Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_6/V16NO640.TXT

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

Date: Fri, 28 May 93 14:20:22
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #640
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 28 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 640

Today's Topics:
Comet Shoemaker-Levy, Possible Collision With Jupiter in 1994 (2 msgs)
        Hey Ken! You awake? You exist? (LEO Cost; Return cost)
             Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO (2 msgs)
               Hubble Servicing Mission Study Completed
                    JPL Mission Updates - 05/27/93
                           lunar stability
                          Moon Base (3 msgs)
                   Moon vs. asteroids, Mars, comets
                    Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly?
                          The crew is toast
       Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction? (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: Thu, 27 May 1993 18:42:30 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comet Shoemaker-Levy, Possible Collision With Jupiter in 1994
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]> writes:

> Please elaborate on your expectation that a significant fraction of
> the gravitational energy will be converted to (visible) light. This is
> a surprise to me, but I don't know nearly enough about it. What I do
> know is that, for an equivalent collision of an asteroid with earth
> (a lot denser object) there was one hell of a lot of energy left to be
> dissipated when the object reached the surface. In my (unsophisticated)
> mind there exists the possibility that the same may be true in these
> collisions at the point where the objects reach one optical depth into
> Jupiter's atmosphere.


Air bursts of nuclear weapons have been extensively studied on earth.
According to "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons", some 1/3 of the energy
is radiated in the thermal pulse in an airburst (although there was
some evidence that this decreases for larger yields).

Comets are thought to be rather weak.  The comet should break up when
the dynamic pressure is (say) a bar, which occurs at an atmospheric
density of about 3e-5 kg m^-3.  The comet has enough kinetic energy to
dissociate and ionize roughly its own mass in hydrogen.  At 10^12 kg,
this occupies a sphere about 200 km in radius (I've ignored
conservation of momentum here, as the sphere would still be moving
down at 30 km/s, and not all the energy would have been dissipated,
but let's take this as a first pass at the size of the fireball).  I
expect this sphere would be rather hot, and optically thick, and that
it would radiate.  If its temperature were 10,000 K (say), it would
radiate at 2e20 watts, enough to radiate away the impact energy in <
10 seconds.  The fireball would expand at the speed of sound in hot
hydrogen, on the order of 10 km/s, so it looks like there is enough
time for significant thermal radiation to be emitted.

If the comet breaks apart at lower altitide, the fireball would be
smaller, and more energy would go into its expansion rather than into
radiation.  If the impacting object hit a solid rocky planet, there
would be relatively little radiation, as the energy would be too
quickly carried away in the dense target material.

    Paul

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

Date: 27 May 1993 18:51:52 GMT
From: John F Carr <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comet Shoemaker-Levy, Possible Collision With Jupiter in 1994
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]> writes:
>I think that WFPC on Hubble is the natural instrument to use to
>observe these impacts.

Something has been left out of all this speculation: why do we want to
observe this event?  What might we learn?  What might we learn that the
atmosphere probe would not learn the next year?

Could we observe the spectrum of the comet as it vaporizes?  That would
be interesting, since we would not be limited to volatile substances.
But would it be hot enough while still above the cloud layer?

>I hope that Hubble will go for this rather rare event and use it to
>restore some of the flagging enthusiasm of the public which supports
>our efforts.

As a PR effort it might be worthwhile.

--
    John Carr ([e-mail])

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 18:28:25 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Ken! You awake? You exist? (LEO Cost; Return cost)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <1tu2va$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:

>[e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:

>the shuttle flights to recover the satillites and service them
>or return them were significant technical achievements.  They
>told us how to prepare for satillites rescue missions, how to
>organize them, conduct them, and to care them off.  They illuminated
>the weaknesses which we had previous to flying them, weaknesses
>which have been addressed.

But what they didn't do is provide any *reason* for doing them.  Cargo
return, for the present, is pretty much a totally unnecessary
capability.

>I see that the Fred and Allen team insist that the mass of the
>orbiter or S-IV-B (Saturn third stage) are not relevant when
>assessing the capabilities of the Saturn or Shuttle launchers.

Well, we're not a 'team' -- I think we may have gone to the same
parties once or twice, but we're not within a thousand miles of each
other, now.  However, we (and a bunch of other people) seem to be in
agreement about this one.  The weight of the vehicle doesn't count as
'payload'.

>I still beg to differ.  Your analogies of moving vans are not
>applicable in this case.  Allen's original post dealt with total
>mass to LEO, unless he is prepared to change his statement (i.e.
>retract it...).  The issue is the capability of the two systems
>to put heavy and large payloads into LEO.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Exactly!  Not vehicles -- *payload*!  The vehicle *is not* payload.

>Mr. Sherzer later posted a message about how we should reopen
>the Saturn V line.  While I would enjoy watching a Saturn V fly,
>I think its probably uneconomical to do this, especially when
>modifications to the STS could provide a similar service without
>the major pad modifications required to support Saturn vehicles.
>This opinion (at this point a hunch) is what prompted me to
>request more specifics and exact references for the document,
>which I am pleased Mr. Sherzer provided.

>In the immediate future (i.e. after my exams and paper is done),
>I shall be posting the data I will be collecting on the Saturn V
>launch vehicles total mass put into LEO.

>The mass is relevant since larger masses usually mean larger structures.
>Larger structures (i.e. greater mass to LEO capabilities) mean
>a greater capability to integrate complex payloads on the ground.

Yes, mass is relevant.  However, look at what you just said.  Does the
mass of the Shuttle (the vehicle, not what it lifts in the cargo bay)
have anything to do with "a greater capability to integrate complex
payloads on the ground"?  No, it does not.  Only what goes in the
cargo bay matters for that.  So when you provide your 'relevant'
numbers, don't count the mass of the Shuttle, since it's irrelevant.

>As for Mr. Fraering's long post on shuttle technical issues...
>I appreciated his post, did not receive the e-mail until today,
>and will take awhile to digest every aspect of the mail.  I appreciate
>the technical nature of the document and hope that it is a sign
>of good posts to come.

>Gentlemen, I know you don't care for my view of shuttle;
>I admire your faith in DC-Y...but I think you should be more
>realistic about it.

Faith?  Sorry, but you're obviously talking to someone else.  It
doesn't require 'faith' to see that a vehicle that is designed to
require a standing army and pushes the technology to the limits and
then overstresses *that* (like the Shuttle Main Engines) is going to
be expensive to operate.  It is also easy to see that a vehicle that
does not do those things (it takes something less than 100 people to
take care of DC as it is currently spec'ed and nothing is ever run
over about 80% of design) is going to be much cheaper to operate than
one which does.

>You are promising too much to those that are
>unfamiliar with the technical demands of spaceflight.

And you are robbing people and then telling them what a good deal they
got because you didn't shoot them.  Besides, if you are any indicator,
it would appear that "those that are unfamiliar with the technical
demands of spaceflight" aren't willing to listen because they think
they know better than what engineers are telling them.  Perhaps you
should apply for a job as a manager with Morton-Thiokol?

>When you
>over sell DC-Y/X/ SX-2, you do the samething that your predecessors
>did for shuttle...over sell to the populous while understanding the
>engineering limitations behind closed doors.

Just what do you think is 'over selling', Ken?  Is pointing out the
mistakes made on the Shuttle and avoiding them somehow 'over selling'
to you?

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

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 18:48:19 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>In article <1u0p1g$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>
>>If i wanted to be very narrow in my estimate i could have said
>>128? LDEF trays,  50 Some  SPaceLab  Racks,  and appx 100 GAS Cans.
>>
>>No matter what, it's ascathing condemnation of the SHuttles mass return
>>capacity.

>No, it's not a scathing condemnation of Shuttle's mass return capacity.
>If Eastern Airlines decided to dead head DC-10s from LA to Atlanta,
>would that be a condemnation of DC-10s, or would it be a condemnation
>of Eastern's lack of marketing skill?

Perhaps it would be a scathing condemnation of Eastern's *need* for
DC-10's; likewise, this is a scathing condemnation of the *need* for a
large mass return capacity -- and if we don't need it, it's hardly
something to recommend Shuttle.

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

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 18:50:24 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hey Sherz! (For real!) Cost of LEO
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <1u0p1g$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>    Actually, here is a real condemnation of SHuttle.  If shuttle
>is so great,  why did the soviets Abandon BURAN?  Buran  is 99% like
>shuttle in capacity,  except BIG PLUS, it has Liquid Boosters,
>and a jet engine assist on landing.  Massive safety plus over STS.
>Yet the Soviets abandoned BURAN totally, once they saw how operationally
>inefficient it would be,  and with the observation of how STS is strangling
>our space program.

I don't believe this is correct.  The original Buran was primarily a
test article.  I was under the impression that they wanted to build
more of them (or at least one faction does), but with somewhat
different structural materials to increase payload and durability.
The real problem for Buran is, as with much of Soviet space these
days, money.

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

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 18:06:11 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble Servicing Mission Study Completed
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle

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

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>|
>|    The task force pointed out, however, that the mission is
>|complex and will require more EVA (spacewalk) time than any
>|mission to date.  Given this complexity, the task force recommended
>|that a second HST servicing mission be planned 6 to 12 months after
>>the STS-61 flight to handle tasks that might not be completed during
>>the first mission or respond to failures that occur in the intervening
>>months.

>I guess it was not so unreasonable my suggestion that they
>scrub the re-boost with discovery,  in favor of carrying
>EDO packs, Extra Suits,  the MMU  and any other sort of utility
>hardware they can think of.

Potentially right.

>if the re-boost needs to be done,
>look at a fast track  mini tug of some sort.

Still as wrong as it was the first time you said it.  They would have
to fly a second mission to take this little 'cobbled together' tug of
yours up and attach it.  At which point they might just as well do
something lower risk that we know will work and use the Shuttle itself
to do the reboost.  You get two flights either way; all your way does
is add risk and cost.

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

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

Date: 27 May 1993 17:35 UT
From: Ron Baalke <[e-mail]>
Subject: JPL Mission Updates - 05/27/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

Forwarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE [phone]

                    PLANETARY MISSION STATUS
                          May 27, 1993

GALILEO:  The spacecraft is now en route to Jupiter, scheduled to
enter orbit December 7, 1995.  Spacecraft performance and
condition are excellent except that the high-gain antenna is only
partly deployed; science and engineering data are being
transmitted via the low-gain antenna.  The mission team is
planning to use the low-gain antenna for the Jupiter mission and
for the encounter August 28, 1993 with asteroid Ida.  Galileo was
launched October 18, 1989, flew by Venus in 1990 and Earth in
1990 and 1992 for gravity assists, and flew by asteroid Gaspra in
October 1991 for scientific observation.
Contact: Jim Wilson, [phone].

MAGELLAN: The Magellan spacecraft has concluded its eight-month
survey of the gravitational field of Venus from its elliptical
orbit.  On May 25, flight controllers began an 80-day program to
lower and circularize the spacecraft's orbit by aerobraking,
dipping into Venus's upper atmosphere each orbit.  Magellan was
launched May 4, 1989 and radar-mapped more than 98 percent of
Venus's surface from September 1990 to September 1992.
Contact: Jim Doyle, [phone].

MARS OBSERVER:  Spacecraft health and performance are normal,
after several episodes in which it entered contingency mode, a
safe state triggered by the spacecraft computer because of
attitude-reference anomalies.  A software fix has solved the
problem.  Mars Observer is scheduled to enter Mars orbit August
24, 1993; it will be moved into a mapping orbit by November 8 and
science operations are planned to start November 22.   Mars
Observer was launched September 25, 1992.
Contact: Diane Ainsworth, [phone].

TOPEX/POSEIDON:  The satellite is healthy, and all scientific
instruments are performing normally, typically providing three
playbacks per day.  The mission is mapping ocean circulation.
TOPEX/Poseidon was launched August 10, 1992.
Contact: Mary Hardin, [phone].

ULYSSES: The spacecraft is in a highly inclined solar orbit now
31.7 degrees south relative to the Sun's equator, in transit from
its Jupiter gravity assist in February 1992 toward its solar
polar passages (about 80 degrees south and north) in 1994 and
1995.  Spacecraft condition and performance are excellent, with
Ulysses gathering data on the heliosphere -- the realm dominated
by the solar wind, a stream of charged particles flowing from the
Sun.  The Ulysses spacecraft was built by the European Space
Agency and launched October 6, 1990.
Contact: Diane Ainsworth, [phone].

VOYAGER 1 and 2: The two Voyager spacecraft have detected low-
frequency radio emissions believed to originate at the boundary
between the solar wind and the interstellar medium, called the
heliopause. Detection and measurement of this boundary is the
principal goal of the Voyager Interstellar Mission. Voyager 1,
launched September 5, 1977, is currently 7.8 billion kilometers
(4.8 billion miles) from the Sun after flying by Jupiter and
Saturn in 1979 and 1980; Voyager 2, launched August 20, 1977, to
fly by Jupiter (1979), Saturn (1981), Uranus (1986) and Neptune
(1989), is now 6 billion kilometers (3.7 billion miles) from the
Sun.
Contact: Mary Hardin, [phone].

                              #####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never laugh at anyone's
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | dreams.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 19:29:42 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: lunar stability
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>>Optical interferometers could be built
>>on the Moon, as it is a stable structure to optical wavelenght dimensions.
>
>I don't know that it will stay stable. After all, the only good way
>to eliminate earth-crossing asteroids is to arrange lunar collisions
>for them.

If you can arrange a lunar collision, you can arrange an Earth gravity
assist.  Two or three of those ought to suffice to put the thing into
trajectory for Venus... and if there's a more useless object in the
whole solar system than Venus, I don't know what it is.  A perfect place
to dump the trash.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

From: Donald Lindsay <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

Sender: Usenet News System <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: gandalf.cs.cmu.edu
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <stephens.738348906@ngis>
Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 17:32:31 GMT
Lines: 10
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]


[e-mail] (Dave Stephenson) writes:
>Optical interferometers could be built
>on the Moon, as it is a stable structure to optical wavelenght dimensions.

I don't know that it will stay stable. After all, the only good way
to eliminate earth-crossing asteroids is to arrange lunar collisions
for them.
--
Don        D.C.Lindsay    Carnegie Mellon Computer Science

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 17:51:48 GMT
From: James Davis Nicoll <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1u0obu$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>
>Comments on long duration materials delivery from space.
>
>Interest rates are routinely calculated for long lead time
>capital equipment such as New aircraft.  those have up to a 10
>year lead from design to delivery,  and people are making orders
>based upon palns 5 years out.  I think it's do-able.

    I didn't say delivery  time related costs  made  (for example)
asteroid belt  based exploitation undo-able.  Mr  Coffman said delivery
time  didn't  matter, and I disagreed.  It might  not be the primary
cost associated with delivery,  but  it *is* a cost.

                            James Nicoll

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 18:09:57 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Base
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <1ttkp5$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>I think a 'test flight' to the moon would be a good idea to flight qualify
>>the Mars hardware.


>Zubrin has a proposal called lunar direct= to test out the
>Mars direct gear, in space and in a partial environment.
>Also to establish at least some science bases on the far side.

>Now any changes to the hardware for Mars, and some guy from TI
>will start arguing that it's a whole new bird and utterly
>unknown or trustable.

Rather depends on just how much "any changes" are.  If he wants to
change the tanks, the engines, a bunch of auxiliary hardware -- in
fact, everything but the structural members of the vehicle -- I would
expect any reasonable person to assume it's pretty much a new and
untested bird.

And judging by other postings, that guy at TI isn't the only one who
sees things that way.

[More flame bait from Pat.  Son, you should really get rid of that cat
and get a girlfriend -- give you some interest in life besides
flamebait.]

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

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

Date: 27 May 93 15:39:32 GMT
From: Tom Zych <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon vs. asteroids, Mars, comets
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>Perhaps an illustration would help: if there were an
>asteroid of solid platinum in LEO right now, it would
>not pay (by a factor of 2 or so) to bring any of it back
>using the shuttle.
>(Assumptions: max shuttle landing payload weight = 20,000 lbs.
>Pt at $700 per oz. Shuttle flight costs >= US$350,000,000.)

Unless, of course, there were a mission that could approach it, which
was already paid for, and which would have cargo space on the return
trip; e.g. dropping off something like LDEF.
No doubt they already cram as many activities into a mission as they
can, but under such a scenario, grabbing an asteroid might be
profitable (I guess; anyone got any numbers?)
--
Tom Zych
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 16:44:44 GMT
From: Thomas Clarke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Webb) writes:
> : The route to intelligence used by humans is still hotly debated by
> : anthropologists.
> : 1) expanded brain required to maintain social structures.
> :
>
> Another explaination appears in William Calvin's wonderful book _The River
> that Flows Uphill_.  He postulates that the primates with larger brains could
> hurl projectiles (spears, rocks) more accurately, and were thus better able
> to kill prey animals for food.  His is the first argument I've seen that
places
> a strong survival value on a larger brain.
>
I much enjoyed Calvin's book also.  To elaborate a litte, Calvin
notes that accurate throwing requires accurate timing of the
projectile release.  Since biological neurons are sloppy,
innacurate components, the only evolutionary alternative is
massive averaging; the release point is determined by the
consensus of the neurons in a large brain.  The law of large
numbers then insures accuracy.
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
[phone], FAX: [phone], [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 18:55:10 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: The crew is toast
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <1u0pnn$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:


>THe F-111,  and the B-1A?  had a crew ejection capsule that was
>designed for such a similiar escape.  THe problem is, at least on STS,
>a probable ejection occurs over water,  thus the crew compartment
>must have a bouyant capcity.  A tough problem for a supersonic
>break up.  No good,  surviving the water impact to drown as the
>compartment floods,  as it may have done during 51-L.

The problem isn't compartment boyancy -- after all, military jets fly
over water, too.  The problem is that capsules just don't work very
well.  I think I recall there was a B-1 'ejection' where the capsule
landed so hard it killed everyone inside.

>What they really needed were ejection seats.  According to henry,
>Martin baker had a design for seats for all STS occupants.

>Of course, that would require Nasa spending money on safety improvements as opposed
>to shuttle ops.  My opinion, here.

It would also require adding lots of extra mass, extra safety
procedures for having explosives armed in the Shuttle, large changes
to the structure to allow them to eject, and would not appreciably
improve the odds in the 'typical' accident requiring ejection.  You
can only punch out in a very narrow window of conditions and expect to
be in one piece.

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

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 18:46:09 GMT
From: "Eugene N. Miya" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.books

Passing thru rec.arts.books (no time to read sci.space)

>[e-mail] writes:
>>Like all of Wolfe's works, it's a balancing act between style and
>>substance.  Wolfe's most brilliant stroke, in my opinion, was the discovery
>>of Chuck Yeager, who was, to most people, a footnote in the history books
>>up to that point.  Granted, Yeager has a lot of substance, but it was
>>Wolfe's style that brought that substance out vividly.

Discovery?  Footnote?
What are you taking about?

Chuck Yeager wrote a bio with another writer in 1954.
In that bio were some great photos of things like the X-1 with big balloon
wheels taking off and breaking the sound barrier (one of the original
objectives few realize).  This bio had many of the same pictures as the
second bio "Yeager" with Leo J.  You should be able to get this earlier
book from a public library.

Scott Crossfield visited here not long ago.  What was neat about his
presentation was that he showed some of the data from his fights.
After his presentation, some one asked, "When are you going to write your
bio?"  His answer was: "I already did." [About 1964.]  "Always Another Dawn"
was one of Wolfe's references: had many light moments in the history of
flight test.  Also great photos.

A friend and ex-JPL employee had his father killed out at EAFB.
Wolfe is like a resume: true but embellished, leaving many things out.
Some appreciate that, others don't.  The question is "which are you?"
Writing style versus event accounting?

This has nothing to do with the shuttle.

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, [e-mail]
  Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Second Favorite email message: Returned mail: Cannot send message for 3 days
A Ref: Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, vol. 1, G. Polya

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 20:03:44 GMT
From: "J. Lewis" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.books

In article <1tvphg$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey A. Del Col) writes:
>
>Wolfe got the milieu of the immediate post-Sputnik frenzy just about dead
>perfect.  I had relatives working for NASA (it was still called NACA) at
>the time;  Sputnik I scared the hell out of the U.S. aerospace community,

Wolfe captures the feel of a mid-1950's airbase where high-performance
aircraft were being flown, and I don't know of any other book that does -
the excitement, the grimness (many of the personnel were WWII veterans,
and a nuclear conflict with the USSR was considered more likely than not),
the youthfulness, and the commonness of sudden death.

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

Date: Thu, 27 May 93 21:16:31 GMT
From: David Wicks <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tom Wolfe's THE RIGHT STUFF - Truth or Fiction?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,rec.arts.books

 [e-mail] (Claudio Oliveira Egalon) writes:

>According to Tom Wolfe, Betty
>Grisson got real mad about the way they were treated
>after Guss returned from his flight (apparently
>because of the blown hatch) and, still according to
>Tom Wolfe, she even threatened to cut her own
>wrist if Guss did not take her to the Holiday Inn
>where the real comemoration of Grisson's flight
>was taking place. Also, Tom Wolfe mentioned
>that Guss Grisson was surprised by the way  his
>wife  was behaving,  he just couldn't recognize
>her!


I believe this was taken out of context.  Wolfe relates how the
Grissoms were given the use of a "low rent" VIP house at Cocoa Beach.

from "The Right Stuff":
--------------------------------------

. . .She could see the afternoon shaping up and the rest of the day and
tomorrow, too.  She would stay here with the children, cooking and
risking her life dragging them to the worst beach in Florida. . . and
Gus would no doubt go to the space center or into town . . .

    Town meant the Holiday Inn, where the other fellows and their
wives would be.  That's where they would be celebrating and having the
good times.

    Listen, while you're getting settled, I think I'll--

    Suddenly, Betty was furious:  She was not staying in this place!
Gus didn't know what had gotten into her.

    She said she wanted to go to the Holiday Inn.  That was where every-
body would be.  She told Gus to call the Holiday Inn and get a room.

    She gruffed it out with such fury that Gus called the Holiday and
pulled the strings and got them a room.  If Gus had managed to park her
here in this faded VIP mausoleum and vanish, so that she could sit here
in the heat of the slab watching the hours go by while he tooled around
the pool at the Holiday as the big shot--she would have slit a wrist.
That was how grim it was.  That was how shabbily they had treated her.

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


I don't think this should be construed as a threat to kill herself.

BTW, The Right Stuff is a superb, informative, humorous book.  Much
better than the movie.

--

 David Wicks ([e-mail])  |  "Oh, Spiteful One:  Show me
 Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.     |   who to smite, and they shall
 Houston, Texas                          |   be smoten!" - Homer Simpson

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 640
------------------------------