Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_4/V16NO451.TXT

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

Date: Mon, 12 Apr 93 05:00:00
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #451
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon, 12 Apr 93       Volume 16 : Issue 451

Today's Topics:
                             Biosphere II
              Blow up space station, easy way to do it.
                   Civilian use of Russian missiles
                             Gemini Suits
                      Inflatable space stations
                             NASA "Wraps"
                            nuclear waste
             Question- Why is SSTO  Single Stage (4 msgs)
                   Quick reaction shuttle (2 msgs)
                     Re^2: Fireball Reports 15/93
                   Shuttle seen from British Isles
                          space food sticks
             What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?

    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: 11 Apr 1993 10:58:33 GMT
From: Isaac Kuo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Biosphere II
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1q7k12$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>In article <1q64fv$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Isaac Kuo) writes:
>>[stuff about what Biosphere is and what mainstream scientists are doing
>> delete]
>
>If you think understanding complex ecosystems the Biosphere method is bad,
>how can you even for a second defend doing so by current earth/natural
>observation methodologies???  Bio II is orders and orders of magnitude
>better controlled and observable than any ecosystem in nature.

I do not claim that studying closed systems is bad.  I should have been more
specific.  I believe that studying a fictional closed environment in order
to test whether our models work on the real world is not as valuble as studying
real world environments in order to test whether our models work on the real
world.

>a) patently false, and
>b) an attempt to distract from the real issues.
>If you continue to do stupid argument tricks like that I'll stop debating
>you.  I prefer to argue with rational people whose minds aren't made up.
>

I was trying to make a point about the competence of the Biosphere researchers.
If my claims are false (I heard them from TV news, but TV news is not always
accurate), so be it.  There are, as you say, more significant issues.

Rational people do at some point make up their minds.  A person who doesn't
ever make up his mind is not what I would call rational.

>>What about thinking "Creation Science" or "Scientology" is bad science?  If
>>you leave your mind open enough, people will throw garbage into it.  Bio-
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>sphere II is more of a media event than an experiment.
>
>That claim, sir, is bullshit.  My mind is open at all times.

"Bullshit"?  I suppose you've made up your mind about whether my statement
is "bullshit" or not.  But I'd rather not flame war, so please drop the harsh
language.

If you keep your mind open ENOUGH, people will throw garbage into it.

>That does not prevent me from being able to tell that there
>is no scientific merit to "Creation science" or "Scientology";
>it just means that I actually listen to what they, and everyone
>else, say when they talk to me.  I don't have to believe them,
>I just have to listen.
>
I would love to claim that I always listen to all sides of the story also.
In practice, everyone's time is limited and there is too much information
out there (even just the Amiga related USENET groups!).  So all of use must
make the decision to not listen to the irrelevant.  For me, I find that not
listenning to chronic liars or the TV show "Sightings" is worthwhile.
(Hmm.  I did watch "Sightings" once--the Crop circles episode.  I then
concluded I needn't watch it again.)

>>Like what variables ARE they keeping track of?
>
>Atmospheric composition.  Plant growth, in magnificent detail.  Animal
>growth, health, etc.  Chemistry in their little lake.  Have you
>actually read anything about the project, or just criticisms of it?
>It's not like they sealed themselves in for 2 years and are playing
>volleyball to pass the time.
>
>>Who considers Biosphere to be _the_ comparative model?  Any scientists?
>
>I know a whole bunch of scientists who think it's that.
>I know a whole bunch more who think it's a total waste of time.
>

Thank you for answering my questions.  I should not have asked them in
such a snide way (it invites flaming).  I apologize for the negative
implications I related.  Interesting.  When will they release their first
results?  What are the questions (both qualitative and quantitative) they
hope to answer?

>>Agreed.  But Biosphere is not a look even a remotely good overall look.
>>Its purpose was to determine the feasability of people living in an enclosed
>>environment, not to study a closed environment.  It has totally failed to
>>do this, as at least one participant had to leave because of a cut, and
>>they've reportedly orderred out for pizza.  Of course, none of this information
>>will likely ever be released, since the backers of Biosphere are not
>>scientists.
>
>Its purpose was to do both of those, pseudoscientific criticisms aside.
>The person who left was ILL, medically ill; if they'd been on a shuttle
>flight they'd have brought them down immediately.  If they'd been on
>a ship at sea they'd have flown them so shore.  They were in Bio II, so
>they cycled them through the airlock. [this from memory, ask Taber for
>more details...].
>

Yes, I have to agree that they can put a person through an airlock/etc
and maintain the integrity of the environment.  But it does contradict
there other purpose, which was the one emphasized by the media.  Neither
a shuttle flight nor a ship at sea is an experiment in survival in a
closed environment.

>They didn't deny a), and have good records of how much CO2 was taken out
>when, etc.  They publicized b) pretty well, I saw it in the paper here
>at the same time the Bio II people I know started talking about it.
>That they failed to keep the system totally closed is not a disaster;
>they know what they had to do to correct it, and can document what
>they did very very well.  As a pure experiment, it was bad form,
>but it's more than just a lab testbed.  It's not like they didn't
>keep track of what they were doing when they opened the system a bit.
>
>There are perfectly valid scientific criticisms of Biosphere II, some of which
>I don't know how to refute.  As with most experiments, it's not simple
>or as closed as it "should" be, and its value in that light is debatable.
>I think it is of value, but it's by no means a clear cut issue.
>
The issue as I see it, is larger than the specific case of Biosphere.  It
is the issue of how to treat "questionable" scientific experiments.  By
"questionable", I mean one or more of the following:

a) Other experiments done by the same scientist are unsound (and not admitted
    to be so).
b) The experiment is similar to previous unsound experiments
c) The "experiment" is not really an experiment (it is different from a
    scientific experiment in a serious way such as not defining a
    priori the tested data.)

Examples of "questionable" scientific experiments are those claiming to
demonstrate a perpetual motion device or one claiming to show a telepathic
effect.  I would say that Biosphere is a "questionable" experiment since the
experimenters are also doing this unusual experiment about seeing whether
people can live in an enclosed environment.

Are we to listen to all "questionable" claims with the same credulity as
mainstream science?

Your point, I realize, is that there's always the possibility of getting
good information from any experiment.  As I see it, finding good science
in bad is usually difficult at best.  For instance, there are thousands
of experiments demonstrating the existence of a telepathic effect.  I hope
you agree that trying to look for good science inside all of that is pretty
hopeless.

>It really peeves me when people use untrue, nonscientific, or slanderous
>arguments to try and argue against its value.  You perpetrate the exact
>same methodologies you argue against.  Biosphere II has suffered from a
>particularly vehement opposition that while based in reasonable scientific
>critisisms has gone well beyond them.

I'll try to be a little more cool-headed.  You are right that sticking to
reasonable scientific criticism is the most productive route.  I do think
that the "bad form" of the experiment is an important issue, since reverse
engineering a bad experiment into just its good parts is misleading and
provides an incomplete picture.
--
*Isaac Kuo ([e-mail])                   *       _______
*"How lucky you English are to find the toilet so amusing.* _____(___o___)_____
* For us, it is a mundane and functional item.  For you,  *(==(_____________)==)
* the basis of an entire culture!" Manfred von Richtofen  * \==\/         \/==/

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

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1993 13:11:42 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Blow up space station, easy way to do it.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>You need support structure for your life support and power systems
>>from the very beginning. Therefore you can't do any shirtsleeve
>>assembly until they are in place. This is chicken and egg for inflateable
>>structures. You can't work inside until you have support structures and
>>equipment installed for life support and power, and you can't install
>>structures in a shirtsleeve environoment until you can work inside.
>
>Not so for the LLNL Great Exploration station. It was packaged so that
>it could be inflated and provide life support long enough for the
>crew to do the remainder of assembly.

Shipping the module with packaged HVAC is a must, but how do they
handle power, and how long is "long enough" given the vagaries of
launch schedules and assembly difficulties? Having modules that
can remain partially assembled in orbit for unscheduled months of
delay is pretty much a must at the present state of the art.

It's instructive to look at the differences between blimps and
dirigibles when examining these station ideas. Rigid skinned
lighter than air vehicles were developed because it's difficult
to fit structures into a purely gas supported envelope. There's
little or no resistance to bending moments applied on lines that
don't pass through the center of inflated structures.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1993 13:28:00 -0500
From: Mark Prado <[e-mail]>
Subject: Civilian use of Russian missiles
Newsgroups: sci.space

I'm looking for statistics on orbit cargo capacity for Russian
ICBMs.

I plan to incorporate them into a formal proposal.

The idea is that instead of destroying many of these missiles, as
we are currently planning to do, we could instead launch things
into orbit, perhaps in some great cooperative venture which would
make some money (stimulate both economies and cooperation).

From my work for the U.S. Defense Dept. many years ago (Star
Wars), I remember that these ICBMs have very substantial lift
capacities.  After all, ICBM's reach about 97% of orbital
velocity.  They also go over the poles, so that if they instead
are launched in the direction that the Earth rotates, additional
cargo capacity may be achieved.

I don't remember any particular numbers, just that it was quite
sizeable.  If someone can dig something up in general from the
regular public literature, then I can do any necessary
calculations for approximating orbit capacity.  We don't need any
extremely precise numbers at this stage, of course...

Please post some numbers here or send them to:

[e-mail]

We appreciate your time and effort.

------------------------------------------------------------
For more info, send a message to:    [e-mail]

"The best channel to Clinton is thru State, not Defense." ;)

All words are my own, and not any official statements of:
Permanet, Inc.; Reston, VA, a suburb of Washington, D.C.
------------------------------------------------------------

 * Origin: Just send it to  [e-mail]
(1:109/349)

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

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 93 15:48:36 EET
From: [e-mail] (F.Baube[tm])
Subject: Gemini Suits

From: Pat <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Budget Astronaut (was: Idle Question)
>
> The gemini suit must have been tolerable,  i think on emission
> went 2 weeks,  but were they in suits the whole time?

As I recall, they were for the first few missions,
that weren't of such long duration, but that after
a few missins without problems, they took the luxury
of doffing their suits for periods of time.  I think
that going without suits was a first, at least for
Americans; there was discussion on the Tube of what
would happen and what the astronauts would do in
the event of a sudden loss of cabin pressure.

--
* Fred Baube (tm)         *  In times of intellectual ferment,
* [e-mail]       * advantage to him with the intellect
* #include <disclaimer.h> * most fermented
* How is Frank Zappa doing ?
* May '68, Paris: It's Retrospective Time !!

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

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1993 19:02:15 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Inflatable space stations
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>It's instructive to look at the differences between blimps and
>dirigibles when examining these station ideas.

I have one nit to pick with an otherwise fine post.  Blimps and dirigibles are
not distinct sets.  A dirigible is a steerable airship.  The famous Goodyear
blimp is also a dirigible.

>Rigid skinned
>lighter than air vehicles were developed because it's difficult
>to fit structures into a purely gas supported envelope. There's
>little or no resistance to bending moments applied on lines that
>don't pass through the center of inflated structures.

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
          "Tout ce qu'un homme est capable d'imaginer, d'autres hommes
                     seront capable de le realiser"
             -Jules Verne

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

Date: 11 Apr 1993 09:40:52 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA "Wraps"
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>BTW, universities do the same thing. They however, have a wrap of
|>10% to 15% (again, this is over and above any overhead charge).
|>
|>   Allen
|>
|
|
|Wrong Allen. The max overhead charge is ALL of the charge. There is no
|seperately budgeted overhead in any shape size form or fashion. How do
|I know? I write proposals and have won contracts and I know to the dime
|what the charges are. At UAH for example the overhead is 36.6%. At Utah
|State it is somewhat higher. At Stanford it was really overboard. All of
|the schools that I have experience with use the overhead percentage number
|and that is ALL the system can charge on a contract.
>

Gee, UAH, has afairly low overhead charge.  Are there any hidden charges?

I know some schools applied  hidden charges.  33% overhead, when the grant came
in,  but everytime you bought equipment there was a 10% procurement tax,
and a 10 % labor tax for every salary check.  Rotten sneaks.

I think universities should have to compete on the Overhead charges.
>
>I know that MSFC gets somewhere in the billions per year. If your asertation
>were correct that would mean that the skim is near a billion per year. This
>is prima facia absurd. Where the heck is the money going? To lawfully
>contracted programs. There are small amounts of money that the center director

Dennis.
    Programs may be lawfully contracted, but not have a line item
appropriation, even within the NASA budget.  Look at all the people
at MSFC,  do they get separate line items,  no.  Is there even
a line item for their salaries, probably not.  MSFC, probably gets
funding of X,  and then Money from each program office.   any
insufficiency of X gets funded out of program wraps.  It's  a
very detailed argument in the acctg.

My philosophy, is fund the centers on a 5 year basis.  Give them their
base operating funds,  and if they don't produce,  kill them off.
Bell labs worked very well this way.

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

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1993 10:37:59 GMT
From: Charles Pooley <[e-mail]>
Subject: nuclear waste
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Kenneth Ng) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]: [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> :I was under the impression that the Japanese plutonium was more
> :'enriched' than this; however, that was from press coverage of the
> :transshipment, and we know what the gentlemen of the Press can be like
> :when it comes to strict factuality on issues like this.
>
> I can understand this impression.  One of the advertisements I've read has
> so many mistakes, misleads, and downright lies that it was laughable.
> Constantly they were infering that 'plutonium' means 'nuclear bomb'.  But
> I must say that to this day, I have yet to read the isotope concentration
> of the plutonium shipment.  Since the target is a nuclear reactor, I would
> imagine that it would not have a high amount of pu239.
>
> --
> Kenneth Ng
> Please reply to [e-mail] for now.
> "All this might be an elaborate simulation running in a little device sitting
> on someone's table" -- J.L. Picard: ST:TNG

The Pu in question came from power reactors, and due to the way it is made
and the long time it spends in the reactor, it is a blend of 4 isotopes:
Pu 239,240,241,242, with traces of Pu 238.  Though this is not "weapons
grade" Pu, the isotope mix can (and has been) be used to make a nuclear
explosion.   Probably only terrorists might be interested in this, as a
country capable of making use of Pu for power could make weapon grade Pu.

If someone posts the type of reactors the Pu came from, I can look up and
post the approximate isotope mix.
--
Charles Pooley                  [e-mail]    GEnie  c.pooley
EE consultant, Los Angeles, CA

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

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1993 13:16:28 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Question- Why is SSTO  Single Stage
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1q5uct$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>Shooting for minimum operational cost doesn't necessarily mean throwing
>>away all hint of performance, [...]
>
>No, but aerospace engineers tend to draw a blank when presented with the
>opportunity to lower system cost by making it bigger but cheaper per lb.
>You'd be amazed what you can get away with if you intentionally design
>a vehicle for lower performance and with higher margins; I can give you
>vehicles whose construction & launch cost (ignoring development and profits)
>is about a dollar a pound.  They have initial-payload ratios of 250 to 1
>as opposed to 60 to 100 to 1 for current launch vehicles, but they also
>are a hell of a lot cheaper.
>
>[Or hope to be able to do so, sometime soon...
>at least I can show you how now 8-) ]

Make them out of steel in shipyards and water launch them? I've seen
proposals that do just that. If you make it big enough, you can even
use nuclear heated steam rockets. Or like Orion, you can just use
bombs to power it. All you need is clean bombs. Perhaps laser compressed
fusion pellets would work.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1993 13:19:21 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Question- Why is SSTO Single Stage
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1q7vki$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
>Now what I don't understand, is granted Enterprise would have had
>1/2 the cargo load of the others,  but  wouldn't it make sense to go ahead
>and fly her,  to run the orbital test program,  and maintain an
>ready to go vehicle for rapid reaction missions  or light cargo
>runs?
>
>Keep her in the VAB  tipped up with a canadaarm, and ready to go,
>or  in the OPF  ready for a cargo mission.

Money. It'd cost too much to keep it sitting around ready to go.
It's a shame though, lots of Trekies would like to see Enterprise
go to space rather than rusting in the weeds waiting for a slot
inside Air & Space.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1993 16:51:01 GMT
From: Bruce Dunn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question- Why is SSTO Single Stage
Newsgroups: sci.space

With regard to why build an SSTO rather than a multistage vehicle.


> Henry Spencer writes:
>
> People built two-stage airliners once.  Nobody bothers any more.  It's
> just not worth the extra performance.
>


        This is certainly true for the current stage of aircraft design, and
for typical flight distances of trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific crossings.
These however don't come anywhere near pushing the practical limits of
structural mass fraction.  The problem of getting to orbit is much more
difficult than that of crossing the Atlantic.

        If aircraft designers were given the problem of designing a system to
carry a substantial payload around the world without touching down, they
might well find that a two-stage system is most cost effective.  The Voyager
aircraft, which went around the world non-stop, was more or less the aircraft
equivalent of an SSTO; something like 80 or 90% of the takeoff mass was fuel,
and its payload - two people- was tiny (I don't have the actual numbers
handy).  While it worked, a two stage system (or inflight refueling, which is
in effect a two stage system), might be much more cost effective for airplane
trips of this length.

        Correspondingly, if the we lived on Mars rather than on Earth, no one
would question the feasibility of an SSTO.  When a mission does not push the
practical limits of technology too hard, a single stage vehicle is clearly
superior.  However, when you get close to the limits of technology, the
single stage vehicle does not automatically win.  The reason that we are now
considering an SSTO is that the "limit of technology" has been pushed forward
a bit, finally making feasible something which could not be so easily done in
previous years.

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

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

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1993 18:47:42 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question- Why is SSTO Single Stage
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Bruce Dunn) writes:

>With regard to why build an SSTO rather than a multistage vehicle.

>> Henry Spencer writes:
>>
>> People built two-stage airliners once.  Nobody bothers any more.  It's
>> just not worth the extra performance.

>        If aircraft designers were given the problem of designing a system to
>carry a substantial payload around the world without touching down, they
>might well find that a two-stage system is most cost effective.

Actually, for many definitions of "substantial payload" they would find that
single stage balloons are the most cost effective.  The same attitude could
be applied to space systmes I suppose.  The best rocket for the job won't
always be a rocket.

>The Voyager
>aircraft, which went around the world non-stop, was more or less the aircraft
>equivalent of an SSTO; something like 80 or 90% of the takeoff mass was fuel,
>and its payload - two people- was tiny (I don't have the actual numbers
>handy).  While it worked, a two stage system (or inflight refueling, which is
>in effect a two stage system), might be much more cost effective for airplane
>trips of this length.

As you pointed out, the reason we are trying SSTO technology is similar to the
reasons for flying Voyager (the aircraft).  The technology seems to be
available.  If it really does work, it _will_ be better than a multiple stage
rocket, so it makes sense to try and build one.  Even if the DC project works,
multi stage rockets wouldn't stop flying for at least a decade or two, but
eventually they would.  Of course, there is much more demand for a cheap
vehicle that can fly to orbit than there is for a vehicle that can fly non-stop
around the world.

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
          "Tout ce qu'un homme est capable d'imaginer, d'autres hommes
                     seront capable de le realiser"
             -Jules Verne

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

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1993 18:37:29 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Quick reaction shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>Now what I don't understand, is granted Enterprise would have had
>1/2 the cargo load of the others,  but  wouldn't it make sense to go ahead
>and fly her,  to run the orbital test program,  and maintain an
>ready to go vehicle for rapid reaction missions  or light cargo
>runs?

>Keep her in the VAB  tipped up with a canadaarm, and ready to go,
>or  in the OPF  ready for a cargo mission.

Pat, you can't _do_ that.  If you could fly shuttles as "rapid reaction"
vehicles, or fly them economically with half the payload capacity we wouldn't
need new launchers. Okay, that's a little too generous, but I think you get the
drift.  Doing what you want to do is fundamentally impractical with the hardware
you're talking about.
--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
          "Tout ce qu'un homme est capable d'imaginer, d'autres hommes
                     seront capable de le realiser"
             -Jules Verne

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

Date: 11 Apr 1993 21:25:22 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Quick reaction shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:
|[e-mail] (Pat) writes:
|
|>Now what I don't understand, is granted Enterprise would have had
|>1/2 the cargo load of the others,  but  wouldn't it make sense to go ahead
|>and fly her,  to run the orbital test program,  and maintain an
|>ready to go vehicle for rapid reaction missions  or light cargo
|>runs?
|
|>Keep her in the VAB  tipped up with a canadaarm, and ready to go,
|>or  in the OPF  ready for a cargo mission.
|
|Pat, you can't _do_ that.  If you could fly shuttles as "rapid reaction"
|vehicles, or fly them economically with half the payload capacity we wouldn't
|need new launchers. Okay, that's a little too generous, but I think you get the
|drift.  Doing what you want to do is fundamentally impractical with the hardware
|you're talking about.


Why not.

THe reason, shuttle missions take so long, is the manifest is full.

The Intelsat rescue,  took  some 2 odd years, because they
needed a shuttle available,  and even that took a lot of
schedule juggling.   How difficult can it be to keep a
shuttle stacked,  and waiting for the occasional light weight
mission?

Look,  shuttles are already basically un-economical.  the fly because
they have a guaranteed customer.  Sure,  OV-100  would only
carry 20 Klbs, to orbit,  but for something like the Intelsat
rescue,  why would it need any more.

Or some of these  stranded comsats.  GD  stranded some bird in
a low orbit, because of a wiring error a few years back.

All it needed was someone to go up  and change a plug.

pat

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

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1993 21:24:00 +0200
From: Andre Knoefel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re^2: Fireball Reports 15/93
Newsgroups: sci.space

> Excuse my ignorance, but just what are these fireballs?

Bright Meteors - or also called Bolids...

----------------------------------------------
    Andre Knoefel - Duesseldorf - Germany
Internet: [e-mail]  CIS: 100114,3235
----------------------------------------------
        I'd Rather Be Seeing Stars...
## CrossPoint v2.1 R ##

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

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1993 05:08:37 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Shuttle seen from British Isles
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space,sci.astro

U.S. Space Shuttle Discovery was seen from Ireland on Sat. April 10 at
2:57UT when it appeared in 'mid-air' as it came out of the Earth's shadow
in the northern sky. Magnitude -2. It was seen onthe next pass in twilight
as dawn was just beginning at 4:30UT but this time only mag 0 despite
being tracked from horizon to horizon almost - must have been bad
sun-observer-shuttle angle.

If you don't have access to tracking software and latest orbital elements
you can get the time to watch by dialling 0891-88-19-50 in the U.K. or
1550-111-442 in the Republic of Ireland. The times are given at the start
of these newslines so it only costs a few pence to get the times.

We also got photos, pity we don't have a scanner otherwise we could post them!

Please pass the newsline numbers on to colleagues.

-Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from:
              Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland.
6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail).
ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address).

   (WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better? 0.033%)
Tel: [phone] (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). Cost up to 48p per min

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

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 93 17:38:35 EDT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: space food sticks

-From: [e-mail] (David M. Palmer)
-Subject: Re: space food sticks
-Date: 7 Apr 93 02:10:19 GMT
-Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

[e-mail] (;;;;RD48) writes:
->I had spacefood sticks just about every morning for breakfast in
->first and second grade (69-70, 70-71).

-I remember these.  The TV commercial for them had an astronaut
-eating one of them with his spacesuit and helmet on.  He stuck
-it into his mouth through a neat hole drilled in his faceplate.
-Very confusing for a little kid who knows about vacuum and the
-horrors of a suit leak.

At least some of the prototype Apollo pressure suits had a gasket in the
face plate through which a drinking tube could be inserted. Not the same
as an open hole, though. :-)

Regarding the Pillsbury "Space Food Sticks": I believe they were originally
sold by that name, then the name was changed to "Food sticks". Contrary
to some of the recollections posted here, they were considerably softer
than "Tootsie Rolls" (also less sweet), and not at all crumbly. They were
not specifically a candy - I suspect flour was one of the ingredients.
I preferred chocolate to the other flavors.

I don't know whether it was ever claimed or implied that they were used
on actual space missions.

John Roberts
[e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Apr 93 02:28:09 GMT
From: David Bofinger <[e-mail]>
Subject: What if the USSR had reached the Moon first?
Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if,sci.space

[e-mail] (ChaOs) writes about the military application
of a lunar base:

> Well, ever read (for example) Robert Heinlein's _The Moon is a Harsh
> Mistress_?  A lunar colony was able to do a frightening amount of
> damage just by throwing rocks at earth.

This made sense in the book because it was an improvised weapon -- the
rebel colonists didn't own any nukes (though they did own the human
race's best computer, for no obvious reason). But everything they did
could far more easily have been acheived by nuclear-tipped ICBMs
launched from Earth. It's not that lunar bases can't attack the Earth,
but in a world where exterminating most of the human race can be done
fairly cheaply its hard to see what capabilities it adds.

> Not to mention the reduced gravity

Not sure 1/6th gravity is much use...

> and easier acess to 0-G - great potential for scientific (and hence
> military) advancement.

Sure, everything couples to military uses sooner or later. But now we
have left behind the original post, which said that the US government
would have supported a lunar base for its military applications.

> From: [e-mail] (John E. Curtis)
> The value of a lunar military base over a satellite station are
> many

OK, now tell me what you use a satellite station for. :-) The
examples you gave were basically connected with its being further
away, and therefore more effort to kill.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bofinger    AARNet:    [e-mail]
                Snail:    Dept. of Theoretical Physics, RSPhysSE, ANU, ACT, 2601
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 451
------------------------------