Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V17/V17NO011.TXT

Text File | 1993-08-13 | 34KB | 781 lines

Space Digest                Wed, 11 Aug 93       Volume 17 : Issue 011

Today's Topics:

   $12M Houses and sci.space (was: Funding private space ventures)
                      engine failures and safety
                    Federal Research Program Info
                           LMF and Energiya
              Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here!
                  Magellan Circular Orbit Operations
                      Magellan Update - 08/03/93
                   man-made meteor storm? (2 msgs)
                     Mars Observer's First Photo
                   Mission to Mars. Plan and Ideas!
                      Starlite, Super Material?
                   Titan IV failure. Info? (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: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 02:37:07 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject:
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>> The reason I questioned him ( forgot his name) was because few weeks ago,
>> some people from outside was sent to the ucsd Sun_lab, and
>> math_computer lab, on a special mession while the system
>> managers at ucsd were not notified.

>OhMiGhod!  A *SPECIAL MESSION*!!!!!  Quick!  It must be the lemurs in
>disguise!

>> Good or bad, this was a fact. It may be silly to post these things
>> to sci.space. Everything has taken place internally, under some
>> sort of secrecy. It is very difficult for outsider to understand,
>> unless somebody is going to write up a long fictions.

>Pretty much everything you've posted has been silly to post to
>sci.space.  Try alt.conspiracy.

Are you sure it isn't too late to try to get Kibo's help?

Maybe Mike Jittlov?
--
+-----------------------+
|"Standard disclaimer"  |Clever quote will be back next week!
|[e-mail] |
+-----------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 04:05:11 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: $12M Houses and sci.space (was: Funding private space ventures)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <240arc$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>I, [e-mail], wrote:
>>: |Space hardware is expensive mostly because it is all custom-designed
>>: |for a completely new environment.
>>
>>Pat ([e-mail]) replied:
>>: Hardware does not have to be custom designed each time.
>>
>>I didn't say it must always be that way -- I just said it is now that
>>way.  We are learning a lot from our interactions with the Russians.
>>We won't be able to apply all of it in our world, but we are learning.
>>This is part of the reason NASA is working with the Russians.
>>
>
>Why was it neccesssary for NASA to spend 20 years going down the
>custom engineering blind alley.   ?
>
>Theoretically we are as smart as the russians, we should be teaching them
>lessons, not having to learn from them the obvious.
>
>Also  mass production and standardization carries  far more benefits
>then extreme specialization.
>
>A formula 1 racer, is a marvel of engineering.  Just as a 5 meter
>Sailer is a marvel of grace and balance,  but what do more
>productive work.  Ford trucks and RO-RO cargo vessels.
>
>what bothers me at least in the space seminars i attended int he 80's
>was the lack of engineering mindset applied to commercial commsats.
>
>even there,  in the most common of applications,  there was a real
>fatal obsession with unique design.  mass production would have a lot
>of benefits in this arena alone.

Mass production can be a wonderful cost reducer if the product is
needed in huge quanties, and if the product is mature. But when
the product is immature, too early a standardization can lock in
inefficient designs and stunt the development of better designs.
Despite the fact that we are 36 years into the space age, we've
flown fewer missions than were flown in one month in 1918 in
fighter aircraft. We don't have the demand for sufficient flights
to require mass production. And we don't have the experience to
decide which design should be standardized. Since the market is
so small, standardization now would end most competing design
work because there isn't sufficient demand to support more than
one mass production line.

The span from Wright Bros to DC-3 shouldn't be measured in
years. It should be measured in flight hours. When you look
at it that way, we haven't reached 1907 yet in spaceflight.
Would you have us standardize on 1907 aircraft?

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 03:40:41 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: engine failures and safety
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <23sasq$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George William Herbert) writes:
>>Henry's just being a curmdugeon.  8-)  While it's possible for
>>a single engine failure to cause an airliner to crash, it
>>nearly never happens...
>
>I'll admit to having been a bit grumpy when I posted that... :-)
>
>Note, though, a more general point:  when an airliner loses *all* its
>engines, it better get at least one of them relit, or it's going to
>crash unless the gods are really smiling.  When you're out over the
>Pacific at night and run into a Pinatubo ash cloud, the engines are
>at least as important as the wings -- without engines, wings just
>postpone the inevitable briefly.
>
>Sure, in particularly favorable conditions -- nearby long hard-surface
>runway, pilot who flies gliders as a hobby -- an airliner can survive
>an unpowered landing.  And in particularly unfavorable conditions, even
>having two or three surviving engines won't help enough.  But in the
>average situation, one engine out is okay and all engines out is lethal,
>wings or no wings.

Actually, on the basis that any landing you can walk, or swim, away
from being a good one, winged vehicles have a real edge over rocks,
err rockets.  With all engines out, many aircraft can ditch successfully,
and most can touch down on any spot of fairly level ground. The *plane*
may sustain major damage, but as long as the contents survive, that's
relatively unimportant. Three of four loss of power incidents with
general aviation aircraft in Georgia in the last month have resulted
in no fatalities. The one exception was in a thunderstorm the pilot
should have avoided. In fact, engine out procedures are a required part
of pilot training. When flying VFR, a pilot should always have an
emergency landing site in mind within his gliding range.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Tue, 10 Aug 93 09:17:45 -0400
From: "David C. Schneidman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Federal Research Program Info
Newsgroups: sci.space

I've come across this source of information that I think would be of
interest to subscribers of this newsgroup, and thought I would pass it
along. It is accessible through the Internet or by PC with a toll free number.

                        WHAT IS FEDIX?

FEDIX is an on-line information service that links the higher education
community and the federal government to facilitate research, education,
and services. The system provides accurate and timely federal agency
information to colleges, universities, and other research organizations.

There are NO REGISTRATION FEES and NO ACCESS CHARGES for using FEDIX.

FEDIX provides daily information updates on:

  - Federal EDUCATION and RESEARCH PROGRAMS (including descriptions,
    eligibility, funding, deadlines).
  - SCHOLARSHIPS, FELLOWSHIPS, and GRANTS
  - Available used government RESEARCH EQUIPMENT
  - New funding for specific research and education activities from
    the COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY, FEDERAL REGISTER, and other sources.
  - MINORITY research and education programs
  - NEWS & CURRENT EVENTS within participating agencies
  - GENERAL INFORMATION such as agency history, budget, organizational
    structure, mission statement, etc.

PARTICIPATING AGENCIES

Currently FEDIX provides information on 9 federal agencies.  The
Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Naval Research (ONR), National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Air Force Office of Scientific
Research (AFOSR), and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are providing
comprehensive education- and research-related agency information, while the
National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), Department of Commerce (DOC) and the U.S. Agency for
International Development (AID), are providing minority information,
exclusively.  Additional government agencies are expected to join FEDIX in
the future.


REQUIRED HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE
Any microcomputer with communications software (or a dumb terminal) and
a modem operating at 1200, 2400 or 9600 baud, or any system that can connect
to the Internet, can access the system.

HOURS OF OPERATION
The system operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The only exceptions
are for periodic system updating or maintenance.

CONNECTING TO FEDIX
 DATALINE (modem): 301-258-0953 or 1-800-783-3349; at "login:" type: fedix.

 INTERNET ADDRESS: fedix.fie.com or 192.111.228.33; at "login:" type: fedix.

HELPLINE
Call the HELPLINE for assistance or comments at 301-975-0103. It is staffed
Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-4:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, except on federal
holidays.

I hope this will be of use to some of you out there. DCS. [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 03:07:26 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: LMF and Energiya
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lauren Massa-Lochridge) writes:
>>If such a LMF were feasible, then the same system would be easier and
>>cheaper to operate on Earth. But we don't see any, so that seems to say
>>that it isn't feasible. One of the many technical problems with this
>>scheme is that tolerances stack. In a 2^N system, each copy is less
>>precise than the one that produced it. Pretty soon you're churning out
>>worthless junk. This is the machinist nightmare. There are ways around
>>this, see biological systems, but we haven't mastered them. One of the
>>many *economic* problems with this scheme is that higher grade ores exist.
>>So mining dirt isn't economical.
>
>Its true there are still many problems to overcome in total automation,
>but this would become much more feasible if a combination of teleoperation
>with automation were used. In addition, some external checks and corrections
>could also be automated rather than carried out by human telepresence.
>There is a lot of interesting work going on in the prediction of faults
>statisics based adaptive control for processing that could also be
>applied so that a desired level of operation may be possible to maintain
>by prediction of failures. Degradation of performance through wear etc.
>in a system can be characterised and ameliorated as part of routine
>maintenance.

All true, but it overlooks the primary objections. We don't do self-
replicating robotic manufacturing from dirt on Earth because (a) we
don't know how, (b) even if we did know how, it's not economic in
competition with other methods using higher grade raw materials. Now
given we don't do this on Earth, why would anyone think it workable
on the Moon? There may be some processes that are easier in low
gravity/vacuum, but why do we think robotic replication is one of
them?

The real test of any lunar/ET manufacturing scheme is, does it deliver
something we need to the place we need it for the lowest cost? And second,
does the value of the material exceed the cost? So far, the answers for
lunar materials are no and no.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 04:48:48 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <24393p$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>|As an extreme example, suppose I have a vital one pound payload I need
>|to launch. I'm not going to say, "Hey Saturn only costs $2,000 a pound"
>|and go try to launch my one pound on the Saturn for $2,000. It's going
>|to cost me $500 million to use the Saturn to launch one pound the same
>|as if it were at max gross. That's my *mission* cost for that launcher.
>
>of course,  rapid response is not the Saturn  nor the Shuttles forte.
>
>As Mohney and i have discussed,  when a smoke shifter is needed
>tomorrow  at SSF,  it won't go on either the STS or the saturn.
>
>although i suspect a saturn had a better track record at launch time then the
>shuttle ever did.

I don't care about rapid response, I'm trying to get my payload up
at the lowest mission cost.

>|Instead, I'm going to look at Scout for $10 million, or Pegasus for
>|$15 million, or even Atlas for $35 million. All of them have a lower
>
>if you have the time to wait for an atlas,  you have the time
>to wait for a saturn mission  as a parsitic payload.

Except why should I suspect there will *be* a Saturn launch anytime
in the next 20 centuries? I'm not concerned about time critical
payloads, I'm talking about lowest *cost* in any reasonable timeframe
to the orbit *my* payload needs. Saturn has such a high bulk lift capacity
that it's very rarely needed. And when it is, it's not likely to be
going to the orbit I need.

>|mission cost even though the cheapest of them has the highest per
>|pound cost. I might even put my pound in a GAS can and get it in
>|orbit for only $10,000. That would be the lowest mission cost I
>|could find, even though Shuttle has a high cost per pound. It *can*
>|easily be fitted with several payloads that can share the cost
>|where as multiple payloads on Saturn hasn't been done, and if it
>|were it would have to be done as an integrated package that costs
>|big bucks and major time.
>
>I don't know gary. the  french demonstrated shotgun launches on
>the Ariane 4  a while ago,  the Proton i believe is doing
>shotgun launches  for iridium  and the Delta?  is a routine
>double stack launcher.

With very special payload constraints to fit the multi-payload
shrouds, and with very special integration demands. All that
costs $$$ and time to design custom payloads to fit the special
launcher requirements. *And* of course that design work is worthless
if you decide to change launchers. You can't just chuck your payload
in the hold with the other general cargo.

>I suspect  multiple payloads to orbit  is far easier and cheaper then
>you suspect.  MIRV warheads  are stacked payloads,  and they
>were developed  back in the 60s?   and they have to handle
>a pretty rough environment:-)
>
>trh trick is keeping the cost down on stacked warheads.  cargo
>drops are stacked payloads,  delivered at quite reasonable costs.
>so are roll on roll off freighters.  aero-space has chosen
>to be on the costly difficult road,  i am not certain it is neccessary.

ROROs don't have the mass and volume constraints of spacecraft.
Even with a cheap launcher it costs a lot to carry the extraneous
mass of pallet containers to orbit. And if your payload doesn't
fit a standard pallet because of mission requirements, then you're
well and truly screwed. And if your mission requires an orbit that
other payloads don't happen to be heading toward, too bad. The
nature of the mission sets the size, shape, and destination of
the payload, and there are limitless numbers of different missions.

It's a lot like mass transit versus the private auto. It may be
cheaper to haul a person X miles on mass transit, but if the
tracks don't connect your origin and destination, transit's
lower costs are irrelevant. All that's important is the *mission*
cost of getting your butt from point A to point B.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: 11 Aug 93 02:57:25 GMT
From: DJ Byrne <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Circular Orbit Operations
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Ron Baalke ([e-mail]) wrote:
>: Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager
>
>: 3.  Circular orbit operations will officially begin on August 16th.
>
>Is there any funding available for these operations?  If so, how long will
>it last?

Not yet, officially.  Current funding ends in October 1993, but the project
is optimistic that they'll be funded for another year for gravity operations.
The additional cost for that year is about $7.4M, compared to roughly $800M
the project has cost so far.  I don't remember who it is that has to OK the
continuation (Congress?).

--
DJ Byrne           [phone]             [e-mail]
Jet Propulsion Lab., M/S 161-241             #include <std/disclaimer.h>
4800 Oak Grove Drive               The difficult we do immediately,
Pasadena, CA 91109                 the impossible takes a little longer.

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

Date: 10 Aug 1993 20:56:03 -0400
From: Pavel Chichikov <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magellan Update - 08/03/93
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary



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

Date: 11 Aug 1993 03:02:47 GMT
From: Eric Shafto <[e-mail]>
Subject: man-made meteor storm?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] wrote:

: However, because the projectile is very, very small, and space is very,
: very large, you probably would not be able to see the projectile enter
: the atmosphere, no matter what it's made of.

You're the second person to say this in response to my post.  Being
mostly ignorant, I just don't understand how this is possible.  Don't
I keep hearing that the average meteor seen from earth is about the
size of a grain of sand, and viewable from an 80 mile circle on the
ground?

I expected the answer to be, "No, you wouldn't see it, because it will
not have built up enough velocity in its short fall to flare that
brightly when it hits the atmosphere," but not, "No you won't see it
because a shotgun pellet is too small."


: But this would be a good experiment to conduct.  Nobody knows
: exactly what thermal and chemical processes occur during the passage of
: bodies through the atmosphere, and some careful science could enrich
: our knowledge of this area, to the benefit of heat shield designers and
: planetary geologists who study meteorites.

Aw, hell, I didn't want to do science, I thought it'd be pretty.
Y'all keep talking about launches being only 85% full, and I thought
it'd be a nice PR boost for the space program to have red, white, and
blue meteor showers for the Fourth.

--
*Eric Shafto             * The excursion is the same when you go looking  *
*Institute for the       * for your sorrow as when you go looking for     *
*    Learning Sciences   * your joy.                                      *
*Northwestern University *                Eudora Welty, The Wide Net      *

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

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 04:17:50 GMT
From: Robert Casey <[e-mail]>
Subject: man-made meteor storm?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Long ago, I once heard of a satellite releasing thousands or millions of
1 inch or so snippits of fine copper wire into low orbit.  An experiment
to see if these would improve long distance radio communications (bounce
the radio waves off the copper needles).  The orbit was chosen so the
copper wire needles would re-enter after a while.  To avoid long term
danger from all that space junk hitting something.  Don't know if the
re-entry of this stuff was visible....

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

Date: Tue, 10 Aug 93 19:39:24 EDT
From: Bob Coe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mars Observer's First Photo
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

[e-mail] (Anthony A. Datri) writes:
>
> >The above demonstrates a profound ignorance of NASA.  For some missions,
> >at least, the photos are available via FTP long before they're available
> >as hard-copy.
>
> The claim made at Gaspra was that various funding agencies deserved the
> first crack at images.

Sure.  And just who do those "funding agencies" think put up their money?

   ___            _                                           -  Bob
   /__) _   /    / ) _   _
(_/__) (_)_(_)  (___(_)_(/_______________________________________ [e-mail]
Robert K. Coe ** 14 Churchill St, Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776 ** 508-443-3265

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

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 04:31:05 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Mission to Mars. Plan and Ideas!
Newsgroups: sci.space

Here is a short plan to get to Mars, and soem ideas, feel free to correct me,
or suggest better and easier ways and methods.. (as in cost, payload, and
availabiltiy)..

I wrote most of this down while at my Hard Ware Clerk job so
It is a bit rough.

Stage 1: To Orbit, basically trying to get the material and support material
to get to Mars, basically into oearth orbit..
  a. Heavy G payloads, namely stuff that can stand the heavy Gs from a space
gun, or other device that can get cargo into space, and you don't have to worry
about it being crushed, and stuff that alot of is needed..
  b. Heavy Lift: Basically stuff that is large, bulky, and needs to be lifted
in one piece.
  c. Low G, Low Lift Stuff (humans, delicate equipment that can't be built in
space).

Stage 2: In Orbit.
Space station or atleast a place to get all the gear and equaipment together..
To change from earth vehicles to a to mars vehicle..

Stage 3: To Mars.
  a. Slow Heavy Cargo (via soalr sail, or other means that can be used to send
heavy cargo that does not need to be send quickly, namely supplies for Mars,
and equipment for Mars).
  b. Fast Cargo: Basically the humans, there for the voyage habitate and
instruments for the journey, everything that is needed for the journey out.

Stage 4: On Mars/From Orbit to Mars Surface/Surface to Orbit.
  a. Orbit to Surface.
  b. Station of Mars.
 b2. Resupply via solar soil or slow boat.
  c. Rovers/Information Gathering.
 c2. Returning of information (rocks and such) to earth, via soalr sail or
other means/slow boat.
  d. Surface to Orbit.

Stage 5: Return to Earth.
  a. Out of Orbit.
  b. Heavy Returns (soalr sil or slow boat, see 4-c2 above).
  c. Light Return (humans and delicate stuff, and sensors for retuirn voyage).
  d. Orbit Earth/dock with station and transfer to lander.
  e. Lander on earth..

I know soem of the systems I have mentioend or used are not currently being
used..
Such as Super Gun (needs to be a larger diameter or something to get bigger
payload..Mayeb a 16 Inch Magnum Round (basically a old 16 Inch gun, bored out
for a longer shell, or have the shell be in the gun,
and the projectile be outside, much liek the old original guns of old)..
Also Solar Sail, small prototypes are in the works at the last time I heard..

===
Ghost Wheel - [e-mail]
==
Michael Adams, [e-mail] -- I'm not high, just jacked

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

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 05:20:43 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Starlite, Super Material?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <2496ce$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>So wha'ts the dean drive?

Your education is severely lacking. The Dean drive is a reactionless
drive system based on swinging weights and timed application of braking
impulses. It demonstrates that a device can fool a spring scale into
indicating an object weighs less than it does. What it isn't is a real
propulsion system.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 93 14:11:55 +1200
From: Kennelmeister <[e-mail]>
Subject: Titan IV failure. Info?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

> The original Columbia was a naval vessel too, and I believe Captain Cook's
> ships (one of the Discoveries, and the original Endeavour) were as well.
> Civilian oceanographic vessels are a relatively recent development (and
> in fact I believe Atlantis was the first built as such).

The Endeavour was an old collier converted to a Royal Navy
exploration/observation ship.

His crew included at least one botanist (Banks - who later ran Kew
gardens) and one astronomer.

It may have been armed, but in that day and age it was standard
procedure on almost all ships due to piracy, etc.

--
Alan Brown
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 02:04:55 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Titan IV failure. Info?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <23sr14$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh Hopkins) writes:
>
>I certainly agree that rogue solid boosters ought to have their thrust
>terminated if they threaten civilians.  However, I think Pat's suggestion was
>that the RSO would have been worried about the second stage.  In this particular
>accident, neither of the stages which could be called the "second" stage
>should have been producing thrust and I doubt that the liquid engines would
>have survived anyway.  The solid boosters should have been fairly close to
>burnout (read: much farther along than the Challenger SRBs).  Therefore,
>since the Air Force has expressed interest in pulling up the bits to see what
>went wrong, I would expect some debate about whether sending a destruct
>signal should be necessary.

Perhaps there's no other way to stop the second stage ignition sequence
except by destruct signal.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 05:02:48 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Titan IV failure. Info?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Cronau) writes:
>>2.) Sometime in the 70's the US government used a ship called the _Glomar
>>    Explorer_ to attempt to salvage a russion submarine. It wasn't fiction,
>>    it really *did* happen.
>>3.) The Glomar Explorer was owned by Howard *Hughs*, not Hunt.
>
>As far as I know, the Glomar Explorer is owned by the Woods Hole
>Oceanographic Institute and the Institute was never owned by
>Howard Hughs.

The Glomar Explorer was built by Howard Hughes' Summa Corp for the
CIA. Whoever is it's *cover* owner is rather irrelevant.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

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


To: [e-mail]
Xref: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu sci.space:68815 talk.politics.space:3457
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Path: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!gumby!yale!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!hela.iti.org!aws
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Misc DC-X Updates and request for action
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 00:47:12 GMT
Lines: 86
Sender: [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]


I have some new information on the DC-X flight, but first this word from
our sponsor:  Do you live in Flordia? Do you want to help make the SSRT
followon a reality? Well, here is your chance!

There is an urgent need to get phone calls and letters to Senator Bob
Graham (D-FL). He is on the Armed Services Committee and he seems to be
somebody who can help get the SX-2 funded. Please write and ask him to
write Senator Nunn and ask for acceptance of the House position
on SSRT in the Senate/House conference on the DoD Authorization Bill.

His address is:
Senator Bob Graham
SD-241
Washington DC 20510

Phone: [phone]
Fax:   [phone]

Some points to make in the letter/phone call:

1. Florida is the number two state for contracts on this program (especailly
Honeywell and Pratt & Whitney).
2. The followon will also mean jobs in the state.
3. Spaceport Florida will benefit from low cost access to space and will
be an excellent place DC launches.

Please write and call soon if you live in Florida. This guy is in a real
position to influence things if he wants.


Other DC news:

1. The 'burp test' went OK but had a problem. One engine cut off a second
or so early. This was due to the setting of safety parameters and not a
mechanical problem. The same thing happened often during the early static
tests so this isn't a cause for worry. They are going to reset some of the
parameters and re-run the test in a few days. Needless to say they are
being very cautious since they don't have spares. Also, some of the
parts in the DC-X are very old (one thing which made it a cheap program)
so they need to be careful.

2. The 'first flight' is currently scheduled for Aug. 28 (which conflicts
with my daughter's birthday so it looks like I ain't going :-( ). This
slip happened before the burp test so I suspect it has more to do with
range scheduling.

3. There is an article in today's NY Times (Aug 10) on DC which is very
positive. It produced a lot of interest in several groups. People at
the Department of Comerce will now be attending the flight because
of the article and ABC News was also prompted by the story to call
MacDac about doing a story. I also know that NBC news is considering
a story.

If you want to see the test flight, the best way is to convince these
media to broadcast the flight. Give them a call and ask them if they
plan to cover it. The more they hear, the more likely they will be to
cover it. Some addresses and phone numbers:


Broadcast Media

ABC World News Tonight                  CBS Evening News
7 West 66th Street                      524 W. 57th Street
New York, NY 10023                      New York, NY 10019
212/887-4040                            212/975-3693

CNN                                     MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour"
One CNN Center                          P.O. Box 2626
Box 105366                              Washington, DC 20013
Atlanta, GA 30348                       703/998-2870
404/827-1500

NBC News
4001 Nebraska Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
202/885-4200
202/362-2009 (fax)


   allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer |          Mortiki: "What do we do after we do it?"      |
|   [e-mail]    | Man with no name: "Ya live with it."                   |
+----------------------11 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

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

End of Space Digest Volume 17 : Issue 011
------------------------------