Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_5/V16NO552.ZIP/V16NO552

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

Date: Tue, 11 May 93 05:00:04
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #552
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Tue, 11 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 552

Today's Topics:
                               Billsats
                         Boom!  Whoosh......
                       Commercials on the Moon
               G. Gordon Liddy mentions T-Shirt at NASA
                Gravitational Lensing  and  Astronomy
                          Info on JSC tours
               landing at Edwards vs. the Cape (2 msgs)
                            Life on Earth
             Low gravity for up to 60 seconds??? (2 msgs)
               Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly? (4 msgs)
                          Pluto Flyby stuff
         U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment
                         Vandalizing the sky
         Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list
                     White Sands Shuttle Landings

    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: Mon, 10 May 93 18:18:06 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Billsats

>I wrote
>>>>I would guess that the best legal and moral basis for protest would
>>>>be violation of private property...

>Fred responds:
>>>Except for one small detail:  I thought it had already been
>>>established that this would interfere minimally, if at all, with even
>>>*professional* astronomers, much less with amateurs.  Damned difficult
>>>to win a case where you can't demonstrate damages, and I don't think
>>>complaining that your sky has been 'besmirched by vile mankind' is
>>>going to get you real far.

>>I don't recall the establishment of the lack of potential interference, but
>>if there is none, I'd agree there would be no point in pursuing compensation
>>for it.   I had no idea that you feel people are vile, Fred ;-)

>Try reading the thread, Tommy, and maybe you'll understand where that
>came from -- not being a reference to my opinion on the matter.

I understand perfectly where it came from, I just don't understand why it
came here.  I was looking for a reason to stop bill-sats, not just a gripe
about them.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \ They communicated with the communists,
[e-mail] 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 9 May 93 21:33:08 GMT
From: Bruce Watson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boom!  Whoosh......
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]+ [e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:
+
+Now, with the talk here about this mile-long space balloon, one thing I'd
+like to know is just how they would manage to pack something that huge into
+the payload shroud of a rocket or into the payload bay of a shuttle?
+And exactly what would it look like from the ground?

The Echo I balloon launched in 1960 was 100 feet in diameter and fit
uninflated into a 28-inch diameter package and weighed 132 pounds.

At a distance of 300 kilometers, one mile subtends 0.3 degrees.
The sun and the moon subtend 0.5 degrees.

--
Bruce Watson ([e-mail])

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

Date: Sat, 08 May 93 13:30:14 GMT+1
From: Author <[e-mail]>
Subject: Commercials on the Moon
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Hans Erik Martino Hansen) writes:

> I have often thought about, if its possible to have a powerfull laser
> on earth, to light at the Moon, and show lasergraphics at the surface
> so clearly that you can see it with your eyes when there is a new
> moon.
>
> How about a Coca Cola logo at the moon, easy way to target billions of
> people.

Well this is about the worst idea I've come a across sofar, lighten up
man not everything is commerce.

Greetings -Peter

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] (Author)                      Stycx BBS [phone]
The responsibility for chance...lies within us. We must begin with ourselves,
teaching ourselves not to close our minds prematurely to the novel,
the suprising, the seemingly radical.                        -Alvin Toeffler



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

Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 16:00:23 GMT
From: Mark Hittinger <[e-mail]>
Subject: G. Gordon Liddy mentions T-Shirt at NASA
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

Today's Liddy commentary mentions engineers at NASA wearing a T-shirt
that states

"WILL BUILD SPACE STATION FOR FOOD"


can somebody on the inside of this send me e-mail about where I could
get one of these excellent collector's items?


--------
Whats back with the wrong-ups?

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

Date: 10 May 93 08:47:59
From: "T. Joseph Lazio" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gravitational Lensing  and  Astronomy
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

>>>>> On Sun, 9 May 1993 20:12:47 GMT, [e-mail] (James Davis Nicoll) said:

jn>     I just read Drake's book on SETI, and in  it he mentioned
jn> that past  about 550 AU, the sun's gravitational lensing effect
jn> could be used   to study other stars. Now,  550 AU is a serious bit of
jn> distance, and current propulsion systems appear to me to make
jn> placing an observational package out that far more time-consuming
jn> than current funding systems make prudent. Is a 550+ AU observatory
jn> (Unmanned, of course) something I might expect to see before I
jn> croak, or is it something  my grandkids might hope to see?

jn>     How de you deliver a payload to 550 AU in a reasonable
jn> (a few decades) time?


 Dr. Gregory Matloff (a co-author of the _Spaceflight Handbook_)
 has visited Cornell a couple of times in the past year to discuss
 his idea of a way to get to 550 A.U.

 His idea is to make use of a solar sail.  A solar sail's propulsion
 is provided by the radiation pressure, i.e. the force of the Sun's
 light.  A solar sail has two advantages.  First, it doesn't require
 an exotic propulsion system, e.g. ion-drive.  A "simple" sheet of
 material can be a sail.  Second, the sail can double as a radio
 receiver.

 With a sufficiently lightweight sail and a small enough payload,
 Matloff claims a cruise time of about 50 yrs. to 550 A.U.
 That was with a 15 m sail.

 Last I heard, the Italian Space Agency was seriously studying the
 idea; the current proposal is for a 100 m sail.

--
                         | e-mail: [e-mail]
   T. Joseph Lazio       | phone:  [phone]
                         | ICBM:   42 deg. 20' 08" N  76 deg. 28' 48" W
Cornell knows I exist?!? |       STOP RAPE

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

Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 03:52:37 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info on JSC tours
Newsgroups: sci.space

Thanks for all the information about the public tours of the JSC.

I just need to get some final information-

Just in case I can't schedule my trip for a weekday, is the Space Center
open on weekends?

Does the souveneir shop take Visa? (silly question, but I don't like carrying
alot of cash- just enough to buy lunch for myself and my friend)

It looks like I'll be there either next week or the week after at the latest,
and I'll post a 'report' about my trip of course :-)

one last thing- about how much time will the visit to JSC take up?

If it doesn't take up the whole day, we'll have to find something else to do
as well, and I'm not sure of anything else in Houston to check out that I
could easily get to.

geez, it just occured to me, the latest issue of Final Frontier (I just started
reading the magazine- good so far!) has the number for the JSC visitor's center
on the back page and it was right in front of me!

anyway, thanks for all the information.  In the next couple of days I'll
be booking the flight and checking on renting a car in Houston.

btw- anyone read the Final Frontier interview with Pete Conrad?
Interesting- he says basically that the Apollo program was winding down
before the first mission ever went up.  He also talks about the DC-X.

Simon

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

Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 03:21:54 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: landing at Edwards vs. the Cape
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Francois Yergeau) writes:
>
>If the aircraft were as safe as a normal 747, it wouldn't be
>bothered more by bad weather in Texas than commercial traffic in the
>area.

The orbiter tiles are relatively fragile and can be damaged by flight
through rain at a few hundred mph...  Naturally, the shuttle carrier
aircraft will avoid rain like the plague...  Is this what you're talking
about?

--
Dave Michelson  --  [e-mail]  --  University of British Columbia

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

Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 10:55:04 GMT
From: "Daniel M. Newman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: landing at Edwards vs. the Cape
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1shldg$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Hayashida) writes:
>
>Space Shuttle is certainly the most successful spacecraft series in
>the history of mankind.  While I understand that the human race can

[etc]

>Space shuttle- more people, more hardware, more trips than any other
>space vehicle.  Who can argue with the numbers?

Presumably you are restricting this argument to manned USA space vehicles.
If not, a brief review of AW&ST 's annual summaries of USSR/Russian
launch activity over the last decade might modify the above.

>Don't get me wrong,

I'm all in favour of both STS and DC-X, but neither should be treated as
a holy grail, which is how it reads from here.  Both systems are only
steps along the way.

--
Dan Newman                               [e-mail]
Department of Aeronautical Engineering
University of Sydney
Sydney NSW 2006
Australia

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

Date: Mon, 10 May 93 18:25:56 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Life on Earth

>>>The sky was never intended to be a billboard (if it
>>>was intended at all!) and hopefully it never shall be.

>>  How do you know ??? Do you have a direct line to God ???
>>Perhaps the sum purpose of life on Earth is to evolve a species
>>who can paint pictures in the sky ...

>No, the sum purpose of life on Earth is to ensure that there continues
>to be life on Earth.

Sorry.  The sum purpose of life on Earth is to evolve to the point where
life can leave Earth and live elsewhere as well.  And we're it.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \ They communicated with the communists,
[e-mail] 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 9 May 1993 22:25 CDT
From: IGOR <[e-mail]>
Subject: Low gravity for up to 60 seconds???
Newsgroups: sci.space

Claudio,

I think I saw that recently on one of nasa's booklet on commercialisation
of space. I think I remember it was an F-104
that it was flying ONE parabola every flight,
and that one could have 0.1g for one minute
and in that minute one could expect 0.03g for 20 seconds....
since it's a fighter (F) there are two spots available one for the pilot
one for the experiment and I remember that it had to be simple ( on/off
toggle)
I think I remember saying to myself that it was not really worth
the trouble and that it was better to fly with the experiment :-).
 I can't remember at which nasa center it was..
dryden ???? or Lewis ????

>Does anyone have any idea which  aircraft is this one, how
>many people  it can carry and how many parabolas it can
>perform? As well as which NASA Center flyes it and whether
> it is still flying or not.


Igor Carron
Texas A&M University

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

Date: 10 May 1993 11:39:59 GMT
From: Dan Vento <[e-mail]>
Subject: Low gravity for up to 60 seconds???
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Claudio Oliveira Egalon) wrote:
>
> Sometime ago I read in a NASA  pamphlet, that there is
> a jet (I guess it is the jet F-105, please correct me if I am
> wrong) which can maneuver to produce up to 60 seconds
> of low gravity. I am wondering if this jet is still flying
> and which NASA Center keeps it. Also how many
> people does it carry and how many parabolic
> maneuvers it can perform.
>
> [e-mail]
>
> Claudio Oliveira Egalon


About 20 or so years ago, Lewis used an F-106 for low-g testing. I don't
recall how long the trajectories lasted, but it was somewhat longer than
the current set of NASA aircraft doing these studies. An AJ-2 was also used
in the 60's. The X-15 conducted some low-g testing near the end of its
lifetime - I don't know how long the trjectories lasted, but I'll bet they
were much longer than the low altitude testing done by the others.

These days NASA JSC has the KC-135 which can do about 30 seconds of so of
low-g and NASA LeRC has a Lear Jet which does about 20 seconds.




Dan Vento
[e-mail]

NASA Lewis Research Center
Launch Vehicles Project Office

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

Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 09:31:06 GMT
From: Jim Kissel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly?
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] () writes:
:
: Even physically, they may be so different from us that diseases may not be
: a problem.  On the other hand, we may be "toxic" to eachother in ways
: that cannot be explained by the disease model.
:
: Peter Schlumpf

Speculation in this direction by organic chemists, from what I have heard
and read, suggests that "they" will be carbon-oxygen-water based.  If not
RNA/DNA based then some very similar compound which preforms the same function.

I would speculate that "they" will be upright and bi-laterally symmertic

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Kissel                            Telephone [phone]
Siemens Nixdorf Information Systems                 344 850 461 (Direct line)
Systems Development Group             Fax       [phone]
Nixdorf House                         Domain     [e-mail]
Oldbury, Bracknell, Berkshire         UUCP       ....{ukc,athen}!sni!jlk
RG12 4FZ  Great Britain

Noli illegitimi carborundum!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 21:16:40 GMT
From: Robert Rubinoff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1s8cj8$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>the alaskan inuit,  met  westerners and seem to have adapted
>quite well.

Hardly.  They have tremendous problems with alcoholism and unemployment (among
other things).

   Robert

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

Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 21:36:33 GMT
From: Robert Rubinoff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1s9n63$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>the boxer rebellion during the 1860's was designed to purge
>china of impure foreigners.

That's a little misleading.  The Boxer Rebellion (in the late 1890's) wasn't
motivated by concern that people were eating too much French food and reading
too many English novels.  Various European governments had essentially taken
over China.  While the Empire still formally existed, much of China had been
divided into "spheres of influence" in which various European countries
controlled what went on.  This situation could be traced back to at least the
Treaty of Nanking in 1842 which forced China to allow Britain to export opium
to China and allowed British subjects accused of crimes in China to be tried
in British courts (a violation of Chinese sovereignty).

   Robert

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

Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 21:44:54 GMT
From: Robert Rubinoff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Philosophy Quest.  How Boldly?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1s9n63$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>the boxer rebellion during the 1860's was designed to purge
>china of impure foreigners.

That's a little misleading.  The Boxer Rebellion (in the late 1890's) wasn't
motivated by concern that people were eating too much French food and reading
too many English novels.  Various European governments had essentially taken
over China.  While the Empire still formally existed, much of China had been
divided into "spheres of influence" in which various European countries
controlled what went on.  This situation could be traced back to at least the
Treaty of Nanking in 1842 which forced China to allow Britain to export opium
to China and allowed British subjects accused of crimes in China to be tried
in British courts (a violation of Chinese sovereignty).

   Robert

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

Date: 10 May 1993 02:46:20 GMT
From: John F Carr <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pluto Flyby stuff
Newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>
    [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>The only known Russian upper
>stage flew once and failed that time.  A big hydrogen stage with a
>Centaur on top of it would probably work out nicely... but that's a
>major engineering job and at least a couple of test flights.

Developers used to expect several test flights and maybe even an explosion
or two before a launcher was ready for useful work.  Has the shuttle, which
was necessarily designed to work right the first time and every time, changed
this attitude?

It would cost some time to test a new upper stage, but not much compared
to a few years of probe designe and construction followed by a 5-10 year
flight.  I'm assuming the group assigned to this project would not spend
a decade and a billion dollars before they're ready to commit to a design.
The upper bound on time and money to design anything in space appears to
be very large if not infinite; you _have_ to assume a reasonable level of
management efficiency to get anything done.

[I've set followup to sci.space -- I'm not talking about the scientific mission
of the probe]

--
    John Carr ([e-mail])

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

Date: 10 May 1993 12:17:46 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: U.S. Government and Science and Technolgy Investment
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,sci.research,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,misc.education

In article <1sh1hn$[e-mail]> [e-mail]. (Gregory McColm) writes:
>
|In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Hart) writes:
|>Socialist Republics.   No knowledgeable person ever tried to pretend
|>this was going to help the economy.  In fact, countries that concentrated
|>their R&D in the private sector (eg Japan) kicked our ass economically
|>in the latter half of the Cold War as rigor mortis set in.  Japan
|
|Much of Japanese R & D success is actually American failure of initiative.
|A number of innovations, from VCRs to fuzzy logic, were American, but
|American corporations were not interested.  If American had not supported
|the basic R & D, then the whole world would have suffered, because the
|woefully inadequate Japanese R & D would not have filled the gap.
|
|Incidentally, American support for pure research goes back almost to
|the colonial era.  Some presidents, like Jefferson and J Q Adams, strongly
|supported it.  In this century, during the first half, there was a lot


Until the 1900's the US didn't even do research in CHemistry.

SUre during the colonial era we had franklin  who was marvelously
productive,  but mos tof the serious universities were in
europe.  In the late 1800's we started to make serious
contributions to electrical science,  but a lot of the big names
were still in europe.

A major advantage the US had was WW1 and 2.  by winning both wars we
were able to steal all of germanys patented processes.  that brought us
aspirin,  dye chemistry,  gas chemistry,  rocketry,  numerous electronic
devices....

also,  because of NAZI persecution, a number of  Top german scientists
fled  to the US  bringing their skills.

essentially if you look at it,  the  40's 50's and 60's  were
more influenced by the spoils of war then by  american commitment
to research.  the 70's  and 80's were more typical.   what was
the advantage, which was unique to america, was that having room
for mavericks,  independent thinkers were able to develope research
outside of any system.

pat

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

Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 15:40:57 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Vandalizing the sky
Newsgroups: sci.space

Ben Delisle 02/15/93 ([e-mail]) wrote:
:     Why not just get enough people to gether to pressure a boycot
: of any product or service that is advertised on a 'space billboard'.
: I for one would go so far as donate part of my meger paycheck to someone
: who can and will shoot it down some how.

[...Ideas for shooting down spacecraft deleted...]

I, for one, would go out of my way to buy products advertised in this
manner.  Anything which promotes the commercial use of space has good
side-effects for the long-term future of humans in space, especially
profit-motivated Americans in space.  If a company can make a profit
out of space, it is highly motivated to do so.  This will enable the
development of a potentially large base of customers who need access to
space, and the laws of supply and demand will dictate the rest of the
story.  Space travel should not be the sole domain of governments, nor
only available to a few astronauts.  Advertising in space may be the
cornerstone for a foundation of "space for the rest of us."

Once you have billboards in space, you'll need to consider repair
crews.  And methods to change the messages displayed on the
billboards.  And methods of preventing sabotage or vandalism, such as
Ben advocates.  You need to consider questions of ownership and
jurisdiction and regulation and profit.  ALL of these questions
pertain to ANY commercial space venture.  I submit that answering
these for space billboards will lay the groundwork for further
commercial exploitation of space.

What language (if any) would one use on a message in LEO which would be
seen by most of the inhabited world?  A logo without words, a picture
of a product, or some universally known symbol (like the "Coca Cola"
logo) come to mind.

:     There was a discussion of the idea of 'space billboards' to advertise
: to the masses on a talk raido station recently. The general consicenous
: was that putting several mile long milar ads into LEO was the greatest
: concept of stupidity of all time. I agree. The man that wants to do this
: is the greatest idiot in all of history.

So you argue that anybody who holds an opinion which differs from
yours, or from the masses fed by talk radio, is "the greatest idiot in
all of history."  Then I'm just such an idiot.  Ideas which promote the
peaceful use of space are my job.  Esthetics are in the eye -- and the
pocketbook -- of the beholder.  And I find the idea of space billboards
esthetically pleasing.  If the financial aspects work, I'd work to
promote space billboards.

:     There are enough problems trying to see the night sky with all the
: light and air pollution we currently experience. As it is now
: one must travel many miles away from any town to see lots of stars
: Such a thing would destory the bueaty and wonder of a stary night.

Just as billboards "destroy" the beauty and wonder of our landscape?
Not hardly.  If you get out of your car, walk a couple hundred feet,
and actually LOOK at the landscape, you don't see the billboards.  The
concept that a billboard destroys a landscape which is pierced by the
largest human construction ever -- the Interstate highway system -- is
ludicrous.  The landscape was "destroyed" by the road.  The billboard
is just decoration, and you can walk away from the road to enjoy the
scenery.  Similarly, if space billboards are eventually launched, there
will be methods for avoiding them.  The simple expedient is to take a
field trip to a higher orbit, which may be made possible by cheaper
access to space.

Space billboards are good.  Bring on the space billboards, sign me up
for a field trip to see the stars.

: [e-mail]  [e-mail]

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [e-mail]  [phone]

     "It is mankind's manifest destiny to bring our humanity into space,
      to colonize this galaxy.  And as a nation, we have the power to
      determine whether America will lead or will follow.

      I say that America must lead."  -- Ronald Reagan

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

Date: 10 May 1993 11:32:18 -0400
From: Jon Leech <[e-mail]>
Subject: Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle

    This notice will be posted weekly in sci.space, sci.astro, and
sci.space.shuttle.

    The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list for sci.space and sci.astro is
posted approximately monthly. It also covers many questions that come up on
sci.space.shuttle (for shuttle launch dates, see below).

    The FAQ is posted with a long expiration date, so a copy may be in your
news spool directory (look at old articles in sci.space). If not, here are
two ways to get a copy without waiting for the next posting:

    (1) If your machine is on the Internet, it can be obtained by anonymous
FTP from the SPACE archive at ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3) in directory
pub/SPACE/FAQ.

    (2) Otherwise, send email to '[e-mail]'
containing the single line:

help

    The archive server will return directions on how to use it. To get an
index of files in the FAQ directory, send email containing the lines:

send space FAQ/Index
send space FAQ/faq1

    Use these files as a guide to which other files to retrieve to answer
your questions.

    Shuttle launch dates are posted by Ken Hollis periodically in
sci.space.shuttle. A copy of his manifest is now available in the Ames
archive in pub/SPACE/FAQ/manifest and may be requested from the email
archive-server with 'send space FAQ/manifest'. Please get this document
instead of posting requests for information on launches and landings.

    Do not post followups to this article; respond to the author.

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

Date: 10 May 1993 10:35:23 -0600 (CST)
From: Pack Rat <[e-mail]>
Subject: White Sands Shuttle Landings

>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fr
>>aering) writes:
>>>Why don't they land at White Sands, New Mexico any more?

And Henry Spencer replied:

[some stuff deleted]

>>It's only a secondary landing site anyway, since it lacks some of the
>>facilities (like the hoist-the-orbiter-onto-the-747 rig) that are needed
>>for efficient handling of a landing.  The dust problem just adds insult
>>to injury.

Not to mention, that if I recall correctly, nearly 100,000 people
turned out to watch the White Sands landing (I did'nt make it).  Those
things are quite popular around here!  I bet it was a real mess with all
the traffic jams and stuff around Alamogordo at the time.

=============================================================
Randy Padgett, Supervisor      BITNET   : ETRAT@TTACS
Academic Computing Facilities  Internet : [e-mail]
Texas Tech University          THEnet   : TTACS::ETRAT
Lubbock, TX 79409-42042  [phone]   FAX [phone]

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

Newsgroups: sci.space

From: Francois Yergeau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: landing at Edwards vs. the Cape
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: 132.203.76.4
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Organization: Universite Laval, Quebec
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 01:34:03 GMT
Lines: 44
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]
Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>The weight is actually not excessive for a 747, as I recall, although
>it's more concentrated than usual for a civilian freighter (hence the
>structural work).  My understanding is that the aerodynamics don't mess
>up the handling much, *if* the shuttle tailcone is on -- which it is
>for all the ferry flights.

The weight is not excessive - Mary Shafer confirmed that to me in
email.  There is, however, substantial added drag which reduces
engine-out capabilities, if nothing else. And there must be some more
subtle aerodynamic effects which make the combination trickier to
handle.  If the aircraft were as safe as a normal 747, it wouldn't be
bothered more by bad weather in Texas than commercial traffic in the
area.

>Landing the 747 is still a whole lot safer than landing the shuttle.
>Not only is it a much better-handling aircraft, but it has *power* --
>it can try again if something goes wrong with a landing.

While true, this argument is bogus.  NASA is not trading a shuttle
landing against the ferry trip.  It's "Cape landing (scary)" vs
"Edwards landing (less scary) + ferry trip (additional risks)".  The
question is, how does the equation balance.

>>... losing a
>>few days per flight may not semm like much, but adding them up over a
>>year probably means losing one flight...
>
>But they don't add!  The ferry time for flight N overlaps with the
>preparations for flights N+1 and N+2 at least.  Only the ferry times
>for *the same orbiter* add.

Sorry, I overlooked that, and consequently overestimated the benefits
of Cape landings.  Mea culpa.  NASA, however, has weighed the
remaining benefits against the (probable) safety deficit, and favors
KSC despite its "safety above all in manned space" culture.  That's
food for thought for those who, like me, cannot accurately assess the
above safety equation for themselves.

--
Franois Yergeau ([e-mail]) | Qui se fait brebis le loup
Centre d'Optique, Photonique et Laser    | le mange.
Dpartement de Physique                  |
Universit Laval, Ste-Foy, QC, Canada    |

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 552
------------------------------