Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V15_1/V15NO100.ZIP/V15NO100

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 31KB

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 05:03:27
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #100
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 12 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 100

Today's Topics:
   Bacteria in SURVEYOR 3 Lunar Lander (was Seeding Mars with Life)
              Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers)
        Buran (was Re: Energiya's role in Space Station assem)
              Capsule location list (at last!) (2 msgs)
           Energiya's role in Space Station assem (2 msgs)
                          Home made rockets
                     Info on Challenger accident
                        Meteor Soaks Datona FL
                     More second-hand info on TSS
                               Parsecs?
               Question/subject w/n sci.space (2 msgs)
                       SPS and light pollution
                           SPS Feasability
                     The Federation is still here
                  Watching a Shuttle launch (2 msgs)
                          What about Saturn?

    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: 11 Aug 92 20:25:02 GMT
From: Larry Klaes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bacteria in SURVEYOR 3 Lunar Lander (was Seeding Mars with Life)
Newsgroups: sci.space

        In regards to the strep bacteria found in parts of the U.S.
    lunar lander SURVEYOR 3, I have read that the bacteria may have
    come from an examiner of the probe parts *after* their return to
    Earth by APOLLO 12 in 1969, not before its launch in 1967.

        Larry Klaes  [e-mail]
             or - ...!decwrl!verga.enet.dec.com!klaes
                 or - [e-mail]
                     or - [e-mail]

             "All the Universe, or nothing!" - H. G. Wells

        EJASA Editor, Astronomical Society of the Atlantic

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 18:41:07 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> Would it be possible to put something in near orbit over Nevada and
> attach tethers to it so that people could reach the object via
> elevators?  I know it wouldn't be easy, but is there a way to pull
> this off?

Hmm. Interesting question.  To first order:  No, it's impossible, for two
reasons.

When you say "orbit," you usually mean "Keplerian orbit," a free body
that stays on its path without applying any thrust.  Nothing in a
Keplerian orbit can hover over Nevada, since the plane of its orbit
*must* pass through the center of the Earth.

It *is* possible for an object in orbit to hover over a spot on the
Equator, if it takes exactly 24 hours to make one revolution AND its
orbital plane is the plane of the Equator AND its orbit is a circle.
Then the Earth rotates underneath it as it cirlces and it stays over
one spot.  "Geostaionary" communication satellites do this all the
time.  It's called "Clarke orbit."

The second impossibility is that there is no material strong enough to
make the "elevator cable" out of.  Crudely speaking, it has to hold up
its own weight as well as the weight of an elevator, or other payload,
and nothing we have now is strong enough.  Such a device is often
called a "beanstalk," by the way.

(And why don't we have any beanstalk references in the FAQ?  Here's
one: essay by Dr. Hans Moravec in the book *The Endless Frontier,
Volume 1*, edited by Jerry Pournelle and John Carr, from Ace Books
about 1979.  While you're reading it, check out "Home on Lagrange" in
the same book-- I forget the authors.)

Let's examine your question again.

> Would it be possible to put something in near orbit over Nevada and
> attach tethers to it

You could hang over Nevada in a non-Keplerian orbit, that is, if you
were willing to thrust continuously.  You can hire a helicopter pilot
to do this until her fuel runs low.

Bob Forward has proposed using high-performance solar sails to put
payloads into such orbits.  I think there's a pop discussion of this
in his book *Future Magic*, and more technical stuff in various AIAA
papers.  There's no obstacle in principle to this that I know of, but
the technology required (really light, really large, highly reflective
sails) is at least a couple of decades away.

If the altitude were low enough, the strength requirements on your
tether would go down, and it might really be buildable (given
staggering technology).

                  [o]
                  [|]   ///        Bill Higgins
   E               H   ///
  |8D:O:          occc))))<))      Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
   E               H ///
                  [|]//            Bitnet: [e-mail]
                  [|]
Bumper sticker seen on a Soyuz:    SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
    GOT HARD CURRENCY?
 TRY OUR MICROGRAVITY LAB!        Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 14:07:05 GMT
From: "John A. Weeks III" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Buran (was Re: Energiya's role in Space Station assem)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer):
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]:
> > ... But note that Energiya is DESIGNED to launch the CIS
> > Shuttles which have wings, are derivatives of the US Shuttles, and are
> > therefore subject to similar constraints on launch stresses as the US STS.

> Despite much popular mythology, and a few paranoid pronouncements from
> the military, there is no particularly good evidence (that I know of)
> that the Buran design is an STS derivative.  Clearly it was strongly
> influenced by the US design, but the similarities are superficial.

While browsing through the book store at the USAF Museum, I found a book
on Soviet Aircraft prototypes.  Despite all the photos being grainy and
black and white, it contained a lot of really good info.

Near the back of this book, there was a photo of a Buran orbiter with
4 jet engines bolted on the sides near the back.  This was used for testing
the aerodynamics at low speeds and reentry--much like the US used drop tests.
The caption indicated that it was a "jet engine equiped shuttle on takeoff".

-john-

--
==============================================================================
John A. Weeks III        [phone]            [e-mail]
Newave Communications, Ltd.                ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 19:27:49 GMT
From: Jerry Matulka <[e-mail]>
Subject: Capsule location list (at last!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris Mastrangelo) writes:
>In 1988-89 I visited the campus of the University of Nebraska in
>Lincoln and was surprised to find a genuine Apollo capsule sitting
>on display outside the Nebraska State Museum of Natural History
>not far from the Cornhusker's football stadium. I think it had
>been there at least since 1985 because it was outside exposed to the
>elements which had taken their toll on the white paint which was
>flaking off in places where the clear plastic was not protecting
>the exterior. (The plastic was mostly around the heat shield area
>through which you could see the effects of reentry.)
>
>Unfortunately I don't recall which Apollo number it was, but it
>could have been Apollo 14, which evidently didn't make it to
>Rockwell, or was donated to UNL after 1985.
>
>Can anyone else confirm or deny this??
>
>- Chris Mastrangelo
>

It is definitely not Apollo 14's Kittyhawk.  The command module that was
at the University of Nebraska was from an unmanned flight of some sort.  It
has been (I assume it's still there) at UNL for a considerable amount of time
before 1985.  I think it's been there since about 1975 actually.  I think the
reason that it wound up sitting outside was that it wouldn't fit through the
doors of the museum, and they didn't want to or didn't have the funds to make
a larger doorway.  Sad but true.  I'm sorry that I don't remember the exact
lineage of this craft, but I don't think the newspapers back in 1975 even had
it straight.  This command module not only was involved in a flight, but they
conducted some sort of drop test on it afterwards, putting a fair dent in the
heat shield.
_____________________________________________________________________________
|Jerry Matulka       Phone: [phone]         Email: [e-mail] |
|3000 Waterview Parkway, P.O. Box 833851, Richardson, Texas USA 75083-3851  |
|___________________________________________________________________________|

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 20:45:37 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Capsule location list (at last!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>"in the Titan silo with the Challenger debris."  Can someone elaborate
>(succinctly, since I assume this was discussed at the time)?  Where is
>this Titan silo and why is the Challenger debris stored there?  Is this
>a symbolic tomb or is there a more technical reason for using a silo?

It's an old test silo at the Cape.  Titan, like most big US missiles,
was tested there.  It's essentially a burial of the debris, but without
any excavation costs (the silo was already there) and with the possibility
of retrieving the stuff if there is ever reason to.  It's also safely
away from souvenir hunters and other ghouls.
--
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 18:56:02 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>
>>>You mean we would save $500 million! Well that's horrible. I can certainly
>>>see why you wouldn't want to do that.
>
>>Yes, but your random allegations imply we save $4 billion and can spend $4
>>billion on other projects, Mr. Sherzer.
>
>I ahve stated my costs and am willing to live with them. If Mr. DeLuca's
>retort is that our savings will only be half a billion per year, I don't
>consider that a negative arguement.

No, Mr. DeLuca and I have a big problem with how you "save" money in large
amounts and immediately allocate those savings, REGARDLESS OF ANY POTENTIAL
OVERRUNS for other program starts.

This is plain bogus.

>>>In other words, thinking for the long run is a bad idea.
>
>>With the current budget situtation, it is extremely difficult to fund long-lead
>>items. As noted, NASA does not operate under a multi-year budget.
>
>The DoD is constitutionally forbiden to run under allocations lasing more
>than two years and they rarely get them. Yet they build $100 billion
>aircraft carriers and other hardware.

NASA is not the DoD, and DoD is not DoD of the cold war. And I suggest you take
a look at the history of high-ticket items which have been squashed in the DoD
budget. And it ain't over yet.

Let me repeat, as this does not sink in: WITH THE CURRENT BUDGET SITUTATION,
NEW PROGRAM STARTS DON'T WORK.

>No I didn't and I have already pointed this out to you. The new components
>are commercial procurements. They will be developed and operated by the
>private sector who will put its own capital at risk. This means that NO
>government money is expended until services are provided. Shuttle will
>continue to operate with the same funds it uses now until the cheaper
>replacement comes on line.
>
>I'll say it again since you couldn't seem to read it last time: Shuttle
>continues to use its funding until the private sector builds the alternative.
>All that is needed is an agreement to use the cheaper alternative if and
>when it is available. New launchers and facilities are developed in the
>exact same way that Boeing builds and sells aircraft.
>
>Do you understand now?

Sure. So where's your company and your billion dollars worth of R&D? Got some
news for you, there's not a lot of cash for high-risk ventures.

If you look at the ATF competition, two consortiums were put together to
develop the YF-22 and YF-23. Each competitor poured their own money into the
winner-take-all competition, anticipating billions and billions of dollars of
sales.

However, the originallly anticipated huge buys of fighter planes are now being
scaled back to a handful. And in two or three years time, Congress, fickle
maiden of money, may not even purchase "that many."

Government is not the most reliable of purchasers. You should realize this with
the SSTO funding fight (which, for some odd reason, you refuse to address as an
example of the real way the government works).

Boeing operates in a free market, and there are multiple clients for its
aircraft. You cannot compare the way they operate to your Pie-in-the-Sky, Inc.

Manned space exploration, like defense procurement, is not a free market,
but a government-sponsored activity. As such, it is subject to the funding
whims of Congress and the budget deficit. You cannot guarantee the money
sitting in NASA's budget for project XYZ from year to year. You can't do it
now.

                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia

  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 20:56:55 GMT
From: Richard Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem
Newsgroups: sci.space

When ARE we going to have a lunar base?  Why don't we have one yet?
Richard.

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 22:55:20 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Home made rockets
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (FRANK NEY) writes:

> Point Two: What these laws, regulations and restrictions actually
> accomplish is stifle inquiry and experimentation.  The next Goddard,
> Einstien or Hawking might be in our school system today, but we'll
> never meet him/her with the way our society functions.

We went over this already. Einstein did have real problems in school;
besides, he and Hawking are theorists. Goddard knew what he was doing,
because he took the time to acquire the necessary skill and knowledge,
and so knew to take appropriate safety precautions. That the original
poster discusses melting a KNO3/sugar mixture and spooning it into a
rocket casing - just that these specifications are brought up - is
CLEAR evidence that they aren't even *remotely* close to "perfectly
safe."

I might agree with you on keeping guns free. (Please, let's not discuss
this here, though - there just was an amazing flame war on this in, of
all places, alt.alien.visitors.) BUT - do you play Russian Roulette?

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 15:25:33 GMT
From: "John F. Woods" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info on Challenger accident
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>The Rogers Commission report is, or was, available from the US Government
>Printing Office.  It's a substantial book; I don't think anyone is going
>to type it in for you. :-)

It is, in fact, 3 (I think) substantial books, but you only want the first
one, plus a copy of "What Do You Care What Other People Think" by Richard
P. Feynman, which includes Appendix F of the report as an (expanded) appendix.
(Appendix F is, of course, not in the first part of the Rogers Commision
report.)

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 20:31:37 GMT
From: DURDA <[e-mail]>
Subject: Meteor Soaks Datona FL
Newsgroups: sci.space

  I talked with the geologists who proposed the meteorite mechanism. They
seemed confident that it was NOT an underwater slump (which apparently
are common off Daytona, by the way) as originally proposed, since seismic
data aparrently did not indicate such an event. The National Weather
Service in Melbourne seems confident that the wave was simply blown ahead
of a squawl line which was tracked down the east coast from Cape Hatteras.

  The geologists (Smith and Opdyke) reproposed the meteorite mechanism in
light of new "data". It seems that a fellow was sailing from Miami to St.
Augustine the night of July 3rd. Hes says he saw a meteor (from his
description its seems to have been a relatively bright one) and heard a
"wooshing sound". A while later, although he did not associate the two
events at the time, he had to steer his boat to the starboard into a large
wave (THE wave?). He was about 8 miles off Daytona at the time and says
that the meteor approached from west to east about half way up in the sky.
Smith and Opdyke guessed that an object about a meter across impacting
some 11 mile offshore produced the wave.

  I am skeptical for the following reason: an object a meter across traveling
through the atmosphere would be extremely bright. The night sky should
have been lit up across north Florida. There should have been reports from
thousands of people about shooting stars and UFO's. (It seems that at worst
the cloud cover was scattered to broken across most of the area at the time.)
The only person to date to report anything at all was a single sailor. I
do not discount his observation - I merely wonder if it was coincidental.
The data are there - it just needs to all be looked at together - the timing
of the arrival of the wave at various locations along the coast, the weather
conditions at the time, perhaps relevant radar data from the time (missile
defense radar would be nice), etc. Until someone comes up with a way to
hide a meteor as bright as the Sun, I'll stick with the squawl line
hypothesis.

  --Dan

------------------------------------------------
Daniel D. Durda
Dept. of Astronomy
University of Florida
[e-mail]
------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 20:50:27 GMT
From: John Stevenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: More second-hand info on TSS
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(J. D. McDonald) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry
Spencer) writes:
>
> >In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Chuck Shotton) writes:
> >>Running 12 miles of cable off a spool doesn't seem to be a
particularly
> >>difficult task, even in zero G. Why is it that we have another
> >>over-engineered solution that has apparently failed? Is this really
any
> >>more difficult to engineer that an elaborate fishing reel? ...
>
> >The first fishing reels didn't work very well either.
>
> >The problem with a project like this is not solving any particular
> >engineering problem, but *understanding which problems must be solved*.
> >There really is no substitute for trying the thing out and finding out
> >what breaks.
>
> >The reason the solutions are over-engineered, at colossal cost, is all
> >the people who cry "incompetents!" when something being tried for the
> >very first time doesn't work.  The natural response is to put more
money
> >and effort into trying to avoid failures.  This cripples projects even
> >when ample funding is available.  Worse, it doesn't really help much.
>
> >Progress requires setbacks.
> >--
> >There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto
Zoology
> >mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  [e-mail]
utzoo!henry
>
> But how hard would it be to carry several spooling systems, and try
> them all?
>
> Doug McDonald
Well, Science News reports that the tether spooling mechanism was built
and tested for $128 MILLION. That's US dollars. We can't afford one.
And it wasn't the Italians who screwed up. Their stuff worked fine. It was
Martin Marietta who built the spooling (NOT) system.

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 21:14:45 GMT
From: Richard Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Parsecs?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Please forgive my ignorance, but what the heck is a parsec?
Richard.

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 20:25:14 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Question/subject w/n sci.space
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hi Sci.Space netters,

I am new to this newsgroup and recently found an article of interest.  The
question I raise is, how often does the subject of UFO's occur within
this newsgroup?  Can someone please respond?  Thanks in advance!

Note:  If the subject in question is not routinely posted within sci.space
which newsgroups would anyone recommend?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond - [e-mail]   "Inventor of the gravity
                                                wave amplifier?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 21:56:18 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question/subject w/n sci.space
Newsgroups: sci.space

Too often. The proper forum for UFOs is alt.alien.visitors. For SETI
(which Hynek told me is not really related to UFOs), try sci.astro.

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 22:54:06 GMT
From: "R. Cage" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPS and light pollution
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (R. Cage) writes:
>> ....  This requires long-distance transport or long-term
>> energy storage, which would be real nice to have anyway; we
>> don't.
>Yes, we do. It's called pumping water uphill, and power companies have
>been doing it for years. Transport is not helped by SPS, because
>transmission losses are the same.

Wrong, and wrong.

1.)    Pumped storage has few suitable sites (I should know,
    I've followed the battle between the utilities and
    the Michigan DNR over the Ludington pumped-storage
    facility).  Further, they are only suitable for storage
    over periods of hours to perhaps days; there are no
    suitable sites for storage over annual cycles, the
    reservoir size is completely impractical.

2.)    SPS rectennas can be sited where convenient, so long
    as geosync is in view.  Ground-based solar has to be
    put where the sunlight is.  Both Michigan and Illinois
    could be supplied by rectennas on pylons in the lake,
    winter or no.  Solar collectors wouldn't deliver much
    in January unless they were moved a thousand miles
    south, which does make the lines a teensy bit longer.

>On the average, meaning on the average, [wind is] remarkably predictable.

Averages mean you have a distribution.  So, what do you do on
those calm winter nights when it's 20 below and it's been cloudy
for a week (very common in Michigan)?  Freeze?

I think you seriously missed the point.
--
Russ Cage   [e-mail]  [e-mail]
  *  When Ford pays me for my opinions, THEN they can call them theirs. *

                           _Bad_ cop.  No donut.

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 20:45:38 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPS Feasability

>A generic problem with all SPS gee-whiz macroengineering dreams is
>that they assume that no advances will be made in any competing
>technologies.  Multiple orders-of-magnitude improvements in economics
>are waved around for SPS, but all the competitors are assumed to go
>nowhere.  Considering how far in the future SPS is, this is just
>absurd.

I think you are presenting a rather extreme version of what's happening.

I've never seen 'multiple-orders-of-magnitude' projected improvements
in my (limited) studies.  And isn't it reasonable to assume that when working
with a new technology, you will find greater marginal improvements than
within contemporary technologies that have been around for a while?

Didn't I once read that solar-power-cells (to pick a competitor off the
top of my head) were never expected to be more than ~40% efficient?
And didn't I see Dennis post a bit about current developments in solar
cells, with the best efficiency listed as 37%, and lots down in the 20%+
range?  This seems to suggest to me that at least one, if not many,
competing technologies have, indeed, reached the upper part of their
'learning' curves.

Consider oil, for example, where the reserves in many places are
well into the second, and working on the third level of extraction.
(For oil, level 1 is when it comes out the ground for you.  Level 2
is when you must pump it.  Level 3 is when you have to force water or
mud down, to get any oil up.)

That is, it's gettting costlier (and more environmentally damaging) to
get one competitor's energy, rather than 'only a little easier.'

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   [e-mail]                        '      ,   *
|       [phone]       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 19:59:53 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: The Federation is still here
Newsgroups: sci.space

Path: acad2.alaska.edu!asljl
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: The Federation is still here
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Aug 92 15:53:25 AST
Organization: University of Alaska
Lines: 25

Hello All

Yes, The Federation is still here, at the moment for those still
interested, it is still here and still reachable. We still want to
hear from people interested in it or new people interested in the
Federation.
    For those of you who are new to the Federation ideas, this is
what we are:  We are a group of people who feel it is high time we got
off this rock and started exploring the great unknown of space.  We have
drawn out in blue print form a drive system that is a a super semi conducting
crystaline structure. It looks good on paper but we haven't been able to
test it yet. As always the problem is money. The Federation has been working
on a personal funds of the few members base at the moment.  We do have a
info packet that we will happy to give you. You must have a mac that has
5.0 microsoftword or better. Send us a 3.5 floppy and we will put it
on there for you. send to this adrress

The Federation
C/O Lady Rhavyn
Po box 231772
Anchorage, Alaska
          99523-1772

If you have any questions feel free to send to this account.

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 22:16:05 GMT
From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Watching a Shuttle launch
Newsgroups: sci.space

The topper of all the toppers is still Apollo 17.

The birds came out and sang, because they thought it was morning - at
my parent's house, 100 miles away! Then again, what do you expect from
something that burns two tons of kerosene per second?

Sounds are interesting. I could almost swear that, under the right
conditions, you can even hear Deltas and Titans from 100 miles away.
Anyone else noticed this?

P.S. Never mind the ants, John, watch out for the alligators.
P.P.S. A wild dolphin stuck its head above water after the launch? You
*did* get a special treat that day: they almost never do this!

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

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 22:01:00 GMT
From: "Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Watching a Shuttle launch
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes...
>
>I watched the Shuttle launch last September from the park area near
>Titusville - it was very impressive. From all the reports I'd read, I
>expected a rather unspectacular view, with the main feature being the roar
>of the engines. To my surprise, it was the opposite. The sound was impressive,
>to be sure, especially at that distance, but the flames from the exhaust
>were really fantastic. What fooled me is the limited dynamic range of
>television systems and camera film - with the sensitivity set to pick up
>the body of the Shuttle, the exhaust flames of the SRBs are washed out -
>you only see them at a fraction of their true brightness. In fact, they're
>more like the flame of an acetylene torch with some sodium added - a
>blazingly brilliant yellow glare. Once the SRBs separated (which is clearly
>visible from the ground), the flames from the main engines became apparent -
>brilliant points of blue light. The main engines were still clearly visible
>at a range of 50-60 nautical miles, at which point the Shuttle passed
>behind a palm tree, and I lost track of it. This launch was a few minutes
>before sunset, which gave very favorable lighting.
>
I had the opportunity to see the launch of STS-46 10 days ago (from the
NASA Causeway...about 7 miles from Pad 39-B), and I must agree with John
here on the issue of the exhaust flame...except that I perceived the color
to be a bright orange-yellow.  It was certainly the most unexpected thing
about that launch (well, that and the fact they they launched on time :-).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Horowitz                        |
Astronomy Department                  |"Whoever heard of a female astronomer?"
California Institute of Technology    |--Charlene Sinclair, "Dinosaurs"
[e-mail]                |
[e-mail]                 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 11 Aug 92 23:07:56 GMT
From: "Chase R. Laurendine" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What about Saturn?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hi all,

    Maybe this topic has already discussed, if so, sorry for waisting your time.  With all the interest in using Energiya's payload capacity for SSF and
the fond memories of the Saturn V program, I am curious to know how the payload capacities of the two compare.  If the Saturn rockets had comperable payload capacities, what would it take to bring the Saturn out of mothballs.

--
Chase Laurendine
Auburn University
[e-mail]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 100
------------------------------