Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_9/V16NO932.TXT

Text File | 1993-08-03 | 32KB | 825 lines

Space Digest                Wed, 28 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 932

Today's Topics:
                              11 planets
                            Budget figures
Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist) (2 msgs)
                                 DC-X
                        DC thrusters (2 msgs)
               Found your own dark-sky nation? (2 msgs)
                  GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB)
              Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here!
                      Space Lottery! Any ideas?
             SPACE TRIVIA LIST - 24th July 1993 (3 msgs)
                         Test Stands at MSFC
                       The Space Digest Archive
                Why I hate the space shuttle (2 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: Tue, 27 Jul 93 10:00:11 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: 11 planets

I keep wondering.  Seems to me I've read there is a planet
closer to the sun than Mercury.  One which has an orbit which
most of the time we earthlings can't see.  Also seems I

remember there is a planet the other side of Pluto.  Now
if such is true, there are 11 planets in our system, which
Mohammed said there were.  Am I correct??  How come we
don't send up a couple satellites to investigate these two??

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 16:36:20 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Budget figures
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <233j22$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:

>I found it interesting to note the slight discrepancys between the
>posts claiming over $1 billion per shuttle flight, and the actual numbers,
>which aim more towards a little under $500 million a flight.. still a lot
>of money yes, but important to be close to accurate..

There is no discrepancy. The half billion $$ per flight figure assumes
that no development, construction, NASA overhead, or interest in included.
In other words, it pretends the Shuttle was developed for free.

The actual cost IS about a billion per flight but I am willing to live
with the 'creative' accounting used to make it look better. Paying four
times commercial rates for launch services is bad enouth. Although it
is interesting to note that if NASA contractors accounted for things
the way NASA does, they would be thrown in jail.

  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."             |
+----------------------90 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 15:25:20 GMT
From: Cameron Randale Bass <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Carr) writes:
>
>Of course cold fusion is a fact.  Muon catalyzed fusion has been known
>for many decades.  It would be exceedingly unlikely that *some* cold
>fusion would not occur in a Pd-D system.  (After all, one can detect the
>radioactive decay of some nuclei that emit C-14!)  The question is whether
>it can be seen, and if so, is it significant.  Even if not significant for
>energy production, if seen it poses a most interesting physics problem on
>the boundary between chemistry, materials science, and nuclear physics.

   However, I'm not sure I'd include a random muon zipping through
   causing a fusion event as 'cold fusion occurring in a Pd-D system'
   except in a loose sense.   Nor would I include the 'natural' fusion
   rate of D-D or D-T at such energies.

   It seems to me that if we discuss cold fusion in the
   Pd-D system, we must include only those things that are actually
   the result of there being a Pd-D system about, as opposed to
   a big vat of D_2.  It seems to me that the 'special' nature of the
   Pd-D system is implicit in any such discussion.

                          dale bass

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

Date: 27 Jul 1993 10:40 PST
From: SCOTT I CHASE <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Cameron Randale Bass) writes...
>>I can't agree that it's "just a matter of rate."  That answer seems
>>to hide a more fundamental truth.  I presume that the rate of
>>cold fusion according to standard QM tunnelling calculations at
>>room temperature is so incredibly small that you could never hope
>>to actually measure it in a real experiment on the desktop.
>
>    I don't remember the rates of any other reaction pathway in
>    Pd-D, except Pd-D itself.  And that was 1 in 10^4000.  So you wouldn't
>    even expect to see it in an ensemble of a ten *universes*
>    like our own.

To be fair to the *real* cold fusion experts, I think that we should put
this business in historical perspective for people who don't know the
background.

There has been an historical problem in geophysics reconciling the
geological abundance of the various He isotopes with the (supposedly)
known primordial abundances at the time that the Earth coalesced.
If I remember correctly, there is "too much" He-3 in the Earth's crust.
There are entire books written on this subject, prior to the Pons and
Fleishmann uproar, in which the possibility of "cold fusion" was taken
quite seriously.  I am not very knowledgeable about the geophysics of
all this, but one can supposedly make reasonable calculations of
cold fusion processes which could, in principle, happen over a geologic
timescale, and could account for the apparent discrepancy.

This problem, and it's hypothetical solution, is supposed to have been
a motivating factor in P&F's early experiments.  But P&F claimed to
have stumbled upon an effect far larger than anyone expected.  That's
where the reasonable science starts to end and the pathology seems to
start.

People shouldn't get the idea that just because the cold fusion hype
has died away and P&F-type cold fusion is now widely categorized with
polywater and N-rays as pathological science, that there is no real
science in there somewhere.  Cold fusion may still be geologically
significant.

-Scott
--------------------                         Physics is not a religion.  If
Scott I. Chase                               it were, we'd have a much easier
[e-mail]                         time raising money. -Leon Lederman

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 16:39:44 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <233j4p$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:

>>[fire RCS during re-entry]

>Intersting theory.. anybody know if this would actually be possible?
>(and it brings up a concern, if one jet fails, how bad a heat-leak
>would it cause?) Allen? This stuff all seems right up your alley..

I don't know. I'll ask when I get a chance but the people in the know
are rather busy now.

It could be that the doors aren't needed. Doesn't Shuttle have thrusters
in the nose which gets pretty hot? It could be that airflow is such
that this isn't a problem. Maybe the nozzle is made of the same material
as the TPS which can take the heat with no problems.

  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."             |
+----------------------90 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 17:16:15 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC thrusters
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <233j4p$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Jensen) writes:
>:   Who needs Doors?  just idle the thrusters,  and they should put out
>: a gas stream that will keep the re-entry barrier off the nozzles.
>
>Intersting theory.. anybody know if this would actually be possible?

Yeah, it would work; it's the standard method for protecting the engines
on a classical Bono SSTO that reenters base-first.  It's also been studied
for aerobraking of non-aerodynamic rocket stages.

Actually, if all you want is attitude control, you can just put all the
thrusters on DC's base, where they are never exposed to major reentry
heating.  If you need to do close-up orbital maneuvering, though, you'll
need thrusters both fore and aft of the center of gravity.  Shouldn't
be particularly difficult to just put them behind doors.
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 17:18:28 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC thrusters
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>It could be that the doors aren't needed. Doesn't Shuttle have thrusters
>in the nose which gets pretty hot? ...

Yes and no.  It's got nose thrusters... but they're all on the side and top
of the nose, away from the worst heating.  (Some of the side thrusters
are angled downward to provide nose-up thrust.)
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 27 Jul 1993 13:10:31 -0400
From: Robert Bunge <[e-mail]>
Subject: Found your own dark-sky nation?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frances Teagle) writes:
>The deep, deep dark of an unlit Transylvanian village (Arkos, Brasov
>county) is a revelation.  So glad I had my binoculars with me.

So was using a 6-inch f/5 reflector from a ship on the equator
in the middle of the Indian Ocean (during the winter).


>    /   o      /  /__  /__/ /__/ / /__       ([e-mail])
>                             _/
Bob Bunge
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 15:32:30 GMT
From: Bruce Giese <[e-mail]>
Subject: Found your own dark-sky nation?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology

>The deep, deep dark of an unlit Transylvanian village (Arkos, Brasov
>county) is a revelation.  So glad I had my binoculars with me.

  Just watch out for vampires.  I recall the incredible night sky
in the California deserts (low humidity and few lights).  I
wonder if the extreme temperature variations affect vision too much.

                            Bruce Giese

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

Date: 27 Jul 1993 12:46:12 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: GPS in space (was Re: DC-1 & BDB)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
|In article <22rhmm$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
|>Nothing is guaranteed,  but GAO rules allow  transfer of small
|>fractions between fiscal years.
|>If the state didn't do that, you wouldn't have gotten your 26th paycheck
|>last year.
|
|Small fractions between years to meet payroll doesn't equal multi-year
|expenditures to buy equipment.  Any number of pieces of hardware have been

And 80 Million  to Buy the ACRV's up front in a 20 Billion dollar
program is also a small fraction.  My point is the  ACRV's can
be bought up front.  you argue that that is absolutely no way
financially possible.   I am sorry, i think people are just
a little more flexible then you think.


|scrapped mid-way through a project, both due to financial difficulties (i.e.
|Congress wouldn't micromanage the money) and other considerations.
|

So we end up with a bunch of soyuz capsules in a warehouse.

Look at apollo,  we still have 2 SV's  rusting on the dock.

Shit happens.


|Basically, Freedom is a year-by-year project which happens to have an extended
|outlook. Not a multi-year funding-guaranteed project.
|

Yeah.  But on the basis of the program,  you can do some up front
buying.  Look at all the integration facilities they built in MSFC
and KSC.  That was up front spending.


|
|Currently, the Space Shiites are having to rally the followers Yet Again to get
|Congress to plug in a paltry $75 mil, and hopefully get a foot in the door to
|get a total of $475 mil down the road (yah, another example of how funding is
|year-by-year Pat).
|
|A full-scale DC-1 prototype will be a large line item, say a couple of billion
|dollars outlay.  For a new program start under tight fiscal conditions, it will
|be an uphill battle.  It also assumes:
|
|        A)  DC-X works and doesn't get bent during a test flight.
|        B)  SX-2 is funded, works, and doesn't get bent.
|

You seem to have a bellief that Taurus would be the way to handle
logistics in the event of a Shuttle loss.   That of course assumes

Taurus doesn't keep blowing up.
OSC stays in Business.

Equally risky propositions.


|>|Scaling down?  No, they decided not to build mega-project satellites, using
|>|smaller platforms with less risk.
|>|
|>Another euphemism for scaling down.  The original version of MTPE
|>was for 70 some birds.  in all altitudes.
|
|Seventy?  Gosh, been watching the sci-fi channel too much.
|

No.  i saw at least one proposal for MTPE/EOS  to ahve constellations
of satellites, flying in lots of different orbits.  Sure it was a draft.

but lots of stuff is drafty.

After that version, they wanted the Ultra heavy platforms.  now the lighter
platforms.   Things change around pretty severely.


|> now it looks like 4-6. 2 most likely.
|
|NO, it was not.  Originally, they were going to build two mega-birds until
|someone said "Oh wait, didn't we put all of our eggs in one basket with
|Hubble."
|
|Now, they're going to break it up into 4-6 satellites, each one smaller, and
|distribute the experiements out.
|
|Keeps the costs spread out too.
|

I haven't kept up on EOS  and MTPE.  but the programs have evolved,
and scaled back.


|
|>IF it is brought to term.  IF.
|>Funny,  you apply one set of rules  to a SSRT project  and another
|>to an ELV project.
|
|They've already got money, committments and sign ups for the first launch.
|You are trying to compare apples and oranges.  Taurus is relatively low-risk,
|and based upon established 30+ year experience with unmanned solids.
|

So is COMET/COnsetoga,  and it looks pretty questionable if it will
survive.


|What's that I hear ? Hmm. I didn't know you could warble, Pat.
|

Maybe  you can give me some singing lessons doug :-)


|
|Wait and see?  No, you were asked a question.  You are Mr. Demanding. What
|makes you qualified to judge?  It's a fair question, given that you are
|blanketly accusing any number of project engineers who allegedly like to sit
|on their ass and collect paychecks rather than bend metal.
|

It's not the project engineers who are the problem.

It's  teh project managers and the NASA managers.

Why did they distribute the contract work out to every
congressional district,  rather then concentrating it
around the Major centers. (Marshall, Kennedy, Johnson, Lewis).

Why does the Project management structure remind one of the
Byzantine empire tax appeal system?

Why has every scale back on SSF not lead to a cut back in
staffing?

The PE's  are pretty tired of this noise.  Engineers want to build,
not interface in endless matrix requirements tracing meetings.

Look at McKissocks explanations of how requirements move through
the system.  it was a 5 page post.  The problem is just that.

Skylab had one big requirements manual, kept in a 3 ring binder.

And the darn thing flew.


|
|Pat, you are the one who is not recognizing reality.
|
|They are NOT getting a $20 billion lump-sum to spend as they wish. They are
|CAPPED to spending $2.1 bil a year.
|
|There's a big difference between the two concepts.
|

Of course,  on the funding to date, they haven't produced
any flight hardware.  there are lots of explanations  but the cold truth
is  9 billion dollars has been spent and  we are nowhere near to a
flight vehicle.

Goldin himself used the phrase "Limped through CDR".

Isn't that a damnable criticism.

So accusing me of being a space socialist  is  a diversion.
I am quoting from known authorities like the NASA director
and the VEST panel.

I'd like to see you quote some people.


|>What additionalrisks does the program take by higher inclination orbit?
|
|I'm not going to repeat what has already been discussed.  If you need
|refreshing of your memory, go read past messages.
|

I am differentiating Costs from Risk.

There are additional costs at 51.6.  half a billion in shuttle improvements
and some extra rad shielding for crew and systems.

That's cost,  not risk.   Risk is making things less likely to
work.  Like the solar dynamic generators.  those are risk.


|>And actually, it's not just me, this time.  It's also the Vest Panel.
|>Are you going to call them names too?
|
|I didn't know you personally spoke for the Vest Panel.
|

No,  but i can quote their conclusions.  Is that some sort of crime?

I point out they think it's a good idea, and you shift the discussion.

The Vest panel  thinks 51.6 is a good idea.  Can you refute their conclusion?

I don't think so, doug.


>
>>I didn't know the NASA chief works for Tom Foley.
>
>No, but the NASA chief spends more goddamn time sitting up on the Hill being
>grilled about operations, budgetary costs, and trying to get money out of
>Congress than he does in the White House.
>

hey.  congres shas always controlled the money.  it's the job of the
executive to  squeeze it out of them.  It is done.  look at the
Black budget,  none of that is reviewed by congress.


>Or do you think that "pork" magically comes from the President?
>

Yes.  In fact it does.  LBJ proved that.


>No, it comes from CONGRESSMEN who want to make sure they get re-elected. Or is
>it just concidence that the Senators and Congressment from California and Texas
>start to become concerned when it looks like NASA will take a funding hit?
>
>When Allen wants to beat the drum for DC-X follow-up money, does he flood the
>White House with faxes and calls?  NOooooo, he gets the phone tree to call
>key Senate and House members who sit on committees to make the money move from
>out of YOUR pocket to the NASA budget. :)
>

Gee.  ALAN where are you.  I seem to remember at least twice  ALAN having me
call the white house  and Gores office to protect SSTO.  And there were
call campaigns to the Quayle space council too.


>>  Oh and next time
>>some small country gets invaded,  should they  go see Jim Wright for
>>assistance?  It's the presidents job to get funding.
>
>You really need to go back to high school and look up "division of powers."
>Along with "budgetary authority."
>
 I guess i'll see you at the library.

>Let me explain it to you in little steps:
>
>    A)  The president proposes a budget
>    B)  The budget gets mangled into general terms by the House and Senate
>    C)  House and Senate sub-committees take the large chunks of money
>        and start designating them for individual projects.
>    D)  Everyone votes on, it eventually becomes law (if not, then
>        repeat B & C until law).
>

The president, threatens to VETO budget until it  starts looking
like his budget.  return to step B.

Bush and Reagan both shut down the government to score points
on exactly this wrangling.

THe President  carries 175 legislative votes (equivalent.)  it varies
from year to year.


>The president may articulate goals and vision, but he does not provide the
>money for these projects.
>

True,  but he has a great deal of control as chief executive.

It is only due to republican wrangling and open war that they
have had such detailed erosion of executive privilige.


>>  Reagan had no trouble
>>getting 70 Billion dollars a year for Black world prohjects....
>> Look at the real world funding increases he got for the DOD.
>
>We still had something called the Soviet Union back then. The Berlin Wall.
>KAL-007.  Shooting of East German refugees trying to make it to the West.
>Do these little trivial pieces mean anything?  Probably not, you were too busy
>whining about how evil that old coot Ron was...
>
>How easily you forget.


And REAGAN got the money for his projects.  He could have
argued for NASA,  he chose not too.

YOu forget in th 70's we had Vietnam, Oil Criseses.

in the 60's the Missile Gap.  the 50's the Bomber gap.  Presidents get what
they argue for.

The cold war was a convenient excuse for things just like the war on drugs.

pat
--

God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things.  Right now,
I am so far behind, I will never die.

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

Date: 27 Jul 1993 15:33:11 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <231kn3$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
> So do I become a bad guy once I start making serious money?

Only if your ears get real big and you start using phrases like "You people."

Oh yes, and a proclivity for oversimplified graphs and charts is definately a
warning sign :)



     January 1993 - John Scully embraces Bill Clinton.
     July 1993    - Apple Computer lays off 2500 workers, posts $188
            million dollar loss.

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 18:36:23 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Lottery! Any ideas?

>     (And trust me, I have to worry about demonstrable
> negligence a lot being a leading in my local outing club.  Every
time
> I take someone rock-climbing I could be setting myself and others
> up for a lawsuit.)
>


Which is sad. We'd be better off to let them kill themselves off...
and thus  improve the gene pool.

I do not at all agree with the logic behind the majority of suits. It
is simply a means of avoiding taking responsibility for you own
decisions and actions. I choose to go rock climbing or not go rock
climbing; I choose to take that little bit of extra risk or not to
take it. I choose to not check the record of the guide or to check
it. Personal responsibility. I know, it may seem a strange concept to
many... really. Everything that happens to you ISN'T someone elses
fault!

Hmm. I wonder what ISP can we could get out of a LOX/lawyer mixture?
Any guesses? Paul maybe? :-)

--
=======================================================================
Give generously to the        Dale M. Amon, Libertarian Anarchist
Betty Ford Home for                    [e-mail]
the Politically Correct     Greybook:  [e-mail]
=======================================================================

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 17:42:12 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPACE TRIVIA LIST - 24th July 1993
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro,rec.radio.amateur.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Allan Bourdius <[e-mail]> writes:
>>Jack Swigert flew on Apollo 13, which, although it looped around the moon,
>>never went into orbit.  Deke Slayton never flew to the moon -- his one space
>>flight was the Apollo Soyuz Test Project, which was an earth orbiting flight.
>>--
>>Chris Jones    [e-mail]
>
>Sorry, but you're wrong.  Apollo 13 HAD to go into lunar orbit because a
>short time before the oxygen tank explosion, they conducted a mid-course
>correction to take them off a free return trajectory.  The accident
>occured while Swigert was shutting down SPS systems used during the mcc
>burn.

Aack!  Run, don't walk, to a library and read "13: The Flight That Failed"
by H.S.F. Cooper....

--
Dave Michelson  --  [e-mail]  --  University of British Columbia

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 17:07:16 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPACE TRIVIA LIST - 24th July 1993
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro,rec.radio.amateur.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> Allan Bourdius <[e-mail]> writes:
>>Jack Swigert flew on Apollo 13, which, although it looped around the moon,
>>never went into orbit...
>
>Sorry, but you're wrong.  Apollo 13 HAD to go into lunar orbit because a
>short time before the oxygen tank explosion, they conducted a mid-course
>correction to take them off a free return trajectory...

Sorry, Allan, not so.  At no time was Apollo 13 in lunar orbit.  About
six hours after the tank failure, they did a 30s burn of the LM descent
engine to get back on a free-return trajectory.

>...The accident
>occured while Swigert was shutting down SPS systems used during the mcc
>burn.

Nope, sorry again -- the burn was the previous day.  The accident occurred
just after a scheduled TV broadcast from the spacecraft, when Swigert was
asked, quite routinely, to turn on the internal fans in the tanks because
Houston had been having trouble getting good readings from the tank gauges.

References:  Murray&Cox, "Apollo"; Cooper, "13: The flight that failed";
NASA SP-350, "Apollo expeditions to the Moon".
--
Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 17:16:01 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: SPACE TRIVIA LIST - 24th July 1993
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro,rec.radio.amateur.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, Allan Bourdius
<[e-mail]> writes:
|>>Jack Swigert flew on Apollo 13, which, although it looped around the moon,
|>>never went into orbit.  Deke Slayton never flew to the moon -- his one space
|>>flight was the Apollo Soyuz Test Project, which was an earth orbiting flight.
|>>--
|>>Chris Jones    [e-mail]
|>
|>Sorry, but you're wrong.  Apollo 13 HAD to go into lunar orbit because a
|>short time before the oxygen tank explosion, they conducted a mid-course
|>correction to take them off a free return trajectory.  The accident
|>occured while Swigert was shutting down SPS systems used during the mcc
|>burn.
|>
|>Allan

Sorry, but *you're* wrong.  They did take themselves off a free return
trajectory just before the explosion, but that did not automatically put them in
orbit.  It just meant they would not go back to earth in a re-entry corridor.
What they did was to make another mid-course correction to get back into a
re-entry corridor.  I'm 90% sure they used the LEM engine (descent stage?) to do
this.  I believe the SPS engine was either hosed or deemed not trustworthy
because of the explosion.  But they surely did not orbit.  That requires the SPS
engine to do a burn behind the moon, not to mention another burn in order to get
back.

Burns

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 02:16:00 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Test Stands at MSFC

> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 03:16:23 GMT
> Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>

Writes:

> They're taking enough static about this at Stennis, which
> is out in the middle of nearly-uninhabited nowhere.

As a sometime resident of New Orleans, an hours cruise from the
Stennis test stands, let me say that we consider that "nearly-
uninhabited nowhere" starts a bit further north, around the Toronto
city limits. That leads to the   well known expression, "NIMBYB" (Not
in my back yard, BUSTER!)

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 18:45:46 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: The Space Digest Archive

I've finally gotten around to putting up volume 15. For those who are
relative newcomers to the Digest, there are two archives. If you are
looking for recent issues, do an anonymous ftp to isu.isunet.edu.
However, if you want to dig into the previous volumes, ie V1-V15, do
an anonymous ftp to julius.cs.qub.ac.uk.

These files are quite large, anywhere up to 11MB. Each volume is
stored as a tar.Z which includes individual numbered files (same
system as isu), a nice tiff icon and, if you have a NeXT running 2.1,
a fully inverted index for Digital Librarian. I will at some point
upgrade those indexes to Version 3.0.

If you should have any of the issues noted as missing in the README
file, please send them to me.

                    Ad Astra,

                    Dale Amon--
=======================================================================
Give generously to the        Dale M. Amon, Libertarian Anarchist
Betty Ford Home for                    [e-mail]
the Politically Correct     Greybook:  [e-mail]
=======================================================================

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 17:24:48 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why I hate the space shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dieter Kreuer) writes:
>
>Hmm, the SRB's can be reused, but, has any SRB been used more than once
>ever? I have heard that even before the Challenger disaster NASA had
>not dared this, and I assume that this attitude has not changed since.

You heard wrong.  SRB components have been reused on many occasions.

As others have pointed out, though, it might be more correct to claim
that the SRBs are salvaged rather than reused.  The process of
disassembling, cleaning, and essentially remanufacturing the SRBs is
quite involved.

--
Dave Michelson  --  [e-mail]  --  University of British Columbia

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 17:50:06 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why I hate the space shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dieter Kreuer) writes:
>
>Hmm, the SRB's can be reused, but, has any SRB been used more than once
>ever? I have heard that even before the Challenger disaster NASA had
>not dared this, and I assume that this attitude has not changed since.

You heard wrong.  SRB components are routinely reused.

As others have pointed out, though, it might be more correct to claim
that the SRBs are salvaged rather than reused.  The process of
disassembling, cleaning, and essentially remanufacturing the SRBs is
quite involved.

--
Dave Michelson  --  [e-mail]  --  University of British Columbia

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 932
------------------------------