Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_6/V16NO606.ZIP/V16NO606

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 30KB

Date: Fri, 21 May 93 06:11:43
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #606
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Fri, 21 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 606

Today's Topics:
                      About the mercury program
                Adaptive Optics (was Space Marketing)
                    Interesting DC-X cost anecdote
Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO Kaput!) (3 msgs)
                    Meeting at ISDC in Huntsville?
Parabola over Fermilab (was Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.)
                     Satellite & Spacecraft Data
                 Space Marketing -- Boycott (3 msgs)
            Space Marketing would be wonderfull. (2 msgs)
                     WANTED: Book on navigation.
             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: Thu, 20 May 1993 18:30:28 GMT
From: John McGlaughlin <[e-mail]>
Subject: About the mercury program
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Chris Jones) writes:

>>Also there were 7 mercury astronauts, but i believe only
>>6 flights.  I think slayton didn't fly.  Why was his flight cancelled?

>He was diagnosed with a heart murmur and removed from flight status (he would
>have flown after Glenn, on the flight Carpenter made).  After spending over a
>decade in charge of the astronaut office, he managed to fly in 1975 on the last
>Apollo to fly, on the Apollo-Soyuz test project.

>--
>Chris Jones    [e-mail]

Is Maurice of Northen Exposure patterned after Slayton???
--

-jftm-

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

Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 20:03:56 GMT
From: Guenther Eichhorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Adaptive Optics (was Space Marketing)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines,k12.chat.teacher

There has been some talk about adaptive optics and Frank Crary states
that
> That's extremely doubtfull: Adaptive optics require moving the
> optical elements around with cycle times (including time for
> vibrations to die down) of order 10-50 miliseconds. Unless you
> make "the largest telescopes" out of tens of thousands of seperate
> pieces, active corrections will be of limited value to these
> telescopes (judging from the expense and development problems
> associated with the new, 36-element mirror, I don't think
> thousands of elements is likely.)

This is not what adaptive optics is all about.  In adaptive optics a small segmented
mirror ( <= 10 cm diameter) is used to correct for atmospheric disturbances.  This
mirror is positioned at an image of the entrance pupil.  The sizes of the movable segments
have to be the size of the scale length of atmospheric turbulence (typically called r-naught)
which is on the order of 10 cm, imaged onto the deformable mirror.  For a 5m telescope,
this means you need about 50 elements across the deformable mirror.  For a 10 cm
deformable mirror this means an element size of 2 mm.  Such small elements can easily be
moved with the necessary speed.  There are already deformable mirrors with hundreds of
elements in operation and they deliver impressive image improvements.  It will not be long
before deformable mirrors with the number of elements necessary for 2 - 3 m telescopes are
available.  Together with the technique of artificial guide stars created by lasers this
will indeed provide imaging from large telescopes close to the diffraction limit in the near
future.  Optical astronomy from the ground is alive and well as long as we can keep the
man-made interference down.

Guenther Eichhorn
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
[e-mail]

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

Date: 20 May 93 19:10:00 PST
From: "RWTMS2::MUNIZB" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interesting DC-X cost anecdote

On Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 16:47:38 GMT, "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]> writes:

/That would account for a lot. I have worked on $70M DoD programs. They
/would have quarterly meetings with up to 50 people flying in for a couple
/of days. Not to mention the huge amount of time wasted preparing for them
/by the engineers.

Amen, Allen.  A major complaint on some programs that I've worked on, including
SSF (and BSTS, and SDIO program), is that we were/are "vu-graph" engineers,
spending too much of our time preparing and re-preparing presentations for the
next group of "experts" to hear our story (many who have little knowledge of
the vital issues at hand, or authority to fix problems that exist anyway).  I
envy those working on DC-X.

Disclaimer: Opinions stated are solely my own (unless I change my mind).
Ben Muniz     [e-mail]    w(818)586-3578
Space Station Freedom:Rocketdyne/Rockwell:Structural Loads and Dynamics
   "Man will not fly for fifty years": Wilbur to Orville Wright, 1901

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

Date: 20 May 93 18:55:00 PST
From: "RWTMS2::MUNIZB" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO Kaput!)

On Date: 19 May 1993 22:12:53 -0400, Pat <[e-mail]> writes:

/Let's not forget,  Carter was a nuclear engineer,
/and seemed a whole lot more realistic  about what could be done
/as opposed to reagan  who had no idea  what the laws of physics were.

Can anyone confirm the following story which someone once told me:

    On a talk show discussing Carter's technology policies (no nuclear
    fuel recycling, etc.) someone mentioned that Carter was an engineer.
    Another person (a conservative, Buckley perhaps?) said that there are
    engineers who design and build things, and "choo-choo train
    engineers".  When asked which he thought Carter was, the guest
    said something like "I'm not saying" with a smile on his face.

I believe his point was that some engineers just use a "cookbook"
approach without ever really understanding the fundamentals and applying
them creatively.  Also, see former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman's
(sp?) book "Command of the High Seas" for his criticism of Admiral
Rickover's mandated engineering curriculum for nuclear command officers.
BTW, Lehman has some interesting points on a topic of frequent
discussion here, government procurement practices and reform, some of
which are applicable to space hardware contracts.

Disclaimer: Opinions stated are solely my own (unless I change my mind).
Ben Muniz     [e-mail]                 w(818)586-3578
Space Station Freedom:Rocketdyne/Rockwell:Structural Loads and Dynamics
   "Man will not fly for fifty years": Wilbur to Orville Wright, 1901

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

Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 20:00:55 GMT
From: Chuck Rose <[e-mail]>
Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO kaput!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pawel Moskalik) writes:
|>
|>
|>    Indeed, Carter was a President during early years of shuttle
|> development. And indeed, he did not kill it. Does it prove that
|> he was good for space technology. Not at all.
|>
|> Carter did not secure adequate funding for the shuttle development.
|> He wanted to have it built cheap. You save on development, but then
|> you have to pay much more in operational costs.
|>
|> Today US is paying for Carter's petty saving.
|>
|>
|> Pawel Moskalik
|>
|>

To sat that the US is paying for Carter's petty saving is
missing the point that the reason we do not do more in space
is because Americans, both liberal and conservative, think
that speding money in space is a waste.  NASA's chunk of
the american budget is pathetic.  It has always been pathetic
through administrations of many flavors.  I'd love to see
a zero placed on the end.

I remember when I was in high school, one of the other
history classes had to balance the budget.  What was the
first thing they cut: NASA.  Completely.  Not one dime.
This attitude is so prevalent in Americans that it scares me.
(Even in people I otherwise consider intelligent).

Whenever I encounter this attitude, I speak my mind and try
to at least make these people aware of the benefits they
derive from space technology, the most obvious of which is
their around the world live TV.  Through persistence, I have
convinced a few who just didn't realize what space research
has given them.

To say that the liberals are destroying spaceflight or
that the conservatives are is misleading and political.
I would love to see more education of Americans on the
benefits of space research.  Maybe then NASA will get a bigger
piece of the pie.

Chuck.

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

Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 21:13:49 GMT
From: "Bruce T. Harvey" <idsssd!bruce>
Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO kaput!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

in article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Herman Rubin) says:
> In article <1tepf5$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>In article <1tdnpb$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles J. Divine) writes:
>>|Carter himself did not seem that protechnology in general.  His
>>|general approach to problems seemed to be puritanical preaching --
>>|not let's see what we can do.
>
>>Let's not forget,  Carter was a nuclear engineer,
>>and seemed a whole lot more realistic  about what could be done
>>as opposed to reagan  who had no idea  what the laws of physics were.
>
> Carter' knowledge of nuclear engineering corresponds to that of the
> person who runs a locomotive about what is usually called engineering.
> He was not antitechnology, but he had the layman's attitude about R&D.

Now wait a minute ... wasn't he a 'nucular' engineer?

All kidding aside, by the time he reached the pinnacle of our
governmental system (some would argue this but), he had been quite a
ways separated from his day-to-day engineering background.  He was
knowledgable, but very few presidential decisions are based on fact ...
more likely than not, the decisions are based on
'least-harm-to-the-least-people,' including himself, and an occasional
'greatest-good-to-the-most,' including himself and his benefactors.  The
office of the presidency is often no more than a 'valve' modulating the
flow or redirecting it but not very often creating it.

--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Bruce T. Harvey    (B-{>::      UUCP:    ... {uunet|mimsy}!wb3ffv!idsssd!bruce
Manager Appli. Devlopmt.::  INTERNET:     wb3ffv!idsssd!bruce%uunet.uu.net@...
INsight Distribution Sys::CompuServe:                               71033,1070
[phone] x315, x352:: SnailMail: 222 Schilling Cir.,Hunt Valley, MD 21031
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

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

Date: 20 May 93 18:55:00 PST
From: "RWTMS2::MUNIZB" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Meeting at ISDC in Huntsville?

Are any readers of sci.space who may be going to the NSS's International
Space Development Conference in Huntsville over Memorial Day weekend
interested in meeting to discuss some of the recent issues in person?
E-mail responses requested to minimize traffic in this group.

Ben Muniz, President, Organization for the Advancement of Space Industrial-
ization and Settlement (OASIS)/ Greater L.A. chapter-National Space Society
Internet:[e-mail]                Voicemail:[phone]

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

Date: 20 May 93 18:50:15 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Parabola over Fermilab (was Re: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Holeman) writes:
> I was living with a friend in Livermore, CA when the lab
> (Lawrence Livermore Natl. Lab) started testing the laser it was using to
> research the ....ooohhhh, I can't think of the name of the thing...

"Artificial guide star" for "adaptive optics."

> variable something or 'nuther mirrors for astronomical telescopes...
> anyhows.  When they were using the laser, you could see the bright red beam
> reaching from the ground on up.  Being in one of the newer residential areas,
> we(myself and my friend)  set up lawn chairs in the middle of the road so we
> could watch.  We could only speculate what passing motorists thought when they
> drove by and saw two guys sitting in lawnchairs in the middle of the street.

A number of years ago Fermilab hosted a big international accelerator
conference.  As part of the celebration (which included buffalo-steak
barbecues and such) the lab funded a local art professor to create a
strange "sculpture."   He called it "The Parabola Project."

He rented about ten searchlights, the kind you see sweeping the sky at
car dealerships or shopping-mall openings.  He stationed them evenly
along a mile of road on the Fermilab site.  I guess he had radios to
coordinate the operators.

It was impressive to see ten searchlight beams flailing wildly around
the sky.  After a while of this the artist got his beams pointed in a
configuration where each beam was a tangent to a parabola (remember
"string art?").  The effect is of a complex web of straight lines that
mysteriously create a smooth curve in the sky.  It was a giant, rigid,
glowing, intricate object rising above the lab in a vertical plane.
Really cool.

The next day I went to get a haircut.  The hairdresser asked me what
the *heck* was going on at Fermilab last night.  It was only then that
I realized that she-- and probably hundreds or thousands of other
people-- had seen this weird sight in the sky without knowing that it
was art, or even that someone was doing it deliberately.  With a
little imagination, one could conjure up all sorts of horrible
radioactive disasters!  I assured her that it was just for decoration.
But I wonder if anybody else was alarmed that night...

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: Fri, 21 May 93 14:28:50 EST
From: Peter Holmes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellite & Spacecraft Data

I am researching trends in space technology for my Masters & I have compiled
a database of *all* successfully launched satellites and spacecraft.

However, there are still a number of gaps in the data which I would like to
fill.

The fields in the database are:
    - Satellite name
    - Launch Date
    - Country of Origin
    - Launch Vehicle
    - Launch Mass (and On-orbit mass BOL)
    - Perigee Altitude
    - Apogee Altitude
    - Inclination
        (NB orbital parameters used to determine *type* of orbit,
        eg. GEO, LEO, POLAR, HELIOSYNCHRONOUS, etc.)
    - Mission
        (eg. communications, meteorology, astronomy, reconnaissance
        elint, scientific experiment, etc.)

I already have used:
    TRW Space Log 1957-1987
    Interavia Space Directory 1992-1993
    Spaceflight
    Encyclopedia of US Spacecraft
    numerous papers...
Unfortunately, these references are occassionally inaccurate and often
incomplete, so I am resorting to the network for help.  I have already surveyed
some ftp sites to no avail.

I NEED PARTICULARLY THE FOLLOWING:
    -U.S. UNNAMED LAUNCHES - MISSION, PROJECT NAME, MASSES, etc.
    - U.S. & USSR/CIS RECONNAISSANCE, ELINT, MILITARY, SCIENTIFIC
      SATELLITES - NAMES, LAUNCH DATES, MASS, ORBIT, MISSION DETAILS

If anyone can help, please contact me at the address below. I'd sincerely
appreciate your advice.  (I only read my mail on Friday's, so I may be a few
days in responding)

Thanks

Peter Holmes
Dept of Mechanical Engineering
The University of Queensland
E-mail: [e-mail]

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

Date: 20 May 1993 23:40:41 GMT
From: "Doug S. Caprette" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing -- Boycott
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:

>...
>
>But the Soviets used to get alot of public relations milage out
>of such a dim, hard to spot object: Whenever they had "guests"
>for another country on their space station, they always made
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>sure the station could be seen from the guest's home nation. They
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>then pointed out the point of light and reminded people that one
>of their countrymen was on it...
>
>I could imagine _some_ similar PR value in a unmanned satellite: What
>if AT&T could show you the satellite they put on orbit and which
>you use every time you make a long-distance call?
>
>                                                 Frank Crary
>                                                 CU Boulder

Just how did they make sure of that?
--
[e-mail]
 |  Regards,         |   Hughes STX                |    Code 926.9 GSFC        |
 |  Doug Caprette    |   Lanham, Maryland          |    Greenbelt, MD  20771   |
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, it sucks!" -- William Boyer

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

Date: 21 May 1993 10:13:09 +1000
From: Walker Andrew John <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing -- Boycott
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines,k12.chat.teacher

[e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:

>In article <1tc9kj$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Walker Andrew John) writes:
>>>>...Annoying little species, aren't we?

>>>More than just annoying: venal, arrogant, greedy.  Oh, well...

>>    We've destroyed most of the Earth, can't we at least leave something
>>alone?We are supposed to be the most intelligent species, but sometimes
>>you have to wonder.

>We've destroyed the Earth? It was still there last time I looked. I
>think "arrogant" is a trait we can agree on. We've _changed_ the
>Earth, in some places quite radically. But suggest we've even
>come close to destroying it (i.e. made it uninhabitable to all forms
>of life) is probably the most arrogant thing I've heard in a
>long time.
    I was not suggesting we've made it uninhabitable to all forms
of life, what I am saying is that if changes aren't made soon
we could some time face big problems.As an example, in some areas of
the world deforestation followed by farming has led to areas of land
being left useless.Also our pollution is leading to many species
becoming extinct, and fish stocks in certain areas have been greatly
reduced.By destroying the earth I'm referring to our resources.Sure
we can use them, we just have to be a lot more careful.
    Andrew

>                                            Frank Crary
>                                            CU Boulder

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

Date: 21 May 1993 12:41:42 +1000
From: Walker Andrew John <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing -- Boycott
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space

[e-mail] (Dave Sill) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>>In article <1tc9kj$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Walker Andrew John) writes:
>>
>>>    We've destroyed most of the Earth, can't we at least leave something
>>>alone?We are supposed to be the most intelligent species, but sometimes
>>>you have to wonder.
>>
    I originally posted the above bit in another group.Talk about cross
posting! Anyway, if any billboards to go up they'll have a good chance of
being hit by space junk and creating more rubbish in space. Really smart!

>>We've destroyed the Earth?

>Nope, read what he said, Frank.  The key word is "most".

>>It was still there last time I looked.

>Duh.

>>... We've _changed_ the
>>Earth, in some places quite radically. But suggest we've even
>>come close to destroying it (i.e. made it uninhabitable to all forms
>>of life) is probably the most arrogant thing I've heard in a
>>long time.

>That's an interesting definition of "destroy" you're using, and while it's true
>that we haven't destroyed the entire planet, by that definition, we *have*
>rendered large parts of it unihabitable by various species that inhabited them
>before.  I consider that to be habitat destruction.

>--
>Dave Sill ([e-mail])                 Computers should work the way beginners
>Martin Marietta Energy Systems           expect them to, and one day they will.
>Workstation Support                                                -- Ted Nelson

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

Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 14:30:57 GMT
From: Olaf Vancura <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines,k12.chat.teacher

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>While I'm sure Sagan considers it sacrilegious, that wouldn't be
>because of his doubtfull credibility as an astronomer. Modern,
>ground-based, visible light astronomy (what these proposed
>orbiting billboards would upset) is already a dying field: The
>opacity and distortions caused by the atmosphere itself have
>driven most of the field to use radio, far infrared or space-based
>telescopes. In any case, a bright point of light passing through
>the field doesn't ruin observations. If that were the case, the
>thousands of existing satellites would have already done so (satelliets
>might not seem so bright to the eyes, but as far as astronomy is concerned,
>they are extremely bright.)
>
>                                             Frank Crary
>                                             CU Boulder

This has got to be among the most stupid posts I've ever seen.  Frank is
obviously not an astrophysicist.  Carl Sagan is a well respected astronomer
who teaches at Cornell.  Ground based optical ("visible") astronomy is NOT
a "dying" field at all.  Optical astronomy is as important as ever.  Yes, space
based telescopes such as HST, AXAF, HUT, and others are important and
open up other windows for research.  But X-ray, UV, and radio telescopes
can NEVER REPLACE optical telescopes.  They are complementary!  As for
atmospheric distortions, recently declassified DoD technology using
adaptive interactive optics virtually alleviates the problem to the
diffraction limit.  It is unclear to what extent the space billboard
would emit light, but clearly if it is an advertisement people would
have to see it, and this WOULD interfere greatly with earth based
observations.  Scattered light would presumably be large, even if looking
away from the advertisement.  Let's not forget why the world's best
ground-based telescopes are set in nearly pitch black environments.

Had to set the record straight...

Olaf Vancura
[e-mail]

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

Date: 20 May 93 19:36:39 GMT
From: Olaf Vancura <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines,k12.chat.teacher

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Frank Crary) writes:
>Exactly what fraction of current research is done on the big,
>visable light telescopes? From what I've seen, 10% or less
>(down from amlost 100% 25 years ago.) That sounds like "dying"
>to me...

Look Frank, give it a rest.  A) Your ignorance is amazing.  B) This
has nothing to do with investing.

Optical telescopes were probably 70% about 25 years ago, with most of
the rest radio, but that's because of a lack of technology back
then.  The advance of cryogenics, X-ray and UV reflective coatings and shell
mirror assemblies, etc. has advanced IR, X-ray, and UV astronomy.
Of course these new "windows" have advanced greatly, and optical has
taken its place as a subset of the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
It certainly has not died, nor will it ever.  It contains information
about 10^4 to 10^5 K gas not obtainable elsewhere.

>That would be true, if adaptive optics worked well in the visable.
>But take a look at the papers on the subject: They refer to anything
>up to 100 microns as "visable". I don't know about you, but most
>people have trouble seeing beyond 7 microns or so... There are
>

Again Frank, your ignorance shows.  Humans cannot see out to 7 microns.
Try 0.7 microns.  You're off by a factor of 10.  The IRAS satellite
(that's Infrared Astronomy Satellite) goes out to 100 microns.  They seem
to have it straight.  No one in their right mind claims 100 microns is
visible.

>The sign the office door says, "Astrophysical, Planetary and
>Atmospheric Sciences." Although perhaps my degree in astrophysics
>from Berkeley doesn't qualify me either...

I find it hard to believe you have a degree in astrophysics.
My opinion of Berkeley just plummeted.  Did your degree come as the
prize in a CrackerJack box?!

Olaf Vancura
[e-mail]

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

Date: 21 May 1993 03:36:08 -0000
From: Johnathon Goldstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: WANTED: Book on navigation.
Newsgroups: alt.books.technical,aus.aviation,aus.wanted,rec.boats,rec.travel,sci.astro,sci.space

Can someone please recommend a book that will teach me all I need
to know about navigation?

Items of interest:

    - history of navigation

    - different techniques:
        - difficulty
        - accuracy
        - applications
      (from sun-and-watch to naval-celestial)

    - computer-aided navigation

I'll summarize and post results to the above news-groups.

Thanks in advance.

 - Jonathan Goldstein
--
Jonathan Goldstein       [e-mail]       [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 21:04:35 GMT
From: David Neal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Yoo hoo, White Sands? (was Re: DC-X Status?)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>
>>  One possible problem with
>>regular rocket flights out of airports is that of air traffic control; at a
>>congested airport like O'Hare or Kennedy or Atlanta, it could be difficult to
>>come up with a clear vertical launch corridor.
>
>Actually, that should be pretty easy. Aircraft never fly over runways, just
>around them. Any large airport should have lots of space where they can
>assure there are no low flying aircraft. High flying aircraft are another
>matter, but that problem must be solved anywhere.
>

Ok, as the new kid on the block, I won't burst out laughing.

But if aircraft don't fly over runways, how do they land? :-)
(Sorry, just being pedantic, I know what you mean)

Actually aircraft can and do fly over runways and airports all the
time. In fact, that's the proscribed Way Of Doing Things at an
uncontrolled field, more or less. And even at the biggest airports,
pilots are often vectored over the field at pattern altitude +
some magic number, and then told to enter the (downwind, base, final)
leg for a runway. In any case, even at O Hare, ATC is not much
more than controlled chaos, I wouldn't mix it with rocket launchings.

If you want to fit rocket launchings into how things are done
now, you would have to extend the TCA or ARSA (soon to be class B airspace)
of an airport all the way up to the positive control zone (class A airspace).

That way, no traffic that did not have a clearance from ATC would be
in the launch zone.

I can't even begin to describe how much pilots would resent such
an airspace grab, and I'm a pilot. You see, ARSAs were supposed to
be beneficial to pilots, just establish 'radio contact' and you
could fly into it. But, they (ARSAs) all have dreams of being a TCA,
so alot of pilots just fly around them now because some of these
ARSA controllers act like they have 140 747s circling when they
have three pipers tomohawks and a cessna-150.

Now, extend the 'upside down wedding cake' of a TCA all the way
up to Class A airspace, and listen to the yowling. Oy vey.

The other possibility is to make the space between a Class B section
and Class A something like the Military Operating Areas (MOAs) are now.
You would have to call the controlling agency before flying
through the area to see if it's "hot". In case I'm not making myself
clear, the _controlled_ airspace above O'hare and other big airports
extends only so high. Above that, you could fly a radio-less sailplane
if you wish without a word to anyone, at least until you reach
Class A airpace.

For now, though, considering how few launches there would be,
it's just a matter of publishing a Notice To Airmen (NOTAM).
Anyone who got a briefing should get notified their flight
crosses a notamed area, and be read the notam. In it, you publish
the area which is affected and how long it's affected.

I could live with that.



--
--
David Neal. <[e-mail]>
"Jazz is just musical wanking" -- Jimmy Rabbitte [sic], The Comittments

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 606
------------------------------