Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_2/V16NO210.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 30KB

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 05:59:42
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #210
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sun, 21 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 210

Today's Topics:
                 Bok Computers/Cameras/EMU redesign.
                  Getting people into Space Program!
                        McElwaine disciplined!
                      Nobody cares about Fred?
                       Pictures of Mars wanted
                     Sabatier Reactors. (2 msgs)
                   Titan or Bust! (Saturn Moon)...
                   Virtual Reality research at NASA

    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: 20 Feb 93 02:28:58 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Bok Computers/Cameras/EMU redesign.
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hum sounds like massively messed up.. Why must the EMU go thru a massive amount
of testing every time you add something to it..

A good design must be flexible, increase the channels for the EVA. Okay maybe
RF instead of Lasers (I see you points). Use a electronic camera (like the ones
coming out now to record images on disk.. I know this violate the best ideas
around that is use generic off the shelf equipment as much as possible..

Did anyone see the movie on the "Hindenburg" and how they handled problems of
compatibility, namely having a hydrogen bag and have people/smoke.. They had
people/things in air tight or positive pressure areas with a pseudo airlock.
Mabe use a filtring system to be able to bring limited used things into space
and not have to worry about outgasing (filters might be a problem and amount of
space used)..  Also things that are solid units such as CPUs can be encased in
a airtight compartment with a filtering system (to reuse the air)..


Michael Adams
NSMCA@ACAD@.ALASKA.EDU
I'm not high, just jacked

PS: You always add velcro to the outside of the helmet/backpack and attach
the add ons mentioned.. Kind of like what Army Helicopter Pilots do (I think)..

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 02:17:11 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Getting people into Space Program!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
>No, the 15 was orbital, but it could and did cross the "Space"
>boundary on numerous missions.    It had an operational
>level good enough that it could almost fly military Missions.
>If you had a missile or platform you wanted to carry up that
>high.

Whoa. The X-15 didn't have provision for internal or external
missile stores. No hardpoints, no bay. The X-15 could reach
350,000 feet, but it couldn't *do* anything up there. It was
strictly a hypersonic research vehicle.

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: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 06:15:05 GMT
From: David Nash <[e-mail]>
Subject: McElwaine disciplined!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <2517@snap>, [e-mail]-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:

>>> 6.  McElwaine is apparently guilty of posting "canned prefabricated
>>> materials" to numerous newsgroups and mailing lists, generating so
>>> many complaints that the school's director of computing services has
>>> now decreed: "If, after being requested [by a mailing list or
>>> newsgroup's 'owner'] to stop, he [McElwaine] continues to send his
>>> materials The University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire will take steps
>>> revoke his Internet privileges."
>>>        <[e-mail]>

>> Quite who the "owner" of the sci.* groups is I do not know, but could
>> s/he please ask him to stop?  :-)

Asking a cron job to stop doing its thing won't help much.  :-]

Seriously, I doubt we need to find the "owner" of all sci.  I suspect that any
moderator will do just fine.  Given his....errr, its posting habits (the
same damn message that showed up HERE also showed up in rec.audio or some place
like that), it's probably tried to hit a moderated group or two recently.

>Perhaps the "regulars" of sci.astro, sci.space, and sci.space.shuttle
>(the three newsgroups I have seen his postings on) could just send a
>request to the UW-EC?  It might be a good idea for the other various
>science groups too.
>
>I'll be willing to include my name in such a request.

Me too.  Fortunately, it's only *one* weirdo message a week.  Remember
Hanna Porupudatas (sp??), of space-potato fame?

>-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute


--
David Nash                  | Gradual Student, Chemistry
                            | University of Illinois (Urbana)
([e-mail])    | This .sig is made of 100% recycled electrons.
([e-mail])   | No binary trees were killed to make it.

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 02:03:49 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Nobody cares about Fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>>You will recall that it was the tortise that won the race.
>
>>Yeah, but I also recall that it was a fairy tale. Apollo beat
>>the Soviets to the Moon as the hare playing catch up.
>
>The Moon...? Oh yes, that's that place we sent a few people to 20
>years ago. Meanwhile the tortise is learning far more than we know
>about living and working in space. The Hare thinks refueling monopropellent
>is too dangerous; the tortise does it all the time. The Hare minimized the
>EVA done because its too dangerous; the tortise now does it as a matter
>of routine. The Hare has no plans for industrial material production
>in space; the tortise has been doing it experimentally for a few years
>now. The Tortise has had a working space station for several years; the
>Hare has invested billions and years of time on bits of paper.

Let's see,

1) The Moon, that thing some people want to go back to, and that the Russians
   have yet to reach.

2) The ex-Soviets have spent more time in zero G, but with fewer people
   and fewer EVA hours. When they went out to attempt a repair, they
   damaged the airlock hatch. Their on orbit medical technology is so
   poor that what data they have gathered is worth less than what we've
   gathered. Basically they've huddled inside their tin can talking on
   their ham radio to pass the time until they can come home.

3) The US has conducted hydrazine transfer experiments with Shuttle,
   but hasn't needed to do it for real thanks to the heavy lift and
   return capability of Shuttle. Swapping tanks or whole modules is
   easier than doing on orbit refueling. Shuttle crews have swapped
   out entire rocket kick motors during EVA. The ex-Soviets have not
   recaptured or refurbished any satellite payloads at all.

4) Both the US and ex-Soviet programs have done materials processing,
   but none of the processes have proved to be superior or cheaper
   than materials processed on the ground. The US did produce some
   precision micro-spheres for sale for calibration standards, but
   those can now be produced more cheaply down here. Electrophoresis
   work has been done on Shuttle, but the commercial process moved
   to ground based plants. There's no evidence that ex-Soviet semi-
   conductor crystals are superior to ones we grow on the ground.
   All the micro-G problems claimed for Fred go double in a little
   tin can full of people.

The ex-Soviets are using 30 year old technology to do very limited
tasks. We're using 20 year old technology to do slightly less limited
tasks. Neither one has a whole lot to brag about.

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: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 10:45:49 +0000
From: Paul Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pictures of Mars wanted
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>        Hello Earth!
>        I'm looking for some pictures from the Viking mission. The pictures
>        are details obout the region called _Cydonia Mensae_ (approx. 40.9N,
>        9.45W) and referenced as:
>                 35A72, 70A13, 673B56, 753A33.
>
>        Any help will be appreciated,
>                Robert

Robert,  you can buy the Mars CD set from the NSSDC for $50 US (plus
postage) - they should have everything you could ever want!

Regards,

Paul

------------------------------< Who 'zat? >------------------------------
    Paul Wilson, P-and-S Ltd, P O Box 54, Macclesfield, SK10 5EH, UK
     [Email: [e-mail]]  [Phone: +44 (0) 625 - 503150]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 05:00:16 GMT
From: WELLS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sabatier Reactors.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Gary Coffman,
[e-mail] writes:
>They also did an experiment to refuel a satellite's thrusters on one
>flight.

It was called ORS(See below). Examine the following comments:

In article <[e-mail]> Pat, [e-mail]
writes:
>>I agree. I don't see any reason why it couldn't be tried,
>>but NASA is constitutionally unable to do such basic experiments.
>>
>>All those people who glorify NASA should push to see Shuttle
>>used for such basic technology research studies.

In article <[e-mail]> Matthew DeLuca,
[e-mail] writes:
>>It's not that the Shuttle is incapable of doing it, it's
>>that NASA doesn't want to try it.

In article <[e-mail]> Pat, [e-mail]
writes:
>>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.
>>
>>I would view this example as a reasoonable argument that the
>>shuttle is a lousy workshop.

"constitutionally unable" !
"doesn't want to try" !!
"real workshop type activities"  !!!
"seems beyond the shuttles capacity" !!!!
"lousy workshop"    !!!!!%$@#^&1,2,3,4,5,,6,, OK, I'm ready. We can
all open our eyes now... Consider the last suggestion.

Good suggestion...a few years late, but still a good suggestion. There
have been several fluid transfer experiments flown on the shuttle. Very
useful technology has resulted. One that comes to mind is the ORS,
Orbital Refueling System. In this experiment, hydrazine
    (yes, the feared and much maligned decomposing kind
     routinely used in the shuttle hydraulic system HPU,
     SRM's, countless aircraft, bouyancy systems,
     satellites, chemical industry processes,...)
was transfered repeatedly between propellant tanks placed in a
special pallet in the payload bay. EVA crewmen made fluid connections
for the transfers while on orbit. Valuable information was obtained on
heat transfer, venting and  thermal stratification during
pressurizations and depressurizations. Special fluid connectors have
been developed and continue to be developed for handling difficult
fluids such as propellants and cryogens in space. Refueling satellites
is indeed a very reasonable mission, and it seems easily accomplished
with the shuttle's capacity. Take the MMU for instance; It has
repeatedly been refueled as needed between uses on orbit by EVA crewmen
from shuttle tanks using qualified procedures, couplings, service
systems, etc. Then there is the SAFER, Simplified Aid for EVA Rescue,
that will be flown and repeatedly fueled in the same way, and
AERCAM.....etc.  I think a satellite or two have couplings installed
for fueling, too. What could be more "real," here and now!!!
Perhaps a little objective research is in order before we burn the books
of knowledge that the shuttle program has written. Gosh, the very
example cited here to condemn the shuttle as a "lousy workshop" is in
reality a great example of why the shuttle program is a real bargain.
Could the ORS experiment and demonstration have meant as much, and cost
as little if performed another way? I think not.
The most expensive technology is forgotten or shelved technology. One
can say that the shuttle is now expensive to run and made of outdated
technology. Uhh,,,,yea, I guess thats right. In the same light I can
scoff at my neighbor and his four year old antique home computer, while
I hold out for more power and lower cost. But you and I should think
carefully about how much benefit was obtained and is still coming from
that old bucket while snipers sit on the sidelines with only inaccurate
criticism in hand. Unlike the computer case though, as Gary C. pointed
out, "The Shuttle is a marvelous workshop *solely* because it is the
*only* heavy lift workshop *flying* regularly to various orbits..."..
*Someone else* may buy those computers to drive up capabilities and
drive down costs for you, but in the space biz, we're it. You wait, you
lose.
I'm sure you had a better idea when the shuttle was being developed;
Heck, we all did, lots of 'em. But there is only one shuttle and it is
the best that we could make it. I'm all for moving on to something
better. You do it by building on what is past, taking advantage of what
you have. The word "useless" has no place in the process.
            NOTHING IS USELESS
Case in point, even your criticism is useful. It shows me that what a
person doesn't know can hurt everybody. I urge critics to ask questions
and become informed first and then shoot only if necessary. Chances are
you don't have to shoot and everybody is the wiser for the questions
answered.
There is a lot of research out there being conducted on shoestring
budgets that is enabling very much needed capabilities. I for one, would
like to hear more that anyone can add to the REAL picture of space
servicing. (Perhaps a new thread with this title.)

Dennis W.
*    "Perfectly good arguments are often spoiled by         *
*    someone who knows what they're talking about." Auth unkn    *

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 06:38:04 GMT
From: WELLS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sabatier Reactors.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Gary Coffman,
[e-mail] writes:
>They also did an experiment to refuel a satellite's thrusters on one
>flight.

It was called ORS(See below). Examine the following comments:

In article <[e-mail]> Pat, [e-mail]
writes:
>>I agree. I don't see any reason why it couldn't be tried,
>>but NASA is constitutionally unable to do such basic experiments.
>>
>>All those people who glorify NASA should push to see Shuttle
>>used for such basic technology research studies.

In article <[e-mail]> Matthew DeLuca,
[e-mail] writes:
>>It's not that the Shuttle is incapable of doing it, it's
>>that NASA doesn't want to try it.

In article <[e-mail]> Pat, [e-mail]
writes:
>>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.
>>
>>I would view this example as a reasoonable argument that the
>>shuttle is a lousy workshop.

"constitutionally unable" !
"doesn't want to try" !!
"real workshop type activities"  !!!
"seems beyond the shuttles capacity" !!!!
"lousy workshop"    !!!!!%$@#^&1,2,3,4,5,,6,, OK, I'm ready. We can
all open our eyes now... Consider the last suggestion.

Good suggestion...a few years late, but still a good suggestion. There
have been several fluid transfer experiments flown on the shuttle. Very
useful technology has resulted. One that comes to mind is the ORS,
Orbital Refueling System. In this experiment, hydrazine
    (yes, the feared and much maligned decomposing kind
     routinely used in the shuttle hydraulic system HPU,
     SRM's, countless aircraft, bouyancy systems,
     satellites, chemical industry processes,...)
was transfered repeatedly between propellant tanks placed in a
special pallet in the payload bay. EVA crewmen made fluid connections
for the transfers while on orbit. Valuable information was obtained on
heat transfer, venting and  thermal stratification during
pressurizations and depressurizations. Special fluid connectors have
been developed and continue to be developed for handling difficult
fluids such as propellants and cryogens in space. Refueling satellites
is indeed a very reasonable mission, and it seems easily accomplished
with the shuttle's capacity. Take the MMU for instance; It has
repeatedly been refueled as needed between uses on orbit by EVA crewmen
from shuttle tanks using qualified procedures, couplings, service
systems, etc. Then there is the SAFER, Simplified Aid for EVA Rescue,
that will be flown and repeatedly fueled in the same way, and
AERCAM.....etc.  I think a satellite or two have couplings installed
for fueling, too. What could be more "real," here and now!!!
Perhaps a little objective research is in order before we burn the books
of knowledge that the shuttle program has written. Gosh, the very
example cited here to condemn the shuttle as a "lousy workshop" is in
reality a great example of why the shuttle program is a real bargain.
Could the ORS experiment and demonstration have meant as much, and cost
as little if performed another way? I think not.
The most expensive technology is forgotten or shelved technology. One
can say that the shuttle is now expensive to run and made of outdated
technology. Uhh,,,,yea, I guess thats right. In the same light I can
scoff at my neighbor and his four year old antique home computer, while
I hold out for more power and lower cost. But you and I should think
carefully about how much benefit was obtained and is still coming from
that old bucket while snipers sit on the sidelines with only inaccurate
criticism in hand. Unlike the computer case though, as Gary C. pointed
out, "The Shuttle is a marvelous workshop *solely* because it is the
*only* heavy lift workshop *flying* regularly to various orbits..."..
*Someone else* may buy those computers to drive up capabilities and
drive down costs for you, but in the space biz, we're it. You wait, you
lose.
I'm sure you had a better idea when the shuttle was being developed;
Heck, we all did, lots of 'em. But there is only one shuttle and it is
the best that we could make it. I'm all for moving on to something
better. You do it by building on what is past, taking advantage of what
you have. The word "useless" has no place in the process.
            NOTHING IS USELESS
Case in point, even your criticism is useful. It shows me that what a
person doesn't know can hurt everybody. I urge critics to ask questions
and become informed first and then shoot only if necessary. Chances are
you don't have to shoot and everybody is the wiser for the questions
answered.
There is a lot of research out there being conducted on shoestring
budgets that is enabling very much needed capabilities. I for one, would
like to hear more that anyone can add to the REAL picture of space
servicing. (Perhaps a new thread with this title.)

Dennis W.
*    "Perfectly good arguments are often spoiled by         *
*    someone who knows what they're talking about." Auth unkn    *

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 02:11:50 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Titan or Bust! (Saturn Moon)...
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:
>[e-mail] writes:
>
>>Is there a planned mission to Titan in the near future??
>>
>
>Define "near future".  Due to what I consider exceptional
>shortsightedness on the part of NASA, congress, or both,
>we do not have anything like reasonable propulsive technology.

Warp two Mr. Sulu. :-(

>Cassini, if launched as schedualed, will cruise for most of
>*SEVEN* years before reaching it's objective.  Don't hold your
>breath waiting for photos of the methane swamps of Titan.  And
>thank god I chose biochemistry over planetary sciences, I couldn't
>bare the thought of pinning my entire career on a single spacecraft
>that has (I can't emphasize this enough) *SEVEN* years in which
>to breakdown before I see any data.

The outer solar system is a *big* place. Nuclear rockets might make
it a little smaller, but anyone intending to work with outer planet
data just has to have more patience than you exhibit. And, unfortunately,
more stable funding than our space program exhibits.

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: 20 Feb 93 08:46:34 GMT
From: Michael Breckenridge <[e-mail]>
Subject: Virtual Reality research at NASA
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Ata Etemadi) writes:

>G'Day

>I have heard that at NASA there is ongoing research into VR. Anyone have
>any more information about what NASA or ESA are doing in this area ? While
>on the subject, does anyone know if SETI are using VR ? I would have thought
>this is one way to _be_ an alien, and hence establish possible communication
>protocols.

>    regards
>        Ata <(|)>.
>--
>| Mail          Dr Ata Etemadi, Blackett Laboratory,                          |
>|               Space and Atmospheric Physics Group,                          |
>|               Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine,        |
>|               Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BZ, ENGLAND                  |
>| Internet/Arpanet/Earn/Bitnet [e-mail] or [e-mail]  |
>| Span                              SPVA::atae       or     MSSLC:atae        |

The "Father of VR", as I've heard him called, Dr. Tom Furness III is the
Director of the Human Interface Technology Laboratory (HITLab) at the
Washington Technology Center at the University of Washington. He developed
VR pilot training systems, and the God's Eye View VR concept. I realize
you want to know about NASA's or ESA's projects, however, I thought you
may also like to know that Furness is hard at work here in Seattle on VR,
and the WTC can send you a regular posting (via airmail) keeping you
updated on his lab's work. He also hosts the Virtual Worlds Consortium.

His address is:
Dr. Tom Furness III
Human Interface Technology Laboratory
Washington Technology Center
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195 USA

Michael Breckenridge <[e-mail]>

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


Received: from VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU by isu.isunet.edu (5.64/A/UX-2.01)
    id AA21029; Sun, 21 Feb 93 02:55:46 EST
Received: from crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu by VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
          id aa10284; 21 Feb 93 2:52:49 EST
To: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!aio!news
From: WELLS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sabatier Reactors.
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Xxdate: Fri, 19 Feb 93 04:58:00 GMT
Sender: USENET News System <[e-mail]>
Organization: ER
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 04:57:25 GMT
Lines: 98
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> Gary Coffman,
[e-mail] writes:
>They also did an experiment to refuel a satellite's thrusters on one
>flight.

It was called ORS(See below). Examine the following comments:

In article <[e-mail]> Pat, [e-mail]
writes:
>>I agree. I don't see any reason why it couldn't be tried,
>>but NASA is constitutionally unable to do such basic experiments.
>>
>>All those people who glorify NASA should push to see Shuttle
>>used for such basic technology research studies.

In article <[e-mail]> Matthew DeLuca,
[e-mail] writes:
>>It's not that the Shuttle is incapable of doing it, it's
>>that NASA doesn't want to try it.

In article <[e-mail]> Pat, [e-mail]
writes:
>>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.
>>
>>I would view this example as a reasoonable argument that the
>>shuttle is a lousy workshop.

"constitutionally unable" !
"doesn't want to try" !!
"real workshop type activities"  !!!
"seems beyond the shuttles capacity" !!!!
"lousy workshop"    !!!!!%$@#^&1,2,3,4,5,,6,, OK, I'm ready. We can
all open our eyes now... Consider the last suggestion.

Good suggestion...a few years late, but still a good suggestion. There
have been several fluid transfer experiments flown on the shuttle. Very
useful technology has resulted. One that comes to mind is the ORS,
Orbital Refueling System. In this experiment, hydrazine
    (yes, the feared and much maligned decomposing kind
     routinely used in the shuttle hydraulic system HPU,
     SRM's, countless aircraft, bouyancy systems,
     satellites, chemical industry processes,...)
was transfered repeatedly between propellant tanks placed in a
special pallet in the payload bay. EVA crewmen made fluid connections
for the transfers while on orbit. Valuable information was obtained on
heat transfer, venting and  thermal stratification during
pressurizations and depressurizations. Special fluid connectors have
been developed and continue to be developed for handling difficult
fluids such as propellants and cryogens in space. Refueling satellites
is indeed a very reasonable mission, and it seems easily accomplished
with the shuttle's capacity. Take the MMU for instance; It has
repeatedly been refueled as needed between uses on orbit by EVA crewmen
from shuttle tanks using qualified procedures, couplings, service
systems, etc. Then there is the SAFER, Simplified Aid for EVA Rescue,
that will be flown and repeatedly fueled in the same way, and
AERCAM.....etc.  I think a satellite or two have couplings installed
for fueling, too. What could be more "real," here and now!!!
Perhaps a little objective research is in order before we burn the books
of knowledge that the shuttle program has written. Gosh, the very
example cited here to condemn the shuttle as a "lousy workshop" is in
reality a great example of why the shuttle program is a real bargain.
Could the ORS experiment and demonstration have meant as much, and cost
as little if performed another way? I think not.
The most expensive technology is forgotten or shelved technology. One
can say that the shuttle is now expensive to run and made of outdated
technology. Uhh,,,,yea, I guess thats right. In the same light I can
scoff at my neighbor and his four year old antique home computer, while
I hold out for more power and lower cost. But you and I should think
carefully about how much benefit was obtained and is still coming from
that old bucket while snipers sit on the sidelines with only inaccurate
criticism in hand. Unlike the computer case though, as Gary C. pointed
out, "The Shuttle is a marvelous workshop *solely* because it is the
*only* heavy lift workshop *flying* regularly to various orbits..."..
*Someone else* may buy those computers to drive up capabilities and
drive down costs for you, but in the space biz, we're it. You wait, you
lose.
I'm sure you had a better idea when the shuttle was being developed;
Heck, we all did, lots of 'em. But there is only one shuttle and it is
the best that we could make it. I'm all for moving on to something
better. You do it by building on what is past, taking advantage of what
you have. The word "useless" has no place in the process.
            NOTHING IS USELESS
Case in point, even your criticism is useful. It shows me that what a
person doesn't know can hurt everybody. I urge critics to ask questions
and become informed first and then shoot only if necessary. Chances are
you don't have to shoot and everybody is the wiser for the questions
answered.
There is a lot of research out there being conducted on shoestring
budgets that is enabling very much needed capabilities. I for one, would
like to hear more that anyone can add to the REAL picture of space
servicing. (Perhaps a new thread with this title.)

Dennis W.
*    "Perfectly good arguments are often spoiled by         *
*    someone who knows what they're talking about." Auth unkn    *

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 210
------------------------------