Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_9/V16NO989.TXT

Text File | 1993-08-13 | 32KB | 712 lines

Space Digest                Fri,  6 Aug 93       Volume 16 : Issue 989

Today's Topics:
                              11 planets
                             3-Man EVA's
Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist) (3 msgs)
         Cold Fussion, NOT! just not been proven real well!?
Fractional Millikans (was Re: Cold Fusion and its possible uses) (2 msgs)
                 GPS: Is there a Russin equibvalent?
               Mars Observer Update - 08/02/93 (2 msgs)
              NASA's planned project management changes
           Omnibus Space Commercialization Act (discussion)
                Re-Using Old ICBMs As Space Launchers
                  Space Shuttle Challenger question
                        subject: space lottery
                           Titan IV Failure

    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: 05 Aug 93 15:16:26 GMT
From: Alan Jenn <[e-mail]>
Subject: 11 planets
Newsgroups: sci.space

Has anyone considered the notion that perhaps
the asteroid belt that lies between Mars and Jupiter
might actually be the remains of the so called eleventh
planet of which "holy" scriptures refer?

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 14:45:56 GMT
From: "G. Patrick Molloy" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 3-Man EVA's
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Carlos
Piccirillo) writes:
>  Has ever, either in the US or the CIS, there been a situation
> where more than 2 have been out at once? If anyone can think of any
> simultaneous Shuttle/Mir circumstances, or 3 out of MIR or Shuttle (Or
> any more than 3 if that's ever happened) then I would like to know for
> inclusion in the SPACE TRIVIA LIST.

>
>         Any information, speculative or sourced, is desired.

How soon they forget!
STS-49, Shuttle Endeavour, May 14, 1992.
Three astronauts, Richard Hieb, Thomas Akers, and Pierre Thout perform
the U.S.'s first 3-person EVA to hand-grasp the Intelsat VI satellite.

G. Patrick Molloy
Huntsville, Alabama

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 15:50:16 GMT
From: Mark North <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

[e-mail] (Mark North) writes:

>Well, fracto-fusion is a real effect and has been demonstrated. What
>is debatable is whether it is occuring in a P&F cell. My calculations
>indicate that it is plausible. Unfortunately, the level I calculate
>is below the detection threshold of my neutron detector. If it does
>occur I expect it to be quite bursty with burst period on the order of
>1/(speed of sound in Pd) or greater. Steve Jones is doing some very
>sensitive neutron measurements  currently -- he should have the
>sensitivity to see this effect.

I must follow up my own post and appologize for overstating the case.
Although I have seen a couple of papers claiming to have observed
fractofusion I believe they were in error. Thus it has *not* been
demonstrated to my knowledge. What has been demonstrated is fracto-
emission and I find fracto fusion a plausible extension of this
effect. In my previous post if one will replace 'fracto-fusion'
with fracto-emission, I'll stand by that.

Thanks to Bill Johnson for banging on my cage.

Mark

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 16:06:08 GMT
From: Mark North <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

[e-mail] (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>     It has been demonstrated, but whether it is a 'real effect' or not
>     still seems to be a source of debate.  There have been many many things
>     with experimental support that were not real.  And I am pretty certain
>     that the Russian results have been vigourously disputed.

Actually not demonstrated but claimed. See my follow up to my own post
on this subject. I am in agreement with what you say above.

>     In fact, I
>     believe that Jones' first results would be unmistakable at his current
>     sensitivity.  The fact that increased sensistivity has resulted in
>     increased requirements for sensitivity does not seem promising.

Yes, but fractofusion would be highly dependent upon the mechanical
properties of the D loaded electrode. Thus it could be quite intermittent.

>     In any case, what were your calculations based on?  How did you
>     accelerate the reactants?  What approximation did you use for the
>     electron interaction?  What did the local field around the accellerant(s)
>     look like?

The calculations are based on standard E&M and nuclear processes -- no
magic, no miracles. They're a little too involved to go into here
but I would be happy to fax you, or anyone else, the five pages or so.

I'm not making any fantastic claims here, I just believe (based on my
work) that fractofusion is at least possible in principle. And even if
it were possible it would *not* be the basis for any power generation.
It would simply be an interesting effect that might have application
in neutron generation or materials diagnostics.

Mark

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 16:21:39 GMT
From: Mark North <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cold Fusion and its possible uses (if it is proven to exist)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

[e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>In <north.744398077@watop> [e-mail] (Mark North) writes:

>>[e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>>As well it should.  One of the classical historical incidents of this
>>>type was data that Milliken decided to throw out because it didn't fit
>>>with theory and wasn't prevalent enough to be statistically
>>>significant.  If he had kept that data and analyzed further, he would
>>>have discovered that there were particles with partial electronic
>>>charges; something that had to wait quite a while before being
>>>'rediscovered'.  Where would physics have been if we had known about
>>>partially charged particles that much earlier, rather than going on in
>>>the belief that charge could only exist in whole units?

>>NOT!

>Better go check that physics book again, son.  There's a lot more in
>the world than protons and electrons.

I think I'll spare you further embarrassment and not reply 8^).

Mark

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 15:09:12 GMT
From: Dick Jackson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cold Fussion, NOT! just not been proven real well!?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>Cold Fusion is dead? Must not be, if popular science has an article on it..
>It's not dead, it's just fallen into the _Chariots of the Gods_ zone,
>which is just west of the Bermuda Triangle zone and the Face on Mars
>zone.

Or, if you like Monty Python, "Its not dead --- but its coughing up blood."

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 16:32:55 GMT
From: Mark North <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fractional Millikans (was Re: Cold Fusion and its possible uses)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

Leigh Palmer <[e-mail]> writes:

>I did mine in 1956, and I still remember that I ran over 100 drops. The rms
>number of elementary charges per drop was of order ten. With so few drops it
>was not possible to see quantization by eye, but one could be fooled into
>seeing it by binning the reduced data in e/2 bins centered on zero. To do that
>at the time I had to know that the charge was 4.8x10^-10 esu in advance,
>though with a computer and what I now know I could perhaps search for the
>effect by trial and error. In those days it was hard to come by computers. I
>used one which was located in the home of an Electrical Engineering professor,
>Harry Huskey, at Cal. It turns out it was the first home computer.*

>In the intervening years, during which I sometimes taught the course in which
>that experiment is done here at SFU, no student has ever come close to running
>even 100 drops to my knowledge. In my opinion at least 1000 drops should be
>run, with perfectly functioning equipment, before a claim can be made that
>quantization has been observed. It is impractical for a student to run even
>100 drops in one lab period. While the experiment is commonly done in
>undergraduate labs, no student should ever "complete" it with fewer and be
>allowed to think that he has demonstrated quantization of charge, or that the
>professor believes he has. That would send a destructive message to any
>student good enough to become a physicist.

In the Univ of Illinois undergrad lab where the oil drop expt is done
they keep all the results from all the students who do this over the years.
The reason for this is to build up the parent distribution. This serves
two purposes. One is that the expt is also used to teach data analysis.
The other, darker, reason is to catch that inevitable few who try to
fake the results. Purty sneaky 8^). Anyway, by 1972 they had 10 or
15 years worth and when people started talking about looking for
quarks they decided to go back through the data to see if there was
anything interesting. Well, sure enough, there did seem to be
peaks at 1/3 and 2/3 charge. As I recall it caused a minor stir until
someone came up with a reason that had nothing to do with quarks.
Damned if I can remember what though. Sorry to string you along 8^).

Mark

P.S. When people fake data the chi-square usually comes out way too small.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 17:44:02 GMT
From: Paul Callahan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fractional Millikans (was Re: Cold Fusion and its possible uses)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space

[e-mail] (Mark North) writes:

>In the Univ of Illinois undergrad lab where the oil drop expt is done
>they keep all the results from all the students who do this over the years.
>The reason for this is to build up the parent distribution. This serves
>two purposes. One is that the expt is also used to teach data analysis.
>The other, darker, reason is to catch that inevitable few who try to
>fake the results. Purty sneaky 8^).

The biggest complaint I had with the procedure when I did it (if I'm
not confusing it with some other experiment) was the use of
hand-operated timers to time the drop's fall.  I'm sure experimenters
know a lot more about this than I do, but it seems to me that there is
a delay of about a fifth of a second for a human to react to even the
simplest of stimuli.  This was quite a significant length of time
compared to what we were recording.  Now, I suppose there is a delay
both in starting and stopping a timer, causing some cancellation, but
this strikes me as a horrible thing to rely upon (I don't know the
conventional opinion on this).  I realize the original experimenters
had to make due with what they had, but they also had a lot more time
to try to get the experiment to work.  Something like stroboscopic
pictures, or even an automatic detector would seem more reasonable to
me, though I suppose it may not be feasible to make such equipment
available to classes.

Even ten years worth of data isn't going to be very enlightening if
the noise drowns out the signal.  I agree that it may be useful to
hold onto such data for various educational purposes.  However, I
would think that careful professionals could obtain a more reliable
set of data in a month than thousands of bored undergrads could obtain
in the course of ten years.
--
Quick!  Get me my colored pencils!  I'm having a paradigm shift.
======= Paul Callahan ======= [e-mail] =======

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 21:14:05 GMT
From: Eric Aardoom <[e-mail]>
Subject: GPS: Is there a Russin equibvalent?
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
   >
   >>I'm pretty sure I remember reading that the USSR (back then....) was
   >>putting a system similar to the US GPS into orbit.  Could anyone advise if
   >>this has actually been done, and if so, are there any receivers available
   >>for it?
   >
   >That's the Glonass system.  It's in the same pre-operational state that
   >GPS was in a few years ago:  useful but limited.  It's not clear that it
   >will ever be completed, given the economic woes of its backers.
   >
   >People have looked at building Glonass receivers, and also at building
   >receivers that could receive both Glonass and GPS.  So far there's nothing
   >commercially available, as far as I know.

There is at least one commercial receiver, manufactured by 3S navigation
of Canada.

   Part of the problem with Glonass has been the extremely poor reliability
   and limited lifetimes of the satellites already on orbit.   However, the
   Russians can launch three of them at one time so it won't take long
   to fill out the constellation once these problems are resolved and the
   decision to proceed with full deployment is taken.

Despite the economic and political problems constellation build-up has
continued. Last year 6 GLONASS satellites were launched, and again 3 in
the first quarter of this year. The nominal satellite life-time is now
over 3 years, which is the design life-time.

   I'm under the impression that development of integrated Glonass/GPS
   receivers was motivated largely by an ICAO position that plain GPS
   was inherently unreliable and that a receiver with built in redundancy
   was required if radionavigation satellite systems were to be used aboard
   aircraft. I gather that ICAO has softened their position in recent years,
   though.

A major problem lies in the acceptance by the user community, not just
in satellite/equipment reliability. The international aviation community
is not going to rely on a system, which is controlled by the US DOD/DOT.

That is an important reason why other options like combined GPS/GLONASS,
GPS with geostationary INMARSAT overlay implementing the GPS Integrity
Channel (GIC), and GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) are being
developed. Also, GLONASS does not have Selective Availability on the C/A
code, which makes it more accurate than GPS C/A code operation in
stand-alone applications.

   Magnavox made a big deal about their work in this area at IEEE PLANS 90.
   If anyone has such an integrated receiver available, I would expect that
   it would be them.

The university of Leeds is also involved in integrated GLONASS/GPS. They
built an experimental receiver, which has been operating for quite some
time. They have been working on GLONASS for some years, and actually
built a GLONASS receiver before any documents on GLONASS were available.

Our group is also designing an ASIC for a integrated GPS/GLONASS
receivers, as part of an integrated navigation system.

Generally the best information sources are the proceedings of the annual
ION GPS conferences, and Navigation, the journal of the ION. That is
where I got most of the above info from. I can give more precise
references, but I have to look them up first.

Cheers,

Eric
--
Eric Aardoom
Delft University of Technology           Phone: [phone]
Faculty of Electrical Engineering        Fax:   [phone]
Mekelweg 4, P.O.Box 5031, 2600 GA Delft  Email: [e-mail]
The Netherlands

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 14:55:04 GMT
From: Ed McCreary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 08/02/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

>>>>> On Wed, 4 Aug 93 21:42:50 GMT, [e-mail] (Stefan Michalowski) said:
SM> Ron Baalke writes:
>...
>The spacecraft entered contigency mode at approximately 5:10 PM PDT
>...

SM> Question: why does Mars Observer have such an unattractive/unconventional
SM> name? With some exceptions (Lunar Orbiter - yawn) our probes seem to
SM> get nice names like Galileo and Viking. What's the story?

It was originally going to be the first in a series of Observer spacecraft,
so I imagine they kept the name for consistency.  Mercury Observer, Venus
Observer, etc.



--
Eddie McCreary            [e-mail]

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be
one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blind faith."
Thomas Jefferson

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

Date: 5 Aug 1993 16:30:39 GMT
From: Tony Hamilton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 08/02/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

We could call it "ELVIS". After all, he's been seen everywhere else, I'm sure
someone has spotted him on Mars. And, he's dead, which qualifies him (first a
postage stamp, now a satellite!) ;-)

Tony

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

Date: 5 Aug 1993 16:55:24 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA's planned project management changes
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>>The suggestions I've heard on this were that NASA could simply procure
>>>a launch service contract, not a vehicle program or launch hardware.
>>OK, this makes sense.
>That's all I have been saying.

No, you've been saying a whole bunch of different things, some of which have
been outright wrong.  But that's ok, I found a couple of places where I
had fumbled too...

>>What should be noted is that Congress had to mandate
>>this into law.
>
>Not true. Congress DID mandate it into law, but the previous law of the
>land allowed NASA to procure commercial launch services. BTW, I spoke with
>a House Science Committee staffer who, among other things, writes procurement
>legislation.

I'm sure you didn't tell him he would burn in hell for contributing to the FARs
:)

> In case I was wrong, I asked again if government procurement
>managers where required to follow the FAR's. His answer was that US
>law allowed them to procure them if the want.

It is a matter of HOW a manager interprets and writes the solicitation. The
FARs stay the same regardless of the type of service acquired.

>) 'sometimes you need to give them a kick in the pants'. In other
>words, Congress WANTS them to use more commercial procurement.

If that's the case, then Congress should rewrite some of the rules to
encourage ALL agencies to be more flexable.  You can probably get high
explosives ordered faster than you can desktop computers.

>>Now, is this the fault of NASA managers for allegedly being
>>too gutless to take responsibility?
>According to Congress, yes.

All you need is some tar and feathers.  Commercially procured, of course.

>Alleged errors? Doug, a recent survey conducted by NASA found that when NASA
>builds something it costs an average of 600% more than what a commercial
>entity pays to build the exact same thing. An ELV launch done by NASA
>costs 50% to 100% more than an equivalent commercial launch.
>
>Do you actually believe these are not errors?

Error implies something which does not fit to this situtation.  Rewrite
the procurement regs instead.

And NASA is NOT alone.  They're just your favorite whipping boy.  Shall we
recite how many pages of documentation you need to describe fruitcake or
ketchup thanks to DoD procurement?

>>>Atlas E, done FAR way: $75m/launch
>>>Atlas IIA, commercial: $45m/launch{
>>OK, so how much is an Atlas under a services contract? (The Real Question)
>Well, George just quoted a figure of $45M (see above). A savings of $30M
>(likely more for buld purchases)

Nobody's drawn up a services contract and put a price on it.  You're assuming
that there aren't additional costs above the $45 million.  I'll bet there
are, despite the fact that you are buying it as a "service" rather than
procuring the whole vehicle and "owning" it.


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

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 93 09:10:07 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Jim Bowery)
Subject: Omnibus Space Commercialization Act (discussion)

>What is the Omnibus Space Commercialization Act?

It is was written by Dr. Andrew Cutler, Space Engineering Resources
Center, University of Arizona at Tuscon for promotion by the Coalition
for Science and Commerce -- the group that originated the Launch
Services Purchase Act of 1990 and the launch vouchers provision of the
1991 NASA authorization bill.  Both prior provisions are now law.
I am the Coalition's Chair.

>Is it an exercise for
>students to analyze or is it being proposed by someone or somebodies as a
>serious proposal.  There are serious flaws in the language as it exists.
>A example is the funding of NSF through a tax on other agencies budgets is
>not acceptable to most house and senate staffers.  They lose control and
>therefore power with such funding schemes.

Yes, there are a large number of such "flaws" in the language.  You
make the reasonable but false assumption that it is promoted to be
passed in the current environment, as opposed to for other reasons.

Basically, there are 2 reasons for promoting this reform of NASA, NSF,
ARPA and related agencies:

1) No serious efforts at reforming these agencies are likely to succeed
in anything but their dissolution.  The situation is amazingly similar
to that which reformer Gorbachev found in the former Soviet Union.  Dan
Goldin or other would-be reformers will be faced with a very similar situation
The introduction and discussion of what "should be" as opposed to what "can
 be accomplished in the current environment" is likely to hasten this
breaking-up of the current political paradigm.  This is not politics as
usual -- and anyone who tries to treat our current political situation as
politics as usual is likely to be crushed by the relatively catastrophic
changes that are in store for us.

2) At some point, a "Yeltsin" will have to arise as we go beyond
the current political paradigm.  Such quasi-revolutionaries look not
for ideas that would have been politically feasible within the prior
system, but for which have become practical and are desirable goal states.
By the time such a Yeltsin arises, the groundwork will already have been
laid for the direction he chooses.  Dr. Cutler wanted to make sure this
full reform was "on the record" for when that time comes.

On this last point, I have a disagreement with Dr. Cutler, since I
don't believe he is revolutionary enough to be taken seriously
during a time of quasi-revolution.  I believe the coming changes
will make the very idea of government science and technology
anathema to the American people -- more so than government
enterprises of lower risk in more mature areas.

Here is MY political philosophy, and underlying motives for releasing
the Omnibus Act, which should not be ascribed to other members of the
Coalition:

Our current paradigm of "government should absorb the high risk while
 industry reaps the limited profits of low risk enterprise" is doomed
to catastrophic failure.  It is the AIDS epidemic of modern economics.

In the emerging paradigm, the function of profit as the reward and
incentive for risk will be restored as will the low risk role of
government in realizing the benefits of mature "no brainer" enterprises
which are much more suited to the engines of conformity that government
seems destined to generate.  The ultimate "no brainer" enterprise is
the even distribution, to all citizens, of all government revenues and
the collection of taxes ONLY on net assets at the rate of interest
government pays to borrow money.  I doubt this precise system will be
adopted but some variant of it will be.

Everyone is looking around for the socialist/capitalist synthesis
in the wrong place -- it isn't in the national socialist constructs
of technocracy -- it is in the recognition that individual sovereignty,
heroism, masculinity, risk-taking, fecundity and the frontier are the
life-force from which cosmopolitan empire draws its sustainence.

More personally, it is the young male leaving/abandoning home and
nurturing/clinging mother to find a mate in a dangerous/exciting future.

The young man must separate his identity from that of his mother before
he can do anything.

The current paradigm fails to separate space enterprise from the government
tit, which is why it is doomed to die of the economic epidemic now sweeping
the world.

If you young guys want to be momma's boys and die of AIDS, perhaps not
just figuratively, then keep on subjecting yourselves to bureaucratic
control from the media, government, corporations, educational and financial
institutions.

If you want to seed the stars, recognize that any group provides a womb/home
which tries to keep you dependent on it even as you have outgrown it.  Your
bureaucratic womb has become the province of whores, homosexuals and their
feudal masters.  Be absorbed or leave it for your destiny even if you must
die in the process.

Make life happen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Never attribute to ignorance that which can be attributed to self interest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 14:12:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: "SED::MRGATE::\"A1::AIR_PHILLIPS\""@sed.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re-Using Old ICBMs As Space Launchers

From:    NAME: CHARLES PHILLIPS D.
    FUNC: PA
    TEL: [phone]                     <AIR_PHILLIPS AT A1 AT SED>
To:    smtp%"[e-mail]"@mrgate


Ladies and Gentlemen -

Henry Spencer ([e-mail]) is right when he says that the Titan
IV that failed was NOT a "revamped" ICBM - the Titan IV is a very different
vehicle. They do fail once in a while - I was out at Vandenberg right after
they had the second of two fail in a row (the second failed in 1986 right
after Challenger) and the folks there were preparing to start refurb on
their first Titan II and emphasized the differences between the two.

But he is not correct that they still have some remaining Atlas ICBMs -
they would have run out in 1988 or 1989 I think. They had the last of them
in VAMP when I was there.

And the availability of old ICBMs to refurb and launch is GOOD for the
Titan business - it gives customers an easier path to using one for the
(maybe) first time since the used ones are certainly available. Try calling
Martin now and asking how long their folks near Denver would take to
deliver a new one at any price.

It also broadens the market for and expertise in Titan components such as
payload fairings (most ICBMs don't come with them), cable assemblies,
payload attachment rings, etc. You (if you are Martin) always need a steady
supply of folks that are experienced in working on Titans - technicians,
payload integrators, etc and modifying them provides a lot of good
experience.

The Titan IV does not have thrust termination ports (blow out ports on the
upper end of the combustion chamber) but it does have a detonating cord
along the length of the SRM (Solid Rocket Motor - the similar Shuttle
components are referred to as Solid Rocket Boosters) that will split them
open and turn them from directed thrust motors into large sparklers. And of
course there is no way to "turn off" a solid rocket like you can stop and
start a liquid engine.

These contentions should go a short way towards refuting John Fleming's
([e-mail]) arguments to scrap these retired soldiers. They
can still be of service - and we need them. I cannot speak to their
relative cost but availability counts a lot in this biz. And the government
is and has been launching them - and I feel that this is a success story
that has not been (adequately?) recognized.

Charles D. Phillips

Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 15:17:40 GMT
From: "Robert Landis,S202,," <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Shuttle Challenger question
Newsgroups: sci.space

Brian,

If memory serves me correctly, Challenger exploded at T+72 or +73 seconds
into flight.

++Rob Landis, STScI, B'more, MD

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

Date: 5 Aug 1993 17:30:19 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: subject: space lottery
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Charles Radley) writes:

> > And just don't try to run your space lottery in the wonderful state
> > of Texas. When Jim Davidson tried it for a trip to MIR, he was
> > briefly made a guest of the state of Texas.

> Ga> Um, I thought that the idea was for NASA to raise money

>No way !   NASA is prohibited by law from rasing money by lottery.

>Jim Davidson's lottery was to raise money to send a private
>citizen to the Russian space station Mir.

Jim Davidson is quite emphatic about his contest being a "sweepstakes" and
not a lottery.  There are significant legal distinctions.  The state of Texas
said it was a lottery and I don't pretend to know who was right.  In any case,
if someone wants to try and repeat the idea, _please_ get the legal aspects
straightened out beforehand.

--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]

          He who laughs last probably didn't get the joke.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1993 15:42:30 GMT
From: Eric H Seale <[e-mail]>
Subject: Titan IV Failure
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:

>What is the power source for the payload? SNAP or similar units or
>solar arrays? I can't believe the press hasn't reported on the
>possibilty that fissionable materials could have been sent
>into the pacific. Plutonium anyone?

Considering that the payload's identity is, at this point, speculative,
I think it would be rash to make noise over the "possibility" that it
carried radioactive elements.  Anyway, the Air Force has traditionally
been averse to using RTG's for very many birds -- solar arrays are just
too cheap and light to ignore (except for some "niche" missions).

Eric Seale
[e-mail]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 989
------------------------------