Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_2/V16NO212.TXT

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

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 05:10:02
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #212
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon, 22 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 212

Today's Topics:
                       anonymous IS accountable
                   Book Computers/AI in Shuttle-SSF
     Canadian SSF effort ??, Alaska/Son of Fred, UN Space Agency
                David Sternlight and wasted bandwidth
             EVA time (was Re: Nobody cares about Fred? )
                             F-1 history
                          Funny name for HST
      HST service mission altitued (was Re: Funny name for HST)
              I'm really embarrassed to ask this but...
                        leading-edge anonymity
                Mars Rescue Mission, what if! (3 msgs)
                        McElwaine disciplined!
       Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be dev
                  SSTO/DC-X in the Media.. (2 msgs)
                             System 2000
                   Titan or Bust! (Saturn Moon)...
        Wouldn't an earth to moon shuttle be better than fred?

    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 00:46:15 GMT
From: Dave Ratcliffe <frackit!dave>
Subject: anonymous IS accountable
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy,news.admin.policy

 In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (8 February 1993) writes:
 >
 > [e-mail] (Dave Ratcliffe) claims that anonymous postings are
 > like CB radio because of the unaccountability of the users of the
 > system.  This is FALSE because the server does in fact keep record of
 > the correspondence between the real names and the anonymized IDS.

Then why use it at all? Certainly it can't be to maintain your secret
identity since apparently it's not so secret. On the other hand, I
maintain that you can post anything you like with little threat of
reprisals. Your identity would only be revealed if you did something
that the SysAdmins at penet.fi agreed was nasty enough to warrant it.
Even then I doubt your name would become known, you'd probably just lose
your access so you'd have to find some other anon site to post from.
Same problem, different place.

 > The analogy would be more apt to say that it is like caller ID where you
 > capture the phone number of the anonymous caller.

....who is calling from payphone

 > To summarize: anonymous postings ARE accountable and, in my experience,
 > responsible.  That is, at least I will respond to reasonable exchange of
 > ideas.

Your experience is obviously limited. The recent postings about the
Challenger and the Soviet craft show otherwise.

 > The ones who fear accountable anonymity are the net thugs who are used
 > to extortion and intimidation of sysadmins.

So I and others who feel as I do are net thugs now?  I wonder if you can
get through a conversation without stooping to name-calling and personal
insults.  Somehow I doubt it.

Pardon me while I go extort and intimidate myself.

--
 vogon1!compnect!frackit![e-mail]            |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 - or - ..uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave                      |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
                                                         | Harrisburg,  Pa. |

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 23:49:04 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Computers/AI in Shuttle-SSF
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>I wonder if the non-directional LED-based IR systems used in some office
>>networks and the like would have enough range to be practical for the job.
>>That wouldn't be so difficult.
>
>I'd expect them to be blinded by the light of the raw Sun and it's
>reflections off the white Shuttle, white suits, and the Earth. It's
>far from an indoor office environment...

Not an insuperable problem.  Narrow bandpass filters and a narrowband
receiver for a carrier at a precisely known frequency will take out
most of the background.  Multiple emitters and multiple receivers can
do a lot to avoid problems with localized areas of the background,
e.g. the Sun -- if receiver A sees the astronaut silhouetted against
the Sun, just ignore it and switch to receiver B, located at the other
end of the payload bay.

>These things work indoors by
>bouncing their signals off walls and ceilings.

That's because they have to worry about not having a direct line of
sight.  Since the existing UHF spacesuit radios are line-of-sight-only,
we can take existence of a direct line of sight as given for such a
system.

>Might work inside the
>Shuttle until someone drifted in front of the sensor...

Actually, I believe the Shuttle program is already using infrared
technology for the communications headsets worn inside.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 03:24:23 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Canadian SSF effort ??, Alaska/Son of Fred, UN Space Agency
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>> You'd also need spacesuits, a rendezvous/docking system, and probably
>> a couple of data-relay satellites (to avoid having to set up a global
>> network of ground stations)...
>
>Why have a data-relay or ground network.. why not use a few cargo ships with
>hardware to track the space craft...

Because an object in low orbit isn't in view from any single point, be it
a ground station or a ship, for more than a very small fraction of its
orbit.  You need *lots* of ground stations (many of them on ships) to get
anything resembling continuous coverage of low orbits.  Launching a couple
of relay satellites is a lot simpler and cheaper.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 19 Feb 93 23:47:15 GMT
From: Dave Ratcliffe <frackit!dave>
Subject: David Sternlight and wasted bandwidth
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
> [e-mail] (Tom Mandel) writes:
> > worthless.  I may disagree with Sternlight's views, but views that
> > hide behind the veil of anon are hardly worth the trouble of
> > reading.
>
> then don't read them. i'm sure you know how to use a killfile or can
> figure it out if you give it a try. it's relatively simple to kill
> all posts from *@anon.penit.fi.

The problem with this solution is simple. YOU say use a kill file to
avoid this post. Others say use a kill file to avoid THAT post. The kill
file, while it has it's place, is NOT the solution to all the complaints
on the net. It is the net equivalent of hiding your head in the sand or
turning the other way and letting things continue on, unchecked.

The checks and balances that keep what control we ALL have over the net
in place would soon fail if every little thing that bugged someone was
relegated to a kill file and nothing more. Anonymous postings have their
place in some groups (do I need to tell you which ones?) but the problem
showing up now is that they are being used to avoid accountability for
outrageous (to some) postings.

Use a kill file, let it all continue unchecked and the problem WILL get
worse.  We need to deal with it now, not stick our collective heads in
the sand.

--
 vogon1!compnect!frackit![e-mail]            |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 - or - ..uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave                      |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
                                                         | Harrisburg,  Pa. |

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 01:29:08 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: EVA time (was Re: Nobody cares about Fred? )
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON) writes:
>> And maybe I'm wrong, I don't have the figures handy, but didn't the
>>   U.S. log more EVA time in 1992 than did Russia?

Probably: The Russians don't do many EVAs as a general rule (I think
the record was around 1 per month, during Kizim and Solovyov's
Salyut 7 residency, but the average is much lower), and NASA has
been doing an ususually large number of EVAs (to gain experience
for Freedom's construction?).

>I remember that sometime ago I read that Americans had more EVA time than
>Russians (Soviets??). Is it still true???

That depends on what you count as an "EVA". Including experience on
the Moon, Americans have logged more hours. However, Lunar experience
isn't applicable to on-orbit EVAs at all. If you only look at
_orbital_ experience, the Russians are ahead by about a factor of ten...

                                                          Frank Crary
                                                          CU Boulder

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 18:49:48 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: F-1 history
Newsgroups: sci.space

>
>Random F-1 factoid... apparently the application used to justify the F-1
>project when it was under USAF was that it was needed to build ballistic
>suborbital troop carriers.
>
>gary

    Oh, lordy. And I thought fifteen hours in a C-141 jumpseat was bad.

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

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

Date: 21 Feb 1993 00:28:09 -0500
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Funny name for HST
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Pat ([e-mail]) wrote:
|
|: Ken
|
|:     Why isn't the HST mission carrying the EDO pallet.  Given the
|: problems on the Intelsat mission, I'd think an extra week of hang time
|: may come in handy.  Carry spare suits, bring along a bunch of fabricating
|: materials,  god knows, what they may need up there.  IS there a weight
|: problem?
|
|Yes, mass is an issue.  Note the extreme altitude.  This is the highest
|non-classified Shuttle flight I can recall.  If you're really curious,
|I could ask the Flight Integration Manager (FIM) what drove the manifest.
|
|-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office


Yes please do ask.  I remember when Discovery?  flew carrying
the HST up, they went to the highest orbit then for
a shuttle mission, and they were carrying a full bay
of telescope up with them.  this time I would imagine
that they'd have loads of weight to spare.  Seriously
if this mission runs into trouble,  they are going to
end up consuming manuevering fuel(Hydrazine)  space suit
consumables (Batteries, water, oxygen) and ships power
Hydrogen/oxygen like there is no tomorrow.

I don't know what else is in the bay, but they'll have new
solar arrays, the wf/pc2????  COSTAR and some gyros.
they should have lots of mass to spare.  even if they
need to waive a weight criteria to carry spare
cryogenics, they should look long and hard at the waiver.
this mission is expensive and hairy. they'll need a lot of
margin on the up-side.  they should also carry a couple
bottles of champagne.  if it all works they'll deserve it.

pat

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 00:21:43 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: HST service mission altitued (was Re: Funny name for HST)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Chris Jones) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, kjenks@gothamcity writes:
>>                             This is the highest
>>non-classified Shuttle flight I can recall.        [^^^^ HST repair flight]
>
> The HST deployment flight was probably higher, since HST has no provisions for
> reboosting itself, and it likely has decayed some since then.

As Chris noted, HST is now in a lower orbit than it was when deployed almost
three years ago.  Part of the service mission (if all goes well) includes
a re-boost of HST back to the highest circular orbit the shuttle can give
it.  So the shuttle (Endeavor ?) will have to grab HST from its current
orbit, orbit there while the refurbishment takes place, and then blast
for higher orbit before re-deploying HST.

At this point Storey Musgrave, the payload commander and an avid sky
diver, plans to don his parachute and attempt an all time altitude
record for sky diving.  (Really folks, he talked about it while we
were knocking back Lone Star's in the bar at the Nassau Bay Hilton!)
<insert desired number of smiley faces>

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute

 "Forgive him, he is a barbarian, who thinks the customs of his tribe
  are the laws of the universe."                       - G. J. Caesar

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 02:36:16 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: I'm really embarrassed to ask this but...
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian D. Schieber) writes:
> I have this friend who conned me into finding out how her
>friend can name a star after her boyfriend.  I TOLD YOU I
>was embarrassed...

(If there isn't something about this in the FAQ, there ought to be...)

Quick answer:  no way.  There are a couple of outfits that will sell you
a star name, with an indication of where "your" star is (don't expect to
be able to see it without a telescope and a reasonably dark sky).  However,
this has absolutely no official standing with anybody.  Official names of
astronomical objects etc. are decided by committees of the International
Astronomical Union, with some input from the discoverers, and are not
for sale.

If you don't care about official status, I'd suggest buying a copy of
Astronomy (any good newsstand will have it) and carefully going through
the ads in the back -- that's what I'd do if I wanted to find one of
those outfits.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 20 Feb 93 00:11:04 GMT
From: Dave Ratcliffe <frackit!dave>
Subject: leading-edge anonymity
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,sci.astro,sci.space

 In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Richard Treitel) writes:
 > In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
 >  [...]
 > |> Frog feces.  There is some difference between an 'anonymous source'
 > |> for police or journalists (who must worry about physical harm as a
 > |> result of talking) and some little loudmouth running his mouth for the
 > |> attention and sensation he hopes to cause.
 >
 > We have been shown evidence that the source of this anonymous post does
 > indeed have reason to worry about physical harm.

What evidence are you referring to?

--
 vogon1!compnect!frackit![e-mail]            |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 - or - ..uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave                      |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
                                                         | Harrisburg,  Pa. |

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 01:14:34 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Rescue Mission, what if!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:
>>That really depends on the nature of the problem. There is a paper
>>on rapidly sending small (under 10kg) packages to Mars within one
>>month.

>Yowzers.  One month?  10Kg?  Do tell!

It's possible, not easy (or cost effective). The paper (McKay et al,
Case for Mars II) looked at several options, including very
exotic ones (laser-driven solar sails, for example. With a 10kg
payload, that doesn't take much of a laser...) They also found
simple, chemical rockets to be feasible: A 10kg payload, and
(say) fifty tonnes (on Low Earth Orbit) of staged rocket could achieve
about 50km/s. That's enough to cut the transfer orbit time to a
couple of months. (I.e. if you put a monkey wrench on top of an
Energia, you can get the monkey wrench to Mars very quickly...)
Of course, that sort of thing is far to ineffecient and expensive
for any routine use. However, it might be worth it in a life-threatening
emergency.

                                                     Frank Crary
                                                     CU Boulder

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 23:55:56 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Rescue Mission, what if!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>>...The Scott expedition to the south pole died.  Any frontier
>>is a dangerous place.
>
>However, the Shackelton expedition didn't, nor did Amendsen's: Risks
>can be minimized by carefull planning and having enough sense to
>give up and cut your losses, when serious problems come up...

Of course, this presumes you *can* give up and cut your losses...

Frank's got a point:  the Scott expedition is a poor example because it
was so utterly incompetently run.  However, even Amundsen, more competent
than Scott and Shackleton put together, was eventually killed in the course
of Arctic exploration (well, Arctic search-and-rescue, technically).  There
is a limit to what you can do to minimize risk.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 21 Feb 93 02:53:55 GMT
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Rescue Mission, what if!
Newsgroups: sci.space

>If they miss, by a small amount, they travel to the dump
>by crawler.
>
>If they miss by a large amount,  they land the second factory
>at their location.
>
>If they miss by a small amount, they travel to the dump by crawler.
>
>If both fail,  they weather in, and radio for an emergency launch of
>another factory ship.

   Potential reason for failure would be automated ship setting down
   on top of a big boulder, like the one a few yards away from Viking
   that would have made it crash had Viking landed over there instead.

   However, pinpoint landings of Apollo 12 and subsequent missions,
   and superb targeting of Voyager, Galileo et al. tends to support
   dual landings on Mars.

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

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

Date: 20 Feb 1993 23:22:35 GMT
From: Tarl Neustaedter <[e-mail]>
Subject: McElwaine disciplined!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Andrew Koenig) writes:
> It always worries me when someone is stomped on because of what he says,
> even if what he says is unadulturated gibberish.  Are we so thin-skinned
> that we can't just ignore stuff we don't want to see?

Be aware that McElwaine has a long history at UWEC, including many run-ins
with the administrators. His network privileges have been revoked before,
so don't worry about his not having been warned about this.

I would rather suspect that his run-in this time came from an abrupt change
in behaviour; I used to see random postings occasionally in several newsgroups.
A couple of weeks ago, I started seeing the same posting from him in all
six science-related newsgroups that I read (seperate postings, not cross-
posted), and no evidence that it was isolated to these six groups. There
is also no evidence that he ever reads the newsgroups that he posts to.

About a year ago, in his previous active phase, I querried his sysadmin about
his physical existance (there had speculation that he was an AI program
that someone was field-testing), and the response was on the nature of
"what's he done THIS time?" I gathered that the school administration was
just looking for an excuse to hammer him again (my impression, this was
not stated), and I dropped the conversation.

I would hazard a guess that his posting of abortion-related religious tracts
to inappropriate groups got him in trouble this time. It's certainly a subject
that is guaranteed to garner a heated response - and I saw this posting
recently on a couple of groups including sci.med (where the response was
basically, GO AWAY). I wouldn't be surprised to find that he had posted that
on soc.women and several of the religion-oriented groups . . .
--
         Tarl Neustaedter       Stratus Computer
            [e-mail]    Marlboro, Mass.
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.

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

Date: 21 Feb 93 02:51:42 GMT
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reliable Source says Freedom Dead, Freedom II to be dev
Newsgroups: sci.space

>But I thought the Kevorkian idea to be at least worth a smile.  Anybody seen
>Dr. Jack around NASA HQ lately?

    He might have been the guy that killed Fred?

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

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 23:40:18 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO/DC-X in the Media..
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON) writes:
>I have been reading that SDIO's funding will be cut and I was wondering is it
>going to affect DC-X???

DC-X funding is already in hand, not much effect is likely there... and SDIO
decided a year or two ago that it would not be funding DC-Y anyway.  So it's
not likely to be a problem.

There is still the problem of just who *is* going to fund DC-Y.
--
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
effect since OS/360.                    |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 18:50:23 PST
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSTO/DC-X in the Media..
Newsgroups: sci.space

>No, you're probably just looking in the wrong place.  Delta Clipper has been
>on pop science shows (I happended to see it on Beyond 2000 while I was channel
>surfing) and it's getting impressive play in the space media.  It's only a
>$60 million technology development program that hasn't wasted government funds
,
>threatend consumer saftey or caused an international incident.  Why should the
y
>show it on prime time news?

>Josh Hopkins

   It is? I missed "Beyond 2000", and I have seen absolutely no news
   about Delta Clipper other than on this net (Thanks, Allen!)
   I do remember a magazine story circa 1990, either Aviation Week
   or Final Frontier, I don't remember which. It was somewhat vague.

   By the way, with Delta Clipper an SDIO project, I've always
   figured that the silence was intentional.

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 02:41:05 GMT
From: Ata Etemadi <[e-mail]>
Subject: System 2000
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.dsp,comp.graphics,comp.lang.idl,comp.lang.idl-pvwave,sci.space,sci.image.processing,comp.soft-sys.matlab

G'Day

I am guessing that a lot of people are in the same boat with regards to
computing needs. We are planning our computing budget for H/W and S/W to
take us into the year 2000. I would very much appreciate people's input as
to the way to go. Our budget may well be in the 500-1000K pounds range.
Generally we process and analyse around 10-20 Gigabytes of spacecraft data
per year, and we expect this to increase by a factor of 100 (Cluster space
mission is the culprit) by 1996. On top of this is atmospheric and MHD
modelling, AI, Computer Vision, image processing etc.. projects competing
for resources. Everyone here programs in Fortran, and a few of us in C,
Forth, and C++. We don't want to reinvent the wheel for the upteenth time
having just moved over from Vaxen to Unix machines. My proposal has been to
go for a massively parallel system connected up to networks of PCs and
workstations. This sounds reasonable given our processing needs. I am
assuming that PCs will catch up in performance and storage to workstations,
and workstations will have to go massively parallel to compete. I have been
looking for S/W packages that we can use as our development environment,
that will be easily ported to a parallel system, and where we can easily
import our F77 and C code. This would save us a lot of development time.
So far no luck. Seems like the S/W developers are just looking 1-2 years
ahead (if that :-( Data storage has been another headache given the rapid
development of R/W optical discs. Seems like every month a better, faster,
cheaper system is released. Basically help !!!

        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        |
| UUCP/Usenet                       [e-mail]        |

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

Date: 21 Feb 93 02:51:03 GMT
From: Brian Stuart Thorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Titan or Bust! (Saturn Moon)...
Newsgroups: sci.space

>[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.
>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.

    However, we *will* get good images and data from Venus, Earth,
    the Moon, and Jupiter in the seven year interim. Maybe an
    asteroid too, but that's not in the plan right now.

    Doesn't make up for the long flight, but it makes it less
    excruciating.

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1993 01:22:48 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wouldn't an earth to moon shuttle be better than fred?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joe Cain) writes:
>>|>   It seems to me that having a earth to moon shuttle would be a far more
>>|> suitable use of resources. Something that could take a few people and cargo
>>|> out to the moon and back to earth orbit.  Okay, I know that somebody will
>>|> argue that a space station is needed in between.

>    NASA an most others agree that a space station is virtually
>useless as a staging point between the Earth and Moon or Mars.

That really depends on the sort of missions you are sending to the
Moon or Mars. For the type of Mars missions currently under
consideration (under a dozen astronauts; launches no more frequent
than every second year) you are quite right: The costs of a
station (as well as the delays and risks) far outweigh the extra
efficiency made possible by a station. If we were thinking of
supporting a permenant base, with a staff of several dozen,
a space station might be very usefull. The same logic applies
to the Moon, but I think we are closer to a long term base and
its requirments.

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 212
------------------------------