Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_5/V16NO560.TXT

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

Date: Thu, 13 May 93 05:34:31
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #560
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 13 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 560

Today's Topics:
               G. Gordon Liddy mentions T-Shirt at NASA
                              GPS Launch
             HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days
                 I'd like to see me town from space
                            Life on Earth
                        Life on Mars. (3 msgs)
              Math?? (Was US govt & Technolgy Investment
                        McElwaine FAQ (2 msgs)
                   Need help in finding address...
                    Philosophy Quest. How Boldly?
                              space camp
                      URGENT EMAIL: NASA BUDGET?
                When is Nat'l Spa. Funding Dispns'bl?
    Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre?  DC-X?)
        Yoo hoo, White Sands? (was Re: DC-X Status?) (3 msgs)

    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 May 1993 23:07:51 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: G. Gordon Liddy mentions T-Shirt at NASA
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

Yesterdays Post, mentioned that people at JSC are already
wearing those T-SHirts.

pat

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

Date: 12 May 1993 12:28:19 GMT
From: Uli Allgeier <[e-mail]>
Subject: GPS Launch
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hi!

When will the next GPS-Satellite be launched ?

Thanks in advance.

Viele Gruesse

Uli

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

Date: 11 May 1993 23:35:20 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>and I don't really need to know.  I did not post because several people
>have been recently scolded for posting ANYTHING.  Unfortuantely, Bill


YOu guys need private accts.

I got this acct, speciifically so i couldn't
take heat from the bosses.

Of course,  isn't it  odd that someone would get burned for
posting to a public forum.

is it because they don't like you using your first amendment
rights?  or that the data is confidential?  if
so you should remind them  that because the taxpayers pay for
AURA,  we are entitled to all information a tthe institute,
except for data which is  held backa s a courtesy to the PI's.

actually even the DATA is public, and under FOIA, cannot be withheld.

no-one has ever bothered to sue, that's all.

pat

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

Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 01:53:50 GMT
From: Chuck Rose <[e-mail]>
Subject: I'd like to see me town from space
Newsgroups: sci.space

Are there graphical images available for anonymous
ftp of pictures of areas of the earth taken from
space.  I know that there must be some images, but
I'd like to find ones of the Barnegat Bay NJ area
where I'm from.  Do any of the images get this specific?

Thanks in advance,
chuck.

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

Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 02:10:53 GMT
From: "Richard A. Schumacher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Life on Earth
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes:

>Sorry.  The sum purpose of life on Earth is to evolve to the point where
>life can leave Earth and live elsewhere as well.  And we're it.

Almost. Our direct descendents get to leave. We're stuck in the
solar system forever. (But hey, it's big place, nice view; it could
be worse.)

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

Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 00:02:16 GMT
From: Richard Ottolini <[e-mail]>
Subject: Life on Mars.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eric H Seale) writes:
>I can't speak for the Russian probes, but the last I heard, the 1997 US
>probe is planned to have air-bags on it (seriously!) to cushion the
>impact.  Hopefully, it won't be a "bouncer" (should just hit and go
>"thud").

The JPL/San Gabriel AIAA session last week showed the Russian
lander encased in a single large airbag with ravelable stitches.
The Russian design is pretty firm and hardware is due from

international experimenters by 1/94.
The proposed 1997 American lander has a bunch of airbags shaped
like a bunch of grapes.  They were dropping it in the desert last
month.  It may have a 20 kg mini-rover in it.

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

Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 20:51:29 GMT
From: Gord Wait S-MOS Systems Vancouver Design Center <jericho!gord>
Subject: Life on Mars.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio

Here is a potentially dumb question: What prevents the martian landers
themselves from "polluting" the martian environment with earth based
critters? Is the long trip in cold radiation bathed space enough to
completely sterilize the landers?

I could imagine that a few teeny microbes could manage to get all the
way there unharmed, and then possibly thrive given the right
circumstances.


--
Gord Wait     SMOS Systems Vancouver Design Centre
uunet!jericho!gord
[e-mail]
or even some days

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

Date: 12 May 93 12:32:21 GMT
From: G T Clark <[e-mail]>
Subject: Life on Mars.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio

    I was reading an article a while back about the infamous Dr.
Lovelock, which said that one of his more interesting pieces of work was
the interpretation of a spectrographic analysis of the Martian
atmosphere - performed using a terrestrial telescope. His main point was
that it's at chemical equilibrium for its temperature and pressure. This
means that there are no significant chemical reactions which involve the
atmosphere, and therefore earth-type life is either absent or incredibly
rare.
    This was, incidentally, published before the Viking launch
(according to the article) but after all the Viking budget had been
spent.

        G.

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

Date: 12 May 93 05:12:34 EDT
From: Tal Kubo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Math?? (Was US govt & Technolgy Investment
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,sci.research,talk.politics.misc,misc.education

>greg mccolm suggested that math is a good example of the inertia
>(silver age) of current science.....
>
>is math really a science? what new has math "told" us recently?
>please dont flame me... ive taken no math since 11th grade...
>completed BC calc early and go the hell out... is there really
>NEW stuff going on?? (im not flaming, but honestly durious...)


Nope.  We're just living off the inheritance from our forefathers,
reading dusty old books, and exchanging baroque incantations among
a small circle of devotees.

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

Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 03:30:51 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: McElwaine FAQ
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,rec.arts.drwho

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>I'm not sure which amazes me more: the fact that someone would go to all this
>trouble to write about McElwaine or the fact that someone would post something
>which repeatedly says it shouldn't be posted.
>
>It's all moot anyway.  He had is net access privileges revoked last week.
>--
>Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
>            "Find a way or make one."
>                 -attributed to Hannibal


McElwaine got his access revoked?  Finally!!!!

And they say it couldn't be done.  If we can rid the net of McElwaine,
then anything is possible :-
Simon

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

Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 08:55:32 GMT
From: The Master <[e-mail]>
Subject: McElwaine FAQ
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,rec.arts.drwho

[e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>>I'm not sure which amazes me more: the fact that someone would go to all this
>>trouble to write about McElwaine or the fact that someone would post something
>>which repeatedly says it shouldn't be posted.
>>
>>It's all moot anyway.  He had is net access privileges revoked last week.
>>--
>>Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
>>            "Find a way or make one."
>>                 -attributed to Hannibal


>McElwaine got his access revoked?  Finally!!!!

>And they say it couldn't be done.  If we can rid the net of McElwaine,
>then anything is possible :-
>Simon


Oh, don't worry, I'm sure he'll be back!

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

Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 09:20:27 GMT
From: Mark Elowitz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need help in finding address...
Newsgroups: sci.space

Could someone please help me. I am trying to find the
address to the TDRS receiving station at White Sands
Missile Range. I am interested in possible employment
and would like to write for information.

Thanks...

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

Date: 11 May 1993 23:20:05 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Philosophy Quest. How Boldly?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|
|>I could visualize some sort of multi-tentacled  land creature,
|>which  developes a pretty good  tool culture.  it could even
|>be  amphibious, or aquatic.  something like an octopus,
|>with a bigger brain.
|
|I can't see an aquatic creature.  Too much of chemistry and metalurgy
|becomes too difficult, and flight itself would be more difficult if
|you had to haul around that much water.

Metallurgy may become difficult, from a thermal chemistry
point of view,  but you may see technologies develope out of
membrane and colloidial chemistry.   Due to the immense heat
capacity of water,  you wouldn't see thermal processes much
but you may see  concentration chemistry.  some species
with a mastery  of colloids  may manufacture using
accretion methods.

and as for  flight,  you'd see fluid filled liquid breathing
suits.  Oh how i love when threads crash:-)

but  amphibious is more plausible  then pure aquatic.
we don't seem to have any aquatic creatures  with
high versatility effectors  and complex nueral systems.
i suspect,  that the additrional control problems
in something like a tentacle  may detract from
intelligence oriented synapses.

but that's  random speculation.

pat

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

Date: Sun, 09 May 93 18:51:36 PDT
From: Jennifer Witt <[e-mail]>
Subject: space camp
Newsgroups: sci.space

I'm replying to someone who asked for information on space camp.
I have a brochure that has all different schedules. What age, what
level and what program do you want to know the schedule of? Most of the
missions are 5 to 8 days long. The address for Huntsville is:

Alabama Space Science
Exhibit Commission
U.S. Space and Rocket Center
One Tranquility Base, Huntsville, AL 35807

- Jennifer

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
********    WHY  ARE  WE  HERE,  WHAT  DOES  IT  MEAN   *********************??

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

Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 01:06:34 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: URGENT EMAIL: NASA BUDGET?
Newsgroups: sci.space

What is NASA's annual budget?
This year will do, a few years back wpuld be nice too
but I need this item fast so emails off the top of your head very
much appreciated (FAQs vanish here!).

-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? 0.034%)
                             up another notch as of end April 1993!-----^
Tel: [phone] (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). Cost up to 48p per min

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

Date: 11 May 93 23:47:38 -0500
From: Frank Bynum <[e-mail]>
Subject: When is Nat'l Spa. Funding Dispns'bl?
Newsgroups: sci.space

        to; sci.space
        dt; tu051193
        subj: "When is Nat'l Spa. Funding Dispns'bl?"
        Dispensablety of national space funding?
        Frank Bynum [*] Mon. 4-12-93

        In the hypothetical event-- past, present, or foreseeable
future-- that support by major nations' governmental bodies fully
stopped, historically when might 'human presence in space' kinds of
activities be able to survive and advance anyway?  This question should
be contemplated by persons interested in knowing about, perhaps hoping
to exert influence on the situation.  Opinions about the matter would
seem to be relevant to varying observers' evaluations as to implications
of various space policy past decisions or options for future directions.
Provision of funding from national budgets, and the initiative to carry
out a specific activity coming from governmental bodies, are both key
issues under the "governmental support" label.
        In general terms a few kinds of sources giving rise to the
question can be identified.  Some of those were articles having to do
with their writers' opposition to Shuttle project, 1970's through 1st
half of 1980's. [DcShtl] In the comments, from many rank & file Pro-
Space activist organizations, unfettered expectancy, of prospects to
persuade a scale-up of governmental leadership & budget support in
space, run high.  From certain other individuals come views concerning
possible importance of participation, and perhaps even initiative, by
non-public sector entities.
        From fiction, and from recent affairs in aerospace technology
field, there can be seen instances illustrating views about space
activities 'not by governments only'.  In fiction, published between the
1950's and now, a few authors depicted 'near to present date'
spacefaring conducted privately. [pspnovl] Orbital Sciences Corp.
(allied with Hercules) premiered the 1st privately developed satellite
launch capability.  G. Hudson's concepts, and 3rd Millennium Inc.
concepts, for private entries eligible to have humans to orbit transport
capability, floated for a while.  But they did not yet gain financial
backers sufficiently committed to sustain their plans.  Douglas Corp.,
allied in early test phase with Strategic Defense Initiative
Organization (SDIO), are presently involved in Delta Clipper single
stage rocket technology research vehicle project.
        For my own part, I've become persuaded by the comments by
speakers who allude to (eventual) potential stemming from actions by
entrepreneurs who recognize value of the opportunities.  A hurtle exists
in that within this, my native nation, presently most business decision
makers deny any but the shortest term planning view points.
        I would not mind the possibility that the nation might have
undertaken to promote the provision of benefits from large scale civil
space applications development.  But our historical trend since 1969 has
been not in that direction (nor is it likely to go that way).
        There was an occasion that many, including myself, consider to
have the crowning moment for the L-5 space activist organization.  That
was when their educational efforts were instrumental to inducing
rejection, by the US Congress, of the so-called 'Moon Treaty', arising
from UN action.  The USSR representatives to COPUOS (UN Committee on
Peaceful Uses of Outer Space) had sponsored this convention during late
1970's.  L-5 focused upon a particular objection.  The Moon Treaty
apparently would stipulate that private corporations were to be
considered as entities Not legitimately permitted to conduct utilization
of non-terrestrial resources (from our ". . . Moon or other celestial
bodies") under proposed international law.  A view holding companies to
be the a primary engine for generating new wealth, and the view embodied
in the treaty, appear incompatible.
        There have been a number of decision points, between 1940's and
present, from which the historically observed US and other space
programs, as well as future aspirations, flow.  Operation Paper Clip
transferred highly valuable expertise, in the form of the German Rocket
Team, into possession and (Slow Pace) utilization by US for national
purposes.  Missile derived vehicles became a mainstay transportation
option by which space access was obtained.  The automated systems thus
sent aloft directly addressed scientific, national security relevant,
and certain civil utilitarian benefits.  Spacecraft with crews were
initiated to advance nationalistic glory.  Along the way they spawned
numerous society and economy enhancing "spinoffs".  There's wide, though
far less than unanimous, recognition that human presence in Earth orbit,
extending outward into the Solar System, can serve diverse utilitarian
purposes.  These are of greater importance than symbolism.
        By now, the ICBM's program, Mercury, Apollo to the Moon, have
already occurred.  And, partially DoD financed too, developments such as
"VSIC" (Very large scale Integrated Circuitry) manufacturing came to
fruition.  The National Aerospace Plane program, National Launch System,
and the like, in 1993 seem rather less likely than previously to be on
the verge of yielding civil applications follow-ons directly.  But
methods, particularly in new high performance materials, "Concurrent
Engineering" and other aspects of computer aided manufacturing, seem to
be likely high value pay offs that are materializing.
        Suppose that a given organization were to contemplate making a
move to provide some given type of space service.  There is a major
consequence to the above space programs history.  Conducting space
services clearly is now technologically easier, with potentially lower
intrinsic costs or project success risks, than would have been the case
at earlier dates.
        On the other hand, though, one of the Truisms of Aerospace is
that in specific fields such as propulsion, power systems, for space
systems, only rarely will one find something genuinely New under the
sun.  Many of the concepts of the field have a long history, due to
being extensively studied 2, 3, or more decades ago. [NewSPrl] (In
numerous instances, though feasibility tests went favorably, adoption
into practice of system concept was left not done.  Electric driven
thrusters are a prime example.)
        The above several paragraphs illustrate some of the factors
involved when trying to find answers to this essay's main question,
"When" might non-governmental human space presence be feasible.  From
such basis, arguments suggesting a few differing approximate dates might
be advanced.
        Some space flight pessimists, due to being unfamiliar with the
field's technology status and history, might assert that only after far-
future unplannable occurrence of fundamental discoveries, might human
presence in space have merit, occur on any socially significant scale.
Natures of those postulated ideal break-throughs might include the likes
of "Anti-Grav" engines, or presently unknown means to easily reach
naturally human habitable worlds about other stars.  We, who are
familiar with Space Development concepts, believe they'd be nice to
have, but know that much can be done soon, without waiting for them to
occur.
        There are many techniques, "Buildable in the 1960's", which
could have formed the engineering basis for space services carried out
by non-government organizations.  The German missiles and space
developers provided seeds, from which substantial space efforts, in
1940's or early 1950's, could have been feasibly done, if only a willing
sponsor had been found.  (USA demonstrably Was Not willing, beyond far
more modest scale experimentation, such as with Viking rockets at White
Sands.)
        This essay poses a challenge to readers who are, or may be
willing to become, knowledgeable of spaceflight technology history, are
interested in Space Economic Development concepts.  They are asked to
provide arguments and speculation as to when in past or future history
governmental support for spaceflight became or might become non-
essential.  A few related historic and technic factors were cited.

        Notes
        [*] Typed composition began Mon. 4-12-93.
    The issue has occurred to me various times over the years.  Though
not (at least initially) consulting the former text in writing this
essay, occasionally pin & paper entries to J. of F.A.B. have been
generated on this topic.
        [DcShtl] Upon seeing articles written by persons opposing
continuation of the US NASA / DoD Space Shuttle effort, during 1975 to
mid '80's, I'd logged, to personal journal, reactions on numerous
occasions.  Frequently in that period those reactions flowed from my
belief, held at the time, that failure to accomplish the set of programs
including Mercury, Apollo, Shuttle, would be equivalent to deciding that
humans would be prevented from traveling spaceward.  That might last for
as much of the rest of this cycle in terrestrial civilization as could
be forecast.
    Rationale at the time was along the lines that if US federal policy
makers were to terminate their interest in human space flight, the
social /political climate of the 1970's left suspicion that there
weren't any other likely candidates, within western society, to consider
taking it over as substitute players.  And only continued early
expensive steps might permit evolution of future more affordable and
socially significant steps.  It seemed preferably that the early steps
be unbroken.  Hence need to repeat them again later might be avoided.
    Then the USSR was in space. But it was an extern foe, not promoter,
from within, of western society.  Besides, USSR use for people in space
was to substitute for weaknesses in automated system reliability, rather
than being likely to lead toward founding self sustaining communities,
making their living with non-terrestrial resources.
    The current text is intended to provoke critical examination, by a
number of people, of this past assumption or belief.
        [pspnovl] By R.H. Heinlein, there was: the film, _Destination
Moon_; several stories in the collection, _The Man Who Sold The Moon_;
by another author, a novel, _To Touch the Stars: Emergence_
        [NewSPrl] From between 1989 and '91, one of those rare new ideas
arose, and deserves mention.  That's the Magnetic Sail.  It was
originated by Robert Zubrin from Martin Marrietta/ Astronautics and Dana
Andrews from Boeing /Aerospace.  As a cover article from May 1992 issue
of Analog Mgz., a general audience level article appeared.  AIAA's J. of
Spacecraft and Rockets contained a technical paper on the subject just a
few months earlier.

        This was file DNSPF.TXT .

                    Signed, Frank Bynum,
    mail c/o C.A. Bynum, 1616 Rosewood Ave., Louisville KY 40204
    e-mail on the InterNet: [e-mail]
    ph. 502/459-3033

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

Date: 11 May 93 18:50:01 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre?  DC-X?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Ken:

Your arguments are thoughtful but you are going up against the Big
Boys if you're tackling Henry.  Allen Sherzer will doubtless chime in
on the subject of staggering operational costs, too.  Good luck, son.

In article <1sp513$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>Shuttle is the only method in the free world of orbiting large life sciences
>and medical related packages.

Ahem.  The Russians are in the Free World now, or at least it would be
Politically Correct to contend so.

>I am hopeful that DC-X,  or whatever the follow-on is eventually called,
>will perform as you state.  But right now, I must admit that I am more
>skeptical than ever.

It will be tough to make DC-X succeed, and to turn it into an
operational orbital vehicle.  Doubtless it will fail to meet some of
the promised goals.  The reason people are so fond of it is that it's
the *only* chance we have now, or will have for a *long* time to come,
to develop a launch vehicle with radically lower costs.

There is no Shuttle successor in funded development, NASP is dwindling
away, and ALS/NLS/Spacelifter sure as hell aren't gonna knock any
zeroes off that $2000-$3000 per pound cost.   Part of the blame for
this must be placed on a Shuttle program that consumes many annual
billions of the, er, Free World's available space cash.  As you will
no doubt hear from many correspondents in the days to come. (-:

DC-X is an attempt to break out of the vicious cycle by keeping
development costs low and flying incremental "X-plane" hardware.
It's been, to my mind, incredibly successful already-- they've built a
complex prototype in under 600 days for under 60 megabucks.  I would
have been extremely skeptical that this could be accomplished in 1990s
America, never mind flying the thing, getting a successor funded, or
building the DC-Y.

I'm sure you know well that launch costs are THE basic problem for any
expansion of astronautics.  I don't see a realistic  prospect for
beating down those costs, for multi-ton payloads, anywhere else.  If
the DC flops, it'll be business as usual in space.  The Nineties and
the Double-Oughts will look just like the Seventies and Eighties, a
prospect too depressing to bear.

(Pegasus represents another assault on the problem from a different
direction.  It doesn't lower cost-per-pound but it offers an orbital
launch for under ten megabucks.  It's creating its own market for
small payloads.)

I read the magazines and I've attended the last two IAFs. There are
plenty of engineers with paper ideas for cheaper launch systems, some
of them as good as or better than SSTO.  There is no sign in today's
world that any of these designs will be allowed anywhere near an
assembly line.

>You could change my view on DC-X if you could prove the following:
[...deleting some things I'm not going to prove tonight...]
>3  that the shuttle need not go on hiatus to allow development of a man-ratable
>DC-X successor

Strawman.  Is anybody seriously proposing this?  References, please.
The DC must be developed in the real-world funding climate, which
includes a NASA ferociously committed to continuing Shuttle
operations, as well as the "bird in the hand" argument your common
sense tells you.   If DC-Y flies at all, it flies alongside the
Shuttle, not instead of it.

Also, of course, DC-Y and its operational descendants will be useful
for a wide variety of jobs even if they are *not* man-rated.

>4  Most importantly, that the DC-X will open up LEO to more scientific and
>technical payloads.

If a DC-X successor can fly a 10,000-kg payload for $1M, or even $5M,
rather than the $40M it now costs, more people will be able to afford
more payloads... for the same money, you can fly several satellites
instead of one.  Big outfits can fly multi-satellite series.  Little
outfits will be able to fly spacecraft of their own, instead of
begging a ride.  This is just supply and demand.  You should be able
to convince *yourself* that point 4 will be true, assuming DC makes a
big difference in costs.  Do you have some reason to think not?

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 03:12:08 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Yoo hoo, White Sands? (was Re: DC-X Status?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David "Fuzzy" Wells) writes:
>Actually, the best food is near the northern part of the range in San
>Antonio at the Owl Bar and Cafe.....best green chile cheeseburgers you
>ever tasted!!
>

And while in San Antonio, check out the Alamo.. wait, wrong San Antonio!
:-)

Seriously- I don't think I've heard of San Antonio, New Mexico.

You learn something new every day.

Seriously, would White Sands become an operations area for the space-capable
versions of the DC series?

Simon

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

Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 03:49:33 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Yoo hoo, White Sands? (was Re: DC-X Status?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>Seriously, would White Sands become an operations area for the space-capable
>versions of the DC series?

I'm not sure anybody's planned that far ahead in detail, but it's an
obvious possibility.  The management there seems less hidebound than the
people at the Cape and Vandenberg.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 12 May 93 00:10:08
From: Craig Powderkeg DeForest <[e-mail]>
Subject: Yoo hoo, White Sands? (was Re: DC-X Status?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <foo> [e-mail] (David "Fuzzy" Wells) writes:
   Actually, the best food is near the northern part of the range in San
   Antonio at the Owl Bar and Cafe.....best green chile cheeseburgers you
   ever tasted!!

Actually, the most well-visited Deli-cum-pizza-joint in the area is the
Star Wars Deli, located on the highway back to Las Cruces, New Mexico.
It's the only eatery within 10 miles of the base.

I bet the DC-X people eat there.  We did.  So did all the other scientific
teams we met.


--
DON'T DRINK SOAP! DILUTE DILUTE! OK!

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 560
------------------------------