter MacDougal. Eisenhower and Medaris were
|> right and Mr. Clinton, who I think may have some promise to do some good has
|> been saddled with the failed governmental philosophy's of Rostow and others
|> of the 60's that are directly responsible for the deficit of today.
|>
    Actually, the deficit today has a LARGE part coming from the Reagan
    era programs that were "charged" against the future rather than
    being paid for at the time. Deficit's result when you don't pay
    for what you spend, Reagan had a disturbing talent for doing this
    and the congress at the time had no balls to stop him and instead
    joined in with their own additional spending frenzy. B^(.

    Nobody in the 60's or 70's is directly responsible for the vast
    majority of our current debt. It is the poor money management of the
    congress and the executive branch IN THE 80's that racked up most
    of our current debt. Hopefully BOTH will FINALLY take some
    fiscal responsibility although I personally doubt they ever will. B^(.

    Public works programs have their place, WHO ELSE builds roads, bridges
    and other infrastructure? They just need to be monitored carefully
    for waste like ALL other government programs. Some social programs
    have their use as well, I'd rather pay a few bucks now to immunize a
    child than hundreds later when that kid comes in to the emergency room
    and racks up my insurance premium because the parents can't pay for the
    emergency room treatment that could have been avoided by a $10 shot...

    Fiscal responsibility across the board would do us ALL some good, but
    again, I don't see Congress with it's schmoooooooozing from lobbyists
    ever changing it's ways. This includes space lobbiests who steal
    money away from important programs in order to feed pork that isn't
    needed. B^(.

        -Rob

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

Date: 18 Feb 93 23:21:58 GMT
From: nathan wallace <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO/DC-X in the Media..
Newsgroups: sci.space

[...stuff deleted...]

>I got some PR artwork and a photo of the current version.... It is a one
>third scale working model which Pete Conrad himself will pilot remotely
>some time later this year....
>Supposedly it goes to orbit then comes back down to land vertically...... a
>REAL shuttle killer!!!
>
>I'll see about scanning the pictures in for upload to sumex.....

PLEASE...PLEASE...PLEASE...PLEASE...PLEASE...PLEASE...PLEASE...PLEASE...
----
+----------------------------------------------+------------------------+
|                                              |              __        |
|                                              |             / /\       |
|  Nathan F. Wallace                           |      ______/ /_/___    |
|  email: [e-mail]  |     / ____  ______ \   |
+----------------------------------------------+    / /\__/ /\____|\/|  |
|                                              |   | |\/ / / /     \|/  |
|  Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, and are |   | || / /_/_____      |
|              not those of any other person,  |   | ||/_______  /\     |
|              organization, or supreme being. |   | ||\______/ / /     |
|                                              |   | ||      / / /      |
+----------------------------------------------+    \ \_____/ /_/__/\   |
|  "War is the art of deception."              |     \_____  _______/|  |
|                                 Sun Tzu      |      \___/ /\______|/  |
|                                              |          \_\/          |
|                                              |                        |
+----------------------------------------------+------------------------+

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


From: Bill Edwards <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Soyuz I re-entry
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Feb 93 22:04:00 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Edwards <[e-mail]>
Organization: Almac BBS Ltd. [phone]
Lines: 14
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

DD>Interestingly, the Soviets *had* a reserve Soyuz loaded and ready to go,
DD>so rescue was possible.

Its been reported that Soyuz 1 was the first part of a two soyuz mission
with a link-up and crew transfer.  Essentially, the mission that was
flown with Soyuz 4 and 5.

This would mean that Soyuz 2 was sitting on the pad ready to go with a
three man crew.

Bill / Usenet: [e-mail]
---
 . DeLuxe./386 1.25 #9224 .


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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 203
------------------------------