Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_5/V16NO570.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 36KB

Date: Fri, 14 May 93 05:21:11
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #570
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 14 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 570

Today's Topics:
              ASTRONAUTS---WHAT DOES WEIGHTLESSNESS FEEL
           ASTRONAUTS---What does weightlessness feel like?
                Draft of SSTO report language (2 msgs)
                        HST  re-boost mission.
             HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days
                   International Space Observatory
                    Life on Earth (and elsewhere)
                            Life on Mars.
           Man-rating boosters (was Re: Why we like DC-X)
                       Near Miss Asteroids (Q)
                     Over zealous shuttle critics
                    Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly?
                        PLEASE give it a rest
                       Space books from Krieger
                         STS-57 inclination?
    Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?)

    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: 13 May 1993 22:51:36 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: ASTRONAUTS---WHAT DOES WEIGHTLESSNESS FEEL
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
|
|>I was a test subject in that thing.  They're calling it the Pre-flight
|>Adaptation Trainer (PAT).  Dr. Harm here at MSC (oops, I mean JSC)
|>seems to be in charge.
|
|Hey, a gadget designed to make you barf and it's named PAT.  Now,
|that's so nigh-on to a perfect straight line that I can't pass up
>comment.  ;-)


fred,  You are off base once again.  The naming convention is
the big P, is reserved for Patrick Klavenberg in the netherlands.
Just like Fred is reserved for SSF, you little f;-)

pat

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

Date: 13 May 1993 22:57:26 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: ASTRONAUTS---What does weightlessness feel like?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> raptor!rlove (Robert B. Love ) writes:
|I have over 2 hours in free fall aboard the KC-135 and have
|participated in the spinning chairs, acceleration sled and electro-shock
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|experiments.   The immediate panic that goes along with falling


Most people who do this,  don't volunteer for this one.

Does this say something about NASA employees:-)

pat

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

Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 00:53:29 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Draft of SSTO report language
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

[e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>Below is the draft language of the report language to support SSRT. I just
>got permission to publish it so here it is. I also have a couple of new
>tidbits which I will post shortly.


>Draft Report Language
>-- For Inclusion in the
>FY '94 DoD Authorization Bill

>The first ATD vehicle, the DC-X1, is on schedule and within
>budget, and positive conclusive results are expected by the end
>of fiscal year 1993.  The second ATD vehicle, the DC-X2,is
>scheduled to begin development in fiscal year 1994.

Could someone explain what the DC-X2 is?  Is this similar to the X prime or
something else?

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
            "Find a way or make one."
                 -attributed to Hannibal

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

Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 01:42:18 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Draft of SSTO report language
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:

>Could someone explain what the DC-X2 is?  Is this similar to the X prime or
>something else?

It is a concept vehicle which could,with modification, reach orbit. Concepts
and names where flying around fast and furious for a while but it seems to
be settling down now.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------34 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: 13 May 1993 22:23:46 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: HST  re-boost mission.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1seuk9$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
|
|You're the one who wants to justify this 'cobble', Pat.  You can't
|justify risking a $1G instrument by waving your hands and saying, "It
|will cope."
|

And every time i say it needs further analysis,  you promptly
hop up on your soapbox and  snidely claim, i wouldn't
know it if i saw it.   hardly constructive criticism, fred.

i am assuming the HST is fundamentally axially symetric on it's mass distribution,
and that any ESMT(expendable space manuevering tug)  would also
be fundamentally  axially symetric on the thrust vector even
during  fuel burns.   THis  is not really a large leap of faith,
and that any small  errors  i am assuming would  be covered by
the GNC(Guidance Navigation and COntrol  system).

Do you see anything fundamentally wrong with these assumptions?

|>Considering that Bus1  already has a full set of GNC hardware,
|>I somehow doubt  that it lacks the basic capacity.  Of course,
|>i am still waiting for the basic specs to be de-classified.
|
|Well, except for more tankage, more engines, a spatter shield,
|explosive connection devices, maybe a couple of arms so it can attach
|the bolts, ...
|

Maybe  more tankage,  the thing is already  pretty capable.  i think
it uis used on  atmospheric diving  missions.

Engines may need uprating  for an extended burn.  nobody knows the
burn rating on the engines.  i assume they are already rated for
re-light,  it's just an ESMT  mission may require  appx 600 seconds
of burn time,  and no-one knows what the burn time of the
existing motors are.  it's still classified.

The spatter shield is just a proposal  to reduce contamination
which seems  to be your  Hot Button.  assuming the flight
vectors are well  done,  the contamination may not be relevant.
as you refuse to recognize,  the STS  RCS system  has a potential
to hose the HST down with hyydrazine fumes too.   my idea at least
puts all the thrusters  behind the direction of flight.

Any arms,  would be  field assembled brackets.  id imagine the
astronauts would  EVA out and  attach them to some of the
AFT  handles on the HST.  Do you think NASA is incapable of
bending some metal for this?  after the mission,  a cutting
charge would seperate these  from the ESMT.  sure the bracket
stubs  may  end up attached to the HST,   but  they shouldn't
affect  the continuing mission.

|
|Gee, mindreading now, Pat?  I certainly 'hate' your approach to it,
|which is that you like it and flame down anyone who questions you on
|it or points out problems.  I don't care if you have your cat sign off
|on it.  Either explain how you adjust for the flaws (or at least show
|that you bothered to think about them) or don't expect anyone to give
|your idea any credibility.
|

Fred, me flame?  hardly.  get long pedantic  and fixated,  yes.
but flaming is much more  your thing.

|>>>You have heard of explosive bolts?
|>>
|>>Oh yes.  Not exactly the sort of thing I'd want to use for detaching a
|>>tug from service points on a $1G instrument.  They are, after all,
|>>*explosive* bolts.  They're not named that for the fun of it.
|>>
|
|>Let me know when terrorists start using these to blow up the
|>world trade center.
|
|Cute, but stupid.  This seems to be the tone for most of your remarks.
|

Gee fred.  it may really help you to do a little  research before
you call names.  Did you know  the the HST has several
explosive seperators internally?  inside the optical path?
they are used as emercgency  devices  if an optical  instrument
freezes up and blocks the other instruments.

and considering the HST is rated  for  shuttle take off and
landing and EVA activity,  it is designed  for people
banging around it, and  3 G  vibration.  somehow i think
any explosive seperator can be kept within these limits.

The lockheed guys claim their  super zip  seperator  will only
apply a 1 g shock.   Are you going to accuse them of lying?

|>My understanding from talking to one of the lockheed people
|>is that the shock from firing their patented contamination
|>free explosive bolt the super zip seperator, is that the
|>g-shock is under 1 gee.
|
|Yes, but I question whether any explosive bolt is 'contamination
|free', any more than you're going to find a watch that is truly 'shock
|proof' or 'water proof'.  I think you can expect both small metal
|particles and residue from combusted explosive when those bolts go.
|You mgith also want to consider what a 1g jolt does to the solar
|panels.  I don't know if they will take it or not -- do you?  Or have
|you just 'assumed' once again that everything will work and that
|anything that doesn't will fail in benign ways?
|

Why don't you read up on the device?   zero gas products,  and they
have a 99% reliable  zero particle release system.  they think
it's actual quality is much higher,  but they haven't spent the
money to test it further.  it's still the best device on the market.

Tell you what.  You write  lockheed,  get the data, and you
use your brilliant mind to see how good the device actually is.
It might be more productive then sitting in the dark and
griping.

as for the solar arrays.  I guess it'd need some analysis.
When i can get the HST design specs,  i'll look it up.
maybe theyd have to do this sort of thing while the
Arrays are furled.  depends on how  reliable the
array deploy mechanism is.  wether it requires an AStronaut
on stnadby EVA.

I would hope that a $1G instrument is designed to take a little
shock and vibration.  of course  given it's poor  performance
to date,  maybe it hasn't been.   that might be part of the problem.

|>But I forget these are *explosive* bolts.  and of course
|>you know more then I do.
|
|Well, so far it seems so, judging by your inability or unwillingness
|to seriously discuss any of the shortcomings of your proposal, or even
|behave as if they had occurred to you.
|

AS if you have seriously discussed anything either?

You wave around an idea like contamination,  like a red flag,
but never actually  discuss  the parameters that it exists in.

|
|Assuming, of course, that there are attachment points aft.
|
|>Somehow, id imagine any ESMT would also be mostly axially
|>symetric,  and given the space  inside a BUS1,  there should be
|>plenty of space for  atttaching trim weights.  You have heard
|>of trim weights.
|
|Yes, I have.  Who's going to adjust them on orbit?  Let's see what
|we're up to, now.  We have bigger engines, more tankage, an attachment
|unit with explosive bolts (assuming you want to drill holes in the
|unit to be moved to attach them), and now we have a bunch of chunks of
|pig iron for trim weights.  We also, presumably, have some mechanism
|for moving the weights around under remote control, unless this
|vehicle is supposed to be a one-shot and/or we assume that there are
|no changes in center of mass of the vehicle as you burn fuel and/or we
|assume that all payloads will have the same mass distribution around
|some axis (at the end of which they will all presumably have holes
|drilled for attachment of your explosive bolts).
|

Who has to adjust  any trim weights in orbit?   the  HST is well
enough documented,  that any trim weights would be installed on the ground.

and as for other missions,  that's  for other missions.

|
|Ok, we're now up to: bigger tanks, bigger or more engines, a spatter
|shield, a system of explosive bolts for attachment, a dynamic
|ballasting system for mass distribution control, reaction wheels
|and/or magneto-torquers.  Yep, sure sounds like we don't even need to
|test it, being as it's based on that good old reliable Bus1.
|

I think the Bus, already has most of these systems.

|Oh, and please settle on an acronym for what you want to call this
|cobbled-together 'thing' of yours.
|

If you tried reading rather then  flaming,  you'd see i use
the term ESMT (Expendable space manuevering tug).  i've used
it in other posts.

|>And please cite,  where you read that *explosive* bolts
|>Float contaminants  all over the place?  my understanding is they
|>are scored to neatly break up.  and lockheed markets a contamination
|>free explosive seperator,  but that just  wouldn't fit your
|>view of the world.   After all, it was designed by a PE.
|
|I wouldn't bet on it (being designed by a PE).  Were I you, I would
|also check just how much contamination something can have and still be
|'contamination free'.
|

WHy don't you call lockheed and ask them.  ?

|>and also,   you have never explained, how a constantly accelerating
|>package,  with the occasional  thruster burn  from the aft, would
>>have  particles  go forward and around into the optics.  ASsume
>>that  no RCS jets are pointed forward.  all thrusters are perpendicular
>>to the direction of velocity or point aft.
>>i would be curious to see your explanation.
>
>Gee, Pat, at some point you have to do things like turn, circularize
>the new orbit, move your little cobbled-together 'thing' away from the
>HST, etc.  Is that enough for you to work on, or do you need some
>more?
>

Gee,  I always thought  circularizing burns  were conducted
in the direction of flight at the Apogee?  how does that
put reaction products forward?

Any turns  can be done  by the reaction wheels.

And a move off  can be conducted by  spring seperators,  and
then use  reaction thrusters  once a little ways off.

You forget,  when the HST was deployed,  what deployed it?
the shuttle?  and how did it do it?  by some fancy flying
to keep  the thrusters  pointed away.   What says the ESMT
can't  do the same thing?

>
>>So do you come up with original ideas,  or just  criticize everyone
>>else?  Do you get paid to do this at work?  What a job title.
>>staff kvetch.
>>:-)
>
>If you can't stand the criticism, I would suggest you think your ideas
>through better before you start touting them as 'the' solution to a
>problem we don't even have right now.
>

Gee fred.  according to you we dont have a problem.  you must be one
of those people who says the deficit doesn't matter either.

as i see it,  there is a problem.  Do you know what it is?
the problem is the  re-boost mission  parameters  make  the
alllowed weight to the STS  very small.  enough so they cant
carry EDO packs,  spare suits,  the other  repair hardware.

all because the  massive STS  has to tow the HST up to
it's terminal orbit.   Everytime,  they increase the
spacewalking budget,  they are  sacrifing re-boost fuel.

AN ESMT may allow  both missions to co-exist without one
stealing from the other.  That's teh problem as i see it.

>
>Oh, I see.  Now on top of simply assuming away problems and assuming
>in benign failure modes, Pat will just handwave away criticism as
>"groundless".  Sure, Pat.  *I* am realy impressed with this idea now!
>
>Yeah, it has to be good enough.  You haven't demonstrated that it will
>be, or that you've even given any thought to potential problems.
>Nothing like that 'sound engineering analysis', is there, Pat?
>

I somehow think the folks at marshall could conduct the proper
analysis,  and document it.

But i forget,  they are busy  working on Fred,  and cant
work on other tasks.

>>And so what is so different from a KH-12  and a HST.  they are both
>>in low orbit,   they use 2.5 meter optics,  and quality of optical,
>>IR and near UV collection is vital.   A KH-12, like the HST is the maximum
>>size bird for the HST.
>
>Someone else already answered this.  If you don't think mission
>affects the design of the instrument, I don't know what anyone can do
>to convince you.
>

AS was pointed out,
the KH-12  doesn't look into high UV,   but how many intruments
on the HST  use this?

and show  how the STS has less contamination?  oh i forget,
bigger mass,  acts as ashield.   you better hope
the forward RCS thrusters don't fire.
>
>One big difference is that one is designed into the spacecraft from
>the start while the other is 'cobbled together' and then just pasted
>onto the instrument with explosive separators.  Different instruments
>on HST, some of which are more sensitive to contamination than others.
>Because it was designed to have thrusters in it, KH-12 probably is
>built to minimize possibility of contamination of the optics (through
>use of isolation, doors, location of optics vice thrusters, or any
>number of other things).  Was HST?  One is an astronomical instrument,
>Pat.  That leads to a somewhat different design than an earth
>surveillance package.
>
>>>>so somehow, i dount that stray CO2, or H2O  would really wreck
>>>>up the HST.
>>>
>>>I don't consider "well, Pat doubts it will be a problem" to be
>>>particularly convincing.

WHy don't you cite some sources,then, or some people who
actually do this for a living.  I at least got to talk
to some of lockheeds  people who work on these for a living.
and none of them were real freaked out with the concept.
and Lockheed built the HST.

pat

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

Date: 13 May 1993 22:46:33 -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:
>> Of course,  isn't it  odd that someone would get burned for
>> posting to a public forum.
>Not when public reletions for a big public project is so
>very important.
>
Shouldn't the project work  be more important then the spin polish
placed on it by the Flacks?  this is science,  not politics.

>It is becuase sometimes people post incorrect information or inappropriately.
>All they want is that the PR people handle things, for good or ill,
>and I don't think that is unreasonable.  No one is being prevented from
>posting, they just want people to very careful.
>

That's what a  standard disclaimer is for.

>> 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.
>>
>
>Do you want the staplers and paper clips too we use?  You pay for
>defense projects too and you are not entittle to any information from them.
>

There is a significant difference between  information which is
intangible,  and staplers  which are tangible.  And defense
data is excluded under the FOIA, by statute.  But i am entitled
to DOD  logistical data,  or performance specs on non classified
systems,  or on science projects.

Staplers  cost money.  information does not constitute
mis allocation of government resources.

>> actually even the DATA is public, and under FOIA, cannot be withheld.
>>
>
>Maybe, but you have not made the investment of time and energy that the
>PI's have either.

True,  but when the PI's  pay for the instruments themselves, I'll
shut up, and F*** off.  if it's paid for  with tax dollars
i'll point out that it is also my information.

This is thoroughly consistent with my opinion on Bio-sphere 2,
which being thoroughly  privately funded,  that the "keepers
of the scientific" flame,  should piss off and leave alone.
they can grouse about "unscientific behavior"  on publicly
funded projects like cold fusion  or  poly water.

pat

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

Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 03:05:35 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: International Space Observatory
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Carlos Guillermo Niederstrasser) writes:
>Does anyone know what the current status of ESA's International Space
>Observatory (ISO) is?  I have read several articles, but they are all at
>least two years old.

ISO is badly behind schedule because of some technical problems.  The
latest launch schedule (as listed in the Feb ESA Bulletin) is mid-1995.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Thu, 13 May 93 21:29:14 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Life on Earth (and elsewhere)

James Davis Nicoll writes:
>>      Evolution isn't  a directed process and doesn't proceed towards
>>a specific goal.

Pat sez;
>IT is directed,  but not at one particular endpoint.
>The direction is to out compete  all other life forms
>in your niche,  and all other entities for resources, for reproduction.

It might be more accurate to say the direction of evolution (as opposed
to competition) is to make a new niche, or a new life-form for an
unused niche.  Like us and space.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \ They communicated with the communists,
[e-mail] 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 13 May 1993 22:30:18 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Life on Mars.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio

I was thinking the data on  macro moecular self assembly

points towards life being a self forming process.   I
doubt well have any clues before  2050,  but
my bet is on  natural order.

either way,  there's nothing real solid either way.

pat

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

Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 01:34:06 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Man-rating boosters (was Re: Why we like DC-X)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Michelson) writes:

>Well, I sure wouldn't want to ride a launcher which demonstrated excessive
>Pogo and would happily see funds spent to correct the problem.


Perhaps I would as well; but that's not what Henry and I are talking
about.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------34 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Fri, 14 May 93 02:34 GMT
From: THE ARTSTONE COLLECTIVE <[e-mail]>
Subject: Near Miss Asteroids (Q)

I am interested in Asteroids that have passed close to the Earth.

    1. When have these occured in modern times ?
    2. Where might I find articles ?

Any other information is also very welcome.

Thanks

Harry G. Osoff
Science & Technology Editor
Access News Network

jukebox @ mcimail.com

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

Date: 14 May 1993 00:48:21 GMT
From: Pawel Moskalik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Over zealous shuttle critics
Newsgroups: sci.space

Ken Hayashida writes:

> space vehicle.  One cannot argue with the fact that it flies, lands,
> and is reusable.  In my opinion, these were the only appropriate specifications
> for this program.  It has been a test program from the start, a logical follow

I have to disagree with this. Shuttle was not built as a test
vehicle, it was built as an OPERATIONAL launcher. The purpose of a test
vehicle is to get the engineering data, or to demonstrate a technology.
After that goal is achieved you stop flying it. The purpose of the
Shuttle was (and is) to launch cargo and people into orbit. It was supposed to
replace all other American launch systems. The main goal  was to provide ROUTINE
(that is frequent and reliable) and CHEAP acces to space.
I remember that Shuttle was supposed to be up to 10times cheaper ($$/pound)
than expendable launchers. These were the specs for the program and they have
not been met. Shuttle is more expensive than any existing launch system. It
does not fly frequently. It is reliable, but at the cost of frequent launch
delays. Acess to space with the shuttle in nowwhere close to routine.


> The shuttle is the only reusable space vehicle.  This automatically qualifies
> it as an unparalleled engineering success.  You could argue about its political

It is an engineering achievment. But it is an operational nightmare and financial
disaster.


> success.  But engineering wise, it is clearly the most advanced machine ever
> flown.  I argue that engineering and technical data for hypersonic flight is

Yes, it is advanced. But is the goal to build the most complicated machines
possible, or to build machines that do the job and do it cheaper than other
machines ??


> Pawel Moskalik replied to my original post
> >??????   that is a matter of opinion. Compare today's launch schedule
> >with the schedule given in, say, 1984. Compare them both with the schedule
> >evisioned in 1978.

> I enjoyed your later postings regarding the comparisons between the shuttle
> and the Soyuz project.  Although, I may disagree with your method
> of analysis.  You probably will disagree with mine. 8-)  I think that
> the total impact of the shuttle program must be judged on the scientific and
> technical merit, not on timelines and schedules (do you agree?)

Ability to meet schedules IS a technical merit for the launch system. The original
plan was to have a 5 orbiter fleat, flying 60 missions a year. That means 12
missions a year per orbiter. Today NASA is able to fly 3-3.5 missions per year
per orbiter.


The impact of the shuttle program is indeed profound and I think it is rather
adverse..

1. the decision to proceed with shuttle caused cancelation of essentially all
   research in proplusion technology or launch technology in general. Today
   USA is flying rockets derived from the misiles of late fifies.

2. Even those launch systems have been nearly killed.

3. I agree with people on the net saying that the shuttle hurts the manned
   space program (or the space program in general)

   a) it is visibly wastefull, so it gives the the space program a bad name.
      People think that of it as a big drain of money and nothing else. That in
      turns results in lack of public support.

   b) it actually limits the acces to space, because flying is prohibitively
      expensive. NASA could fly 10, maybe 12 missions a year today. They do not,

      because they cannot afford more than 8.

   c) because of slipping schedule many payloads, including SCIENTIFIC payloads
      have been cancelled. Example: Spacelab/ASTRO was originally supposed to
      fly 6 missions.It will fly only 2.


I think that building an EXPERIMENTAl shuttle in late seventies would have been
a very good idea. But building and deploying the Space Shuttle as the operational
vehicle for NASA was a major policy error. It has essentially cripled NASA and
American spaca program for two decades and possibly longer. It eats all the
resourses available. It is not only  money, but also manpower. The number of
technicians and engineers is not unlimited. If everybody is fixing the shuttle
who is going to do the new things ? The financial resources are also  limited.
The biggest cost of any space operation is to get the payload to orbit.
With the high cost of the shuttle flights very few projects can be funded.


I agree with you, Ken, that critisizing shuttle nowadays does not make much sence.
It is the only game in town today (for manned flight). Most importantly, it is
what it is, you cannot fix it. You can only replace it with something else. And I
think it should be replaced as soon as possible.


I am not advocating scraping the shuttle in favour of DC-1 or anything else.
That would be a foolish repetition of a shuttle history: comitting  to a
new technology before it is proven.


In my opinion the proper course of action is as follows: the replacement should be
developed as soon as possible. I think that DC-1 is the most promising choise.
After the replacement is tested and PROVEN to be better than the Shuttle, only
after that the shuttle is phased out.


Wether such scenario is politicaly likely, I have no idea.


Pawel Moskalik

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

Date: 13 May 1993 22:38:56 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1so3lo$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
>is feasible for an alien. Boneless tentacles can exert considerable
>pull but not push due the the lack of leverage imposed by the lack
>of hinged bones.
>

Maybe they could be like my friend Assad Khan.  Use their foreheads
to bang on things :-)   Seriously  he did.  He once
caved in a windshield on a car with  his forehead.

|
|Lack of a skeleton means that muscles have to actively resist
|gravity at all times on land rather than supplying only balancing
|forces. That means that much more energy would be required for the
|creature to function. The bones also supply leverage points for
>pushing and lateral movement. That's why you don't find large
>active boneless creatures on land.
>

Maybe a lighter grav field,  or hydrogen filled  lifting sacs.

Intelleigent  floating octopus blimps.  I bet they would
never invent smoking though:-)

This is  speculation, almost anything goes.  Didn't kurt
vonnegut propose something like these  in "venus on the
half shell"?

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

Date: Thu, 13 May 93 21:00:09 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: PLEASE give it a rest

Pat sez;
>>What i am doing is engaging
>>in a little intellectual speculation, for which i lack enough
>>data to do the full analysis.

Fred responds;
>No, what you're engaging in isn't "intellectual speculation", or you
>wouldn't be flaming people for pointing out flaws in your plan.

Fred, I know one person who considers 'pointing out flaws in the plan'
as ample reason to flame the pointer ad nasuem, with the claim "He
insulted me first".  I see about equal flaming from both of you, BTW.

If you two would stop getting into this so much, we could all learn
about Pat's idea to see what he's actually getting at.

When I have to page through 150 lines of flame to get to one or two
lines of actual discussion, interspersed with flame, it makes me wonder
if there isn't some actual discussion interspersed with the flame
in the rest of the post, that is hidden behind all the witty repartee,
and opinions about each other's sex lives :-) I may be missing someting.
Nothing personal Fred, but your synopsis of Pat's idea doesn't really
cut it, when it appears you have such strong feeling against it.  If
you didn't insult so much, I probably would trust your 'disinterested
reasoning' more.  It seems like a filibuster, the way you go on.

Pat, maybe you could ignore Fred for a bit, and just post your idea,
in the whole, now that Fred has given you some issues to consider, maybe
prefacing it with a disclaimer as above?

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \ They communicated with the communists,
[e-mail] 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 03:10:28 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space books from Krieger
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Loss) writes:
>   Does anyone have any opinions on the quality of Krieger's books, and
>which ones I should check out first? ...

The only one on my shelf, at a fast glance, is Escobal's "Methods of
Orbit Determination", which is considered the authoritative reference
on the subject.

A lot of good spaceflight technical books come from obscure small
publishers, because the audience is small and production costs high.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 02:32:20 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: STS-57 inclination?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Ron Baalke writes:
>
>                          DAILY SPACE SHUTTLE STATUS REPORT
>                                 Tuesday, May 11, 1993
>
>
>          George H. Diller
>          Kennedy Space Center
>          407/867-2468
>
>          Vehicle:  OV-105/Endeavour               Mission number: STS-57
>          Location:  Pad 39-B                      Orbital altitude: 287 sm
>          Primary payload: Spacehab 1 EURECA 1-R   Inclination: 57 degrees
-----------------------------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^
>          Launch timeframe: NET June 3  6:13 p.m.  Landing site: KSC
>          Mission duration: 8 days                 Crew size: 6

I have seen elsewhere that inclination is 28 degrees.
Which is correct?

-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? 0.035%)
                    growing fast! up another notch by mid May 1993!-----^
Tel: [phone] (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). Cost up to 48p per min

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

Date: Fri, 14 May 1993 03:25:24 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>>If DC-Y carries people into orbit, then it's gonna need that toilet...
>
>Are you sure? Not too many trucks, busses or cars have toilets...

I'm not sure what things are like in the less orderly parts of what was
once British North America :-), but up here the inter-city buses always
have toilets.  As do the trains and the airliners.

(However, I do agree with Richard that if you're planning short missions,
it may not be worth the trouble of providing anything more than a urine-
disposal rig and a few baggies.)
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 570
------------------------------