Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_3/V16NO373.TXT

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

Date: Sat, 27 Mar 93 05:10:36
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #373
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 27 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 373

Today's Topics:
                      Galileo Update - 03/25/93
                    Gaubatz talk on the DC program
                                 help
             In what craft did Glenn orbit the E (2 msgs)
                       JPL's Public Access Site
            Looting in Baikonur & Ukrainian Space Program
                      Magellan Update - 03/22/93
                            NASA's Future
                          Retraining at NASA
                     SR-71 Maiden Science Flight
                       The courage of anonymity
            Timid Terraformers (was Re: How to cool Venus)

    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: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 15:38:37 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Galileo Update - 03/25/93
Newsgroups: sci.space

I have not seen any posted results from the analysis of the HGA receive pattern
test.  Has the analysis been completed?

Thanks,

Burns

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

Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 16:44:31 GMT
From: Bruce Dunn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gaubatz talk on the DC program
Newsgroups: sci.space

In response to several requests for more information on the DC program, I
repeat this posting that I made in late January.  Apologies in advance if the
formatting of this posting is poor - the preview capability of my posting
software indicates that it should be ok, but it has lied to me before.



I recently attended the "Orbit 93" conference in Berkeley.  The following are
notes I made at the presentation "Delta Clipper"  by Bill Gaubatz, head of
the SSRT program at McDonnell Douglas.  The presentation was given using
professionally prepared view-graphs from MacDonnell Douglas, many of which
were marked "competition sensitive" (presumably reflecting the preparation of
the view-graphs before MacDonnell Douglas won the contract for the DC-X test
vehicle).



Delta Clipper vehicle:

The following comments refer to the "Delta Clipper" (name used during the
talk) or DC-1 (name used on the net), the eventual product of a development
program involving a DC-X technology demonstrator and a DC-Y prototype.

Planned capability is 16,000 lbs to a 220 nautical mile orbit, 25,000 lbs to
an unspecified LEO (low earth orbit).

Vehicle is roughly three times as long as it is broad.  The upper end is
bullet like, becoming wider towards the base.  The cross section is circular,
except at the base where the four main engines give the shape of a round
edged square. In addition to the four main engines, there are four smaller
engines.  Engine type was not specified in the view-graphs.

The vehicle burns hydrogen and LOX, and has a cargo bay at mid-vehicle.  The
cargo bay is 15x15x30 feet, and has a door to the side of the vehicle.  The
cargo is supposed to be put into a standard container, and loaded into the
cargo bay using a simple ground-based scissors jack.  The standard container
will have power, coolant, and data transfer connections for maintaining the
health of the payload.

Gaubatz says the vehicle is "people capable", a term which he prefers to "man
rated" which he implies is a term which should be used only for older style
launchers.

The vehicle has large design margins based on current aircraft practice, so
that the vehicle will have a long lifetime.

The vehicle will have "reliability centered maintenance", a buzz term which
was not particularly clearly defined by Gaubatz.

Gaubatz says that for design work, MacDonnell Douglas has brought together
people with rocket skills (from their Delta commercial vehicle group) and
airplane skills (from their aircraft group).   In reply to a question from
the audience, he stated that the group was about 60% rocket people, and about
40% aircraft people.

The total launch crew in the "flight operations center"  (he points out that
"blockhouse" is not appropriate) is 3 people; a "flight operations manager"
and deputy, and a ground operations controller.  Drawings show something like
a control tower for operations, with no provision for protection against
explosions.

Ascent to orbit will involve a burn of 369 seconds, with a maximum G loading
of 3.0  The vehicle will have engine out capability at any time in flight.
On ascent, once past 60,000 feet (about 9 miles downrange) the vehicle will
pass out of FAA control - prior to this FAA clearance will be used.

The vehicle enters nose first.  The re-entry aerodynamics of the vehicle are
derived from the very large body of data which is available on missile
warhead re-entry aerodynamics.   The angle of attack of the vehicle is
controlled to minimize thermal loading.  The vehicle has a 1200 to 1500
nautical mile cross range.  Deacceleration is 1.1 g maximum during descent.
On descent, the vehicle goes subsonic at 60,000 feet altitude, and the
engines are then started and idled.  At 5000 to 10,000 feet altitude, the
vehicle is rotated base down. 2 engines are powered up to deaccelerate and
land the vehicle (note that the other two main engines are idling, and can be
powered up if needed).  The vehicle will land on a pad using retractable
landing gear.  Wheels will be attached to the landing gear, and the vehicle
rolled over to a "flight stand". After placement on the flight stand (which
takes the weight of a fueled vehicle), the vehicle will be given a new
payload, fueled, and reflown. Gaubatz notes that the noise footprint for a
vertical takeoff and landing is more restricted than the noise footprint for
a horizontal takeoff vehicle.

Most maintenance is projected to take place on the flight stand - in normal
circumstances a 12 hour turnaround is expected.  Minor maintenance with "line
replaceable units" will take less than 24 hours, while major maintenance
involving interior components such as fuel cells will take place in less than
1 week at an adjacent hanger.  Once a year, the vehicle will undergo a 30 day
maintenance and certification.

Gaubatz notes that the launch organization for the existing commercial Delta
expendable launcher involves 320 people, who can send off 12 flights per
year. He claims that this is the most efficient launch organization in the
US.  He claims that the same number of people will be able to support 4 to 5
Delta Clipper vehicles, each flying 40 times per year.  He further notes that
for expendable launchers, two thirds of the cost of a launch is for the cost
of the expended hardware.



DC-X vehicle:

The following comments refer to the DC-X experimental vehicle, currently
being built by MacDonnell Douglas for proof of concept testing:

The DC-X program is a 2 year program, costing about $60 million.  Gaubatz
states that were the program handled in the "usual NASA manner" it would have
been a $ 1000 million program, taking 5 to 8 years.

The DC-X is similar in shape to the final Delta Clipper, but one third scale.
The hydrogen tank is on the bottom of the vehicle, while the oxygen tank is
on the top.  The nosecone and tail of the vehicle is being built of composite
material by Burt Rutan, of Scaled Composites. The interior of the hydrogen
tank is lined with balsa wood bonded to the metal (no- this is not a typo).
All avionics are off-the-shelf from current aircraft instrument
manufacturers.

The vehicle is not designed to go above about 30,000 feet and does not carry
enough fuel to get to orbit.  MacDonnell Douglas however seems to be thinking
about using the DC-X as a reusable sounding rocket after testing is finished
("SOAR" = Sub Orbital Applications Rocket").  The vehicle is unmanned, and is
flown by computer with links to ground control.  The major objective of the
flight testing is to verify the design tools and assumptions used, in order
to demonstrate the feasibility of the McDonnell approach to building an SSTO.

Vehicle engines are an RL-10 derivative with a reduced expansion ratio for
atmospheric flight.  Isp at ground level is 337, and the engine can be idled
at about 10% power, and run at any setting between  30% to 100 % power (3700
to 13500 lbs force).  Only 30% power is required for landing.  The first
engine tested already has "a couple of hours" of run time (impressive for an
engine originally designed as a throw-away item which only had to run for a
few minutes).   Considerable testing has been done to demonstrate "snap
throttling", or very rapid changes in engine power.  There are probably 4
engines (the viewgraph was confusing so I am not certain on this point).  The
RCS (Reaction Control System) runs on gaseous hydrogen and gaseous oxygen,
and is in a replaceable module in the base of the vehicle between the
engines.  The top of the vehicle has a compartment for a parachute, for a
"belt and suspenders" approach to getting the vehicle back in one piece.  The
top of the vehicle also has GPS receivers.

The vehicle is launched by a 3 person crew in a trailer (flight operations
manager, deputy, and ground operations controller).  Total testing crew will
be 35 people.  Testing will be from WSSH, or "White Sands Space Harbor",
starting in late May of this year at the White Sands Missile Range in New
Mexico.  Some provision will be made for the public to watch the testing -
arrangements are not yet firmed up but will be publicized when available.
Gaubatz notes that the White Sands people have been very co-operative.
Gaubatz wants to test at White Sands to "get away from the current launch
culture" (presumably represented by NASA).  The vehicle will not carry a
destruct package - something that Gaubatz regards as a victory over the
existing launch culture and a demonstration of the reasonableness of the
White Sands range safety people.

Landing gear of the vehicle is retractable, and made by MBB (Deutsche
Aerospace, in Germany).  The landing gear is designed for up to a 7 G
landing, and rough field capability is designed in.  The landing gear is
retracted during takeoff, and only deployed in the terminal phase of landing.

Flight software is designed as much as possible to be the same software that
would be used in controlling the final Delta Clipper vehicle.  The software
is being written in ADA, and is ahead of schedule and under cost.  Gaubatz
says "If I could build the whole vehicle out of software, I would".  The
flight operations control screens are designed to look like a "glass cockpit"
in a modern airliner.  Items displayed on the screen can be "clicked on"
(presumably with a mouse) to display further information.

Gaubatz is "fully anticipating overall success".  Burt Rutan figures that the
simplest approach to flight control is to put a pilot on board the vehicle.
One of the flight controllers (operating a computer console on the ground)
will be Pete Conrad.  Gaubatz states that Conrad has been eyeing the
parachute compartment in the DC-X, and hinting that if the parachute were
removed, there would be room for a pilot!


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

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

Date: 26 Mar 93 11:42:00 GMT
From: Espen Kristensen <[e-mail]>
Subject: help
Newsgroups: sci.space

TO: [e-mail]

help
send space FAQ/index
send space FAQ/faq1
send space FAQ/manifest

---
 > OLX 2.1 TD > Press "+" to see another tagline.

----
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Thunderball Cave BBS 47 22 29 94 41 / 47 22 29 94 42 (HST DS V.32bis) |
|                 --  thcave.no  --  Oslo Norway  --                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 15:51:21 GMT
From: Doug Loss <[e-mail]>
Subject: In what craft did Glenn orbit the E
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>it wasn't a ship it was a mercury CAPSULE.  i believe it was called
>freedom 7.
>also he wasn't the first man to orbit the earth in a u.s.
>spacecraft.
>answer tomorrow.

Sorry, Tom, Glenn's capsule was called Friendship 7.  That was an
official NASA name; they stopped using names for spacecraft with Gemini.
The names for all the Apollo command and lunar modules were in fact
radio call signs, non-official designations to make communications
easier.

Doug Loss
Bloomsburg University
[e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Mar 93 11:53:23 EST
From: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: In what craft did Glenn orbit the E
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, loss@fs7 (Doug Loss) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>
>>it wasn't a ship it was a mercury CAPSULE.  i believe it was called
>>freedom 7.
>>also he wasn't the first man to orbit the earth in a u.s.
>>spacecraft.
>>answer tomorrow.
>
>Sorry, Tom, Glenn's capsule was called Friendship 7.

Freedom 7 was the capsule Alan Shepard rode on a 15 minute suborbital flight.
Shepard thereby became the first US astronaut (5 May 1961, following Yuri
Gagarin's 1 orbit flight on 12 April 1961).  Glenn, whose 3 orbit flight took
place on 20 February 1962, was, in fact, the first American to orbit the earth
(and the third human -- another Soviet citizen, Gherman Titov, had made a 16
orbit flight in August 1961).
--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Mar 1993 17:12 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: JPL's Public Access Site
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

From the "JPL Universe"
March 26, 1993

Public access computer site spurs worldwide interest in Lab activities

     While Pasadena sleeps through the wee hours of the morning,
a college student in Australia brings up a Voyager picture of
Jupiter's Great Red Spot on her desktop computer.
     Across the world, a hobbyist in Germany calls up an artist's
rendering of the Cassini spacecraft on his computer screen.
     Meanwhile a few miles from JPL in the San Gabriel Valley, a
night owl amateur scientist scrolls through an update on the Mars
Observer mission.
     All of them are tapping into the wealth of text material and
imagery that flow from JPL's space missions, thanks to a new
public access computer site established by JPL's Public
Information Office.
     Called JPL Info, the public access site has had a total of
nearly 5,000 logons by electronic visitors from most U.S. states
and 28 countries during its first month of operation, according
to Frank O'Donnell, deputy manager of public information.
     The site includes a selection of public affairs materials on
JPL projects, including news releases, fact sheets, mission
status reports and technical information such as orbital elements
and spacecraft position tables.
     Also at the site are educator materials from JPL's Public
Education Office and back issues of the Universe in the form of
plain text files. Soon to be added are electronic copies of
spacecraft project newsletters.
     "By far, though, the most popular materials are the images,"
said O'Donnell, who spent the fall configuring the system before
opening it in January. "The pictures from JPL missions are
stunning, and they are always what the public has been most
enthusiastic about."
     The images at the computer site are stored as electronic
files in what is called GIF format (for Graphic Interchange
Format). These files can be seen with viewing software available
for most types of computers.
     The JPL Info site itself stocks a variety of "shareware"
graphics programs for PC, Windows, Macintosh, Unix, NeXT, Amiga
and Atari, which allow viewing the pictures.
     Many of the images, such as launch pictures and artists
renderings, are scanned in from photo prints in the Public
Information Office. A few are converted directly from original
digital data sent by spacecraft such as Voyager and Magellan.
     Currently the site has a total of about 50 images, "but we
hope to add to that quickly to bring it up to at least 200 to 300
before too long," said O'Donnell.
     "Ideally we would like to have, for every JPL mission, a
launch picture, spacecraft picture and a handful of the best
pictures returned by the spacecraft." The site also stocks
non-mission pictures, such as an aerial photo of the Lab's Oak
Grove site.
     JPLers and their families and friends are invited to log on
to the JPL Info site. Access is possible in several ways:
     -- Those with a computer and a modem may call 354-1333,
setting parameters to 8 bits, no parity, 1 stop bit (N-8-1).
Modem speeds of up to 9600 bits per second are accommodated on
two phone lines.
     -- JPLers and others who have access to the Internet network
can use file transfer protocol, or ftp, to the address
pubinfo.jpl.nasa.gov (128.149.6.2), then log on as user name
"anonymous." Internet is an international network that ties
together JPL and many government agencies, universities,
institutions and companies.
     -- JPL PC and Mac users who are on the institutional
Ethernet can log on to the Public Information Office's file
server as a guest. Mac users can go into Chooser, click on
AppleShare, go to zone 180-2-Enet and click on server JPL-PIO,
logging on as a guest. PC users must have Novell software loaded,
then execute the command "login jpl-pio/guest" to connect to the
site.
     Visitors logging on any of the three ways see the same set
of files. All users are encouraged to download and read a file
called README, which explains how the site operates and how to
use its materials.
     For more information or help with logging on, call O'Donnell
at ext. 4-7170.
                            ###
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Don't ever take a fence
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | down until you know the
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | reason it was put up.

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

Date: 26 Mar 93 10:18:18 EST
From: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looting in Baikonur & Ukrainian Space Program
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, pgf@srl03 (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>[e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>>>Does anyone have more details [...]
>>>                                  about the
>>>extent of the Ukrainian space program?
>
>>The Ukrainian program can't be too extensive: The only launch complex
>>they have access to is Kapustin Yar. While it is quite equitorial
>>for a ex-Soviet site, it is currently only capable of launching
>>sounding rockets and very small orbital launchers like the SL-8
>>(1.25 tonnes to Low Earth Orbit.)
>
>In the past, Kapustin Yar did see more use than that... I don't
>think un-mothballing the pads would be that much of a problem

According to one of the VSA reports published early last year ((c) Sergey A.
Voevodin, and often posted to sci.space.news): "Soviet Kapustin Yar cosmodrome
is closed. Boris Yeltsin gave this place for Soviet Germans settlements."  So,
I think un-mothballing the pads WOULD be a problem.

Why all the talk about Kapustin Yar in relation to the Ukrainians?  It's in
Russia (on the Volga, a little north of Volgograd, and closer to Kazakhstan
than to Ukraine).

--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Mar 1993 16:56:42 GMT
From: Steve Derry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Update - 03/22/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Eric H Seale ([e-mail]) wrote:
: To be fussy, the radar is doing fine -- Magellan can map all it wants
: with the radar.  Problem is, both transmitters are pretty much shot when
: it comes to sending back science data (one's gone entirely, the other
: can only transmit high-rate data when you get it REALLY, REALLY hot --
: say, 60 deg C).  One option that I heard being talked about is called (I
: think) bistatic radar -- Magellan transmits the radar which bounces off
: the surface and is then received at Arecibo.  Even with a low circular
: orbit, I'm not sure that this buys you much, tho' ...

Another alternative would be to map small selected areas of high interest
and play the data back at the current 1200bps rate.  By the time that TEX
and cycle 5 gravity mapping is complete, the target areas could be selected.
If they were small enough, and spaced far enough apart, then the data could
be stored onboard during mapping orbits (only mapping over a small latitude
range), and played back at slow rate after the target area has been covered.
Alternatively, portions of the data could be played back between mapping
passes, but this would make operations a bit more complex.

--
Steve Derry
<[e-mail]>

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

Date: 26 Mar 1993 17:19 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA's Future
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

From the "JPL Universe"
March 26, 1993

O'Toole discusses NASA's future
By Karre Marino

     In an address on NASA's history and its future in a changing
American economy March 16, Dr. Richard O'Toole, JPL's manager of
legislative affairs, began with some humor, telling the audience
that  "economists are people who are good with numbers, but don't
have the personality to be accountants." The light mood, however,
certainly belied the serious road ahead, as in the struggle for
federal dollars, NASA will have to undertake a variety of steps
to ensure it receives about $14 to $15 billion annually.
     O'Toole told a near-capacity crowd in von Karman Auditorium
that the economically unrestrained days of the '60s are gone.
"Those Apollo days are over. We have to get on with it." The late
1980s -- the era of the Space Shuttle Challenger accident -- he
said, signaled that NASA was in trouble. "NASA misperceived the
funding increases it received after Challenger. It took them to
be a long-term commitment that would continue indefinitely." The
space agency was wrong. "Congress never bought into an
Apollo-scale program," he explained. Indeed, he said, unless NASA
can demonstrate that its projects have substantial societal
value, they will be threatened in the future.
     Looking ahead, O'Toole indicated that the structural changes
in the economy --fewer high-paying manufacturing jobs, less
domestic gross product devoted to public investment, tax revenues
of 19 percent that attempt to pay for expenditures of 25 percent,
a lower-wage base, and a staggering federal deficit -- would call
for a restructuring of NASA's own approach and the way it
justifies its program. He explained that while the Clinton/Gore
plan would call for sacrifice from all sectors of society, it
encourages the very thing that NASA and labs like JPL do best --
create technologies that can stimulate growth in the decades
ahead.
     The trick, he said, is to redefine NASA's role, "to be
consistent with the President's plan. It is about strengthening
the link between NASA projects and competitiveness via
technology, as well as fostering technological developments that
lead to industrial competitiveness. The emphasis must be on a
transfer of technology from the lab setting to private industry.
NASA must push advances in space technology to help make U.S.
technology more competitive."
     O'Toole also delineated the challenge that faces NASA
Administrator Daniel Goldin. "He must redefine NASA's mission to
meet this new environment. There is no entitlement for NASA; the
space race is over. Projects now must stand on their own merit to
meet society's needs." That includes shifting resources to
support more important programs -- technology, human exploration,
Mission to Planet Earth and space science.
     But the bottom line, O'Toole indicated, is that Goldin
doesn't expect an influx of money for NASA, so he must ensure
that the agency can do more by conducting more frequent, less
costly missions. The NASA administrator is also attempting to
encourage risk taking via smaller projects. "Cheaper projects are
often more visible, the results more apparent," according to
O'Toole. That means Congress and the public place more value on
NASA's role.
     JPL is not lost in this new view. O'Toole said that "we must
bring our strategy in line with the new external reality."
Concepts like the Mars Rover/Sample Return that approached the
$10 billion mark are no longer viable, he explained. Innovative
ideas like the Mars Network -- with a $1 billion price tag -- are
those that should be developed, he said.
     JPL Director Dr. Edward Stone's moves to cut the Lab's work
force, for instance -- before it was mandated by others -- was an
excellent idea, he added. "We get credit for such action. Our
credibility goes up when people perceive that we're doing what is
necessary -- and inevitable -- before we're forced to."
     In the end, O'Toole said, NASA will have to prove its value
in contributing to solving real problems -- and its relation to
all of America -- as it seeks funding. "The space program must
show its relevance to all segments of society. We have to reach
out to women and the minority community, more than we have in the
past."
                           ###
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Don't ever take a fence
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | down until you know the
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | reason it was put up.

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

Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 16:27:49 GMT
From: Dan Vento <[e-mail]>
Subject: Retraining at NASA
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat)
wrote:

>
> Yes, but their 'focused' domain seems to be doing more basic engineering
> work then your 'big picture'.  All three of the above are engineering
> missions to qualify and develope hardware with numerous other applications.
>
> NASA needs to have a basic annual flight program just to test new pieces
> of gear out there.  DO you know, that as of 1989,  no LED's were
> space-qualified?  Even though LED's  have lifetimes 10 times greater then
> light bulbs.  Light bulbs were still shelf spec for space gear.
>

This is bunk. I have worked on several Shuttle experiments (such as the
SSCE which recently flew for the sixth time) which are made entirely out of
commercial parts including LED's and chips in plastic housings. So do many
other microgravity payloads. You only worry about "flight qualified" i.e.
type S components for the really high stake high cost stuff such as SSME
avionics or expensive spcacraft such as TDRS.

There is no regulation anywhere in NASA which says we must always use
"flight qualified" parts. A little testing will can usually allow engineers
to use just about anything including unmodified Apple Macintoshes or HP 41
calculators.



Dan Vento
[e-mail]

NASA Lewis Research Center
Launch Vehicles Project Office

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

Date: Fri, 26 Mar 93 02:43:49 GMT
From: Bob Combs <[e-mail]>
Subject: SR-71 Maiden Science Flight
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bob Combs) writes:
>
>And nobody will *ever* offer you a ride on an SR-71...

I guess I'll have to wait for the NASP! [=>
--
-----------------------------------------------
Traditions are the living faith of dead people.
[e-mail]
Bob Combs

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

Date: 25 Mar 93 10:36:55 MST
From: James Friesen <[e-mail]>
Subject: The courage of anonymity
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Ratcliffe) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (8 February 1993) writes:
>>
> [ some babble deleted ]
>
>[ a lot of babble deleted ]
>
>> Sci.space and sci.astro need many more blunt posts centered
>> on the human theme, even if strong medicine to many readers.
>

GET IT OFF THOSE GROUPS!!!! What has this got to do with science.  If the
person who originally thought the post was an attack on there senses they
shouln't be reading the USENET chaosium:-/

> [ and tons of useless babble deleted ]

Can we get on with this folks, this is really tiresome to read all this trash
AND FOR IT TO BE CROSSPOSTED TO HELL!!!!  It is just plain rude.

Not that this isn't a good debate (well it was, but now it has degenerated
into something we see in daycare parks) this crossposting is a major piss off
and _what_ has it got to do with sci.space.*
--
   _____             James Friesen                          [phone]
     /             _ I think.... therefore I own an Amiga
 ___/ /\ |\/| |= _/  I gotta dingadingdang my dangalonglinglong - Ministry
                     FidoNet 1:134/27   Internet [e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Mar 93 11:31:29 EST
From: "John F. Woods" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Timid Terraformers (was Re: How to cool Venus)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> Callec Dradja <[e-mail]> writes:
>> Bill, I am afraid that you did not quote all of what I said. The reason
>> that I do not like the idea of using nuclear weapons to blast the
>> atmosphere into space is because I feel that this would be a waste of
>> Oxygen.
>Good grief.  Oxygen is one of the most common elements beyond helium.
>The earth's crust is 46% oxygen by mass; the rocky parts of the other
>inner planets are likewise oxygen-rich.  Venus's atmosphere contains a
>negligible fraction of that planet's oxygen.

However, the surface of venus is probably oxygen-poor; most of the carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere was baked out of the surface rocks, and if they ever
cool below red-heat, they may be ready to react with whatever atmosphere
remains.  It might be embarassing to blow off the entire current excess, cool
Venus off a bit, and then suddenly wind up with a vacuum when the surface rocks
suck all the remainingt carbon dioxide back in... :-)  On the other hand, it
may be impossible to reduce the temperature without getting rid of it; one of
the popular schemes for doing so (slamming big comets into Venus) also provides
a way to replenish the atmosphere afterwards.

Perhaps someone more familiar with the details of Venus' probable surface
chemistry can comment more sensibly.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 373
------------------------------