Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_4/V16NO429.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 35KB

Date: Wed,  7 Apr 93 05:16:07
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #429
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed,  7 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 429

Today's Topics:
          Blow up space station, easy way to do it. (2 msgs)
                       Commercial point of view
                         DC-X Rollout Report
                                 FAQs
                       Fred and Tom, ad naseum
                               Mach 25
                             NASA "Wraps"
                            nuclear waste
                         pushing the envelope
                         Quaint US Archaisms
                Questions about Titan IV and Ariane 5
                       Space Research Spin Off
                      Sr-71 in propoganda films?
    White House outlines options for station, Russian cooperation

    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: Tue, 6 Apr 93 15:19:51 GMT
From: Bob Combs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Blow up space station, easy way to do it.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>This might a real wierd idea or maybe not..
>
>
>Why musta  space station be so difficult?? why must we have girders? why be
>confined to earth based ideas, lets think new ideas, after all space is not
>earth, why be limited by earth based ideas??
>
Choose any or all of the following as an answer to the above:


1.  Politics
2.  Traditions
3.  Congress
4.  Beauracrats

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

Date: 7 Apr 93 00:15:16 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Blow up space station, easy way to do it.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bob Combs) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>This might a real wierd idea or maybe not..
>>
>>
>>Why musta  space station be so difficult?? why must we have girders? why be
>>confined to earth based ideas, lets think new ideas, after all space is not
>>earth, why be limited by earth based ideas??
>>
> Choose any or all of the following as an answer to the above:
>
>
> 1.  Politics
> 2.  Traditions
> 3.  Congress
> 4.  Beauracrats
>

I will add commerical concerns. Also public ignorance..OR just ignorance in
general... Now that I have stated what might be an easier or cheaper way od
things, why not let us discuss it??

Or is it to wierd? radical?? Why not I live in Alaska, I can be radical or
different..

Michael Adams (sorry not at home so no funny comments for now)

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

Date: 04 Apr 93 17:41:50 GMT
From: Ralph Buttigieg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Commercial point of view
Newsgroups: sci.space

Original to: [e-mail]
G'day [e-mail]

29 Mar 93 07:28, [e-mail] wrote to All:

 sc> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo), via Kralizec 3:713/602

 sc> Here are some longer-term markets to consider:

Here are some more:

* Terrestrial illumination from orbiting mirrors.

* World enviroment and disaster monitering system. (the Japanese have
already developed a plan for this, called WEDOS) Although this may be more
of a "public good".

* Space tourism.

* Energy relay satellites

ta

Ralph

--- GoldED 2.41
 * Origin: VULCAN'S WORLD - Sydney Australia [phone]  3:713/6
(3:713/635)

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

Date: 6 Apr 93 17:03:13
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Rollout Report
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Buenneke) writes:

   McDonnell Douglas rolls out DC-X

 ...


   SSTO research remains cloudy.  The SDI Organization -- which paid $60
   million for the DC-X -- can't itself afford to fund full development of a
   follow-on vehicle.  To get the necessary hundreds of millions required for

This is a little peculiar way of putting it, SDIO's budget this year
was, what, $3-4 billion? They _could_ fund all of the DC development
out of one years budget - of course they do have other irons in the
fire ;-) and launcher development is not their primary purpose, but
the DC development could as easily be paid for by diverting that money
as by diverting the comparable STS ops budget...

- oh, and before the flames start. I applaud the SDIO for funding DC-X
devlopment and I hope it works, and, no, launcher development is not
NASAs primary goal either, IMHO they are supposed to provide the
enabling technology research for others to do launcher development,
and secondarily operate such launchers as they require - but that's
just me.

|  Steinn Sigurdsson    |I saw two shooting stars last night        |
|  Lick Observatory    |I wished on them but they were only satellites    |
| [e-mail] |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?        |
| "standard disclaimer"    |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983    |

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

Date: 6 Apr 1993 21:39:10 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: FAQs
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bev Freed) writes:
>I was wondering if the FAQ files could be posted quarterly rather than monthly
>.  Every 28-30 days, I get this bloated feeling.

Or just stick 'em on sci.space.news every 28-30 days?



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Tue, 06 Apr 93 17:23:47 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fred and Tom, ad naseum

>>Nick sez;
I'm not very impressed by the old so-called "prospecting" work from
LPI, it has almost all been geared towards industrially silly processes on
the moon as an excuse to put astronauts there.   [...]

>>Fred replies;
Translation:  It doesn't support the Nick Szabo Vision of the Future
to Which You MUST Subscribe...

>Tom sez;
Fred, we're all supporting what each of us thinks should be done, to some
degree.  If you have a problem with what Nick thinks should be done,
address it, instead of just complaining about his doing so.

>Fred again;
You really don't get what the 'complaints' are about, do you?
  [not incredibly clear explanation of complaints...something between
   feelings regarding Nick's method, and judgments about his meaning]

T
>>Maybe I'd get it if you said what the complaints are about, rather than
>>doing the same things that you mean to complain about.  When you trash
>>people, how am I supposed to read that as 'trashing people is bad'?

F
>Gee, funny that you get it now, then?  Deliberate obtuseness, perhaps?

*** Fred's issue #1;  Nick's alleged trashing of others ***

I only got it when you stopped trashing, and made your point patently,
instead of 'allegorically'.  That was my point all along, Fred.

>>>>Not only
>>>>do you do the same thing on the net (honestly reporting your ideas
>>>>on matters of policy and projects in space), but your response was just
>>>>baiting, not even part of a debate.

>>>I have yet to see Nick enter into anything remotely resembling "a
>>>debate".  I see him flame anyone or anything who disagrees with The
>>>One True Szabo Plan; I see him attacking people, calling them "lazy
>>>bastard" because they had the temerity to disagree with the Almight
>>>Nick; I see him questioning peoples ethics, again because they had the
>>>temerity to disagree with Lord God Szabo.  But debate?  BWAAaaahhhaaaa.

>>I'm glad you can laugh, since your ratio of debate/insult is about the same.

>Not even close, Tommy, and generally only when I'm dealing with
>someone like Nick.

I see we are dealing with a problem in a conflict of interpretations, not
least of which is your belief that only you can adequately judge what is
and is not debate.  Suffice to say that I disagree with you on that last
point.  Why don't you take a poll, Fred, if you want some psuedo-objective
point-of-view?

And, as usual, you defend your insults with "he started it."  "Yeah, I
took some of his research and called it my own, but he started it."  "So
what if I stole his car, he stole my lawnmower first."  Besides that, I
think it's still open to interpretation whether Nick actually did start it.
So your defense, besides being lame, and contradicting the first part of
the sentence in which it occurs, may not even apply anyway.

Your defense reminds me of the guy that broke the borrowed tool:  "I
never borrowed it, I already gave it back, and it was broken when you
gave it to me."  Make up yer mind, Fred!

>>>>I'm not convinced that people are necessary in all parts of every space-
>>>>based process, and your response doesn't tell me a thing about the
>>>>reasons why you think they should be, except to impune the motives of
>>>>the person with a divergent opinion.

>>>Who said I think they should be, Tommy?  Show me a note where I said
>>>that and I'll eat this terminal.    ****See below, Fred****

>>Fred, I cocluded that you did, since you took issue with it.  The fact
>>that my conclusion was incorrect, i.e. that you were taking issue with
>>something different, is evidence that your communication style is
>>confusing.

>Or evidence that your reading and comprehension style are inadequate.

First, I try to address what I think you meant, for which I am rewarded
with a denial of sorts, and a smart remark.  Then, I point out that I am
not clear what you did mean, rather than risking your childish ire, wrongly
interpreting you a second time, and I'm stupid for it.  I just can't win,
can I, Fred?  You've got a great point here somewhere, it's just that
between stupid people that you must insult, and your jealous guarding of
your valuable opinions, you never actually get around to making it.

>Please quote the 'it' I took issue with.  I believe you will see (if
>you look) that what I was and am taking issue with is Mr Szabo's idea
>that the manned program should be scrapped until such time as his
>toaster-based infrastructure is finished.  All Hail the Szabo Plan!

*** Fred issue #2;  Nick's alleged meaning ***

Too bad the plan only exists in your mind, instead of Nick's, or you
would have a really good point.  Instead you have provided a good reason
to ignore your insults, since they are based on incorrect interpretations
that you have made about others.  Forgive me for giving your insults more
meaning than they ever should have had.

My reading of what Nick actually said is that "people aren't required in
all parts of all space processes", so your taking issue with his opinions
regarding people in the space program, I read as "People are required in
all parts of all space processes."  So, help me out, here, Fred, since I'm
so patently stupid.  Did you read Nick wrong?  Or are you going to eat
your terminal now?  If the latter, I sure hope it's one of those Cheeto and
string models that all the computer mags have been raving about :-)

The point is, _I_ am not stupid because of _your_ incorrect assumption.  I'd
only be stupid if I insulted you for having made it.  But, alas, that's your
job, Fred.

And, finally, your style is confusing, since you tried to make two points,
simultaneously, with an allegory/insult.  Sadly, one point addressed a 'plan'
that only existed in your mind, and the other took issue with behaviors that
you do as much as anyone.

>More deliberate lack of understanding, Tommy?

No, no, I finally got it.  You don't like the plan that Nick's posts made
you imagine.  And you don't like Nick's obnoxious behavior, even though
it's no worse than your own.  Thanks for taking the time with someone as
dense as myself.

>>>>If you have a problem with Nick's delivery, address that.  The way you
>>>>bait, you're perpetuating the lack of discourse that you complain of.

>>>No, Tommy, the 'bait' is that which elicits the response.  *NICK*
>>>'baits'; I just flame him for being an obnoxious fool.

>>I don't really care who started it.  I read this list to get information
>>and other's views on the issues to which it was dedicated, not to be
>>your Mom (He started it!  No, he did!) or to hear about why Nick is a very
>>bad guy.  If you think flaming is bad, stop flaming, or at least get to
>>the point in the first post, instead of explaining yourself all the time.

>That's nice, Tommy.  When you pay me to post to the net you can
>complain about not getting your money's worth.  Perhaps if you weren't
>(deliberately?) too thick to get the point the first time I wouldn't
>have to waste time "explaining [myself] all the time"?

Of course, Socrates.  How could it be otherwise?

>I think it's neat how all this criticism from you started after your
>'fatherly' admonitions to me about how such things should be handled
>outside Usenet were somewhat rebuffed.  Being a little hypocritical,
>Tommy (to go with the immaturity)?  Or is this just the pique of a
>net.ghod wannabe who got turned down by someone he *thought* was new
>(and hence could be 'instructed' -- Tommy, I saw you come on the net).

Who cares who came on the net first?  If you do, consider that you saw
me come on after a brief haitus, before which I was on for about 2 years.
If you had seen me on the net first, you'd remember when Nick and I went
down exactly the same road regarding rude, unneccesary behavior.  It's
just amazing to me that you continue to take issue with behavior that's
no worse than your own.

Let's see here, my complaints about your obnoxious behavior are hypocritical,
while your flames against people you decide are flamers isn't, and my
complaints about your name-calling are immature, while your name-calling
isn't.  Yeah, right.  Maybe if you called me some more names, I might
see it better, Fred.

"Net.ghod wannabe"?  Naturally, Fred, you've correctly interpreted my
motivations, when yours are impossible to judge from your actions (as
your insulting of people that try, proves).  I didn't really care about
people that fill the net with personal garbage, what I really wanted was to
impress everyone.  I only put my complaints with your behavior on private
mail, not because it belongs there, but because I thought you were such a
jerk that you'd bring it back to the Net, playing right into my hands.
Alas, I had no idea what an intellectual master you were, turning tables and
bringing the history of these posts to the net, for the noble and valuable
purpose of embarassing me.  Whether I should feel stupid because I tried
to make suggestions to such a superior intellect, or becuase I tried to
communicate like an adult with a self-righteous ass, still isn't clear.

Well, Fred, you exposed me.  Now I'll never be able to get a(nother) job
with NASA, since they all know that I'm stupider than Fred McCall.  Well,
I just hope you're happy.  Please leave me alone, now.  I just don't
have the heart to attempt keeping up with one so far above me.  Maybe Nick
or Pat can approach your high standards, but I'm dropping it now.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases,
[e-mail] 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 6 Apr 93 17:11:00 PST
From: "RWTMS2::MUNIZB" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mach 25

on Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 08:24:48 GMT, Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
writes:

/Um, be careful here, Ben.  In case you don't recognize the name, Jordin
/was head of the LLNL group that did most of the recent work on realistic,
/near-term laser propulsion, including lab tests with real high-power lasers.

I really wasn't trying to question Jordin Kare's position, just giving Leik
Myrabo's side since I had just read his SSI article.  I also stated that
Freeman Dyson has some reservations about Myrabo's approach, even though SSI is
going to fund some of his research.  Although I've seen some of Prof. Myrabo's
presentations, I haven't read much of the technical literature in this area so
I can't comment either way.

/Much of the groundwork Myrabo is talking about laying for his concepts has
/already been done for simpler and more practical ones.  What is lacking is
/funding for flight experiments.

Based on the article, I believe that SSI wants to flight test some scale models.
Have any laser or microwave driven *rockets* ever been tested (I've seen video
of the microwave powered helicopter)?  Should SSI be examining more promising
approaches other than/in addition to  Myrabo's air-breathing, multiple-cycle
engines for small, personal launch vehicles?

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: 6 Apr 1993 17:08 EST
From: "David B. Mckissock" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA "Wraps"
Newsgroups: sci.space

In the April edition of "One Small Step for a Space Activist",
Allen Sherzer & Tim Kyger write:
  "Another problem is what are called 'wraps' (or sometimes
   the 'center tax'). When work for a large program like
   Freedom or Shuttle is performed at a NASA center, the
   center skims off a portion which goes into what amounts
   to a slush fund. This money is used to fund work the
   center manager wants to fund. This sum is estimated to
   be over a third of the funds allocated. Think about
   that: Of the $30 billion cost of Freedom, fully $10
   billion won't be spent on anything having anything
   to do with Space Stations! Now, maybe that $10 billion
   was wisely spent (and maybe it wasn't), but the work done
   with it should stand on its own merits, not distorting
   the cost of other projects. Congress has no idea of the
   existense of these wraps; Congress has never heard the
   term 'center tax'. They look at the Station they are
   getting and the price they are paying and note that
   it doesn't add up. They wonder this blissfully unaware
   that a third of the money is going for something else."

My dear friends, your mixing fact and fiction here. A couple
of weeks ago, when I first read this in your posting, I
talked with one of the cost experts here in Space Station
at Headquarters [if you wondering why I didn't post a
response immediately, I do have a real job I'm supposed
to be doing here at Headquarters, & digging up old 20 kHz
data & looking into Sherzer/Kyger claims rates pretty low
on the totem pole of priority. Also, I spent last weekend
in Kansas City, at the National Science Teachers
Association conference, extolling the virtues of SSF
to 15,000 science teachers.]

First off, yes, the concept of 'center tax', or 'wrap' does
exist. If I recall the numbers correctly, the total 'tax'
for the SSF program for this fiscal year is around $40 Million.
This was computed by adding up the WP-1, WP-2, and WP-4
center 'taxes'. With the SSF budget for this fiscal year at
$2.2 Billion, my calculater says the tax percentage is
04/2.2 = 1.8%

Over the life of the SSF program, using your figure of $30
billion for the cost of SSF, a tax at a 1.8% rate comes to
$540 million. This is alot less than $10 billion, but I
will concede it's still an appreciable amount of pocket
change.

I should note that your estimate of the tax rate at 1/3 could
be close to the actual rate. The tax is only charged on funds
that are spent at the center (kind of like McDonalds at some
states, where you do have to pay sales tax if you eat
the food at the restaurant, but you don't if you get it
take-out). For example, at WP-4, the vast bulk of the funds
we receive go to the Rocketdyne Contract, and are *NOT*
subject to the center tax (I don't have the numbers in
front of me, but I'd guess at least 95% of the WP-4 funds
go to Rocketdyne). So, you could be right about a tax
rate of 1/3, but it's only applied to funds spent at the
center, and not to the prime contracts.

This leads to the obvious question "What is the government
doing with SSF funds that don't go to the prime contractors?
(i.e. ok, WP-4 gets a slice of the $30 billion pie. A
big portion of this slice goes to Rocketdyne. What happens
to the balance of the funds, which aren't eaten
up by the center tax?)"

At WP-4, we call these funds we spend in-house supporting
development funds (as they are supporting the development
work done by Rocketdyne). We have used these funds to
setup our own testbed, to checkout the electrical
power system architecture. Our testbed has a real life
solar array field (left over from solar cell research
research a few years back), with lead-acid car batteries
(to simulate the Nickel-Hydrogen batteries on SSF), DC
switchgear, DC-DC converter units, and simulated
loads. Data from the testbed was used in a recent
change evaluation involving concerns about the stability
of the power system.

We have also used the supporting development money to

purchase Nickel Hydrogen batteries, which are on life
testing at both Lewis and the Crane Naval facility in
Indiana. As a side point, 6 of the battery cells on
test recently hit the four year life test milestone.
38 cells have completed 18,552 to 23,405 cycles (the
on-orbit batteries go through 5,840 cycles per year).

As a final example, my 'home' division at Lewis used
the supporting development funds to purchase personal
computers and work stations, for performing system
analyses (like modeling of the performance of the
electrical power system, availability calculations
using a Monte-Carlo simulation, setting up a
database with information on weight of the power
system elements).

Finally, the money raised by the 'tax' does not all
go into a 'slush fund.' At Lewis, the director
does control a small discretionary fund. Each year,
any individual at Lewis can submit a proposal to
the director to get money from this fund to look
at pretty much anything within the Lewis Charter.

Most of the tax, however, goes to fund the 'general'
services at the Center, like the library, the
central computer services division, the Contractor
who removes the snow, etc. Thus, it is rather
difficult to determine what percentage of the
SSF budget doesn't go for SSF activities. To get
an accurate figure, you would have to take
the annual expenditure for the library (for example),
and then divide by the amount of the library funds
used to support SSF (which would be hard to
compute by itself - how would you figure out
what percentage of the bill for Aviation Week for
1 year is 'billable' to SSF, would you base it on
the person-hours SSF employees spend reading AV-week
versus the rest of the center personnel). You would
then have to compare this estimate of the SSF
portion of the library expense with the portion of
the tax that goes to support the library. Who knows,
maybe SSF overpays on the tax to run the library, but
we underpay for snow removal? Talk about
a burecratic nightmare!

My last point is that I can't believe your claim that
Congress has never heard of the term 'center tax.'
Unfortunately, all of the NASA testimony before
Congress isn't on a computer, so I can't do a simple
word search someplace to prove you wrong. But surely,
in some GAO audit somewhere, these NASA cost methods
were documented for Congress?

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

Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 21:08:27 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: nuclear waste
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <1psg95$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

[On the issue of 'burning' nuclear wastes using particle beams...]

>How is it ever going to be an Off- the Shelf Technology if someone doesn't
>do it?  Maybe we should do this as part of the SSF design goals. ;-)

>Gee fred.  After your bitter defense of 20 KHz power as a Basic technology
>for SSF, Id think you would support a minor research program like
>this.

I sometimes wonder if your newsfeed gives you different articles than
everyone else, Pat.  Just a *few* corrections:

1) I never 'defended' 20kHz power, other than as something reasonable
to GO LOOK AT.

2) I have also never opposed a *research project* into feasibility of
the spalling reactor approach to 'cleaning' nuclear waste -- I simply
doubt it could be made to work in the Real World (tm), which ought to
become clear fairly quickly during a research program into feasibility
(sort of like what happened to 20 kHz power -- it proved to have a
down-side that was too expensive to overcome).

I figure 2 things wrong in a single sentence is a high enough fault
density for even you, Pat.



--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: 6 Apr 1993 20:17:29 GMT
From: CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON <[e-mail]>
Subject: pushing the envelope
Newsgroups: sci.space

> flight tests are generally carefully coreographed and just what
> is going to be  'pushed' and how
> far is precisely planned (despite occasional deviations from plans,
> such as the 'early' first flight of the F-16 during its high-speed
> taxi tests).

.. and Chuck Yeager earlier flights with the X-1...


 [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 22:42:11 GMT
From: Doug Page <[e-mail]>
Subject: Quaint US Archaisms
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nick Haines) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
|>
<stuff deleted>
|> Of course the units of force have the same names as those of weight,
|> but in order to use them you need to keep useful constants like the
|> omnipresent 32.???? ft/sec^2 around.
|>
|> Maybe you'd like to go over again how this system is _so_ natural and
|> _so_ easy to use, Gary? While you're at it, you can figure out for us
|> the weight of 17 barrels and a quart of foo (density 17lb 2 3/4 oz per
|> cubic foot) on the moon (gravity 5 ft 7 3/32 in/sec^2). Let's face it,
|> even the imperial system uses a basically metric way of relating
|> quantities (i.e. that would be written as 5.59 ft/sec^2); the only
|> thing you're hanging on to is the right to express the same quantity
|> as 1731 inches, 144.25 feet, 48.0833 yards or 2.186 chains. What
|> everyone else is saying is _why_ do you want to do that?
|>
|> Any apparent remaining complexity in the SI system is due to the
|> multiplicity of the aforesaid prefixes. In fact what's going on (and
|> the fundamental difference between SI and imperial) is that you have
|> exactly one unit of each type, and all values of that type are
|> expressed as some multiple of the unit.

You mean like: seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years. . .  :-)

Remember,  the Fahrenheit temperature scale is also a centigrade scale.  Some
revisionists tell the history something like this:  The coldest point in a
particular Russian winter was marked on the thermometer as was the body
temperature of a volunteer (turns out he was sick, but you can't win 'em all).
Then the space in between the marks on the thermometer was then divided into
hundredths.
                                :-)

FWIW,

Doug Page


***  The opinions are mine (maybe), and do not necessarily represent those  ***
***  of my employer (or any other sane person, fot that matter).            ***

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

Date: 6 Apr 93 22:23:00 GMT
From: David Ward <abdkw@stdvax>
Subject: Questions about Titan IV and Ariane 5
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Garret W. Gengler) writes...
>In sci.space you write:
>
>>Try the ENVIRONET database at GSFC. FTP to envnet.gsfc.nasa.gov or
>>128.183.104.16, or call [phone].  They have data on STS, Ariane, Titan,
>>Atlas, Delta and Scout launch environments.
>
>Howdy.  Thanks for the info.
>
>I tried "anonymous" FTP there, but it didn't work.
>I also tried telnetting to the same address, but it asked for a login
>and password, although there was a note saying that the new username for
>environet was "envnet".
>
>Anyways, do you have any idea what else I should try?
>
>Thanks,
>Garret
>
>
The home office number for ENVIRONET is [phone] (note area
code change).  A friend of mine used to use it to get LDEF data, but
he had to apply for a login name and password.  I have a call in for
more info, which I hope to get in the morning.

David W. @ GSFC

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

Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 21:01:38 GMT
From: Dillon Pyron <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Research Spin Off
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1psgs1$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>|
>|The NASA habit of acquiring second-hand military aircraft and using
>|them for testbeds can make things kind of confusing.  On the other
>|hand, all those second-hand Navy planes give our test pilots a chance
>|to fold the wings--something most pilots at Edwards Air Force Base
>|can't do.
>|
>
>What do you mean?  Overstress the wings,  and they fail at teh joints?
>
>You'll have to enlighten us in the hinterlands.

No, they fold on the dotted line.  Look at pictures of carriers with loads of
a/c on the deck, wings all neatly folded.
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
[phone] (when I'm here)     |
[phone] (when I'm home)     |God gave us weather so we wouldn't complain
[e-mail]          |about other things.
PADI DM-54909                     |

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

Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 22:24:57 GMT
From: Doug Page <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sr-71 in propoganda films?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gregory Smith) writes:
|> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|>
|> >In <1phv98$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
|>
|>
|> >>THe SR-71 stopped being a real secret by the mid 70's.
|> >>I had a friend in high school who had a poster with it's picture.
|>
|> >It was known well before that.  I built a model of it sometime in the
|> >mid 60's, billed as YF-12A/SR-71.  The model was based on YF-12A specs
|> >and had a big radar in the nose and 8 AAMs in closed bays on the
|> >underside of the fuselage.  The description, even then, read "speeds
|> >in excess of Mach 3 at altitudes exceeding 80,000 feet."
|>
|> L.B.J. publically announced the existance of the Blackbird program
|> in 1964.


He's also the one who dubbed it the SR-71 - it was the RS-71 until LBJ
mippselled (sic) it.

FWIW,

Doug Page

***  The opinions are mine (maybe), and don't necessarily represent those  ***
***  of my employer.                                                       ***

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

Date: Tue, 06 Apr 93 16:00:21 PDT
From: Richard Buenneke <[e-mail]>
Subject: White House outlines options for station, Russian cooperation

------- Blind-Carbon-Copy

To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: White House outlines options for station, Russian cooperation
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 93 16:00:21 PDT
From: Richard Buenneke <[e-mail]>

4/06/93:  GIBBONS OUTLINES SPACE STATION REDESIGN GUIDANCE

NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
April 6, 1993

RELEASE:  93-64

        Dr.  John H.  Gibbons, Director, Office of Science and Technology
Policy, outlined to the members-designate of the Advisory Committee on the
Redesign of the Space Station on April 3, three budget options as guidance
to the committee in their deliberations on the redesign of the space
station.

        A low option of $5 billion, a mid-range option of $7 billion and a
high option of $9 billion will be considered by the committee.  Each
option would cover the total expenditures for space station from fiscal
year 1994 through 1998 and would include funds for development,
operations, utilization, Shuttle integration, facilities, research
operations support, transition cost and also must include adequate program
reserves to insure program implementation within the available funds.

        Over the next 5 years, $4 billion is reserved within the NASA
budget for the President's new technology investment.  As a result,
station options above $7 billion must be accompanied by offsetting
reductions in the rest of the NASA budget.  For example, a space station
option of $9 billion would require $2 billion in offsets from the NASA
budget over the next 5 years.

        Gibbons presented the information at an organizational session of
the advisory committee.  Generally, the members-designate focused upon
administrative topics and used the session to get acquainted.  They also
received a legal and ethics briefing and an orientation on the process the
Station Redesign Team is following to develop options for the advisory
committee to consider.

        Gibbons also announced that the United States and its
international partners -- the Europeans, Japanese and Canadians -- have
decided, after consultation, to give "full consideration" to use of
Russian assets in the course of the space station redesign process.

        To that end, the Russians will be asked to participate in the
redesign effort on an as-needed consulting basis, so that the redesign
team can make use of their expertise in assessing the capabilities of MIR
and the possible use of MIR and other Russian capabilities and systems.
The U.S. and international partners hope to benefit from the expertise of
the Russian participants in assessing Russian systems and technology.  The
overall goal of the redesign effort is to develop options for reducing
station costs while preserving key research and exploration capabilitiaes.
Careful integration of Russian assets could be a key factor in achieving
that goal.

        Gibbons reiterated that, "President Clinton is committed to the
redesigned space station and to making every effort to preserve the
science, the technology and the jobs that the space station program
represents.  However, he also is committed to a space station that is well
managed and one that does not consume the national resources which should
be used to invest in the future of this industry and this nation."

        NASA Administrator Daniel S.  Goldin said the Russian
participation will be accomplished through the East-West Space Science
Center at the University of Maryland under the leadership of Roald
Sagdeev.

------- End of Blind-Carbon-Copy

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 429
------------------------------