Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V15_5/V15NO543.ZIP/V15NO543

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 33KB

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 05:00:06
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #543
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon, 14 Dec 92       Volume 15 : Issue 543

Today's Topics:
                        "trivial engineering"
                                AmRoC
                               DC info
                      DoD launcher use (2 msgs)
                             lunar flight
                      Micro-g in KC-135 (2 msgs)
                       Relay to Follow Galileo?
                            Saturn history
                              spacecamp
                            Space Tourism
                   SR-1 (was Re: DoD launcher use)
       Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...) (2 msgs)
             Voyager's "message"... What did it *say*?!?
               what the little bird told Henry (2 msgs)

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:44:39 GMT
From: Donald Lindsay <[e-mail]>
Subject: "trivial engineering"
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>Somebody (I think it was Goldin) commented recently on a jet engine
>company's recent design of the new engine. The design process cost
>something around a billion dollars - they hope to sell enough to pay off
>the design cost in 20 years. And it wasn't a radical new design

Surely, a commercial jet is harder to develop? For a jet, fuel
efficiency is now crucial, but that's probably at the point of
diminishing returns. Plus, the jet has to be tested across a large
parameter space - different throttle settings (including idle),
different air densities, humidity (and rain), bird ingestion.

I would assume that a rocket engine has slightly different problems
(full tanks vs empty, acceleration vs liftoff, air vs vaccuum) but
that the parameter space is smaller?
--
Don        D.C.Lindsay    Carnegie Mellon Computer Science

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

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 13:48:16 GMT
From: Dean Adams <[e-mail]>
Subject: AmRoC
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (George C Harting) writes:
 >I was wondering if anybody had any recent info about Amroc's Hybrid
 >rocket?

FYI... they have a test firing for one of their latest motors
scheduled on the 15th of this month out at Edwards AFB...

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

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 04:51:54 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC info
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael F. Santangelo) writes:
>  How different will the RL200 be from the RL10-A5's used on DC-X?  Is
>it simply a scaled up version of the same (RL10).

That's the intent, although such scaleups aren't always straightforward.
In this case, most of the bits and pieces have already been tested.

>>It is a separate engine which will be used for DC-Y if built. Some of the
>>RL-200 engines will have extendable nozzles and will be sustainer engines
>>for DCY and others will have non-extandable ones and will be used as
>>boosters. Except for the nozzles, they will be the same.
>
>  How many RL200's would be used on the DC-Y/DC-1 designs?

Four of each flavor, by current plans.

>  Boosters?  on DC?  I take it normal LEO operations would not require
>booster RL200s, but is this sort of a strap-on capability for larger
>payloads and/or more demanding orbital inclinations?

No, it's four engines, out of the eight on a DC, which shut down midway
up.  Booster/sustainer is established terminology for this.  Nothing
falls off.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 13 Dec 92 18:35:45 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: DoD launcher use
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>>The current head of Space Command ran the air war against Iraq and was
>>>hampered by lack of access to satellite images. A vehicle with DC's
>>>turnaround time is just what he needs.
>
>>This puzzles me somewhat. DC would allow a short notice launch of a LEO
>>satellite, but such satellites have very short, and fixed, looks at a
>>given combat theatre. If would seem to me that recon aircraft are still
>>a better choice for tactical recon.
>
>for many applications satellite is better. Recon aircraft are too easy
>to shoot down (especially when doing Bomb Dammage Assessments). In addition,
>every aircraft in the theatre needs services for takeoff, landing, refueling,
>jamming, defense suppression, ATC, fighter cover, and others. Every recon
>sortie you fly looses you a sortie for CAP, bombing, or whatever. In
>addition, satellite images can be made available sooner and are far fresher
>than photos taken from aircraft.

We're talking about Iraq right? No air opposition right? Complete Coalition
domination of the airspace right? SR71s and U2s that can fly above anything
Iraq had right? After 28 years of trying, the SU never managed to down a
SR71 right? Why think Iraq could? What can a satellite do for tactical
recon that a SR71 can't?

Gary

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

Date: 13 Dec 92 21:28:14 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DoD launcher use
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

>>for many applications satellite is better. Recon aircraft are too easy
>>to shoot down...

>We're talking about Iraq right? No air opposition right? Complete Coalition
>domination of the airspace right?

I would hate to base all US defense donctrine on the assumption that ALL air
wars will be just like Iraq. BTW, despite our domination of the air, coalition
aircraft WHERE shot down.

For many applications satellites are more productive. They provide faster
responce and allow scarse aricraft to be better utilized.

>What can a satellite do for tactical recon that a SR71 can't?

Updates of the tactical situation with SR-71 would take about 6 to 8 hours
to get and would be several hours old by the time they get to the local
commanders. Satellite images take seconds to get and are fresh. In the Gulf
war, images just a few hours old would have been useless.

  Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  [e-mail]     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------132 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

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

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 04:48:39 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <[e-mail]>
Subject: lunar flight
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>First of all, by "manned space exploration", I presume you mean travel by
>humans beyond LEO - astronauts sitting in SSF wouldn't count, for instance.

Astronauts sitting in SSF count exactly as much as astronauts sitting on
terra firma:  they may be doing useful work of a number of kinds, but one
thing they aren't doing is exploring anywhere.

>#... Although we cannot yet commit major resources to
>#these goals, they should be among the considerations that guide our
>#science and engineering.
>
>Of course you can quibble over the level of support implied by this
>statement, but I don't think you can reasonably expect to show that
>the above statement represents total opposition to any manned spaceflight
>beyond LEO, "or any preliminary steps towards it, no matter how cheap".

I can't prove it mathematically, no.  But that sure is the way it looks
to me.  The last time I saw wording like that -- "we can't do anything
about it, but we promise we'll remember it fondly" -- was the so-called
"space policy" of the Carter administration.

Let me turn it around:  given that policy statement, what *initiatives*
do you expect from the Clinton administration on manned exploration?
It's rare for new programs to make much progress without active backing
from the administration; the few exceptions have involved strong support
from Congress, also conspicuous by its absence in this case.

>... does not rule out the longer-term goals of coming up
>with a more affordable and sustainable approach, such as developing cheaper
>launch systems, increasing the knowledge base of the life sciences through
>continued microgravity research (Spacelab and SSF), and sending preliminary
>unmanned probes thoughout the solar system - Clinton has spoken in favor
>of all of these...

In other words, he's spoken in favor of continuing existing efforts which
already have political constituencies, some of which happen to provide some
long-term benefit for manned exploration.  As I recall, he also said that
NASA was already taking on too much.

Prediction:  "throughout the solar system" will not include the Moon unless
it is forced on the administration, even though the Moon is the most urgent
candidate for further unmanned exploration in any plan that envisions manned
space exploration resuming in the next couple of decades.

>[queried re men to Mars,] Goldin replied that right now NASA has some
>serious credibility problems regarding technical ability to do ambitious
>projects, to meet timelines, and to stay within budget. He said that before
>NASA can effectively sell new ambitious projects, these problems must be
>addressed convincingly, and he projects that it will take perhaps five
>years to do so...

I have my doubts that he'll be allowed to try resuming exploration even
then.  Griffin offered to prove *his* ability to address these things on
a small scale, gradually working up to larger things as track record and
budget permitted... and Congress wouldn't give him $30M to try.  Never
mind ambitious projects; even tiny ones aimed in that direction haven't
gotten anywhere.

I don't see this changing without the White House pushing.  And I don't
see Clinton or Gore pushing.  "...we cannot yet commit...", with no
hint about when or how this might change, means "shelve it".  Which is
exactly what Goldin has said NASA will do.
--
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

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

Date: 13 Dec 92 17:57:21 GMT
From: Claudio Egalon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Micro-g in KC-135
Newsgroups: sci.space

What causes the microgravity in the KC-135, the centripetal
acceleration at the top of the parabola, which may cancel the gravity
acceleration,  or something else???

[e-mail]

Claudio Egalon

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

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 14:09:35 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Micro-g in KC-135

\What causes the microgravity in the KC-135, the centripetal
/acceleration at the top of the parabola, which may cancel the gravity
\acceleration,  or something else???
/
\[e-mail]
/
\Claudio Egalon

Something Else. MICROGRAVITY about the KC-135's would be
IMPOSSIBLE were NASA not using the SECRET ANTIGRAVITY
TECHNOLOGY developed at WISCONSIN with the help of TOM
BEARDEN'S remembered details of NIKOLAI TESLA'S SUPRESSED
NOTEBOOKS...

Oh, you wanted a serious answer?

Well, for years the OFFICIAL COVERUP has been that bit you
mentioned about the centrifugal acceleration... but YOU must
deceide if that's real or just PROPAGANDA to keep us the AMERICAN
PUBLIC from finding out about the above technology, which
also powers BORIS YELTSIN'S MOON BASE...

After all, how else do you think a mere engineer was able to
head the former SU?

Is there anyone here so mentally impaired they need a smiley somewhere
in this post?
--
Phil Fraering
"...drag them, kicking and screaming, into the Century of the Fruitbat."
<<- Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_
PGP key available if and when I ever get around to compiling PGP...

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

Date: 13 Dec 92 00:38:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Relay to Follow Galileo?
Newsgroups: sci.space


I posted this several weeks ago but it must have gone into a black hole.

Why not send a craft along behind Galileo to relay information back to
Earth at a suitable rate?

                                Lawrie Williams

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

Date: 12 Dec 1992 16:24 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Saturn history
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian Stuart Thorn)

>     Centaur on the Saturn? I think I remember that it was considered
>     as a fourth stage for Saturn 5 (with early Voyager planning?) but
>     I believe you're confusing the RL-10 and the Centaur. RL-10
>     powered the S-IV (predecessor to the J-2 powered S-IVB) but I
>     don't think Centaur ever flew anything other than Atlas or Titan.
>
>     -Brian

The Saturn I/Centaur configuration is the original Saturn I multistage vehicle.
I confirmed this when re-reading General Medaris's book. He specifically
names the Centaur as the Saturn I upper stage.

I also somewhat confirmed the troop transport via missle in the book. General
Medaris does not give specifics so my memory is assuming that the specifics
were laid out in the "Rocket Scientists"

The Centaur was considered as the upper stage (4th) for the Saturn V. That was
to support the Grand Tour by the original Voyagers. This little beastie had
the Nerva as the Third stage with the Centaur as the 4th! Man Talk about
Delta V or lift capability! I saw this scenario carefully laid out in one of
the Marshall books on what was called the "Apollo Applications Program". This
little configuration could lift two Voyager class full up ground tours. Would
have been cool wouldn't it.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: 13 Dec 1992 17:53:35 GMT
From: Claudio Egalon <[e-mail]>
Subject: spacecamp
Newsgroups: sci.space

As far as I know there are two space-camps one in Huntsville (which
is the biggeste one) and another in Florida near KSC. I guess that they
have another one in Kansas but I am not sure.

 [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Dec 92 07:44:43 GMT
From: Hugh Emberson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Tourism
Newsgroups: sci.space

>>>>> On 11 Dec 92 18:43:47 -0600, [e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) said:
Bill> NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

Bill> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
> So, if 350 people will pay
> I think we can assume that this price will provide a big enough market for
> space tourism.  The next question is how much higher it can get before the
> market dries up.  Is there any other data out there?  What's the maximum that
> real people pay for really cool Earth-bound trips?  Anyone ever priced a trip
> to Antarctica?

It costs  NZ$60,000 (~US$30,000) for a guided tour to the top of Mt.
Everest.

Bill> My parents circled Mt. Everest in a jetliner, on a round-the-world
Bill> trip that probably cost them several kilobucks apiece.  How much would
Bill> it be worth to land there?

Don't you mean Mt. Erebus in Antartica?  I can't see anyone landing a
airliner in the close to Mt. Everest.

Air New Zealand used to fly DC-10's around Mt. Erebus, until they flew
one into it.

Hugh
--
Hugh Emberson -- CS Postgrad
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:21:08 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: SR-1 (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>>Using DC itself as a recon platform
>>>seems like serious overkill,
>>
>>Not DC itself. DC simply launches the satellite.

>Actually, why not DC itself?  It's the ultimate recon aircraft:  pictures
>of any location in the world (weather permitting) within an hour of takeoff,
>operation far beyond conventional SAM envelopes, and no need for vulnerable
>and costly forward operating bases.

And since the payload integration is modular you can stick in sensor packages
at will to compensate for the clouds or night over the target.

>You pay for this, of course, in very
>high fuel consumption and high wear-and-tear costs (more expensive vehicle
>with a shorter lifetime).  Large-scale use would perhaps be too expensive,
>but using a squadron of suitably-equipped DCs -- call it, say, the SR-1 --
>as the high end of a spectrum of recon aircraft is not ridiculous.

>Nobody will build hypersonic recon aircraft if spaceships are already
>available and cheap enough.  The SR-1 may not be good enough, but the
>SR-2 or SR-3 probably will be.

My first reaction would be that DC wouldn't be cost effective since we seem to
have operational hypersonic recon aircraft.  Then I realized that DC is likely
to get cheaper much faster than Aurora type technology because it's simpler.
Then I realized SSTO technology may _already_ be cheaper since we don't know
what the cost of an Aurora might be (and there's leeway for it to be _very_
expensive).

So yes, I agree with Henry that SSTO could make the NRO very happy.
--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
                        Ho^3     !=L

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

Date: 13 Dec 92 17:47:59 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Titan IV is turning into a bigger hanger queen than Shuttle ever
>>was, DC-1 is a paper airplane, etc. A more intelligently designed
>>spacecraft is badly needed to replace Shuttle, but the DC program
>>isn't it.
>
>Interesting.  DC-1 isn't a viable replacement for the Shuttle
>because it's a "paper airplane."  Of course, any new design
>will be a "paper airplane."  If we reject every design before
>it's even built, we'll never have a replacement.

No, the fact that it's still a paper airplane means it may not
work, just like many prototype aircraft do not work and are
scrapped. If it works, then see below.

>>It may be *part* of a fleet of specialized vehicles that
>>replace Shuttle, but it can't do many of the things that Shuttle
>>is capable of doing,
>
>No space vehicle is capable of doing all the things the Shuttle
>is capable of doing (in theory).  Trying to design a single launch
>vehicle capable of satisfying every possible user and every possible
>mission is as ridiculous as designing a single "national airplane"
>capable of carrying out every military and civilian air mission.

Yep.

>>lifting large payloads,
>
>Most large payloads are not solid chunks of metal.  They are assemblages
>of smaller parts.  If the cost of space transportation drops far enough,
>it will become feasible to assembly some of those pieces in space. That
>reduces the need to carry large payloads.

If the cost per pound of space transportation drops enough, we won't want to
do *any* space assembly since that's very expensive, difficult, and time
consuming. Only if space transport remains high cost will space assembly
be worthwhile, at least until we are much further down the learning curve
of doing assembly work in space.

>>carrying large crews,
>
>True, a passenger version of the DC-1 couldn't carry more than
>about 20 people.  Of course, the Shuttle can only carry 7-10.
>What's your point?

The Shuttle can carry large *working* crews while the proposed DC would
carry sardine packed *passengers* because there's no room for them to work.
That point should be obvious.

>>support Canadarm,
>
>I don't really see why not, as long as the arm can be folded to
>fit the DC's cargo bay.  Of course, a man in a space suit is more
>versatile than Canadarm and, if the transportation costs are low
>enough, cheaper too.

The current arm cannot be made to fit the proposed DC payload bay,
a new one would have to be designed with either considerably less
capability, or some very intricate folding geometry. That's probably
only a billion dollar project so it would likely be done if DC works
out. Spending two days in a spacesuit isn't likely to be either practical
or cost efficient. As we've found out from Shuttle, work in a suit is
slow and cumbersome. The CIS has offered suited Cosmonaut time at $5 million
an hour and their guys are already in orbit. With a new suit design ($$)
and *two* DCs, one with a shirtsleeve bay and airlock and the other with
the cargo hold and arm, you could do a refurbishment of Hubble or a satellite
recovery, if you worked fast and didn't hit any snags that required a
new plan of attack requiring an on orbit stay in excess of two days.
Some things are just easier with a bigger vehicle that has both a crew
space *and* a cargo bay at the *same* time and that can stay in orbit
for 10 to 30 days.

>>Compare SSTO to Proton, the payload capacities are similar. SSTO has
>>to beat Proton costs and reliability to be a success. $300 a pound
>>is a difficult target. Of course CIS prices are likely to increase
>>once the fire sale is over.
>
>Why?  I can buy a ticket to Australia for $1100.  With my luggage,
>I weigh well over 200 pounds.  That's less than $5.50 a pound.
>
>It takes less energy to put a pound of payload into orbit than
>it does to fly it through the atmosphere to Australia. Why should
>it be difficult at 60 times the price?

It requires even less energy to just winch payloads into space, but
that doesn't mean that there aren't other constraints than energy
on operating the system. Fuel costs are a minor component of launch
costs.

>There is a common view, nothing more than a technological superstition,
>that space transportation must be hideously expensive because rockets
>are so complex.  But a rocket engine is conceptually much *simpler* than
>a turbojet.  There is no reason it should cost an order of magnitude
>more to build and operate.

Rockets aren't more complex, an SRB has fewer moving parts than a 747
engine for example. But that doesn't automatically mean that an SRB
is cheaper per mile to operate. Jets have massive amounts of "free"
air to feed them oxygen and to cool them. They have the benefit of
wings to bear most of the loads so that they don't have to support
the vehicle by brute force as well as move it horizontally to it's
destination. They operate at lower temperatures and pressures than
rocket engines. And their fuel is non-corrosive and storable at
room temperature (though some lower performance rockets share this
feature) Rockets have to work in a more hostile and varied environment
than jets. Man has been building rockets for 2,000 years while he has
only been building jets for 50, but all that experience hasn't translated
into cheap spacecraft yet while cheap jet aircraft are routine. There
must be *some* reason other than government bureaucracy for that.

Gary

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

Date: 13 Dec 92 18:04:22 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
>>>The engines used by every commercial airliner were "radically new"
>>>and "never flight tested" at one time also.  Despite your claims
>>>of "radicalism," the rocket engines are little different from those
>>>we have been building for more than 40 years.  They are a new design,
>>>not a new technology.
>
>>Yes, they are basically a *new* design despite being based on the
>>proven RL-10. Adding throttleability to a rocket engine isn't simply
>>a matter of adding a valve.
>
>By that logic, every jet-engine design is a "radically new technology."
>This "isn't trivial engineering that can be brushed aside by saying
>it's been done before with other engine designs... It *should* work,
>but they won't know until they try it what problems may develop."  For
>some reason, I don't see airliners falling out of sky because of the
>"radically new" engines that are introduced, quite regularly, every
>few years.

That's because you rarely see the prototype engines that blow up in
testing and are discarded for a different design. Nor do you see the
engines that worked, but didn't meet the required performance goals.
A large rocket engine that has to work from sea level to vacuum can't
be completely debugged on a static stand. You've got to actually flight
test them on an orbital vehicle, if they have to restart in orbit,
before you can know if they will meet your design goals. That's
inherently higher risk and higher cost than jet engine development.

>>The aerospike is the alternative design if the variable expander
>>doesn't work out.
>
>Oh?  Well, then, it doesn't sound to me like they "intend to use [it]."
>However, aerospike engines were built and tested as long ago as the
>1960's.  Suffice it to say that your conception of what is and is
>not "radically new technology" is 30 years out of date.

What flight articles were they used on? How many went into orbit and
what was their throttle characteristic? You can't answer because none
have ever flown.

>>>Saying that doesn't make it so.  The engine is about as "radically
>>>new" as a new microprocessor.  The control problem is the same one
>>>that was solved, for ICBMs, in the 1960's.
>
>>That's funny, I didn't know ICBMs did controlled powered landings. I
>>thought they used ballistic re-entry vehicles atop a multistage suborbital
>>rocket.
>
>Oh.  I thought you were talking about the reentry.  No, the controlled
>powered landing was demonstrated, again in the 1960's, by a vehicle
>called the LEM.  Which had the additional requirement of landing solely
>in unprepared fields.

In 1/6th G in vacuum, single engine, with a vehicle that massed less than
1/10th of DC. A totally different environment, totally different control
problem, and totally different scale.

>It's amazing that things we did routinely in the 1960's are considered
>challenging today.  I guess we've lost a lot of technology since then,
>right?

We had cars in 1910 that could go 130 MPH too, on unprepared roads, isn't
it amazing that that's still considered challenging today?

Gary

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

Date: 13 Dec 92 05:47:58 GMT
From: Adams Douglas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voyager's "message"... What did it *say*?!?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (slack) writes:
>[e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>> Pardon the odd question, but is there a recording of the "Voyager Record"
>> available?
>> I've always been interested in exactly what was recorded on it.
>> Simon
>       There is a CD-ROM out called "Murmurs of Earth: The Voyager
>Interstellar Record" from Warner New Media. Check with your local
>Software ETC store.....Saw it in a flyer from them....Also, there
>might be a phono record out with the audio portions on it, if memory
>serves correctly....Don't know where to go for it though.....

Since I _worked_ at JPL for most of the 80's, you all might like this story:
I read the book version of _Murmurs_of_Earth_ about the Voyager record, which
was published in the mid 80's. I was saddened they "reviewed" the enclosed
music and recorded messages without providing a recording as well. So, I
trotted down two buildings to the JPL library and looked in the card catalog.
There _was_ a card for "Voyager Interstellar Record -- audio recording". I
signed for it and was given a tape casette with the admonition: "This is the
_only_ one at the Lab, please give it back intact!" I did them the favor of
making several good copies and giving them three.

Your tax dollars at work!

--
=====================================================================
Adams Douglas   | Always tell the truth, | You can die like the rest,
adamsd@         | then you make it the   | or be one of the best.
crash.cts.com   | other bloke's problem! | - Cyndi n'ha June, 1992
Chula Vista, CA | - Sean Connery, 1971   |




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

Date: 13 Dec 92 18:28:43 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: what the little bird told Henry
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>I appreciated the summary you gave earlier, Henry. It looks like they
>>have a better test program planned than what has been outlined here
>>before. I still think their schedule is extremely optimistic and
>>success oriented, but we'll see.
>
>I'd be curious to know the exact date, sometime in the last 20 years,
>when "success oriented" became a pejorative phrase.  Yeah, the project
>is success oriented.  Just like Project Apollo.  The alternative, I
>guess, is for a project to be "failure oriented."  I like success better.

Success oriented has always been a pejorative phrase in any complex
developmental program that isn't tolerant of major program slippages
and that doesn't have practically unlimited funding to fix problems
as they appear. IE any non-military or commercial program. Any realistic
development program *expects* problems along the way and plans for
alternative approaches if one of the developmental technologies fails
to live up to it's promise. Apollo took extraordinary risks in the
Saturn booster program and suffered near catastrophe at least twice,
either of which could easily have been like the Soviet N-1 failures
instead of the successes they were.

Massive funding and manpower were thrown at the program in an all out
high risk race with the Soviets with no backup if anything were to
go wrong during development that couldn't be rapidly bandaided. We
were good, but we were also incredibly lucky to have a program that
resulted in only one failed mission and one ground fire causing
loss of a crew.

There are numerous examples of aircraft programs where the fast
track success orientation led to unacceptable aircraft. Look at
all the gaps in the P and F series aircraft. Those gaps represent
aircraft that never made it past the prototype stage because of
unacceptable problems that cropped up with the design as development
progressed. Either weight targets were grossly missed, promised
engines didn't materialize with the required performance, or just
that the handling characteristics turned out to be lousy. Ask Mary
about developmental programs. You develop dozens of different
prototypes and hope *one* will be successful in meeting it's performance
goals.

Gary

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

Date: 11 Dec 92 20:08:26 GMT
From: Dan Swartzendruber <[e-mail]>
Subject: what the little bird told Henry
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>They're also heavy as I recall, something you don't need in a SSTO.
>>I appreciated the summary you gave earlier, Henry. It looks like they
>>have a better test program planned than what has been outlined here
>>before. I still think their schedule is extremely optimistic and
>>success oriented, but we'll see.
>
>I'd be curious to know the exact date, sometime in the last 20 years,
>when "success oriented" became a pejorative phrase.  Yeah, the project
>is success oriented.  Just like Project Apollo.  The alternative, I
>guess, is for a project to be "failure oriented."  I like success better.


Look, it's pretty clear (at least to me, and going by some other recent
postings, to other people as well) that Gary has some kind of axe to
grind against the whole SSTO concept.

--

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 543
------------------------------