Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V15_1/V15NO111.ZIP/V15NO111

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

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 05:00:05
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #111
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 15 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 111

Today's Topics:
               ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers (2 msgs)
                       An educational request!
                            A pet peeve...
         Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers) (2 msgs)
                        Cosmic Ray References
                       Educational Information
           Energiya's role in Space Station assem (2 msgs)
              Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
                   Germans drop European Shuttle ?
                           He3 Power Source
              Interstellar Probes - How Fast Can We Go?
                  Mini Energiya(?) & MIR replacement
           pigs in space was(Re: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky)
                        Private space ventures
                        Russian Cosmonaut Pics
                    Standard s/c Icons for Mimics

    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: 14 Aug 92 14:33:08 GMT
From: Greg Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
Newsgroups: sci.space

    Allen,

    Concerning the use of Soyuz's and the like, I still have not seen you
respond to the agrument I presented LAST time this debate came up.  Therefore,
I'd like to see your response.

    Soyuz is great, Soyuz is God, Soyuz can carry ONE passenger.  The
other two occupants must be qualified as pilots.

    The Shuttle is lousy, the shuttle is the eater of money, the shuttle
can carry 5 passengers (or more).

    With Soyuz, 66% of each flight is taken up by pilots.  Since a majority
of astronauts are NOT pilot qualified, this means that you either have to
qualify a lot more than you currently have, or not fly them as often.  Since
much of the work on the station will be research, you presumably will want
mostly scientists on board, not pilots.

    Assume in a typical station crew you have one pilot-qualified astronaut
and 3 scientist astronauts.  That means that to perform a crew rotation you need
to fly at least 3 Soyuz's.  (Assuming the pilot from one flight stay's on
board.)

    With shuttle, you only need one shuttle flight.  AND the shuttle can
supply the station in the same flight.  (sorry, I don't recall how many
Soyuz/Progress missions you allocate for this.)

    If the station EVER (and I doubt this for a LONG time) gets to
8-person capability you will need 6 Soyuz flights to recrew.  (I'm assuming
two pilots in this case).  This can still be done (barely) with the shuttle
in ONE flight.

    An added cost comes up with these multiple flights.  Before you argue
that costs would go DOWN as a result of a larger production line, keep in mind
that you will need more launch pads, more ground support, etc.  You can't
simply double or triple the flight rate of any rocket without taking into
account the cost of these factors.  Therefore, I don't think your savings in
production quantity would help, it would end up being eaten in launch support
costs.

    Finally, as my recent post concering the EOS system asks, why is the
cost so low.  As has been opointed out to me by at least two sources,
NASA contractors OFTEN bid low in the initial bid and then when the Real
Requirements sheet is drawn up raise their price.  I ask you what is
keeping the companies from doing this with HL-Delta and Atlas?
    Your answer taht you've talked to teh engineers, ro that Boeing does
it with aircraft all the time doesn't hold water with me.  First:  the
companies in question have a tradition of giving lower figures, why change
now?  Two: Boeing is operating in the real world with real customers who
WON'T allow them to underbid and get away with it.  NASA does and the
customers know it.

--
<------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Greg d. Moore                  |  [e-mail]
Green Mountain Software        |  "All that is gold does not glitter."
Carpe Diem                     |

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

Date: 14 Aug 92 15:23:25 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <h-aym4#@rpi.edu> [e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:

>    Soyuz is great, Soyuz is God, Soyuz can carry ONE passenger.  The
>other two occupants must be qualified as pilots.

>    The Shuttle is lousy, the shuttle is the eater of money, the shuttle
>can carry 5 passengers (or more).

I would like to see a source for this. The Soviets tended to prefer automated
hardware and didn't let their crew do much if they could avoid it. There
shouldn't be too much trouble qualifying crews.

But I point out that if in fact you are correct, this is still a problem
for Shuttle. Soyuz WILL be the ACRV. Congress isn't going to fund anything
else.

Therefore if this is a problem, both approaches will sove it the same
way.

>    With shuttle, you only need one shuttle flight.  AND the shuttle can
>supply the station in the same flight.

And if we have enough money that we don't mind wasing most of it, this
is just fine.

>    If the station EVER (and I doubt this for a LONG time) gets to
>8-person capability you will need 6 Soyuz flights to recrew.

I'm assuming three although even with six we still save money.

>    An added cost comes up with these multiple flights.

In ten years of operation Shuttle has not come down in price very much.
As to additional flights reducing cost, it won't happen since Shuttle if
flying at maximum rate now and CAN'T fly any more.

>Before you argue
>that costs would go DOWN as a result of a larger production line, keep in mind
>that you will need more launch pads, more ground support, etc.

A government report (I think it was 'Launch Options for the Future') said
that there is plenty of facilities available to greatly increase the
rate of Atlas launches. HL Delta goes up from an unused launch complex and
all the costs you mention are included.

>You can't
>simply double or triple the flight rate of any rocket without taking into
>account the cost of these factors.  Therefore, I don't think your savings in
>production quantity would help, it would end up being eaten in launch support
>costs.

The relevant government reports says larger launch rates can be sustained.
This will provide better utilization of ground facilities which will reduce
costs even more.

>    Finally, as my recent post concering the EOS system asks, why is the
>cost so low.

1. It is a commercial procurement. The government isn't buying a launcher
but launch services. If the contractor doesn't deliver the payload, he
doesn't get paid. The govenrment will not be paying for the development
of HL Delta nor will it own the design. The contractor has every incentive
to keep costs in line since he looses $$ otherwise.

2. The vehicles in question use mostly off-the-shelf parts with wide safety
margins. This works to reduce costs and increase reliability.

>    Your answer taht you've talked to teh engineers, ro that Boeing does
>it with aircraft all the time doesn't hold water with me.  First:  the
>companies in question have a tradition of giving lower figures, why change
>now?

Because the rules are different. Before with cost plus contracts it was
to a companys advantage to add costs. With this effort where only services
are being purchased, that won't work.

>Two: Boeing is operating in the real world with real customers who
>WON'T allow them to underbid and get away with it.

EXACTLY. Since we are making the government a real customer it will
work just like Boeing. Now the govenrment is simply another buyer of
launch services just like Intelsat (which McDonnell Douglas and GD
already serve).

Don't get hung up on HL Delta or Atlas. We aren't paying to develop
them. All we are doing is buying launch services from the lowest bidder
and it may not be either of those vehicles who get the contract.

   Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------252 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 14 Aug 92 09:55:34 GMT
From: J Gourlay <[e-mail]>
Subject: An educational request!
Newsgroups: sci.space

I was wondering if anyone could help out a friend of mine. She is a
school teacher about to embark upon a SPACE project with her pupils and
was wondering if any organisations out there had school information
packs which they sent out free to interested schools. Ideally such
information should be targeted at the 8 to 10 year old age group and it
will be used by all of the school eventually. If anyone can help out
e-mail me or put my address for correspondance to the relative
department.
             Thanks in advance,
                     James Gourlay
                     Dept. of Physics
                     University of Edinburgh
                     Kings Buildings
                     Mayfield Road
                     Edinburgh
                     U.K.
                     ([e-mail])

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 13:34:57 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: A pet peeve...

Every once in awhile it has to be said. Please think about all the
extra junk you are posting. It particularly struck me when I just
read a posting that had about 30 lines of > text, followed by ONE
SINGLE LINE with 5 words on it, followed by a signature line.

The Signal to Noise ration of that post approached 0. With newer
mailers it is getting all to easy for the lazy to just repost it all,
even unto the third >>>. PLEASE summarize. PLEASE keep you
.signatures down to a reasonable size, ie a couple lines at most.
Cute is fine, but after the umpteenth time, I'm hardly interested in
it.

It is particularly striking how the percentage of junk surrounding
the information has gone up between the early volumes and now,
something very apparent since I've been going through them back to
V1-1 while working on the archive.

If people were to cut back on the use of > and .sig, we could
probably double or quadruple the real information content of an issue
of Space Digest. Or else let the bandwidth be used for something
useful.

                    Dale Amon

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

Date: 14 Aug 92 09:50:56 GMT
From: George William Herbert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Yes, air space over a state is controlled by the laws in that state.
>I assume this will eventually happen with the space near the Earth
>over the state as well.  Therefore I want to build a casino over
>Nevada, with no tethers passing over the airspace over any other
>states and/or countries.  My question is how much thrust would I
>need to do this?

That will, barring massive revision of space law, NOT happen to the
space near earth 8-)

The outer space treaty, which has been ratified by all spacefaring
and most other nations at this time, agrees that there is no territory
in space, i.e. that no country can "own" space above itself.  China
was the last holdout, but they signed about 2 weeks after the US brought
up its nonsignatory status during the Long March launch debate for
a Hughes-built sattelite a couple of years ago (smart move).

If you go "into space", normally defined as >100km (62 nautical miles)
above the earth, then the only laws that apply are those of the launching
nation.  This is due to responsibility and liability issues (if your
vehicle rams mine, who's responsible?) etc.  If the US national law does
not prohibit gambling, then you can gamble on a US station or vehicle.
If someone else's laws did, then you couldn't.


-george william herbert
[e-mail]  [e-mail]  [e-mail] until 28 aug

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 14:46:19 GMT
From: Dave Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Hans Moravec) writes:
>
>The latest and greatest version of carbon fiber is Buckytubes!
>Like graphite but rolled up forming a teeny, tiny soda straw.
>No loose edges or ends (the ends are capped with a half Buckyball).
>I've read lengths of about a centimeter have been produced,
>grown on a charged sphere (radiating out like hair on a van de Graf
>generator, only much, much thinner)

So what's the volume of a Hubble buckytube ? :-)


--
||)) Dump the Whatzit!  Ren and Stimpy for Olympic mascots in '96 !  )))))))|
||)) "What is it, man?!?" ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||Dave Jones ([e-mail]) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY   |

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:13:00 GMT
From: "Robert S. Hill" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cosmic Ray References
Newsgroups: sci.space

Can anyone send (or post) good novice references and/or info on cosmic
rays in the near-earth environment?  I got curious about about how much
particle flux things like computer chips and human beings can expect to
encounter at various altitudes, from sea level to orbital, and I
couldn't seem to find the right handles for this topic in the library.

All I know is that `cosmic-ray hits happen' and I've seen quite a few
of them on raw astronomical digital images.  But can you predict how
many for a given exposure time, a given detector, and a given observing
platform?

Robert S. Hill
[e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Aug 92 14:11:53 GMT
From: J Gourlay <[e-mail]>
Subject: Educational Information
Newsgroups: sci.space

I was wondering if anyone could help out a friend of mine. She is a
school teacher about to embark upon a SPACE project with her pupils and
was wondering if any organisations out there had school information
packs which they sent out free to interested schools. Ideally such
information should be targeted at the 8 to 10 year old age group and it
will be used by all of the school eventually. If anyone can help out
e-mail me or put my address for correspondance to the relative
department.
             Thanks in advance,
                     James Gourlay
                     Dept. of Physics
                     University of Edinburgh
                     Kings Buildings
                     Mayfield Road
                     Edinburgh
                     U.K.
                     ([e-mail])

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

Date: 14 Aug 92 12:32:08 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energiya's role in Space Station assem
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>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.

>Yes, and the cost overruns are truly horrendous.

When done according to government SOP that is true but not when companies
put their own money at risk (like the ATF development) things tend to happen
on time and on budget.

But you are missing the point. Many government agencies routinely make
multi-year commitments even though you insist that Congress will never
support it.

>Name *one* major military procurement that
>proceeded on a fixed price basis with *no* adjustments.

The ATF prototype
LACE
RME
DC-X

I also know of a large number of other programs which where on time and
on budget but I don't know what type of contract they where. They include:

HARM
all paveway procurements I know of
a number of avionics projects I worked on
several radar systems my former employer worked on

>Congress is
>notorious for "stretching out" procurement in a way that saves money
>this year, but adds horrible extra costs in the "out years" if the
>full procurement ever is actually filled.

Not a problem here since I'm not asking the government to spend anything
for development. You still seem to have problems understanding that.

>NASA can't legally sign a binding procurement contract that promises to
>buy X launches for Y dollars from Z corporation over multi-year periods.

Nonsense. They do it all the time. In fact, they are legally required
to operate this way.

Now what they do lack is termination laibility. However that was passed
by the full house last week.

    Allen
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  [e-mail]     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------252 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: 14 Aug 92 12:56:20 GMT
From: Matthew DeLuca <[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] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>Name *one* major military procurement that
>>proceeded on a fixed price basis with *no* adjustments.

>The ATF prototype
>LACE
>RME
>DC-X

We've procured DC-X's already?  How did the first launch go?

(For the sarcasm impaired: these aren't procurements.)
--
Matthew DeLuca                      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Georgia Institute of Technology      P.O. box."
Office of Information Technology                - Zebediah Carter,
Internet: [e-mail]              _The Number of the Beast_

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

Date: 14 Aug 92 16:00:57 GMT
From: Charles Frank Radley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
Newsgroups: sci.space

Attaching Shuttle to Energia :-

Have you figured what kind of saving could be achieved
by flying the Shuttle without its main engines ?
:wq

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

Date: 14 Aug 92 07:16:35 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Germans drop European Shuttle ?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
> <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>>Whilst skimming thru the TV channels last week, I caught sight of the
>>German research minister, Riesenhuber, saying that Hermes was 'unacceptable'
>>(not exact translation) to the German government in either manned or unmanned
>>form.
>
> Hey! He's probably just tired of the way the French have shut down all
> launch vehicle research besides Hermes/Ariane V in ESA...
>
> To wit, Saenger and Hotol...

Could be.  It could also be that the Ariane 5 payload to orbit capacity has
been shrinking steadily, while Hermes weight has been increasing steadily.
Since Hermes is intended to be launched on Ariane 5, the combination of these
two factors is not good.  The last I heard, Hermes had a payload capacity of
800 pounds (excluding the three astronauts).  Since there are a plethora of
small rockets that can launch an 800 pound payload fairly cheap, it doesn't
make a lot of sense to spend billions of dollars/marks/francs on a new method
of dropping 800 pounds of payload in orbit.

--
Brian Schar   |  [e-mail]
McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company, Huntington Beach, CA
Disclaimer:  Any opinions here are mine, not my employer's.  Any facts are in
the public domain.
____________________________
Andre Marrou & Nancy Lord: Vote Libertarian for President & VP in 1992!

Getting the Power Back to You: Richard Boddie & June Genis--U.S. Senate--CA

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

Date: 14 Aug 92 13:31:22 GMT
From: Richard Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: He3 Power Source
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Martin) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (thomas.vandoren) writes:
>>Subject: He3 Power Source
>>Distribution: world
>>Organization: AT&T
>>   About 2 weeks ago I saw a series of 5 minute modern videos of great interest.
>>One of them was about a proposal to use Helium3 mined from the moon as a power
>>source on Earth.  One of the claims was that the value of one shuttle load
>>of He3 was a couple billion dollars or something in that order when computed
>>relative to the power output it would provide.
>Maybe, but shuttles don't go to the moon, and even if they did, there's nowhere
>for them to land.
>>   Does anyone have more info, opinions on that proposal?  If it is true it
>>would seem that there may be some kind of business case for lunar operations.
>>My only concern or potential skepticism is how easy is it to develop an
>>He3 power plant?  I mean are we talking something as hypothetical as fusion
>>power, or something that does have a reasonable chance of being developed
>>in the near future.
>Last time I looked, He3 was only really significant in fusion power.
>>   The video mentioned how He3 as exhaust from the sun doesnt make it to the
>>Earth's surface due to the atmosphere or magnetosphere but does get absorbed
>>into the lunar soil.  It showed proposed lunar surface strip mining machines
>>that would filter out the He3 and replace the regolith behind it thus having
>>minimal environmental impact.
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I get a big kick out of this term being used to describe the moon.  It's a rock.
>There is no environment.  Well, sorry, there is.  But not in the sense which
>has been used down here--you don't have to worry about ecology (there is none)
>nor about noise pollution (none of that, either).  Mining could make a pretty
>bad mess of the place, but I don't know what proportion of the worry is simply
>aesthetic.
>>Other items such as oxygen and water could be
>>extracted at that time as well.
>Solar panels and batteries can supply water for the moon--I'd concentrate on
                                       ^^^^^
Read energy here, I don't know what's wrong with me these days.
>getting the O2 and H2O, before mucking about with stuff which is apparently
>just as rare, but not necessary to life.
>>  How hypothetical is this and is it practical?
>>
>>Lee
>>
>I don't really know, but it was fun heckling you.  No.  Any excuse to go to
>the moon is good enough for me, actually.  Just think--if we can get He3 out
>of the regolith, we've got it in situ, and we can build _massive_ tokamaks
>up there.  (Sink it in the rock, power it with solar, and don't worry, the
>nearest population centre is a good few light-seconds away--heck, if you can
>figure out a way of harnessing the power of explosions, you could do it there!)
>
>Oh dear, it makes me think of the _Usbourne Book of the Future_ I was given
>several years ago.  Copyright 1979.  When I read it, I don't know whether to
>laugh or cry.
>
>Seriously, though...
>no offence meant, and I'm getting a little tired about reading about ACRVs.
>Richard. =)
>--
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>Richard Martin                   [e-mail]
>CARP Systems International    "Don't Panic!  Things are
>Kanata, Ontario, CANADA        about to get much worse!"


--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Martin                   [e-mail]
CARP Systems International    "Don't Panic!  Things are
Kanata, Ontario, CANADA        about to get much worse!"

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

Date: 14 Aug 92 11:38:54 GMT
From: "Hugh D.R. Evans" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interstellar Probes - How Fast Can We Go?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says:
>
--- stuff deleted ---
>My question is, how fast can we go? Wouldn't it make more sense to send a
>ion-propulsion probe towards the Sun first to obtain a gravitational boost
>(OK, I know the problems of isolating it from the heat (5000-6000K) and
>radiation near perihelion must be enormous)?

Nahh, just send it at night!   :-) :-).

Hugh.

   Standard Disclaimer...    * Inet:   [e-mail]
                             *     or  [e-mail]
"The road to nowhere is      * SPAN:   ESTCS1::HEVANS
    shorter than you think"  * BITNET: HEVANS@ESTEC

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 11:06:29 GMT
From: christian stelter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mini Energiya(?) & MIR replacement
Newsgroups: sci.space

What you have seen was called Energia-M and is a reduced version of the Energia with only one 2nd stage engine, smaller tanks and only 2 first stage boosters.
The payload shroud was mounted ontop of the 2nd stage and not aside. Main reasons for this smaller version are the need of Energia NPO for a cheaper carrier
with reduced payload capacity.
I heard about this possible configuration during my visit at the Moskow Aviation Inst. in June. But russians are very secret when they pose something new, and
so no other information were available at this time.
The core - module of Mir had some breakdowns and is reduced to 80% of its working level. This, and that it is cheaper to replace this core with a new improved
version than to build a whole new station would result in a decision in this direction

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

Date: 14 Aug 92 10:27:29 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: pigs in space was(Re: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> George William Herbert writes:
>That will, barring massive revision of space law, NOT happen to the
>space near earth 8-)
>The outer space treaty, which has been ratified by all spacefaring
>and most other nations at this time, agrees that there is no territory
>in space, i.e. that no country can "own" space above itself.  China
>was the last holdout, but they signed about 2 weeks after the US brought
>up its nonsignatory status during the Long March launch debate for
>a Hughes-built sattelite a couple of years ago (smart move).
>If you go "into space", normally defined as >100km (62 nautical miles)
>above the earth, then the only laws that apply are those of the launching
>nation.  This is due to responsibility and liability issues (if your
>vehicle rams mine, who's responsible?) etc.  If the US national law does
>not prohibit gambling, then you can gamble on a US station or vehicle.
>If someone else's laws did, then you couldn't.
   Can someone point me towards a fiction work which deals with the
possibility of a group not based in a current spacefaring nation, who
gain relatively cheap and easy access to space, and then proceed to
cheerfully ignore all these self-important treaties ??
   I'd be interested in a work which dealt with how the
major powers would be likely to react, and issues such as where
popular support would be likely to side.
   I've seen several sets of numbers demonstrating that you can chuck
some serious quantities of people and material into orbit if you're not
too fussy about high tech or perfect safety. Now suppose somone did
this for real, and started up the sorts of operations that Allen and
Nick espouse, and decided they were going to do what they liked, without
giving a pair of dingo's kidneys for what anyone else thought. (maybe a
group of space-going Ayatollahs ..).
   What would the likely outcome be ??

 -----------------------------------------------------------------
               ** Of course I don't speak for IBM **
Greg Nicholls ... [e-mail] or [e-mail]
                  voice/fax: [phone]

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

Date: 14 Aug 92 12:40:53 GMT
From: 25612-waelder <navaho!waelder>
Subject: Private space ventures
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (dann cutter) writes:
> Could anybody out there please tell me the current status of the private
> space industry world wide. What comapnies exist... what they have done...
> thanks
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Dann Cutter  Stellar Enterprises* /
> [e-mail]

I would also appreciate this info. It would be good to know
what markets & competition exists.

I personally don't consider NASA to be in a position to
compete with anyone. :-)

Thanks

Stephen Waelder

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

Date: 14 Aug 1992 11:29 EST
From: WENDY WARTNICK <[e-mail]>
Subject: Russian Cosmonaut Pics
Newsgroups: sci.space

I have something that some people may be interested in:

My best friend and her family moved from Russia to the US in 1986.  Back in
Russia, both of her parents were Physics professors.  Her parents, knowing
(even back then...when I was only in 9th grade) that I was a NASA-space
freak, gave me a nifty packet of Russian Cosmonaut pics.  Each 8-1/2x11
"card" (these things remind me of giant baseball cards!) contains a color
picture of a Cosmonaut  and a 5-6 paragraph biography (I think it is a
biography--I can't read russian and, for some  dumb reason, I never asked
my friend to translate!).  On the other side is a pentagon shaped medallian
with a globe, a rocket, and the words: /\ETYNK KOCMOHABT CCCP (which, I
assume, refers to the Russian Space Program).  There are 41 of these cards.

For those of you who are interested...um...I am not sure what we can do.
If you live in Cleveland, I can show them to you.  I do not know how to
make gifs, though I know I can read them on these computers.

Any suggestions?

                WEndy

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

Date: Friday, 14 Aug 1992 10:41:45 CET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Standard s/c Icons for Mimics
Newsgroups: sci.space

We are looking for references to documents (or other sources) which
define standard symbols for on-board components of spacecrafts; e.g.
gyros, thrusters, magnetotorquers, etc. Any help would me mostly
appreciated.

regards,

     Steen Lynenskjold, CRI
     European Space Operations Centre
     Darmstadt, Germany

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 111
------------------------------