Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_3/V16NO361.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 32KB

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 93 05:12:31
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #361
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 25 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 361

Today's Topics:
                Al to isometric crystalline C..diamond
                          Artificial Gravity
                   Can we still build the Saturn V?
                          Cooling down Venus
                            COSMIC Catalog
                                 DC-X
               Flame Derby (was Re: Luddites in space)
            Form letter from Panetta on DCX/SSTO/SDIO SSRT
                     Goldin's comment on Station
                 Ideias for saving Galileos' Mission
            Looting in Baikonur & Ukrainian Space Program
                          Luddites in space
                               Mach 25
                      Magellan Update - 03/22/93
         Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise
                Robots, intelligence, and luddites :-)
                       Small Expendable Deploye
                    Space Station Freedom Redesign
                STS-55 (Columbia) abort (was Aurora?)
    Water Simulations (Was Re: Response to various attacks on SSF)

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 93 15:33:35 EST
From: "S.K. Whiteman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Al to isometric crystalline C..diamond

>"David M. Palmer" <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>Gold isn't very useful for Coke cans (not strong enough), but diamond

         That's why its only around $330 per troy ounce...Cheap.

>will be used for all sorts of things, once nanotech comes in.

         Your ref to diamonds sparked a memory; in the last few
         months I have on two occasions ran across references in
         the popular press, Good Morning America and Life
         magazine, to artificial diamonds.  I was wondering if
         there has been any technical info available on this
         topic.

         BTW my favorite R&T April road test was the sudan
         chair.... Twin Turbo Lackies

Sam

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

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 93 06:00:50 GMT
From: Shannon Thornburg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Artificial Gravity
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> neil storey, [e-mail]
writes:

  < Some valid discussion and calculations relating to
    artificial gravity spacecraft deleted >

>...and I believe that a
>rotation rate of the order of 2 minutes per revolution is the
>maximum thought to be allowable to prevent the astronauts from
>being aware of their own rotation.
>If one accepts this rate of rotation it transpires that to
>achieve full earth gravity a space-station would need a radius
>of nearly 4km.

Very close.  Actually, a rotation of rate of 2 to 3 revolutions per
minute is considered to be acceptable.  At 2 rpm, a radius of 224 meters
gives one Earth gravity.  An 84 m radius gives one Martian g, which might
be the ideal for a manned Mars mission.

>...two small spacecraft linked by a cable
>would have the same effect.

Exactly.  A tether using Kevlar would compose less than 5% of the total
spacecraft mass, assuming very conservative safety factors of
approximately 10 times the maximum expected dynamic loading.

One of the technical challenges of tethered spacecraft is damping
vibrational motions of the tether.  This is the problem I and several
other student here at Stanford have been working on for the past several
years.  No one would enjoy a ride that feels like a half-year long
earthquake of magnitude 6.

The potential advantages of artificial gravity for long space flights
make it worth studying, but there are lots of questions that still need
to be answered before a spacecraft of this type could be built.

-- Shannon Thornburg
   Guidance & Control Laboratory
   Department of Aeronautics & Astronautics
   Stanford University

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

Date: 24 Mar 93 02:00:48 GMT
From: Jim Cook <[e-mail]>
Subject: Can we still build the Saturn V?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>The House Science Committee Space Subcommittee had hearings on
>this subject about 2 years ago. There is enough data available to
>start Saturn production again.
>
>However, it would cost $16 billion to begin production again and
...

$16 BILLION?  Not $16 million?
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. James Cook                                           Epoch Systems, Inc.
508-836-4711x385                                        8 Technology Drive
[e-mail]                                         Westboro, MA 01581
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 24 Mar 93 06:31:40 GMT
From: Jeff Bytof <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cooling down Venus
Newsgroups: sci.space

To first order, the main task to cool down Venus is to remove or
redistribute the atmosphere.  We probably don't care a hell of a lot
what the final composition is as long as the greenhouse effect is
broken.  It would be nice to end up with a predominately N2 atmosphere,
as thin as possible.  (Partial pressure of N2 at Venus'
surface is about 3 bars.)

Maybe genetic engineering will someday give us the
ability to design a set of microbes to do the job.  Phase one would
be cloud seeding, and you want the microbes to be hygroscopic, photo-
synthetic, and have the ability to take CO2 and incorporate it into
a stable compound that would fall to the surface and sit
there.  Variants of the original microbes may be introduced as
temperatures and atmospheric pressures decrease.  Eventually the
surface might become bearable.  Perhaps the surface deposits would
have a use by supplying habitations with carbon-based materials.
If the skies were fairly clear, solar energy would be practical.
A solar day on Venus would be around 120 days, so if it was still too
hot during the day, work on the surface could be done at night.
It would be a pretty dark night, however, with no large moon.

-rabjab

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

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1993 03:14:57 GMT
From: Bruce Dunn <[e-mail]>
Subject: COSMIC Catalog
Newsgroups: sci.space

> Bill Higgins-- Beam Jo writes:
>
> You know, if the relevant parts of NASA were not so clueless, the
> COSMIC catalog would long since have been at an FTP site somewhere.


Don't be too hasty - the COSMIC catalog is available by FTP:

The following information is from NASA Spacelink, which can be reached by
telnet at spacelink.msfc.nasa.gov telnet.  It is part of a file which gives
details of ordering a catalog by mail, phone etc.  The full file describing
how to get a COSMIC catalog is reached by using telnet and asking for item 10
on the Spacelink main menu, followed by asking for item 2 on the next menu,
then item 6 of the final menu.  I will E-mail the full file to anyone
requesting it (the note on how to get a catalog, not the full catalog itself,
which I believe is several megabytes).



FTP          The domestic or international versions of the MS-DOS
based catalogs may be downloaded by using standard
file transfer protocol.  The address is:
cossack.cosmic.uga.edu (128.192.14.4) with logon as
"anonymous".  Transfer the file in binary mode.  To
download the domestic catalog simply cd to the
catalog/domestic directory and get the file named:
pccat92d.exe.  For the international catalog, cd to
the catalog/international directory and get the file
named: pccat92i.exe.  Both files are self extracting
MS-DOS executable and can be installed by executing
the proper .exe file once you have landed it on your
PC.  The ftp server is a unix host so those ftping
from a non-unix mcahine may need to modify syntax
accordingly.



--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   [e-mail]

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

Date: 24 Mar 1993 03:00:25 GMT
From: "John R. Manuel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article I write:

>Are there any articles in Aviation Week, or somewhere similar, about DC-X
>that someone can refer me to? I'm curious to see the design of the thing
>and in particular, how it will manage re-entry and still be re-usable.

I've got a bit more information about DC-X (thanks everyone for the
pointers), but I still have my question about re-entry: how is DC-Y*
going to be able to re-enter the atmosphere without experiencing engine
damage? If it assumes an Apollo-like attitude on re-entry, I'd think that
there would be a lot of ablative damage to the engines. What do the
designers plan to do to prevent such damage and still make DC-Y
immediately reuseable?

* - Apparently DC-X isn't intended to go any higher than a few tens of
    thousands of feet so it won't experience the worst effects of re-entry.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John R. Manuel                                     [e-mail]
64-4-570-4024 (office)                           NIWAR Atmospheric Division
64-4-566-6166 (fax)                                 Wellington, New Zealand
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 24 Mar 93 03:19:28 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Flame Derby (was Re: Luddites in space)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <1op22q$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
> Nick: hold your breath for a minute and don't post anything tomorrow.
>
> Dennis: hold your breath for a minute and don't post anything tomorrow.
>
> You two are both smart enough not to have to get into flame wars every
> few months...

Maybe they should both take a break and gang up on Allen.

What do you think, George, are pat and Steinn promising new contenders
in the Flame Derby?

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1993 20:45:23 GMT
From: Nick Haines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Form letter from Panetta on DCX/SSTO/SDIO SSRT
Newsgroups: sci.space

Just received a dull form letter from Leon Panetta, who `appreciate[s]
my thoughts on this matter' [of the 1994 budget]; i.e. acknowledging
my support for DC-Y.

Seems to have been signed by the man himself, though (in blue felt-tip :->).

Nick Haines [e-mail]

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

Date: 23 Mar 1993 21:44:21 GMT
From: steve hix <[e-mail]>
Subject: Goldin's comment on Station
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (INNES MATTHEW) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Keith Mancus) writes:
>>     "We could fight with each other, we could make fancy view graphs, we
>>could have leather briefcases, we could have patent leather shoes, we could go
>>rolling up to the Hill, we could make a lot of promises, we could get other
>>programs canceled, we could destroy careers. If you wear your corporate hat,
>>your center hat, if you wear a truss hat, if you wear a hat that has a solar
>>array, if you wear a hat that has your personal identification and ego on it,
>>you will destroy what we have. You'd better put on a baseball cap that says the
>>United States of America or we're not going to have a coherent space program."
>>
>>                         - Dan Goldin in "Space News Roundup", March 15, 1993
>>
>>  Given the infighting going on in this group, I'd say this is a timely
>>remark...
>
>Given my understanding of the English language, I'd say this is gibberish.
>What *was* that bit about solar-powered hats, anyway? 8-)

It's called metaphor.

You don't get into it until later in elementary school.

You were joking, of course.


























--
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|

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

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 93 10:30:35 PRT
From: Luis Pontes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ideias for saving Galileos' Mission

Hi All

I had an ideia on how to get the HGA free in Galileo's Probe. I know that rubbe
r expands when heated. So a solution would be keeping the side of the probe whe
re the ribs are always turned facing the Sun. Therefore, the ribs would expand
and the antenna could get free.
Now i don't know exactly the conditions of the Probe, and i know it's a very lo
g shot, but...Perhaps the spacecraft is too far away to the Sun light to warm i
t. Anyway, it had to be done without riscking the spacecraft.
I also have a question for Ron Baalke, of JPL, which is: What are the possibili
ties of using the HGA usefuly in it's mission, if the present condition of it m
aintains untill the end of the mission ?

Thanks in advance

Luis Pontes - Physics Student
Faculty of Sciences of Lisbon, Portugal

These are my exclusive opinions. Affiliation shown for ID purposes only.

PS - Sorry for any mistakes with my English

"Nao sou o unico a olhar o ceu" - Resistencia
"I'm  not the only one to look at the sky" - Resistence

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

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 19:31:26 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looting in Baikonur & Ukrainian Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>In the current issue of Time, there is a one-paragraph story that
>mentions:
>
>"At the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan... civilian workers have
>been looting equipment, crippling the facility's launch pad in the
>process.  The Russian space program is also involved in a feud with
>the new Ukrainian state, which has its own space program.  A Russian
>meteorological satellite was turned off in orbit, so Ukraine couldn't
>recover weather data from it.  Some of the stolen Baikonur equipment
>has mysteriously resurfaced in Ukraine..."
>
>Does anyone have more details, either about the looting at Baikonur,
>the seriousness of the "crippling" of the "launch pad", or about the
>extent of the Ukrainian space program?

This sounds like a echo of a story in the Russian press about 6 months
ago. They were talking about the Energia and Buran launch pads. In
the Russian article the phrase was "they took anything that could
be taken..". So don't expect to see the crew access arm at the scrap
yard anytime soon.

Different manufacturers have different launch pad facilities, so
I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the Ukrainian manufacturer does
what they want with their facilities and they might feel like parts
of the Energia pad are 'theirs' also since it uses the Zenit first stage...
I'm not saying they are the legal owners, the ownership is unclear to them
also, but Strategic Rocket Forces troops might defend the sites IF IT
SUITED THEM.

Last year, the Ukrain space agency consisted of one man. They do
have significant space industry including the Yuzhnoye NPO (or
Southern Association, whatever they call it now). Yuzhnoye was begun
by Cheif Designer Yangle (a Korolev associate of the 1950's). Yuzhnoye used
the Yuzhmash factory to produce Meteor satellites, lunar module ascent stage,
SS-4, 9, 5, 7, 18, 24 ballistic missiles, Tsyklon and Zenit boosters,
etc. Its a big complex and was of great intrest to US intelligence agents
which reportedly visited the plant last year. They currently offer
many variations of their ballistic missiles for space launch use
including air launched versions. They were pushing them in a paper
at last years IAF congress.

I have read other reports of problems between the Russian and Ukrainian
space communication sites. Its hard to say from reading the press accounts
how it all starts, but its all about lack of payment, etc.

Dennis Newkirk ([e-mail])
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

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

Date: 24 Mar 93 07:19:54 GMT
From: George William Herbert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Luddites in space
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

Nick: hold your breath for a minute and don't post anything tomorrow.

Dennis: hold your breath for a minute and don't post anything tomorrow.

You two are both smart enough not to have to get into flame wars every
few months...

-george william herbert
Retro Aerospace

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

Date: 23 Mar 93 05:25:16 GMT
From: William Reiken <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mach 25
Newsgroups: sci.space

    I was reading in the Popular Science "March 93" 'Science Newsfront'
on page 35 about the Mach 25 Transporter.  Some questions:

    1).    Power is lasers or microwaves.  What kind of lasers would
        these be?

    2).    How much energy would be required to operate such lasers
        and how much loss would there be?

    3).    Lasers on the craft for power.  Again what kind of lasers
        would these be?

    4).    The lasers for driving the craft heat a small area of air
        to 30,000 degree K.  How much energy does it take to do
        this?

    5).    Laser to electric power for MHD propulsion in space.  What
        kind of equipment is nessasary for this kind of thing?  What
        is the efficiency of such equipment?

    6).    Rensselar Polytechnic Institute in Troy NY.. Anyone know any
        of these people so that I may contact them direct for more
        information?


                            Will...

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

Date: 24 Mar 1993 04:38:09 GMT
From: "Peter G. Ford" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Update - 03/22/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <1onp5v$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
> How long will Magellan funding last, now that the conversion has been
> made to the LMGT? And once the gravity data is collected after the
> aero-braking exercise, is their any hope of collecting further radar
> data, or does it look like the transmitters are pretty much shot.

I think that Magellan project science support is due to expire at
the end of September, although a NASA-sponsored "Venus Data Analysis
Program" will taken over, so Magellan data will continue to be studied
for years to come. The experiment has already generated about 400
Gbytes of imagery and 10 Gbytes of altimetry.

The degradation in down-link performance has been progressive. The
last wide-band radar telemetry sent back in September 1992 was only
partially readable, and even this was only made possible by heating
the transmitter to the limit of its thermal tolerance. The target
area (large volcanos named Hathor, Innini, and Ushas) hadn't yet
been imaged by Magellan, so this high-temperature operation was
adjudged worth the risk of melting something!

No wide-band telemetry is needed for aero-braking or gravity mapping.
While there is no lack of hope in this business, the odds seem to be
stacked against receiving any more radar data.

Peter Ford
MIT Center for Space Research

Disclaimer: just my own opinions, folks.

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

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1993 13:11:21 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]
>(Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>     So you increase the wavelength and decrease the frequency.
>>     It would also seem to me that in such a situations clocks run slow
>>     'within' the gravitational disturbance.  The two disturbances
>>     (gravitational and electromagnetic) fly back to the detector,
>>     and the gravitational disturbance slows the 'clocks' at
>>     the receiver to effectively increase the frequency
>>     and cancel the effect.

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>If we assume that the gravitational wave is a classical wavefront,
>and we assume it travels at lightspeed, then your objection only
>occurs when the Earth, satellite, and source of gravity waves are
>all lined up. If the gravitational disturbance is arriving from
>some angle off that line, the EM wave and the gravity wave will
>only be coincident at one point along the line of sight.
>
>Gary
>

That will affect the doppler shift a little, but still the gravity wave only
affects the Earth based detector as it passes the detector. A very short
period of time, and it stays with the EM wave for most, if not all, of its trip
to the Earth. Though if the wave's travel is perpendicular to the line
connecting the spacecraft and the Earth, there will be no effect, because
it will affect both the spacecraft and the earth in the same way. But that's
what the other two spacecraft are there for.

But that brings up a point. What is the relativistic interaction between two
waves moving at light speed? How do they view eachother?



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Living on Earth may be expensive,|Tom E. Smith               | ._________  |
| but it includes an annual free   |[e-mail]| |= (0_, \ \ |
| trip around the Sun.             |                           | |= |0 ` / | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------| |---u----/  |
| And no, I don't speak for my company or any other company.   |             |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 93 18:13:28 EST
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Robots, intelligence, and luddites :-)

Nick Szabo sez;
>>Luddites, 1993: bands of astronaut and their groupies...
>>....  Luddites rail against the alleged
>>"failures of AI" while Japan's car makers kick our butts by installing
>>robots, insist that what people "really" want is to see their beloved
>>astronauts in space, and don't care how useful it is or whether they
>>can afford it.  Ignoring economics at every turn, they insist on massive
>>government subsidies for their bizarrely expensive, obsolete technologies
>>to redress their greivances.

Herman Rubin replies;
>The case for robots is, as usual, highly exaggerated by Szabo.

The case for Szabo's exaggeration is, as usual, highly exaggerated :-)

>Robots can be used for operations requiring little intelligence;

This is circular.  The definition of intelligence has historically
been upgraded to mean "whatever computers can't do."  They can play
chess and beat masters?  Well, chess-playing isn't evidence for
intelligence.  They can calculate with blinding speed?  Calculation
isn't intelligence.  They can mimic human language and response?
That isn't intelligence.  They can travel mysterious realms, keep
track of their position in 7-d and return correctly exposed and
positioned pictures of wonders never before seen by human eyes?
That's not intelligence.  So what the hell is intelligence anyway?

>AI is highly overrated, and the so-called "intelligent" programs
>just carry out a massive number of pre-programmed operations so
>as to get results by brute force.

That sounds darn similar to the way most humans behave.  Brute force
or not, what do you want besides a correct answer in reasonable time?

>The position MIGHT be justified if all that is wanted is astronomical
>or planetological information.  I do not believe in NASA either, but
>my goal is to have people living and prospering in space.  No amount
>of robotics is going to get us much closer to this.

Seems to me that your assertion is highly suspect.  Robotics are already
getting the best exploratory results in space, and have been for a
long time.  Given what we still need to learn, they probably will for
quite a while yet.  And any advances between then and now will
only increase their importance, perhaps beyond exploration into
other venues as well.  I opine that your post, in the context of
the situtation WRT robots in space, would classify you as 'railing
against the failures of AI'.

AI isn't the end-all, but robotics and AI are the answer to some
problems, so we'd be better off using them.  By extension, people
that block their use are part of the problem.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams | 517-355-2178 (work) \\     Inhale to the Chief!
[e-mail]  | 336-9591 (hm)\\  Zonker Harris in 1996!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 23 Mar 1993 18:51 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Small Expendable Deploye
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...

>
>
>Let me get this straight - the SEDS tether experiment was mostly done
>IN HOUSE, with the exception of the tether. I presume that what you
>mean by the "tether" would also include the reeling mechanism, and
>the sensors to determine whether the tether is being unreeled correctly.
>Since the mission will use the US Air Force Delta second stage for
>telemetry, power and attitude control, that means that NASA's role
>in all of this is largely to pay the contractor to put the tether
>together, something that NASA couldn't do correctly itself in its $100
>million Tethered Satellite System.
>

I will be glad to set you straight. First there is no reeling mechanism on
the tether. Second the tether contractor supplied only the spool of tether,
the braking mechanism and the box that the flight electronics comes in.


The electronics were developed at Marshall by Marshall employees. The
idea for the tether deployment and the first simulation codes for this
also came from Marshall. All of the integration work is being done by
Marshall employees as well as the tether contractor. All the software for
data reduction in flight was developed by Marshall employees as well as
all of the logistics, qualification tests, and other paperwork required
to launch a secondary payload on the Delta II.

Any more questions?

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 23 Mar 93 13:28:47 GMT
From: Ken Hayashida <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Station Freedom Redesign
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hi guys,
Just an idea...like alot of other good things on sci.space
with the SSF redesign analysis underway...
I was thinking ... (I thought I smelled something burning 8-))

Well, SSF should be the testbed for long duration spaceflight.
and life sciences needs a centrifuge for any good artificial
gravity studies.  SSF should also be a lead off for future
exploration of the moon or Mars (I know that this can be debated).

So, why don't we just make SSF in the shape and design for an interplanetary
spacecraft.  I mean why do we need to make one design for LEO and another
for long-duration flight to Mars?  Why can't we just make the space
station into something which could be mated to a propulsion system
for acceleration into lunar orbit?  Then, it would  be a two-stage
system (one stage for human habitation and science payloads and one
stage for propulsion).  I know that there are more aspects to this
idea...there must be, or else some other guy would have done this...
or has this aspect been overlooked?

If we're gonna use 10 STS missions to build the station, we may as well
be building a station which can be accelerated to the moon or Mars!

please respond to this query, as this idea has been bothering me for awhile.

I was thinking of writing to my friends at NASA HQ life sciences to
ask if this idea was being pursued.

Thanks.

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

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1993 04:31:07 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: STS-55 (Columbia) abort (was Aurora?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Aurora spotted ?
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution: sci
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dean Adams) writes:
>
>[e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> >>When you can tell me who the PRIME CONTRACTOR is for your "ufos",
> >>where they were built and are operated from, what their primary mission
> >>is, and what the flight/propulsion characteristics are...
> >Not sure where they are built,
>No kiddin?  :->
>
> >but I do believe they operate from either Hangar 18
>"Hanger 18" is a MOVIE.
>
> >or the Area 51 base in Nevada (Dreamland)
>
>Now you are talking about AURORA, since those are just
>nicknames for the Groom Lake fight test facility...
>
> >I think some are also based at Tonopah(sp?)
>
>Nope.  F-117As operated there for quite a few years though.
>
> > :-)
>No kiddin?  :->
>
>
>BTW... newsFLASH... that was one hell of an ABORT!!
>


Just for the record, I was joking, and I don't buy any of the Hangar 18
captured UFO bs.

The only spaceships I believe in are the ones that operate from KSC
or Baiknonour :-)

(and the DC-series, of course)

My friends and I were debating about whether or not Columbia could have
reached orbit if the engine failure had occured at T-zero. Once the SRB's
ignite, they have no choice but to launch.

I shudder to think what an RTLS abort would have been like with the extra
weight of the Spacelab on board.

Simon

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

Date: 24 Mar 93 07:14:38 GMT
From: George William Herbert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Water Simulations (Was Re: Response to various attacks on SSF)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1onsgi$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>I saw some old Air FOrce/ NASA footage on the old skin suits.
>The fabric looked real hokey,  and the NASA PM for suit technology
>claimed it could only achieve 1.5 psi, and they needed 5,
>so it was a triple suit.
>
>Now with new spandex,  could a single layer produce between
>3-5 lbs counterpressure?

What you don't see in those films are the test subjects getting blood
blisters and worse, several requiring emergency medical attention.

Pure fabric pressure suits do poorly in joints, which is where they
hold the advantage over normal suits (normal suits have difficulty
bending, while fabric pressure suits can be much easier to move).
If you get a little crease, suddenly it will start having bad
things happen to the skin under the crease, etc.

I have heard it rumored that some of those problems were solved, but
the suit people I know and have talked to, both the Ames and Johnson
teams, don't like the idea at all, and not because it's a threat.
They have all sorts of sh*t land on them if people get hurt trying
ideas out...

-george william herbert
Retro Aerospace

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 361
------------------------------