Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_3/V16NO336.TXT

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

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 93 05:07:50
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #336
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 19 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 336

Today's Topics:
                      A few observations on anon
                  Asteroid Laser 'Drill' Speculation
                           Aurora spotted?
       Clueless Szaboisms  (Was Re: plans, and absence thereof)
                                 DC-X
                          DCX Facility Tour?
                   JPL and goals and plans (2 msgs)
               Just a little tap (was Re: Galileo HGA)
                         Lunar ice transport
         Mighty cold down there(was Re: Lunar ice transport)
                     Need MIR packet Frequency's
                           planetary texts
     Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise (2 msgs)
                          Retraining at NASA
                 SR-71 Maiden Science Flight (2 msgs)
               What do we do now with Freedom. (2 msgs)
                            Without a Plan

    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 Mar 93 15:58:01 GMT
From: dan day <[e-mail]>
Subject: A few observations on anon
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>2. In all but the most idle chatter on the net, people have
>reputations to uphold. Pseudonymous posters are starting with no
>reputation and thus risking nothing.

And, if they trash their anon identity (as you-know-who already has)
they repeat their cowardly act and simply acquire a brand new anon
identity.  With nothing to lose, they have no reason to give a damn.

While it's legitimate to use anon to avoid unfair retribution,
it's clear that the "anonomous crusaders" use it simply because
they know deep down that if they posted this drivel under their
own name they'd have a hard time being taken seriously again, and
rightly so.

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

Date: 18 Mar 93 16:24:40 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Asteroid Laser 'Drill' Speculation
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert J. Hall) writes:
>Curiosity question: How far are we, technology-wise, from being capable of
>focusing a (sufficiently powerful) laser/maser from Earth or LOE onto a near-
>earth asteroid, such that we can 'cook' off the surface layer and drill for
>ice? (With the intent to see if any present.) Silly idea?

Figuring a near-Earth asteroid at 1 million km (fairly close approach) and
using 1um infrared (to make the numbers easy :-)) from a 10m telescope, we
get a spot size on the order of 100m at the asteroid from diffraction alone,
assuming perfect compensation for atmospheric distortion etc.  No way will
this work without a focussing system near the asteroid, and then you might
as well just drill the old-fashioned way instead.

Note that any hardware capable of doing a manned lunar mission is also
capable of doing a short manned visit to a near-Earth asteroid (given
beefed-up life-support for a mission lasting a couple of months), and such
a mission is likely to be vastly more informative than any reasonable
amount of fooling around with long-delay teleoperation etc.  There was
a proposal to do this with the Apollo 18 hardware; alas for what might
have been...
--
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 18 Mar 93 12:32:00 PST
From: "RWTMS2::MUNIZB" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aurora spotted?

On Wed, 17 Mar 93 15:55:45 MET, [e-mail] writes:

<It seems that the 1991-1992 "airquakes" over California were not like
<those giant booms - these airquakes were described as short rumbles making
<the ground lurch.

I heard some of those "sonic anomalies" (what the USGS, Cal Tech and other
earthquake-types call them).  The windows of my house shook for ~ 15 sec.,
and there was a loud, low-frequency rumbling sound (lowder and lower frequency
than the rocket tests usually conducted near my house) that sounded like an
earthquake, but the ground did not shake.  Many people in the L.A. area (from
San Fernado Valley to the South Bay area) called to report earthquakes and
were told it was not a seismic event.

Disclaimer: Opinions stated are solely my own (unless I change my mind).
Ben Muniz     [e-mail]    w(818)586-3578
Space Station Freedom:Rocketdyne/Rockwell:Structural Loads and Dynamics
   "Man will not fly for fifty years": Wilbur to Orville Wright, 1901

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

Date: 18 Mar 1993 10:53 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Clueless Szaboisms  (Was Re: plans, and absence thereof)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes...
>[e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:
>>I wasn't aware that your one penny of every dollar of tax money was
>> bigger than the one penny of every tax dollar Mr. Wingo pays.
>
>This is a truly stupid comment.  Wingo gets 100% of his paycheck
>from the IRS and pays back 20-30%.  BFD.
>
>

You know I have tried to keep out of this little bit of flaming about me
and generally it has been funny but the Scotch-Irish in me just will not
let this one pass.

My paycheck comes in this proportion

40% Taiwanese National Cheng Kung University Contract
30% SpaceHab (Where the contract that we won came in at less than 1/3 the
cost of our competitors due to MY design)
30% Office of commercial whatever at NASA hq for accelerometer work.

This will change in the next 30 days to 100% paid for by money that I have
raised through my own efforts in the private sector to enable me to work on
SEDSAT 1 through may of next year.

Work that I an my collegues are doing here at UAH is helping to bring down
the cost of materials processing in space by doing the all important
background engineering that will allow the true testing of the
microgravity materials science concepts either on Shuttle, COMET, CONSORT
or any other platform for that matter.

So actually I am doing two things. I am bringin money into this country
from foreign sources, thereby helping to reduce our balance of payments
while building things that work and lower the cost of doing spaceflight
experimentation.

As for my other activities, I don't even have to defend them. I will bet
you one thing Mr. Know it all, when in several years there is a spacecraft
returning to the moon, you can bet your last nickel that I will have had
something to do with it and you will still be ranting on sci.space.

Have a Nice Day
Dennis, UNiversity of Alabama in Huntsville

PS Oh by the way the next time you go to Kmart or anywhere else that has
a NCR cash register that has a modem hooked to it you will be at the
mercy of hardware that I designed. I worked for 10 years in the commercial
computer industry BEFORE I ever worked on space experiments. I walked
away from a secure job to take one at 1/5 the pay because this is where our
future is and I have bet the farm on it. So next time you talk about
me and where my paycheck comes from you need to reference this post.

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

Date: 18 Mar 93 15:27:49 GMT
From: Edmund Hack <arabia!hack>
Subject: DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (FRANK NEY) writes:
>
>I just wish we could fund DC-X and DC-Y privately.  Unfortunately,
>CSLA makes this a near-impossibility.

Actually, it seems to me that the poor financial condition of MacDac
makes it impossible.  If Boeing had been the contractor on this (and it
was about 4 years ago, when they were up to their eyeballs in cash) it
might have been possible to fund it privately, assuming DC-X had worked.
Unfortunately, MacDac is being pummeled by various problems, including
the C-17 and SSF.


--
Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
[e-mail] - I speak only for myself, unless blah, blah..
"Everybody wants prosthetic foreheads on their real heads"
"I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV."

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

Date: 18 Mar 93 12:31:00 PST
From: "RWTMS2::MUNIZB" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DCX Facility Tour?

On: 17 Mar 93 11:13:52 GMT, James Thomas Green <[e-mail]>
writes:

>Does someone have the address/phone/e-mail address of someone
>with the DCX program I could contact about arranging a tour of
>the DCX facilty.

Some members of OASIS (L.A. chapter of NSS), Orange County NSS and Rocketdyne
Employess NSS recently went on a tour of the DC-X.  It was arranged by Ray
Charette, a Senior Manager in the Design and Technology Center at MDA
[714-896-2674 or 714-896-1526].  We mentioned our political efforts (letter
writing, phone calls) in support of the SSRT program.

<I'd like to get some Cal Poly University students in to see
<whats being done with the program.  Perhaps even go to the first
<launch of the DCX if possible.

Dr. William Gaubatz of MDA (I don't have his number handy) gave a presentation
on DC-X at the CSDC/SEDS conference in Pasadena last month.  He summarized
by inviting all to the first flight at White Sands!  I later asked him if he
thought that would be possible.  He said it might be since the liftoff pad
and flight control trailer were very close to the runway that was used for
the Shuttle landing that people were allowed to see several years ago.
Speculation on whether SDIO will let people in to watch?

Ben Muniz: President; Organization for the Advancement of Space
Industrialization and Settlement (OASIS)/L.A. chapter-National Space Society
Internet:[e-mail] Voicemail:[phone]

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

Date: 18 Mar 93 16:14:23 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: JPL and goals and plans
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes:
>... we don't even know where the best place
>to look for minerals and volatiles is.  Finding that out would
>require a fleet of small, relatively cheap probes.  That is right
>up JPL's alley.  Galileo is a great example of such.

I have heard Galileo called many things... but "small" and "cheap" have
not been among them!  It may well be the biggest and most expensive
unmanned deep-space mission NASA will ever launch.
--
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 18 Mar 93 17:49:03 GMT
From: Jeff Bytof <[e-mail]>
Subject: JPL and goals and plans
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>I have heard Galileo called many things... but "small" and "cheap" have
>not been among them!  It may well be the biggest and most expensive
>unmanned deep-space mission NASA will ever launch.

What's the cost of Galileo in 1969 dollars?

-rabjab

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

Date: 18 Mar 93 16:16:13 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Just a little tap (was Re: Galileo HGA)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dennis Newkirk) writes:
>Seriuosly, does anyone know if there's any hope that orbital insertion burn
>will jolt the antenna loose? ...

Some hope, but not a whole lot.
--
All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                    - Kipling           |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 18 Mar 93 03:56:30 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lunar ice transport
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ross  Borden) writes:
>>    So, if you were to preheat the pipeline by injecting superheated
>>steam, could you pump water at, say, 100C the entire length without reheating?
>>    Gary Coffman mentions using steam instead of water, but its not clear
>>to me why.  Is it for ease of pumping?  I would think that you would be able
>>to deliver more mass using liquid phase.
>
> I was suggesting a system that is *self pumping*. The solar heating of
> the pipe during lunar daytime boils the water and the system "percolates"
> via a set of one way check valves toward the equatorial base.

Cute idea, Gary, but if it could be made to work, it would work
only six months a year at best.

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

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

Date: 18 Mar 93 09:24:46 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mighty cold down there(was Re: Lunar ice transport)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Nntp-Posting-Host: fnalf.fnal.gov
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ross  Borden) writes:
>>be buried in the regolith (an excellent insulator).  Does anyone know
>>what the mean temperature of regolith is at, say, 2 meters ?
>
> We only have a few data points, but they're all within a degree or two
> of 255K.  The variation is from site to site -- the temperature at any
> particular site is absolutely constant at that depth.

Then to make the pipeline work we'll have to ship a lot of ethylene
glycol to the Moon, right?

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | What I want to be
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | when I grow up:
Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | "Charismatic Leader
Internet:       [e-mail]  | of a Heavily Armed
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | Religious Cult"

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

Date: 18 Mar 93 15:01:52 GMT
From: George Rachor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need MIR packet Frequency's
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.ham-radio.packet,rec.radio.amateur.packet

Anyone remember the frequency's used by the MIR space station packet radio system?




--
George Rachor Jr.    Aloha, OR

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

Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1993 16:55:02 GMT
From: Joe Cain <[e-mail]>
Subject: planetary texts
Newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary,sci.space

    Some months ago I reviewed the planetary texts available and
wrote a short summary here and also published it in EOS (American
Geophysical Union). Since then, some new information has come out and
I am looking for another update if any of you can help.

Morrison and Owen's 1987 "The Planetary System" was supposed
to see a new edition next fall. I just heard that they are not going
to make this, but there is now no further estimate.

A new text by Consolmagno and Schaefer (hopefully spelled correctly)
called something like "Other Worlds" is supposed to be in print by the
fall term.

I have heard that Ron Greeley's "Planetary Landscapes" is being
updated, but have no info on when.

To my knowledge Baugher's "The Space Age Solar System" has no plans
for an update, though it is a good possibility for non-science
students and could be a contender.

The last time I spoke with Jeff Wagner there was no request for
updating his "Introduction to the Solar System" unless something new
has come up in the last few months.

It would be of interest to know if Hamblin and Christiansen's
"Exploring the Planets" is being considered for a revision. It is an
excellent introduction for geology students (as is Greeley's)

I should also mention "Wanderer's in Space" a new-to-me but with a
1991 publication date from Cambridge Press by Lang and Whitney that
some might find neat for the proper students.

Is there any book unturned? I would add Abel, Morrison and Wolf's
"Exploration of the Universe" which I use as a reference for our
planetary geology course, but did not want to start into the mostly
astronomy area or I would quickly get swamped. Along the same vein I
should also mention Hartmann's 3rd Edition of "Moons and Planets" just
updated (1993!) for the serious science student.

I will be trying to track down some of these questions by phone, but
thought that if anyone had access to the authors, it would help save
our monotinically downsizing resources.


Joseph Cain        [e-mail]
[e-mail]        scri::cain
[phone]        FAX [phone] or -0098

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

Date: 18 Mar 93 15:08:00 GMT
From: "Thomas E. Smith" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics,alt.sci.planetary

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (R
>on Baalke) writes:
>>     Three interplanetary spacecraft, now headed quietly toward Mars,
>>Jupiter and over the poles of the sun, soon may prove the
>>existence of elusive waves in the universe's gravitational field by
>>bobbing on ripples in space like corks bobbing on ripples in a pond.
>
>From: [e-mail] (Mark)
>I'm betting that the following will be observed:  Cosmic Noise.  A large number
>of components will be detected at around wavelengths of 1 AU and above with
>VERY low intensity, if the configuration is sufficiently tuned.  The
>components will have wavelengths that occur at discrete jumps of about 1
>millimeter at 1 AU.

Ok, I give up. Why will wavelengths be detected at around 1 AU and up at low
intensity?

As for the cosmic noise, it probably will be observed, but since gravity waves
are the only known phenonema that can wobble all three spacecraft at almost the
same time (I forget if gravity travels the speed of light, or is instantly
propagated) you can filter out the noise by only looking at events that affect
all three spacecraft.



--
------------------------------------------------------------------- ._________
| It's not my damn planet, understand | Tom E. Smith                |= (0_, \ \
| Monkey Boy?!!       John Bigbootey  | [e-mail] |= |0 ` / |
------------------------------------------------------------------- |---u----/

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

Date: 18 Mar 93 15:10:55 GMT
From: "Thomas E. Smith" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics,alt.sci.planetary

>Originator: [e-mail]
>
>Donald L. Savage
>Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                              March 17, 1993
>(Phone:  [phone])
>
>Franklin O'Donnell
>Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
>(Phone:  [phone])
>
>THREE SPACECRAFT TO CONDUCT 3-WEEK GRAVITATIONAL WAVE SEARCH
>
>     Three interplanetary spacecraft, now headed quietly toward Mars,
>Jupiter and over the poles of the sun, soon may prove the
>existence of elusive waves in the universe's gravitational field by
>bobbing on ripples in space like corks bobbing on ripples in a pond.
>
>     The experiment is built around a simple concept.  During the
>3-week experiment, the antennas of NASA's Deep Space Network (DSN)
>on Earth will beam radio signals to the three spacecraft at precisely
>known frequencies.

What are these frequencies?

>                    Each spacecraft will send signals back to Earth at
>the same frequency it receives.  If no gravitational waves are passing
>through the Solar System, the signals returned to Earth should have
>exactly the same frequencies as the original signals sent from the DSN,
>shifted only by the Doppler effect of spacecraft motion.

How will you know if the frequency was shifted on the way to the spacecraft
or on the return trip? Or does it matter?

>     However, if a strong enough gravitational wave passes -- produced
>perhaps from collapsing masses of stars in the hearts of galaxies or
>from the spiraling together and collision of two black holes -- both
>the Earth and the spacecraft will experience a slight "bobbing" from
>the ripple-like passage of the gravitational wave.

How accurate will the wave detector have to be to detect these events,
and how much will the wave move the earth and spacecrafts?

>     The hydrogen maser clocks that control the DSN transmitters and
>receivers are so accurate that scientists will be able to detect a
>change in radio frequency of as little as a few parts in a quadrillion
>(a quadrillion is 1 followed by 15 zeroes).

Related to my previous question... How much distance does this change in
frequency translate to?

>     Sensitive ground-based interferometer antennas now are being built
>in both the United States and Europe to search for gravitational waves
>with wavelengths of thousands of kilometers.

How much more sensitive is the setup with the three spacecraft than the
ground-based interferometer antennas?

>     To identify the unique signals of gravitational waves, the
>scientists also will have to eliminate such mundane effects as
>planned changes in the orientation of the spacecraft, interference from
>charged particles (plasmas) in space and even atmospheric changes, rain
>and snow on Earth.

I take it these will vary the temperatures of the radar dishes and shift
their frequencies?


I am glad to see that you have taken advantage of a fantastic opportunity!
A High 5 to the scientists who proposed this! Let's just hope that nature
cooperates and gives us something to listen to :)


--
------------------------------------------------------------------- ._________
| It's not my damn planet, understand | Tom E. Smith                |= (0_, \ \
| Monkey Boy?!!       John Bigbootey  | [e-mail] |= |0 ` / |
------------------------------------------------------------------- |---u----/

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

Date: 18 Mar 93 07:40:26 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Retraining at NASA
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Donnell) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat)
>wrote:
>
>Amen - but the most of the Hatch Act should be unconsitutional
>imho. Another diatribe entirely - so don't get me started. :-)
>

Well, as long as you are getting a goverment paycheck,  you do accept that
as a guideline.  Hatch could use some tuning, but I think it at least
protects civil servants as much as it constrains them.  Down here
a lot of people desperately need Hatch protection.  This is where
it does it's best work.

>> STS  4 Billion/year.
>> SSF  1 Billion/year
>> DSN  200 Million/year
>> TDRSS 500 Million/year
>> Facilities O&M 1.5 Billion/year.
>>
>
>What is your source for these numbers?  Just to make sure we are one the
>same wavelength, are you saying, for example, that it costs 4 billion
>annually
>just to maintain STS in nominal operations (with no considerations for
>payloads development and costs, etc.)  I am particularly curious about what
>you consider to be infrastructure costs in SSF, since the program is still
>in development.
>

I believe NASA's budget request specifies  line items.  Now i don't have
it in front of me,  but  my reading of the local rags,  shows NASA spending
$4Billion  on Shuttle O&M, ADDTE,  Analytical support, etc.   Look at the
rough numbers.  Most of JSC, KSC, MSFC, 1/2 of GSFC,DFRC,WSMTR and Stennis
are tied up in shuttle related activities.   Now granted any manned
space program would use a lot,  but SHuttle is the current justification.

SSF is hotly debated, but if you average numbers,  were looking at spending
this kind of money to bend metal for it,  and even when it's done,
it'll steill need O&M money.

Look some of my numbers are ROM guesses, but if you average in
developement costs, et al.  I can defend them with good faith.

>> Investment in infrastructure often times limits modes of thought.
>
>Agreed - the issue is a difficult one with limited funds.
>
>While I would certainly agree that NASA has not been able to incorporate
>new technology as fast as would be desired, there is something to be said
>for getting the most mileage out of previous investments. Now when it
>can be shown that new methods generate a significant savings - then the
>proverbial gears should be switched.  (For example, I agree with many of
>your
>observations in the post about SSF redesign.)
>

THe problem with Infras-strucuture, is that the decision means oftentimes
the law of unintended consequences comes into play.  Because we have made
this decision, now we must make this decision,etc,etc,etc.

Because we decided to build cars, now we must build roads, bridges,
then we need gas station,  now we need oil,  now we need imports.....

Punched Cards are a classic example of infrastructure over-riding
THought processes.  THe punched card was designed because it fit
existing dollar bill trays.   look where that decision took us.
The Apple used the 6502, because it had a simpler power requirement
over the 6800.

Sometimes spending a little more up-front generates huge long term
savings.

Look at KSC,  because we have facilities for handling rockets, it
acts to impede research in unconventional launch methods.  infra-structure
can often times be an impediment to progress.

>I think perhaps there are stronger arguments that NASA's scope is too large
>for the money Congress chooses to allocate. However, be that as it may,
>NASA must use its funds first to maintain (and complete where appropriate)
>projects upon which it has already embarked.  In some cases, this might
>even
>mean sticking with an less than optimal design, because better methods were
>not available at the onset (and throwing away the old one is prohibitive)
>or
>the right method is too resource demanding.
>
>Brian Donnell
>NASA/JSC

the answers are not easy.  I don't advocate tossing the shuttle
because DC-1 should work,  rather the operations groups need to be split off
from the research people.

pat

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

Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1993 15:35:15 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: SR-71 Maiden Science Flight
Newsgroups: sci.space

On Thu, 18 Mar 1993 15:11:03 GMT, [e-mail] (Matthew Kaiser) said:

Matthew> is NASA going to run the SR-71 through its paces and find out
Matthew> what exactly IS its top speed?

Only if there's a research requirement to do so.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this to happen.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
[e-mail]                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

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

Date: 18 Mar 93 16:05:22 GMT
From: "John S. Neff" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SR-71 Maiden Science Flight
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:
>From: [e-mail] (Mary Shafer)
>Subject: Re: SR-71 Maiden Science Flight
>Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1993 15:35:15 GMT
>On Thu, 18 Mar 1993 15:11:03 GMT, [e-mail] (Matthew Kaiser) said:
>
>Matthew> is NASA going to run the SR-71 through its paces and find out
>Matthew> what exactly IS its top speed?
>
>Only if there's a research requirement to do so.
>
>I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this to happen.
>
>--
>Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
>[e-mail]                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
> "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot
Please explain the advantage of the SR-71 over a ballon for UV
spectrophotometry. The maximum altitude of the SR-71 listed in a previous
post was about the same, or a little lower, than the normal altitude of
a ballon flight.

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

Date: 18 Mar 93 17:19:57 GMT
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: What do we do now with Freedom.
Newsgroups: sci.space

Oh i forgot about one other thing.  Test some inflatable structures.
for Freedom.  I think they have a lot of promise for certain applications.

pat

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

Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1993 17:26:38 GMT
From: "John S. Neff" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What do we do now with Freedom.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>From: [e-mail] (Pat)
>Subject: Re: What do we do now with Freedom.
>Date: 18 Mar 93 17:19:57 GMT
>
>
>Oh i forgot about one other thing.  Test some inflatable structures.
>for Freedom.  I think they have a lot of promise for certain applications.
>
>pat
Ah a trial balloon.

Sorry could not resist.

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

Date: 18 Mar 93 05:44:06 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[e-mail]>
Subject: Without a Plan
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:

>All I ask is that NASA
>use its budget more wisely, and devote more of it to projects that
>are important to self-sufficient space development [...]

In other words, you want NASA to spend money to help you get your schemes
going.  Talk about posting with your hand out.  Dennis may post with his
hand out, too, but at least we get working hardware from him, as opposed to
lots of hot air.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: [e-mail]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 336
------------------------------