Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_5/V16NO589.ZIP/V16NO589

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 37KB

Date: Wed, 19 May 93 05:00:16
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #589
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 19 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 589

Today's Topics:
                        HST re-boost mission.
                        PLEASE give it a rest
                    Questions for KC-135 veterans
                 Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games
            Space Marketing would be wonderfull. (2 msgs)
               Vandalizing the sky-something is moving
                     Who is Henry Spencer anyway?
Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?) (2 msgs)
             Yoo hoo, White Sands? (was Re: DC-X Status?)

    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: Tue, 18 May 1993 12:14:29 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: HST re-boost mission.
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <1suvri$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:



>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <1seuk9$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>
>|
>|You're the one who wants to justify this 'cobble', Pat.  You can't
>|justify risking a $1G instrument by waving your hands and saying, "It
>|will cope."
>|

>And every time i say it needs further analysis,  you promptly
>hop up on your soapbox and  snidely claim, i wouldn't
>know it if i saw it.   hardly constructive criticism, fred.

And every time I level any criticism, constructive or otherwise, what
the response is is snide comments like "you have heard of X, no?",
even though you were apparently clueless about X and hadn't even
considered it until someone pointed out a flaw in your handwaving.

>i am assuming the HST is fundamentally axially symetric on it's mass distribution,
>and that any ESMT(expendable space manuevering tug)  would also
>be fundamentally  axially symetric on the thrust vector even
>during  fuel burns.   THis  is not really a large leap of faith,
>and that any small  errors  i am assuming would  be covered by
>the GNC(Guidance Navigation and COntrol  system).

>Do you see anything fundamentally wrong with these assumptions?

Yes.  You haven't come up with a good way to attach yet, and you
shouldn't just 'assume' the mass distribution of HST -- this has to be
on record somewhere, no?  You also shouldn't 'assume' that your GNC
will magically be able to correct, since this will require additional
engine burns.

>|>Considering that Bus1  already has a full set of GNC hardware,
>|>I somehow doubt  that it lacks the basic capacity.  Of course,
>|>i am still waiting for the basic specs to be de-classified.
>|
>|Well, except for more tankage, more engines, a spatter shield,
>|explosive connection devices, maybe a couple of arms so it can attach
>|the bolts, ...
>|

>Maybe  more tankage,  the thing is already  pretty capable.  i think
>it uis used on  atmospheric diving  missions.

>Engines may need uprating  for an extended burn.  nobody knows the
>burn rating on the engines.  i assume they are already rated for
>re-light,  it's just an ESMT  mission may require  appx 600 seconds
>of burn time,  and no-one knows what the burn time of the
>existing motors are.  it's still classified.

>The spatter shield is just a proposal  to reduce contamination
>which seems  to be your  Hot Button.  assuming the flight
>vectors are well  done,  the contamination may not be relevant.
>as you refuse to recognize,  the STS  RCS system  has a potential
>to hose the HST down with hyydrazine fumes too.   my idea at least
>puts all the thrusters  behind the direction of flight.

Until you need to slow down, circularize the orbit, or do any of a
number of other things, including back your 'tug' away from HST after
you get where you are going.

>Any arms,  would be  field assembled brackets.  id imagine the
>astronauts would  EVA out and  attach them to some of the
>AFT  handles on the HST.  Do you think NASA is incapable of
>bending some metal for this?  after the mission,  a cutting
>charge would seperate these  from the ESMT.  sure the bracket
>stubs  may  end up attached to the HST,   but  they shouldn't
>affect  the continuing mission.

If you have to have astronaut up there to do all this work, just how
many missions do you need for this 'cobbled' design to pay for the
cost of doing it?  The incremental savings appear quite small unless
you presuppose some much cheaper way of getting an astronaut or two up
there to do the work in the first place.  How different must your
design be for the few missions for which it is needed in order to be
able to attach to all that different hardware (or is this supposed to
be a 'use it once a chuck it' kind of thing?)?

>|
>|Gee, mindreading now, Pat?  I certainly 'hate' your approach to it,
>|which is that you like it and flame down anyone who questions you on
>|it or points out problems.  I don't care if you have your cat sign off
>|on it.  Either explain how you adjust for the flaws (or at least show
>|that you bothered to think about them) or don't expect anyone to give
>|your idea any credibility.
>|

>Fred, me flame?  hardly.  get long pedantic  and fixated,  yes.
>but flaming is much more  your thing.

Sure it is, Pat.  Do you read your own notes?

>|>>>You have heard of explosive bolts?
>|>>
>|>>Oh yes.  Not exactly the sort of thing I'd want to use for detaching a
>|>>tug from service points on a $1G instrument.  They are, after all,
>|>>*explosive* bolts.  They're not named that for the fun of it.
>|>>
>|
>|>Let me know when terrorists start using these to blow up the
>|>world trade center.
>|
>|Cute, but stupid.  This seems to be the tone for most of your remarks.
>|

>Gee fred.  it may really help you to do a little  research before
>you call names.  Did you know  the the HST has several
>explosive seperators internally?  inside the optical path?
>they are used as emercgency  devices  if an optical  instrument
>freezes up and blocks the other instruments.

Gee, Pat, it may really help you to do a little research before you
call names (and saying an *idea* or *remark* is stupid is not 'calling
names').  You seem to still be making lots of 'assumptions' that you
have no data to verify.

>and considering the HST is rated  for  shuttle take off and
>landing and EVA activity,  it is designed  for people
>banging around it, and  3 G  vibration.  somehow i think
>any explosive seperator can be kept within these limits.

>The lockheed guys claim their  super zip  seperator  will only
>apply a 1 g shock.   Are you going to accuse them of lying?

More bullshit from Pat.  No, Pat, I'm not going to "accuse [anyone] of
lying".  This type of remark certainly leads me to accuse you of *not
thinking*, though, if this is the only way you can 'defend' your idea
(and so far, it appears to be).

>|>My understanding from talking to one of the lockheed people
>|>is that the shock from firing their patented contamination
>|>free explosive bolt the super zip seperator, is that the
>|>g-shock is under 1 gee.
>|
>|Yes, but I question whether any explosive bolt is 'contamination
>|free', any more than you're going to find a watch that is truly 'shock
>|proof' or 'water proof'.  I think you can expect both small metal
>|particles and residue from combusted explosive when those bolts go.
>|You mgith also want to consider what a 1g jolt does to the solar
>|panels.  I don't know if they will take it or not -- do you?  Or have
>|you just 'assumed' once again that everything will work and that
>|anything that doesn't will fail in benign ways?
>|

>Why don't you read up on the device?   zero gas products,  and they
>have a 99% reliable  zero particle release system.  they think
>it's actual quality is much higher,  but they haven't spent the
>money to test it further.  it's still the best device on the market.

>Tell you what.  You write  lockheed,  get the data, and you
>use your brilliant mind to see how good the device actually is.
>It might be more productive then sitting in the dark and
>griping.

Tell you what.  It's your proposal.  Do your own legwork.  I'm afraid
you're going to have to explain to me, though, how any explosive
(which work through production of high-energy gasses, after all) can
be classified as 'gas free'.  Use your own "brilliant mind", Flamer.
You might also like to explain to me how you shear a bolt using
*anything* as sudden as an explosive and yet leave *zero* particles.

>I would hope that a $1G instrument is designed to take a little
>shock and vibration.  of course  given it's poor  performance
>to date,  maybe it hasn't been.   that might be part of the problem.

Why would it be if that isn't an expected thing it would need to do
during its mission?  Just so that the Pat Plan can work at a later
date?  Sounds like Boondoggle City to me, fella.

>|>But I forget these are *explosive* bolts.  and of course
>|>you know more then I do.
>|
>|Well, so far it seems so, judging by your inability or unwillingness
>|to seriously discuss any of the shortcomings of your proposal, or even
>|behave as if they had occurred to you.
>|

>AS if you have seriously discussed anything either?

I gave you quite a list of potential problems so far.  Your only
response has been snide flames and handwaving about how "it will
cope".

>You wave around an idea like contamination,  like a red flag,
>but never actually  discuss  the parameters that it exists in.

While you don't consider it at all or handwave it away.

>|
>|Assuming, of course, that there are attachment points aft.
>|
>|>Somehow, id imagine any ESMT would also be mostly axially
>|>symetric,  and given the space  inside a BUS1,  there should be
>|>plenty of space for  atttaching trim weights.  You have heard
>|>of trim weights.
>|
>|Yes, I have.  Who's going to adjust them on orbit?  Let's see what
>|we're up to, now.  We have bigger engines, more tankage, an attachment
>|unit with explosive bolts (assuming you want to drill holes in the
>|unit to be moved to attach them), and now we have a bunch of chunks of
>|pig iron for trim weights.  We also, presumably, have some mechanism
>|for moving the weights around under remote control, unless this
>|vehicle is supposed to be a one-shot and/or we assume that there are
>|no changes in center of mass of the vehicle as you burn fuel and/or we
>|assume that all payloads will have the same mass distribution around
>|some axis (at the end of which they will all presumably have holes
>|drilled for attachment of your explosive bolts).
>|

>Who has to adjust  any trim weights in orbit?   the  HST is well
>enough documented,  that any trim weights would be installed on the ground.

>and as for other missions,  that's  for other missions.

You also seem to assume a pretty exacting degree of precision in how
this thing is going to attach to a payload that was never designed to
have anything like this attached to it.  Just how much pig iron are
you proposing to boost as 'trim weights'?

>|
>|Ok, we're now up to: bigger tanks, bigger or more engines, a spatter
>|shield, a system of explosive bolts for attachment, a dynamic
>|ballasting system for mass distribution control, reaction wheels
>|and/or magneto-torquers.  Yep, sure sounds like we don't even need to
>|test it, being as it's based on that good old reliable Bus1.
>|

>I think the Bus, already has most of these systems.

You *think*?  I see.  In other words, this will work because it's the
Pat Plan and it will function via PFM.

>|Oh, and please settle on an acronym for what you want to call this
>|cobbled-together 'thing' of yours.
>|

>If you tried reading rather then  flaming,  you'd see i use
>the term ESMT (Expendable space manuevering tug).  i've used
>it in other posts.

As you have used other things.  If you would read and respond
reasonably, rather than flaming, perhaps this discussion would be
going somewhere.

>|>And please cite,  where you read that *explosive* bolts
>|>Float contaminants  all over the place?  my understanding is they
>|>are scored to neatly break up.  and lockheed markets a contamination
>|>free explosive seperator,  but that just  wouldn't fit your
>|>view of the world.   After all, it was designed by a PE.
>|
>|I wouldn't bet on it (being designed by a PE).  Were I you, I would
>|also check just how much contamination something can have and still be
>|'contamination free'.
>|

>WHy don't you call lockheed and ask them.  ?

Why don't you do your own legwork to back up your own silly flaming
remarks?

>|>and also,   you have never explained, how a constantly accelerating
>|>package,  with the occasional  thruster burn  from the aft, would
>>>have  particles  go forward and around into the optics.  ASsume
>>>that  no RCS jets are pointed forward.  all thrusters are perpendicular
>>>to the direction of velocity or point aft.
>>>i would be curious to see your explanation.
>>
>>Gee, Pat, at some point you have to do things like turn, circularize
>>the new orbit, move your little cobbled-together 'thing' away from the
>>HST, etc.  Is that enough for you to work on, or do you need some
>>more?
>>

>Gee,  I always thought  circularizing burns  were conducted
>in the direction of flight at the Apogee?  how does that
>put reaction products forward?

>Any turns  can be done  by the reaction wheels.

No, *spins* can be done by reaction wheels (assuming they exist);
turns in space take *ENGINE BURNS*.

>And a move off  can be conducted by  spring seperators,  and
>then use  reaction thrusters  once a little ways off.

Ok, add spring separators to the list of things you're adding to this
'off the shelf' vehicle.  And you still have to worry about an engine
burn or two at some point.  How long does it take you to move away on
the impetus of your spring separators and how far will your engine
plume travel?

>You forget,  when the HST was deployed,  what deployed it?
>the shuttle?  and how did it do it?  by some fancy flying
>to keep  the thrusters  pointed away.   What says the ESMT
>can't  do the same thing?

Any of a number of things.  Just how many engines does this thing have
and how far off its center of gravity are they?  How does it 'let go'
(explosive bolts and spring separators?) and just how much 'brain' can
it have with no one on scene (and if there *is* someone on scene, it
makes more sense to use however the hell they got there to move it in
the first place, eliminating the need for your tug).

>>
>>>So do you come up with original ideas,  or just  criticize everyone
>>>else?  Do you get paid to do this at work?  What a job title.
>>>staff kvetch.
>>>:-)
>>
>>If you can't stand the criticism, I would suggest you think your ideas
>>through better before you start touting them as 'the' solution to a
>>problem we don't even have right now.
>>

>Gee fred.  according to you we dont have a problem.  you must be one
>of those people who says the deficit doesn't matter either.

Gee, now there's a real constructive, non-flaming remark, Pat.

>as i see it,  there is a problem.  Do you know what it is?
>the problem is the  re-boost mission  parameters  make  the
>alllowed weight to the STS  very small.  enough so they cant
>carry EDO packs,  spare suits,  the other  repair hardware.

>all because the  massive STS  has to tow the HST up to
>it's terminal orbit.   Everytime,  they increase the
>spacewalking budget,  they are  sacrifing re-boost fuel.

I thought this had already been debunked by someone else.  You *do*
read the postings, don't you, Pat?

>AN ESMT may allow  both missions to co-exist without one
>stealing from the other.  That's teh problem as i see it.

So instead of extra fuel for the orbiter, they have to tote this huge
piece of hardware for your 'space tug', fuel for *it*, connection
hardware, even more spacewalk time to attach it, etc.  I don't think
this is a sufficient win to warrant the cost of the developing the
thing, Pat, and all you've put forward so far to try to 'prove' that
it is  is a bunch of sniping and flames (like the snotty comments in
the very note I'm replying to).

>>
>>Oh, I see.  Now on top of simply assuming away problems and assuming
>>in benign failure modes, Pat will just handwave away criticism as
>>"groundless".  Sure, Pat.  *I* am realy impressed with this idea now!
>>
>>Yeah, it has to be good enough.  You haven't demonstrated that it will
>>be, or that you've even given any thought to potential problems.
>>Nothing like that 'sound engineering analysis', is there, Pat?
>>

>I somehow think the folks at marshall could conduct the proper
>analysis,  and document it.

I somehow think that if you want to justify something you have to do
more than say that other people will have to figure it out for you.

>But i forget,  they are busy  working on Fred,  and cant
>work on other tasks.

>>>And so what is so different from a KH-12  and a HST.  they are both
>>>in low orbit,   they use 2.5 meter optics,  and quality of optical,
>>>IR and near UV collection is vital.   A KH-12, like the HST is the maximum
>>>size bird for the HST.
>>
>>Someone else already answered this.  If you don't think mission
>>affects the design of the instrument, I don't know what anyone can do
>>to convince you.
>>

>AS was pointed out,
>the KH-12  doesn't look into high UV,   but how many intruments
>on the HST  use this?

Ah, so since only one or two instruments use it, it's ok to hose those
so that the Pat Plan can go ahead?

>and show  how the STS has less contamination?  oh i forget,
>bigger mass,  acts as ashield.   you better hope
>the forward RCS thrusters don't fire.

Planning via 'hope' is your forte, from what we've seen so far.
Planning via planning seems to work better for me.

>>
>>One big difference is that one is designed into the spacecraft from
>>the start while the other is 'cobbled together' and then just pasted
>>onto the instrument with explosive separators.  Different instruments
>>on HST, some of which are more sensitive to contamination than others.
>>Because it was designed to have thrusters in it, KH-12 probably is
>>built to minimize possibility of contamination of the optics (through
>>use of isolation, doors, location of optics vice thrusters, or any
>>number of other things).  Was HST?  One is an astronomical instrument,
>>Pat.  That leads to a somewhat different design than an earth
>>surveillance package.
>>
>>>>>so somehow, i dount that stray CO2, or H2O  would really wreck
>>>>>up the HST.
>>>>
>>>>I don't consider "well, Pat doubts it will be a problem" to be
>>>>particularly convincing.

>WHy don't you cite some sources,then, or some people who
>actually do this for a living.  I at least got to talk
>to some of lockheeds  people who work on these for a living.
>and none of them were real freaked out with the concept.
>and Lockheed built the HST.

Color me unimpressed, Pat.  You want to 'sell' the idea -- it's not up
to me or anyone else to do your legwork for you.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 12:16:59 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: PLEASE give it a rest
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes:

>Pat sez;
>>>What i am doing is engaging
>>>in a little intellectual speculation, for which i lack enough
>>>data to do the full analysis.

>Fred responds;
>>No, what you're engaging in isn't "intellectual speculation", or you
>>wouldn't be flaming people for pointing out flaws in your plan.

>Fred, I know one person who considers 'pointing out flaws in the plan'
>as ample reason to flame the pointer ad nasuem, with the claim "He
>insulted me first".  I see about equal flaming from both of you, BTW.

>If you two would stop getting into this so much, we could all learn
>about Pat's idea to see what he's actually getting at.

He's 'getting at' something that was considered and rejected as
uneconomic.  See the posting by Henry on same.

>When I have to page through 150 lines of flame to get to one or two
>lines of actual discussion, interspersed with flame, it makes me wonder
>if there isn't some actual discussion interspersed with the flame
>in the rest of the post, that is hidden behind all the witty repartee,
>and opinions about each other's sex lives :-) I may be missing someting.
>Nothing personal Fred, but your synopsis of Pat's idea doesn't really
>cut it, when it appears you have such strong feeling against it.  If
>you didn't insult so much, I probably would trust your 'disinterested
>reasoning' more.  It seems like a filibuster, the way you go on.

Perhaps things would cool out if you could keep your fine Italian hand
out of it.  Not like you're exactly an unbiased observer, is it,
Tommy?

>Pat, maybe you could ignore Fred for a bit, and just post your idea,
>in the whole, now that Fred has given you some issues to consider, maybe
>prefacing it with a disclaimer as above?

It appears that Pat would rather flame down any disagreement than
justify the Pat Plan on its merits.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 11:38:49 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Questions for KC-135 veterans
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (IGOR) writes:

>we used a PC-XT and read and wrote during the 2-g's period, It did fine.
>same thing for a 486 clone. I also know some other people who used a
>Mac II with hard dirve and they never seem to have a problem. For the drive,
>if you think you may have some problems you may want to make it stand up on the
>side so that the Gees won't affect too much the writing on the disk or on the
>hard disk....

Hmm.  I would think being on edge would be *worse*, since that might
make the tracks unsymmetrical around the spindle due to the sideways
force on the head.  Older drives used to tell you to reformat if you
were going to stand the drive on edge; at 3+g, this side force might
even be a problem for new drives.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 11:42:29 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellite Capabilities-Patriot Games
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dean Adams) writes:


>[e-mail] (Thomas Clarke) writes:

> >>I expect Hollywood has exaggerated for dramatic effect.  X-ray
> >>vision from orbit is just not available.
> >I think the imagery was supposed to be in the infrared.

>Yes... the main "exaggeration" I thought of is that they were showing
>it as LIVE VIDEO.  I doubt very much if that is how the sats work.

I think you can safely bet that there is real-time imagery capability
available.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: 18 May 1993 10:50:53 GMT
From: victor yodaiken <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines

In article <1t9b8j$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey L. Cook) writes:
>This object would not interfere with anyone's enjoyment of the night sky
>(it would be invisible at night), nor would it have any significant
>impact on astronomical observations.  I suspect there must be some kind
>of underlying agenda coming to the surface when, in spite of this,
>people are so quick to shrilly denounce and condemn something that would
>so vividly demonstrate the strength of Western capitalism.
>

How clever of you. Nobody could really be upset at the idea of looking
up and seeing commericials in the sky or having all of life reduced to
an exchange of commodities and huckstering, so it must be a damn communist
plot to discredit our peculiar kind of freedom.  Same goes for all pollution
controls: those smokestacks demonstrate strength, only luddite communist
technophobes could object to a nice visible plume that would demonstrate
the strength of western capitalism.

--


[e-mail]

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

Date: 17 May 93 17:56:45 PST
From: Joe Katnic <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.astro,talk.politics.space,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (OPIRG) writes:
>
>Did anyone suggest "orbiting billboards" were "the worst thing"?
>
   NO. However a few things to note.

   1. A company is planning to spend money on space that is not directly
      space related. I.E. lauchers etc
   2. This joins Communications Satellites as a source of revenue for
      space related activities.
   3. Sooner or later these various companies will cause the space
      hardware manufacturers to provide cheap alternatives for launching
      payloads.
   4. Someone will decide that they can make money from launch services
      and will out bid NASA facilities.
   5. This will tend to lower the price of payload.
   6. This means that ASTRONOMERS will be able to plan further space
      based telescopes cheaper than the current one.

      Space Marketing would be wonderfull..
      Q.E.D.

--
Joe Katnic  Perth, Western Australia  [e-mail]      _--_|\
                                   (ALT: [e-mail])     /      \
"A search for the ultimate              Phone: [phone] --->\_.--._/
 mathematical reality inevitably                                         v
 creates fairy tales, not science".. E.J. Lerner.

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 04:06:46 GMT
From: Enzo Liguori <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vandalizing the sky-something is moving
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

from What's new 14 May 1993, in sci.physics:

>2. COALITION IS FORMED TO OPPOSE EARTH-ORBITING BILLBOARDS.  No
>sooner do you get rid of Brilliant Pebbles than someone comes up
>with an idea to clutter space with advertising.  Environmental,
>scientific, and consumer organizations joined forces this week to
>oppose a plan by Space Marketing, Inc. of Roswell, GA, to launch
>a mile-long inflatable billboard.  Mike Lawson of Space Marketing
>estimates that it would be seen by five times as many people as
>the Super Bowl.  Lawson says he will hang ozone monitors on the
>billboard, which he calls the "Environmental Space Platform."
>Space marketing is working with engineers from the University of
>Colorado and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.  Hmmm. LLNL
>was also involved in Brilliant Pebbles and the inflatable space
>station (a.k.a. "the flying condom").  The American Astronomical
>Society warns that the space billboard would hamper Earth-based
>astronomy, and Alice Harding, chair of the APS Division of
>Astrophysics, points out that it would also set a dangerous
>precedent for the unregulated commercialism of outer space.

I was hoping that something would happen.
I don't mind whether space advertising is limited to sponsor space
missions or to paint rockets with commercials. That's fine to me.
However I find disturbing that few people could force onto the rest
of the world population something like this, in spite of any local
regulations on advertising, astronomical research ongoing and the
simple desire of single individuals to watch a (at least visually)
clear sky.
I know that the sky is all but perfectly clear, but planes and
satellites are nowhere near as disrupting as this.
The other thing that worries me is creating a precedent that would
open the sky to a larger scale vandalization.

        Enzo

--
Vincenzo Liguori                             | [e-mail]
Canon Information Systems Research Australia | Phone [phone]
PO Box 313 NORTH RYDE NSW 2113               | Fax   [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 13:38:38 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who is Henry Spencer anyway?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:

>On Sat, 15 May 1993 01:45:54 GMT, [e-mail] (Hans Kinwel) said:

>Hans> As somebody replied on whether the space shuttle is connected to
>Hans> Usenet: "No. Of course the main flow of information would be up,
>Hans> unless Henry Spencer would be aboard, in which case the main
>Hans> flow of information would be down."

>Gene Miya says that Henry will never go aloft in the Shuttle; the
>payload bay isn't big enough for his chocolate chip cookies.

>When Henry was here at Dryden, he was looking pretty covetously at the
>SR-71s and the F-104s, even though they don't have much cookie space.
>I guess he figured that he could manage for a short flight....

Perhaps he was figuring on in-flight re-cookieing?

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 13:23:56 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:

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

>>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering) writes:

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

>>>...
>>>>Hmmm.  Not sure what's required for ships.  Probably not much, since
>>>>if a ship goes down it doesn't hurt too many people other than those
>>>>on the ship and those who invested in it.

>>>Which is why there are tough standards for shipbuilding, even if
>>>the government had _nothing_ to do with it.

>>>>If a plane or spacecraft
>>>>goes down, it can make quite a nasty mess on the ground, should it
>>>>land in an inappropriate place.

>>>Ever heard of the Exxon Valdez?

>>Yeah.  How many people did it kill?

>I don't remember all the details, but the cleanup operation had
>several fatalities. But I was mainly talking about the financial
>aspects of the accident.

Lots of things have potential financial aspects if they screw up.  I
don't think you can count deaths while doing cleanup as being deaths
caused by the accident itself.

We 'man rated' boosters because if they mess up we have to
deliberately blow up the guy in them to keep them from hitting the
ground and killing a bunch more people.  We 'man rate' aircraft for
the same sorts of reasons, minus the range safety consideration but
plus the consideration that they are operating out of crowded areas
and if they screw up a take-off or landing they will kill a bunch of
bystanders on the ground.

Ships can create messes, but *usually* don't involve killing a bunch
of bystanders when they mess up.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 13:29:29 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why we like DC-X (was Re: Shuttle 0-Defects & Bizarre? DC-X?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <1t5jnu$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>
>>Hmmm.  Not sure what's required for ships.  Probably not much, since
>>if a ship goes down it doesn't hurt too many people other than those
>>on the ship and those who invested in it.  If a plane or spacecraft
>>goes down, it can make quite a nasty mess on the ground, should it
>>land in an inappropriate place.

>Considering the magnitude of loss of life in both the Moro Castle
>and Titanic disasters,  I can't believe you can be so blithe
>there fred.

Can be blithe as all get out, Pat, because neither of those sinkings
killed much in the way of bystanders and if the engines just quit on a
ship, nothing much bad even happens to the people on it, usually.  Now
try that with a 747.

>Besides if a LNG tanker breaks up in a close harbor, you can kiss
>off quite a lot of population.  same thing for any chemical
>tankers.

Quite true for LNG tankers, not so much so for chemical tankers (which
usually aren't all that large, comparatively speaking).  That's why
there have been calls for the banning of VLLNGC's, or at least
restrictions requiring them to be offloaded well offshore.

>I know the coast guard makes  mandatory safety equipment
>checks on all watercraft.  they use this as an excuse to
>make narcotics  searches, without warrants.

Well, no.  The Coast Guard generally only has that kind of
jurisdiction for safety equipment on craft that use Inland Waterways
and you don't see a lot of drug smuggling on those (because they don't
go anywhere that you would smuggle drugs from).

>I suspect, that  commercial craft need a certificate at least similiar
>in scope to an air worthiness certificate from the DOT.

Nope.  There are rules for specific ports with regard to cargo,
testing of various capabilities (backdown, etc.) prior to entry and
such, but nothing much like the Airworthiness Cert from the FAA.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 13:35:57 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Yoo hoo, White Sands? (was Re: DC-X Status?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <1t30v3$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>My understanding is that for ejection seats,  water is better
>for landing in.  you needa life vest,  but  no  hard impact
>on landing.

This is somewhat at odds with what Navy pilots tell me.  The 'risky'
part of ejection is leaving the aircraft, since you essentially leave
by exploding a bomb under your seat.  After that, land ejections are
safer than at sea ejections (barring power lines, trees, etc.) because
the risk of drowning from being trapped under the chute, hypothermia
before they can find you and pick you up, etc. is quite high.  Water
isn't a whole lot softer than land if you hit it at speed, since it
isn't very compressible.  If you're not moving at speed, one isn't a
whole lot better than the other.

Every Navy pilot I ever knew would rather stay with the plane and take
his chances rather than risk an at sea ejection.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 589
------------------------------